Capto Iugulum Background Thread

[Jehoshua]

Papal Moralism isn't even moralism, it is just Catholicism. Moralism as it stands is solidly Catholic and thus the two parties work together for the common good. I wouldn't call the Pope a moralist, though.

Ditto, Paul VI maybe could be called a proto-moralist (his efforts resulted in their emergence, which is why I comment on it since I see it as an artifact of papal policy, as do most of you it seems. Ergo its of tangential proximity to my "sphere" in CI) but our current Il Papa is firmly of the old school. His character history furthermore informs his views, or rather how I choose papal policy during his pontificate (along with interest, the logic of gains and so forth). Paul VI was a child of the Franco-Burgundian Confederation, Pius X of the vicious Italian wars. Needless to say their political perceptions differed as a result of circumstance

At any rate, you could say the favour given to moralism as a movement (noting that this is not exclusive, traditionalism and conservatism also receive the papal approval in opposition to prolism and the like.) only because it incorporates much of Catholic social doctrine (ts not a complete congruency there) and serves to support religion against the godless errors of the age (as the Pope sees it). In this sense the fact the Popes gives his favour to moralism is contingent on its complementarity with the omnipresent goal of propagating and defending the faith, and its non-contradiction to Church teaching.

Since this is so at least for now, moralists and the Church work together for the common good and against the common enemy (filthy proles ).

 

[Lord of Elves]

Despite what others might claim, I think it's an important parallel of moralism to contemporary OTL Islamist ideologies. The fundamental principle, that a strong religious, or at least strong moral authority is necessary for the functioning of a healthy state, is the same.

Regardless, I continue to take issue with direct comparisons between Scanditarianism and OTL communism.

Scanditarianism is much more reminiscent of Third Way and syndicalist movements than Marxist communism, even if it makes pretense to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and obedience to TTL's Mathis and his writings. Nationalism and militarism are probably more important aspects of the state apparatus and the national identity than spreading the Revolution. The Revolutionary State is cast more in the mold of Scandinavian sovereignty and greatness resisting Slavic tyranny and a decadent, uncaring world, than in the global liberator of the oppressed proletariat. Within the context of the Workers' Trade Congress the labor unions are allowed to organize their business and the like as they please. The only exception to this is when orders come down from the Revolutionary Government itself. There is certainly an internationalist element to the beliefs and writings of government officials but the day-to-day life of Scandinavian citizens is concerned only with readiness to defend the Fatherland against the Tyrant of Moscow. There are something resembling International Brigades, but they've only ever been used sparingly. You know, That One Time.

 

[Luckymoose]

Despite what others might claim, I think it's an important parallel of moralism to contemporary OTL Islamist ideologies. The fundamental principle, that a strong religious, or at least strong moral authority is necessary for the functioning of a healthy state, is the same.

You obviously don't know a lot about Islamism.

 

[Lord of Elves]

You obviously don't know a lot about Islamism.

This comeback is obviously your favorite.

 

[Luckymoose]

This comeback is obviously your favorite.

Obviously.

 

[Crezth]

Moralism is the mary sue of ideologies. It's perfect, harmonious, libertarian, democratic, righteous, tolerant, merciful, and stern. The way it's been presented is as fundamentally correct, which I guess is how you'd want its most vocal advocates to sound, but that's why so many people are taking umbrage with it.

If I were LoE I'd respond with communist rhetoric and yield no ground.

 

[Jehoshua]

It's perfect.. libertarian... tolerant (snipped excess).

Advocates do tend to trump up the positive. Although going so far as to say its advocates make it out to be perfection incarnate is a bit of a stretch.

On Libertarianism, it simply isn't. Indeed in the Brazilian experience its quite socialistic, and even referring to Church rhetoric it unceasingly points to a common good, and the centrality of the collective over the individual in social policy. Sure it does promote subsidiarity (administration should be done at the lowest possible level feasible) but that's not at all libertarianism, which fundamentally rests on an atomistic individualism and hopes to see the individual "liberated" from the binding power of such things as Church, Government, tradition and so forth (although as in America the libertarians are to the right of the social spectrum and splice other things into their libertarianism, some confusion as to what constitutes libertarianism proper is not too unexpected.)

It would be good if you could precisely define what you mean by the term tolerant. I say this because the word "tolerance" has two meanings, one positive and one negative. The positive meaning affirms tolerance as a value, as a moral good, its a good thing to tolerate "diversity" and so forth. This is the sense its used in liberal jargon. The negative meaning is along the lines of enduring an evil or a bad, in the interests of some other good, or to avoid a greater evil. Moralism I would say definitely has within it the second concept, but perhaps not the first (I say perhaps not always since Brazil is always an open question ). Either way I can say that Il Papa most definitely would not look approvingly on tolerance in the first meaning of the word due to its inherently relativistic insinuations.

 

[Luckymoose]

Moralism is the mary sue of ideologies. It's perfect, harmonious, libertarian, democratic, righteous, tolerant, merciful, and stern. The way it's been presented is as fundamentally correct, which I guess is how you'd want its most vocal advocates to sound, but that's why so many people are taking umbrage with it.

If I were LoE I'd respond with communist rhetoric and yield no ground.

It's far from perfect. I've been describing what ideal moralism is, not what the reality is. But all of you people keep referring to it as some kind of Islamist fundamentalist fascism for Catholics, which it isn't.

Just like Proletarism isn't communism, it's syndicalism.

 

[Lord of Elves]

It may not be fascist but it is certainly Islamism for Catholics. Perhaps it is more tolerant and forward-thinking than OTL Islamist movements, either by its own benevolence or existing compatibility between liberalism and Catholic religious doctrine, but it is nonetheless Islamism for Catholics. The entire premise of the moralist ideology is that a society needs a strong religious/moral authority in order to function properly. I'm willing to concede that moralists are not necessarily religious or even necessarily Catholics, but what you essentially propose is that in order for a state to be healthy it must have an existing and commonly-known set of moral principles on which it operates and which it holds its subjects to. The base principle of Islamism is the same, that society needs the moral authority and guidance of Muslim religious principles and beliefs, in order to function properly.

Brazil may practice some form of "light" moralism, but it is hardly the only moralist state in the world. At its core moralism is an authoritarian ideology, by necessity. You can't have a strong moral authority without forcing people to obey its commandments and proclamations.

 

[Luckymoose]

It may not be fascist but it is certainly Islamism for Catholics. Perhaps it is more tolerant and forward-thinking than OTL Islamist movements, either by its own benevolence or existing compatibility between liberalism and Catholic religious doctrine, but it is nonetheless Islamism for Catholics. The entire premise of the moralist ideology is that a society needs a strong religious/moral authority in order to function properly. I'm willing to concede that moralists are not necessarily religious or even necessarily Catholics, but what you essentially propose is that in order for a state to be healthy it must have an existing and commonly-known set of moral principles on which it operates and which it holds its subjects to. The base principle of Islamism is the same, that society needs the moral authority and guidance of Muslim religious principles and beliefs, in order to function properly.

Brazil may practice some form of "light" moralism, but it is hardly the only moralist state in the world. At its core moralism is an authoritarian ideology, by necessity. You can't have a strong moral authority without forcing people to obey its commandments and proclamations.

The only issue with your final statement is that the majority of Moralist governments have been elected democratically and have not been authoritarian. Only two examples of Moralism used by a military dictatorship exist, out of the other six or so democratically elected counterparts. You can't say the same for Traditional Proletarism, now can you? Moralism was founded out an ideological struggle and a need for peace and rebuilding, at least in Brazil, so it is about as peaceful as Brazil is ever going to get.

Islamism and Moralism aren't the same thing. Moralism doesn't hold that Catholicism must be accepted above the modern principles of government or thought. We have no medieval fetish for laws and government organization. We have no need or wish to remove non-Catholic persons or their thoughts from our nations. This also cannot be compared to the ultraconservative revival that occurred in the USA during the 1970s, where religion played a larger role. What you really see from Moralism is using religion (which almost everyone follows) as a guide to socialist democratic governing. Whether the Pope likes it or not, Moralism is still rather left-wing.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

The only issue with your final statement is that the majority of Moralist governments have been elected democratically and have not been authoritarian. Only two examples of Moralism used by a military dictatorship exist, out of the other six or so democratically elected counterparts. You can't say the same for Traditional Proletarism, now can you? Moralism was founded out an ideological struggle and a need for peace and rebuilding, at least in Brazil, so it is about as peaceful as Brazil is ever going to get.

Political Islam has also been elected, re: Muslim Brotherhood, so I don't think the main comparison LoE is making is false.

 

[Luckymoose]

Political Islam has also been elected, re: Muslim Brotherhood, so I don't think the main comparison LoE is making is false.

You still don't comprehend the difference between Islamism and Moralism. They are two different ends of the spectrum. Just because they both have religion does not make them the same thing. Apples and oranges.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

You still don't comprehend the difference between Islamism and Moralism. They are two different ends of the spectrum. Just because they both have religion does not make them the same thing. Apples and oranges.

I only just commented on the comparison, so I don't quite know how I am "still" in a state of incomprehension - especially considering my point is entirely true, the Muslim Brotherhood was elected to power on a platform of Political Islam, and so both Moralist and Political Islamist ideas have come peacefully into power. Please don't condescend me on making only one sentence, thanks.

 

[Jehoshua]

Islamism fundamentally is the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life. This naturally includes the implementation of shariah law and usually also includes an emphasis on the unity of the Ummah (at least in the writings of leading Islamist thinkers).

The point on the implementation of Shariah points to a fundamental difference between Islamism and Moralism. Islamism proposes, partly due to the political aspect of Islam, a direct implementation of revealed law as the cornerstone of the "guiding of social, political and personal life". Moralism however does not. It may consider religion as necessary to the right ordering of society for the common good and for personal liberation (in this life and the next), and uphold certain social principles from Catholic thought. But it is not proposing the fusion of Church and State in the manner Islamism proposes. Indeed just as an aside, I would say moralism's philosophy regarding religion is pretty much old European conservative, with a few idiosyncrasies.

 

[Crezth]

(although as in America the libertarians are to the right of the social spectrum and splice other things into their libertarianism, some confusion as to what constitutes libertarianism proper is not too unexpected.)

I was going to respond to your post, but then I read this. It doesn't exactly endear someone to conversation when you can't seem to resist being so condescending.

My point was that, for all the talk of religious unity and purity vis a vis a Catholic nation as such, the ideology of Moralism seems to express no disdain for non-Catholic religions, that is for non-Catholic citizens of Brazil, which would apparently be in direct contradiction to your mission statement. Indeed, the liberty of the individual is, in several important ways, uninfringed - and I should meet this qualification by stating that if this were not the case, then Moralism would have very much in common with Islamic totalitarian ideals (except in the details regarding interpretation and implementation which are frankly irrelevant) - democracy without tolerance is just mob rule. A de jure unification of church and state is not as important as a state which acts like a church (or the other way around).

Of course I admit to not being particularly well-read, I'm just basing this off of tidbits. So now you can clear up the misunderstanding: do you tolerate non-Catholics? Permit them to continue being heathens or heretics? Can a Catholic moralistic society exist with a sizable Jewish or Protestant minority? How about a Jewish or Protestant majority? Can a Catholic moralistic society exist with no Catholics? If so, how so? If not, why not?

 

[Luckymoose]

Religious freedom is not infringed upon in Brazil. I imagine some Protestants being Moralists too, since the ideology isn't specifically Catholic and all Christians can relate. Not to mention the Moralists are actively handing out candy to anyone that votes for them.

 

[Crezth]

So that's a pretty libertarian notion, Luckymoose, and a rather pronounced one for such a religiously bound ideology. This is what I meant: you're merging the terms of tolerance, liberty, and religious unity, and normally this would be a bit of an unruly mixture. The advantage at hand is Brazil's strong tradition of freedom, but the result is an ideology which seems flawless.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

@Czerth: your questions about Moralism are quite good except in that they can all be answered yes technically, but not practically.

Non-Catholics are tolerated, and allowed to be non-Catholics even by the Catholic religion itself, which does not believe in controlling people's minds, but the Catholic religion does of course believe revealed truth is true and the religious are obliged to spread it.

Moralism is based on, self-evidently, some kind of universal morality, and it is very obviously inspired by Catholicism (a modern Catholicism, with modern ideas of state and government of course). If it were not to be inspired by Catholicism, then it's basically a kind of socialism - an atheistic "common good" moral system, where the benefit of the community is put over individuals, but where no divine mandate from god is necessary to prove the moral system good.

Where Jehoshua goes off track is that he tries to say that the Catholic teachings Moralism employs are themselves based off of "natural philosophy", and therefore, he tries to cheat and have it both ways, by creating ethics that have nothing really to do with god, but are ordained by god just in case. The case in point is women, whom, without ever needing to employ god, are according to Catholic teachings, naturally predisposed to be better at mothering and nurturing duties, rather than male tasks, and are morally obliged to do them more than other male tasks (though never legally obliged, just encouraged, because apparently Catholics [in CI] are pansies and won't uphold their own beliefs). This way Moralism parades around, explicitly and brutally ripping off Catholic dogma and teachings, while still claiming to be effectively a moral system for all peoples.

 

[Luckymoose]

EDIT: Moralism has never been anti-woman. And we aren't ripping off Catholic doctrine and touting it for everyone. That would be Jehoshua's explanations, and as I've said: The Pope ain't Moralist, Jim.

@crezth: It's still flawed, as any attempted ideology is. The programs of the hardline Moralists have caused a lot of political upheaval in the general community. Brazil's Moralism is democratic because it was founded in Brazil, and influenced by Uruguay. Both of those nations having experienced stable and free democracies prior to the advent of Moralism. What you see with the rise of Moralism is taking the 99% Christian population and working to their basic, religious needs as an ideology. On paper, everyone agrees that a healthy and friendly and charitable society is great!

Ideologies are supposed to sound flawless. That is what makes it appealing. But what we've gotten in Brazil is far from ideal. But at least the democratic process and freedoms have been maintained, and I think those are far more important than Moralism. It is like the Soviet Union dream of a worker's paradise. Moralism believes that an ideal society would need less government interference, but that will never exist because not enough people are on the same page with charity, etc. So instead, Moralism is just an odd mix of conservative values and socialist protections to the people.

It is saying, "Proletarism sucks, check out our bag of tricks!"

 

[Crezth]

The reason I'm asking these questions, you understand, is because a majority of the world's population is not Christian, let alone Catholic. So Moralism fundamentally has its hands tied in any non-Christian (let alone non-Catholic) nation. Maybe that's OK, I mean, it's not like OTL white ideologies always got off the ground in non-Christian countries. Also it's not clear to me what exactly moralism represents, other than the encapsulation of The West in one convenient Catholic-sized package. That's not really something you can build a party around, either.

I think you guys need a manifesto.