I would like to point out a few things first before I am accused of being "insensitive and cruel to the poor."

I myself was the child of a small middle class family before going out on my own and shrinking into the working class. I realize the hardships social inequality gives to the poor.

There is however a usual attack that liberals and Marxists love to use if you don't support their egalitarian world. "You must not care for the poor!" If you are against folks being forced into a union "you must be against the poor." If you are against the use of the strike by the union "you must be against the poor." If you support private property "you must be against the poor." If you are against all of this social welfare for everyone "you must be against the poor." I could go on and on but you get the point.

My own right-wing views predetermine that only the most talented individuals can rise in society and the State is not required to help everyone. My own right-wing views predetermine that everyone cannot be equal. My own right-wing views predetermine that I am against class conflict and support private property. My own right-wing views also predetermine that class hatred should be absolved and instead there should be a harmony between the classes. That being said that can only be done with the alleviation of social conditions.

I would like to point out a few things first before I am accused of being "insensitive and cruel to the poor."

I myself was the child of a small middle class family before going out on my own and shrinking into the working class. I realize the hardships social inequality gives to the poor.

There is however a usual attack that liberals and Marxists love to use if you don't support their egalitarian world. "You must not care for the poor!" If you are against folks being forced into a union "you must be against the poor." If you are against the use of the strike by the union "you must be against the poor." If you support private property "you must be against the poor." If you are against all of this social welfare for everyone "you must be against the poor." I could go on and on but you get the point.

My own right-wing views predetermine that only the most talented individuals can rise in society and the State is not required to help everyone. My own right-wing views predetermine that everyone cannot be equal. My own right-wing views predetermine that I am against class conflict and support private property. My own right-wing views also predetermine that class hatred should be absolved and instead there should be a harmony between the classes. That being said that can only be done with the alleviation of social conditions.

I should probably clarify that I don't necessarily disagree with anything in your OP. I merely wonder why such views should be called "right wing" and not simply "Catholic."

If you agree with Rerum Novarum, your views on economic matters are Catholic. Calling them "right wing" might lead someone to infer that they are capitalistic in a neo-con, ʝʊdɛօ-usurious sense.

Why have "right wing" views? Why not "Catholic" views?

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

Okay, yes I agree with Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, especially when it comes to a "living wage" so yes my economic views are "Catholic."

Quote from: BTNYC

I should probably clarify that I don't necessarily disagree with anything in your OP. I merely wonder why such views should be called "right wing" and not simply "Catholic."

If you agree with Rerum Novarum, your views on economic matters are Catholic. Calling them "right wing" might lead someone to infer that they are capitalistic in a neo-con, ʝʊdɛօ-usurious sense.

When I refer to economic views as right-wing it means it is directly juxtaposed to left-wing movements talked about in the OP like liberalism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Social Democracy, etc.

The traditional right-wing views came out of a reaction to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

You're quite right to oppose the evil movements you listed above, but I would add laissez-faire capitalism to that list, as it is every bit as materialistic as Marxism, socialism, etc. only where Marxism thrives on men's envy, capitalism thrives on men's avarice.

I'm personally a supporter of Distributism, as it is the only economic theory specifically designed to be in accord with Catholic teaching. I understand that pro-capitalists (my own brother, for example) find it to be "inefficient" or "difficult" by the super-utilitarian standards of LF Capitalism, but as it treats human beings as ends and not means, I think it the reduction of "efficiency" on an inhuman scale is well worth it.

I think Chesterton might have said of it what he said of the Christian religion itself: "It has not been tried and found difficult, it has been found difficult and left untried."

You're quite right to oppose the evil movements you listed above, but I would add laissez-faire capitalism to that list, as it is every bit as materialistic as Marxism, socialism, etc. only where Marxism thrives on men's envy, capitalism thrives on men's avarice.

Quite right capitalism is godless, supports women into the workforce, pays the worker miserable wages, and is all about greed, consumerism and hedonism, along with being globalist as well I might add.

Quote from: BTNYC

Then I can't see how any Catholic could have grounds to quarrel with you.

Well there are libertarian "Catholics" who feel my economic views are too "statist" and there are left-wing "Catholics" who feel that my economic views are too cruel, without compassion and support the rich.

Sounds to me like you're quarreling with all the right people (the very same ones with which I quarrel). Keep fighting the good fight.

That would make you a liberal in the eyes of many secular conservatives.  Not a criticism, mind you, since I thing you are absolutely right here.

Most of today's "conservatives" have roots in libertarianism, anarchism, Trotskyism, and liberalism.

Quote from: Sigismund

That would make you a liberal in the eyes of many secular conservatives.  Not a criticism, mind you, since I thing you are absolutely right here.

Most of today's "conservatives" have roots in libertarianism, anarchism, Trotskyism, and liberalism.

Certainly true.