(CNA) — In a March 31 interview with communications students, Pope Francis responded to previous accusations of being a communist, explaining that his preference for the poor is in fact based in the Gospel.
“I heard two months ago that a person referred to my preference for speaking about the poor, saying: ‘This Pope is a communist, no?’ And no, this is the banner of the Gospel, not of communism, of the Gospel,” the Pope explained during the encounter.
Given to three Belgian youth who are studying communications sciences, the interview was broadcast on the evening of April 3 on the Belgium website deredactie.be., and was later picked up by Italian news agency ReppublicaTV.
During the interview, one student asked the Pope where his preference for the poor and most needy comes from, to which the pontiff responded: “Because this is the heart of the Gospel, and I am a believer, I believe in God, I believe in Christ, I believe in the Gospel, and the heart of the Gospel is the poor.”
“And because of this I believe that the poor are the center of the Gospel of Jesus. This is clear if we read it,” he affirmed.

I’m going to try to keep this as short as possible.  Let’s see how I do.   Leftist political philosophy (no matter what you call it, liberalism, progressive, socialism, or Marxism,) is the most insidious evil that exists.  Why?

Because it is basically taking something that actually has its proper place (communism) and putting it in an inappropriate setting (governing an entire nation), and in the process, destroying both the areas where it works and where it doesn't.

What works best when run as a communist organization?  The answer is a family.  A family works best when all the people involved are working for the good of the collective.  The reason that communism works so well in a family is because usually every member has a vested interest in the success of the other members.  They usually have common interests and working toward the same goals.  Parents want their children to do well and vice versa, and the group is so small that no one can get away with freeloading off of the collective.  Individuals of the group can readily understand how not doing their fair share is harmful to the themselves and the collective as a whole.

In other smaller groups, communism can still work well.  When I was in college, I lived next door to a housing cooperative that was very successful, and is still operating to this day, but even that group has strict rules about people doing their own share, and anyone who doesn’t, is asked, or told to leave.  Community organisations and clubs are more or less communist outfits, and the ones that survive, are the ones that have the ability to make sure no members are taking more than they contribute.

Even some religious organizations, can get away with successfully running a commune for an extended period of time, but this is about the size limit for a successful commune.  Once again, here all the members share a common interest.

Not all families, community organizations, or religions are alike however, and when more than one is governed by the same body is when communism fails.  Governing larger, diverse groups of people with a communist system, is like attempting to heat your home with a camp fire.  Just because something works well in some situations, doesn't mean that it will work well in others.

There is nothing wrong with communism per se, as long as it is used in the correct setting, but the keys to its success are all the members being devoted to a common cause, and the collective being small enough that no members can get away without contributing their fair share.

Leftist ideology always leads to disaster in governing nations, because its supporters have never seriously considered what I have written above.  To make things worse, they attempt to make up for their ideology’s shortcomings by destroying the very things where their ideology actually works - the church and family.

Since the beginning of civilization, until relatively recently, the family and church has been the main source of human compassion.  The poor, weak, sick, hungry, were taken care of by other family members, or in more extreme cases, members of their extended family, local community, or other members of that family’s religious sect.  In most cases the origin of aid to the needy was genuine human compassion and not the government.  

This system of taking care of the unfortunate had two important advantages over government aid.  1)The people receiving the aid, knew who it was coming from, and 2)The people providing the aid knew where it was going.  This went along way toward preventing the problems we see today involving the freeloading of individuals receiving government aid and the corruption of the people providing it.  When aid comes from an anonymous, involuntary source (government), the recipients do not feel indebted to anyone for their kindness, and the providers (taxpayers) have little control over how that aid is distributed.  This is a formula that cannot help but lead to disaster.  

Leftist ideology in a nutshell, is replacing the functions of the family, church, and community (organizations where communism is often successful) with government. (an organization where communism is never successful) It's a classic case of using the wrong tool for the job. If leftist were carpenters, they would use a hammer to install screws.

Unfortunately, for the poor, middle class, and well-to-do, we are stuck with leftist philosophy, and there isn’t anything we can do about it.  Why?  Because, changing the way things are would require the government to embrace freedom, and that is something that is is never going to do.  For that to happen, it would require the elimination of everyone with any leftist tendencies from government. Leftists ideals are the easiest sell for politicians.  “We’ll take care of you.” is always more appealing to the masses than freedom.

In order to restore freedom, we would have to return to families and the the like, being the source of compassion.  Although a government is made up of people, it is an inanimate object, so it will always fail miserably at being a source of compassion for the reasons mentioned above.  In order to function most efficiently, a government should act like an inanimate object,  but doing so would be so brutal in the eyes of most people, that it would never be accepted by the masses.

A government should take care of defending a nation from foreign invaders, public works projects, and that’s about it.  Taking care of people is the job of the people, not the government.  This is best accomplished by the family and the church, but liberals have been trying their best to destroy these two institutions for over 100 years.

Here's another benefit of having families, churches and community organizations being the the source of aid for the less fortunate. Have you ever noticed how so many people on government assistance couldn't get a job if they wanted one? So many of them refuse to look or behave like productive members of society. Who is going to hire someone covered with piercings and tattoos and dressed up like a character in a horror movie? When assistance comes from friends and family, there are usually strings attached for the recipient. Your father may loan you a few bucks to make it through a tough time, but he is also going to insist that you get a hair cut and get a real job.

Now I’m all for freedom, and looking and behaving as you wish, but you have to earn the privilege to do that by supporting yourself.  As long as you are dependent upon someone else, you should be expected to conform to their rules.  Freedom isn’t free.