The magisterium has given ‘socialism’ a defined meaning and condemned it. No Catholic can adhere to Socialism in that sense and to adopt the term on the grounds that one adheres to a generically similar but formally distinct doctrine is to give very serious scandal.
“[T]he socialists … are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy.” Rerum Novarum 4
“Socialists, therefore, by endeavouring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.” Rerum Novarum 5
“The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.” Rerum Novarum 14
“Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal.” Rerum Novarum 15
The Church teaches that the goods of the earth are given to the entire human race to provide for their subsistence and security and that by our application of fruitful labour to some part of the earth we appropriate that portion of the earth to provide for our own subsistence and security and that of our dependents. This right of property includes essentially the right to alienate these goods by sale, gift or bequest. Once provision is made for our own subsistence and security and that of our dependents whatever remains should be employed whether gratuitously or in exchange for labour or goods to assist others in providing for their subsistence and security. Only if this last obligation is not fulfilled does the right of property lapse and do third parties (destitute individuals and families or the civil power acting on their behalf but without respect of persons) become entitled to treat the additional goods in question as if they had not been appropriated. Socialism essentially consists in the claim that the initial appropriation is undertaken by the community as a whole and so the right of property is vested in the community not in individuals or families and is only enjoyed by individuals and families by a concession of the community that may be modified or revoked.
Laodicea 
June 16, 2020 at 12:41 pm
I just tuned in and went for a random point in the discussion. At around 20 mins Sam Rocha describes an African president and “Christian socialist” (also Servant of God) who sought to be rid of both “western capitalism and eastern communism” through an African concept of ‘ujama’ (sp?) – ‘family-hood’.
I think this points to the knife that would cut the gordian knot of this debate. Capitalists and communists typically frame the debate as one of economic management, but really it’s a matter of piety. Capitalists and communists are searching for a materialist/scientific replacement or substitute for piety, but there’s no such thing. This African concept of family-hood is clearly an ancient form of piety that would exclude both the excesses of capitalist individualism and communist collectivism. Our modern social planners are looking for an artificial remedy to a problem which is at bottom spiritual. Capitalist greed and exploitation is destructive and intolerable, but communist seizure of private property doesn’t automatically make people less greedy and exploitative, any more than taking the toys away from the children makes them more likely to share and play nice.
High Virtue makes no fuss and has no private ends to serve:
Low Virtue not only fusses but has private ends to serve.
High humanity fusses but has no private ends to serve:
High morality not only fusses but has private ends to serve.
High ceremony fusses but finds no response;
Then it tries to enforce itself with rolled-up sleeves.
Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue.
Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity.
Failing humanity, man resorts to morality.
Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony.
Now, ceremony is the merest husk of faith and loyalty;
It is the beginning of all confusion and disorder.
June 20, 2020 at 6:45 pm
What about any of the last part of your post is even the faintest bit Catholic? it’s openly pagan at that. vatican 2 allowing another place for gnostics to find home I guess.
Here, from Venerable Fulton Sheen:
“If we leave the Cross out of the Life of Christ, we have nothing left, and certainly not Christianity. For the Cross is related to our sins. Christ was our “stand in” on the stage of life. He took our guilt as if He were guilty and thus paid the debt that sin deserved, namely, death. This made possible our resurrection to a “new life” in Him. Christ, therefore, is not just a teacher or a peasant revolutionist, but our Savior. Our modern world does not like the word “sin.”
What is forgotten is that sin is not the worst thing in the world. The worst thing is the denial of sin. If I am blind and deny there is any such thing as light, I shall never see. If I am deaf and deny sound, I shall never hear. And if I deny there is sin, I make forgiveness impossible . I believe that the whole political and religious situation of the world can be summed up in terms of the divorce of Christ and His Cross. Put the Cross-less Christ on the right side, and the Christ-less Cross on the left. Who picks up the Crossless Christ? Our decadent Western civilization. This Christ is weak, effeminate, with no authority to drive buyers and sellers out of temples, and never speaks of self-discipline, restraint and mortification.
Who picks up the Christless Cross? Russia and China, where there is a dedication to a common ideology, the use of discipline and authority to keep peace and order. But neither can heal. The, Crossless Christ leaves men burdened with their guilt which festers in a thousand psychosis and neuroses. The Christless Cross cannot save for it ends in Dachau, the Gulag Archipelago and the squeezing of the lives of millions like grapes to make the collective wine of the State.
Which will first find Christ with the Cross? The totalitarian states who have the Cross without Love, or the Western world which has “love” so often erotic-without sacrifice? We do not know. But we do know that at the end of time, when the great battle between the forces of good and evil takes place, satan will appear without the Cross, as the Great Philanthropist and Social Reformer to become the final temptation of all mankind.”