Rev. Guarnizo is most likely of my political preferences. That makes me like his views. Alas, the good Father, as most all writers on Communism (Marxism) re the poor, makes an interpretative error relative to the interest Communism has in the poor. Marx and the Communism does not give "a damn" about the poor per se. Through out history there have been many "classes" of poor and suffering peoples. They are of no importance, except for ONE class. What counts for Marx is that a certain class of poor, called the proletariat, is poor because it is totally exclude from socio-economic life and, hence, doomed to perdition. This class is, because its revolt will generate total violence against the oppressors, will evoke a complete revolt against the oppressing system of the "exploitative" class of capitalists (not of medieval aristocrats, or Roman slaves). The revolution, once achieved, will be the classless society.

"All or nothing" is the ESSENCE of the proletariat and that feature makes it, though but a part of ongoing society, into a REPRESENTATIVE of the whole of society because it strives against capital. This function of being the "representative" is what gives the proletariat a "salvational" or "emancipatory" power. Communist theory only is interested in the "poor" of the "proletariat", not because they are poor, rather because their function is to"represent" humanity per se. Communism does not care a whit about the suffering of poor people. There is NO value in such sufferings. Only the symbolic function of leading to a revolution unto a classless utopia is what elicits intrest.

Just to make it a bit clearer what the class of poor people called the proletariat means for Communism I will relate how the French philosopher Merleau Ponty
distinguished between justified mass repression by Stalin and non-justified mass repression by Hitler (and no quantitative difference between the two plays any role). In his book "On Terrorism" around 1946 Ponty states that Nazism cannot justify its terror because the Nazis only wanted to free one limited class, e.g., the Germanic supermen, with all other classes being slated for destruction; whereas Stalin's terror is fully justified and to be affirmed because he fought for the proletariat, i.e., the class that REPRESENTED humankind as a whole, a UNIVERSAL class. (If Nazi ideology had had the same universal representation as Stalin's communism, then Nazism too would be salvational.) Ponty was not bothered (at that point in his career) with either the "concrete" sufferings of the exploited under Hitler or those under Stalin. He acceped Stalin's inflictions as NECESSARY horror needed by "proletariat" class, that universal class, to enact universal revolution (violent and repressive as Stalin had shown).

Christ, a single person, died for human sinS in order to reconcile humans (not mankind in the abstract) with God and eternal salvation. This function was/is REPRESENTATIVE, i.e., one divine person suffers for all non-divine humans re sin in order to reconcile humans with God re eternal salvation. Christians do have an interest first and foremost in the "poor in spirit" and derivatively in the poor who suffer physical and economic deprivation. But, Christianity fails 100% if it should manage to work a "revolution" in society that leads to raising the physical poverty of the economically poor up to an acceptable and comfortable life AND, alas, at the same time, every single formerly economically "poor" person finds no interest in God and no understanding of the "poverty of the spirit". The essence of Catholicism is not about raising living standards (though that is a derivative function), rather the standard of the soul before God. Because of this, violence plays no role in Christian activity to save souls, because Christ has undertaken not to inflict suffering, but to accept inflicted suffering turning suffering into a path to salvation,