Poverty and Inequality, What to Think?

 By Julio Loredo

Those who have known the communist world know that it is marked not only by the dictatorial character of the regime, but also by the drabness of everyday life: poor lighting, non-existent maintenance, dilapidated buildings, meager food, empty shelves, dull clothing, little choice of entertainment, absence of superfluous goods and so on.

This drabness is an obvious consequence of the economic failure of the communist regimes. But it also obeys a philosophical design. The communist system is designed to induce indolence. Outside of the privileged few of the nomenklatura, no one has the right to ensure a greater well-being in accordance with the systematic quantitative and qualitative increase in one’s commitment. This is due to the totalitarian principle of equality, the essence of communism: no one can have more than the other, so as not to produce any sort of “alienation.” And the only way for everyone to be equal is for everyone to be poor: all poor, all equal.

This egalitarianism is the key to understanding Pope Francis’ latest encyclical and, presumably, the international event “The Economy of Francesco” starting tomorrow. Poverty is the means. The goal is egalitarianism.

According to notorious liberation theologian, now self-proclaimed “ecotheologian” Leonardo Boff, a keynote speaker in “The Economy of Francesco,” the gist of the encyclical Fratelli tutti is the passage from the concept of “lord” to that of “brother.” In an essay that anticipates his lecture, Boff affirms that Pope Francis wants to change the current world paradigm – based on “inequalities in every field” – introducing a new paradigm based on a “universal fraternity,” that is, a “fraternity of equals.”

This egalitarianism runs so deep that, always according to Boff, even the laws of nature would need to recede, since they reflect the overwhelming power of a governing God, who, in this logic, is the source of all “alienations” and, thus, the ultimate reality that needs to be cancelled.

Of course, to cancel God outright would be a bit too shocking. So they begin by dissolving His transcendental nature, treating Him rather as an energy or a fluid circulating in creation. The immediate, sensorial perception of this energy, according to Boff, would generate the “universal fraternity” proposed by Pope Francis. In another essay, the Brazilian liberation theologian explains that this change of paradigm is characterized by the passage from the “dominion of the logos” to that of the “eros.”  Also, to propose the ideal of poverty for all – in order to induce equality – would be a bit too shocking. So they begin by manipulating the concept of consumption in a way that promotes pauperism. This manipulation started well before Pope Francis.

As Father Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio explains in his Saggio Teoretico di Diritto Naturale, God created man with faculties and tendencies that human nature itself is inclined to satisfy. This is man’s good. This impulse is consubstantial with his nature and leads him towards the purpose for which he was created. Material purpose – conservation and development of his body – and spiritual purpose – development of his intellect and his soul, which must tend towards the absolute Good: “A being will be perfect when he reaches the term set for him by his nature – material and spiritual – with the faculties given to him by nature itself.”

To achieve his purpose – both material and spiritual – man needs to consume. Far from being a dirty word, as certain modern schools affirm, even in the Catholic field, temperate consumerism is a conditio sine qua non for man to achieve the purpose for which he has been created by God. And, like everything created by God, what is good for man is also good for the economy.

What does it mean to consume? The first idea that comes to mind is that of eating, a meaning certainly included in the concept of consumption. However, it also means having other satisfactions in life, which give man a well-being in relation to the appetites of his nature. The concept of consumption embraces the gamut of appetites of human nature.

For example, there are goods that are in no way indispensable to satiate hunger, nor are they strictly speaking essential for living: theaters, museums, beautiful monuments, libraries and so on. The concept of consumption includes everything that is indispensable for survival, but also everything that is convenient, and even superfluous, making life pleasant.

If a lady buys a porcelain miniature, she will have consumed. A married couple who goes to the Prima della Scala to enjoy an opera will have made a cultural consumption. A faithful who assists a beautiful Latin Mass would have made a spiritual consumption.

Today, however, a new thesis is emerging which tends towards socialism. We find this thesis, alas, in recent pontifical documents.

Given that some have a lot and others have little, it is necessary that the former keep only the essentials, giving the superfluous to the latter. According this anti-consumerist bias, man must not possess what is not essential to life. Nobody should spend on luxury goods or even in comfort goods.

What is the result of such reasoning? In a society where no one benefits from working more than others… no one will work harder than others! It will be a society organized for the benefit of the lazy and to the detriment of the good workers. In such a society the abundance disappears first, then also the convenient, and in the end even the necessary…

To stimulate those who work more, they must be given due compensation. Thus society benefits from the most capable, the most efficient, the most productive, in a word, the best. Otherwise, society perishes, falls into preconceived anti-consumerism, slips into chronic poverty, tends ultimately to barbarism.

This thesis applies not only to the relations between social classes but also to the international scene. It is said that there are “consumerist” countries, the United States and Europe in the first place, and countries that lack the convenient and sometimes even the necessary. Rich nations, according to this view, exploit and oppress the poor ones. The exploited nations should launch a counter-offensive against the consumerist world, forcing it to lower the level of its consumption to harmonize with the poor. Again: all poor, all equal.

This glorification of indolence is proper to socialism and communism, not to Christian civilization and the social doctrine of the Church.

This is the text of a talk given by Julio Loredo of the di Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira Institute on November 18, 2020. The conference, entitled “Poveri Tutti” (Everyone Poor), can be watched here.