The New Distributist League

We've Moved!

2010-07-04T14:15:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends of The Distributist Review and The ChesterBelloc Mandate,

On the 4th of July, we are proud to present our brand new web site, The Distributist Review. The Distributist Review will provide analysis of our contemporary social and economic world, with the addition of vintage essays from G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, and the early Distributist League. The site’s primary focus is Distributism and its relationship to the world we live in. Whether discussing capital and labor, urban and rural reform, politics, or “what is wrong with the world,” we strive to deposit the proper perspective on the fundamentals needed for social and economic restoration, as our readers want to know what prescription we can offer for the building of a practical Distributist culture.

Our mission is to pave the way for common ground between diverse political backgrounds, working tirelessly to harmonize social justice and orthodoxy, and helping to build the framework necessary for the creation of a popular Distributist movement.

In addition, our web site will now include guest contributions, movie and book reviews, audio and video resources, downloadable materials, and a print/PDF feature for all of our articles.

Please join us, bookmark our site, and help us to spread the word.

Go to www.distributistreview.com/mag and do not forget to order “Jobs of Our Own” by Dr. Race Mathews by going to www.distributistreview.com/press.

Neither Left nor Right. Looking back and moving forward. The restoration is up to you.

Schedule Change for Chesterton Conference

2010-06-24T09:53:00.000-07:00

Friends,

If you plan to attend this year's Chesterton conference, please be aware that changes have been made to the schedule. Joseph Pearce will now speak on Friday.

http://chesterton.org/2010conference.htm

The New Devereux

2010-06-21T17:41:00.001-07:00

Dear Friends,

For some time the editors of The Distributist Review have been on a mission to move beyond the shores of Blogger. While this has been our happy home for almost six years, our principle objective to find a new design that could marry The Chesterbelloc Mandate and The Distributist Review is now mission accomplished. With this new site our readers will receive the best vintage material and current analysis of the Distributist model, and we are confident our template has the right spit and polish to attract new readership and bring attention to this very important journal.

What Can You Expect?
The Distributist Review's new home promises a fresh dynamic. While retaining its hard-hitting commentary and superb analysis, our site's attractive features will increase readership and re-energize the Distributist movement. We've added book and movie reviews, foreign language articles, guest contributions from academics and laymen in the trenches, social networking icons so you can post our articles on Facebook or Tweet them, podcasts, written interviews, and printing or PDF options (TBA).

An announcement with the new url for The Distributist Review will be made over the 4th of July weekend. We invite you to join us at our new home, add our new address to your websites, and tell your family and friends about us.

On a personal note, I wish to thank all our contributing editors over the years for giving so much of their time, effort, and heart. They truly outline sanity. They do not do this for thanks nor do they receive the compensation they deserve. What they do is not just for us, but for Christ the King! May God bless all of you. Your articles reflect how grace is a call to action.

Servire Deo regnare est!
Richard

PS: While some articles will be migrated to our new domain, this web site will remain available as an archive.

The Grand Illusion

2010-05-20T18:19:00.001-07:00

To read the article go to The Distributist Review.

From Dale Ahlquist

2010-05-17T09:14:00.001-07:00

An urgent appeal from Dale Ahlquist, President of American Chesterton Society:

Chestertonians !!

In all of the American Chesterton Society’s good work, one of the most exciting things we have ever gotten involved in is helping to start a new high school. Chesterton Academy is just completing its second year of operations in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. We featured a cover story about it in Gilbert Magazine not long ago, but it has received other national press because of its uniquely integrated curriculum, its comprehensive approach to classical learning, its faith-based education, its affordable tuition and the fact that it is a grass roots effort. We are trying to fix what’s wrong with the world, and we’re doing more than sitting around and talking about it.

(For more information about Chesterton Academy, visit our website here: http://chestertonacademy.org/)

I am contacting you today because we have just received an amazing fund-raising opportunity. A Minneapolis entrepreneur named Andrew Redleaf has announced that he is offering the school a challenge grant of up to $75,000. That means that for every dollar we raise from now until June 15, 2010, he will match it, dollar-for-dollar, up to $75,000. This means we can raise $150,000 for the school. This gigantic for us because we are a modest operation that makes a little go a long ways.

There are several reasons why this is significant, but perhaps the most important one is that this school has impressed Mr. Redleaf, who is looking at this venture of ours as a total outsider. He is not Catholic (he was raised Jewish), and he has not studied Chesterton. But he likes what we’re doing. You can find the full story on Mr. Redleaf and his amazing offer to us here: http://chestertonacademy.org/news

We have less than a month to raise the money for this matching grant. I know that times are tough, but I am calling on you to help us in any way you can. Please make a tax-deductible contribution today. Any amount will be helpful.

You can donate here: http://chestertonacademy.org/support

We will be very grateful for your help.

Your servant,

Dale Ahlquist
President, American Chesterton Society
4117 Pebblebrook Circle
Minneapolis, MN 55437

Aristotle and Aquinas, Bank Regulators

2010-04-18T18:50:00.001-07:00

Okay, so after years of inaction, the SEC has finally taken the offensive. True, they went after a small deal, a mere billion in “designed to fail” CDO's on which Goldman Sachs made a paltry $15 million, an amount which, in the overall scheme of these frauds, doesn't even amount to a rounding error, as Gretchen Morgenson pointed out. Still, it's enough to damage the reputation of Goldman Sachs, perhaps fatally, and perhaps enough to re-establish the SEC as a regulatory force. However, there is a deep problem: what should the regulators be regulating?

We live in an age of regulation. But surprisingly, there are very few principles of regulation. As Karl Polyanyi said, “Laissez-faire was planed; planning was not.” Planning always seems to be something that always arises ad hoc, to address a particular situation, but hangs on and acquires a life (and a bureaucracy) of its own, even after the situation changes. The result is that we are simultaneously over-regulated and under-regulated; we have thousands of pages of regulations that deal with situations that don't require any, and no regulation in areas that need to be closely watched. The regs raise formidable barriers to competition, as the small businessman often finds that the cost and trouble of dealing with them is an insurmountable barrier to entering a given business. This leaves only the large players, for whom such regulation is a mere nuisance, a cost of doing business that brings a benefit of reduced competition. And since there are fewer competitors, they tend to be more politically powerful, and proceed to capture the very regulatory bodies that are intended to curb them. The government becomes, in effect, the protector of the oligarchs rather than their regulator.

The current case is a case in point. We often hear how “complex” these schemes are, but in fact this fraud was simplicity itself. Goldman Sachs allowed a certain hedge fund trader, John Paulson, to put together a group of mortgages that would be packaged into a CDO, a “collateralized debt obligation” which was sold to Goldman's investors. However, Paulson was also known to be shorting the mortgage market. Paulson deliberately assembled a package of loans whose underlying risk was much higher than the credit ratings indicated. Goldman Sachs then marketed Paulson's poison-pill CDO to other banks, pension funds, and individuals. But Paulson, knowing the true risk of the security, purchased CDSs on the package. A CDS (“credit default swap”) is an insurance policy on a security that pays off when the underlying security fails. But the term “underlying security” is a fiction; Mr. Paulson did not own the CDO he was insuring. There was no “underlying security.” It is like buying a fire insurance policy on your neighbor's house, and hoping it burns down.

Goldman Sachs didn't bother to tell its investors that the CDO was put together by someone who was betting that it would fail. Instead, they said in their prospectus that it was put together by somebody else. Why they bothered with this lie is a bit of a mystery, since nobody ever actually reads a prospectus.

The man at Goldman responsible for selling these securities, Fabrice Tourre, knew they were about to fail. In an e-mail to a colleague, he stated,

More and more leverage in the system. The whole building is about to collapse anytime now... Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab[rice Tourre]... standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities!!!"

You can bet that wasn't in the prospectus. But if there is one thing that both Democrats and Republicans agreed about in the 90's, it was that these “monstrosities” didn't need to be regulated. The market for them was composed of sophisticated investors who were more than capable of evaluating the risks and taking the losses, should their be any, and the public need not trouble themselves about such things. Senator Phil Gramm led the Republican efforts to deregulate this market, joined by such Democratic stalwarts as Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, and President Clinton signed the bill with little fanfare in 1999. But as things turned out, when the highly leveraged bets brought down the whole economy, the risks were socialized, and the profits were privatized. The US Treasury became the hedge funds Ultimate Hedge.

So what should the regulators be doing? One could pass this off as mere fraud, which is already illegal, but that would miss the point. The practice of touting such complex instruments to customers while shorting them in your own portfolio is common enough. Indeed, the appetite for these CDO's was immense, but the number of solvent borrowers in the mortgage market is limited. To meet the demand, banks and mortgage companies pushed their loan officers to ignore underwriting standards and to make as many loans as possible, prudent or not. For example, in one CDO examined by Roger Lowenstein, on 43 percent of the underlying loans, the lender hadn't bothered to verify the borrower's employment and income. These were part of the famous “Liar Loans” and NINJA loans (“No-income, no job or assets.”)

So what can be done, apart from sending a bank regulator on every loan interview? For one thing, we could listen to Aristotle on this subject. Not too long ago, a Prominent Economist told me that Aristotle had nothing to teach us about modern finance. I beg to differ; Aristotle, and the Scholastics who adopted his approach to economics, were surprisingly sophisticated on these topics, while so many Prominent Economists are surprisingly naïve. Indeed, Aristotle left us a principle of commerce that serves very well as a principle of regulation. This principle is the distinction he makes between natural and unnatural exchange. Modern commentators, who make no distinctions, have viewed this as a mere primitive hostility to business; actually, it was a shrewd appreciation of commerce. For Aristotle, natural exchange was that which was necessary for the provisioning of the family (the true meaning of economics.) Unnatural exchange that which had only money as it object.

The former is “natural” because it limits itself; that later unnatural because is has no natural limits. For example, a man wishing to buy bread for his family will buy only as much as he needs; this is a natural exchange. But a man wishing only to make money in the bread biz may wish to buy up all the bread and corner the market so as to raise prices and make a fortune on others' necessities; this is an unnatural exchange. When applied to finance, a transaction is natural when it is when it is firmly and directly tied to the production of some actual product; it is unnatural the more abstract and derivative it becomes, and when its only object is to make money rather than profit from production. Thus, we may say that banks directly financing home purchases or construction are natural transactions, and less natural when they become “securitized,” bundled together and sold in packages to remote investors who will have no contact with the actual homes, banks, or borrowers. The situation becomes even more abstract when you speak of securitizing the securities (“CDO-Squared” or even “CDO-Cubed”) or with CDSs, which become pure speculative bets on the market. The more abstract the instrument, the more closely it should be scrutinized.

As things now stand, we have reversed Aristotle's order: the natural exchanges are highly regulated, while the unnatural ones are often unregulated. In more normal times, when you went to George Bailey to get a mortgage, he squinted at you real hard to see if you are the kind of person who will pay him back for 30 years. George needs little oversight to encourage him to be prudent, since he has the bank's capital and the depositors' money at risk. But if George merely intends to securitize the loan, then he merely glances at you to see if you are the kind of person who will pay for two weeks, because after that you are somebody else's problem. In the meantime, dear old George has made a bundle on excessive loan fees and commissions on the sale of the security. George has every reason to write every loan he can, even liar loans, because they all bring him a profit, and he hopes he can park the loss with someone else. And even if he can't, he knows that the Fed is there to provide him with any amount of “liquidity” he may require, and if he gets big enough, he can always call on the United States Treasury, since the consequences of his actions will be catastrophic; he is in a position to blackmail an entire nation, or even the entire world.

Applications of this principle will be fairly obvious, in most cases. Take the example of CDSs. As an insurance policy, it is surely a natural exchange, a real service that guards against real loss. But when people insure things they do not own, the exchange becomes unnatural and the CDS becomes a mere speculative bet on a given market, one that produces no social gains. The rule should be a rather simple one: “No harm, no foul.” If there is no loss suffered, there should be no claim paid. If you do not own the failing security, you cannot claim a loss on it. Consider that at its height, the notional value of the CDS market was $600 trillion, or eleven times the GDP of the entire planet. Likewise, MBSs and CDOs, should be subject to heavy scrutiny, and even more so when they are squared or cubed; the amount of the regulation is given by their distance from the “real” transaction to which they refer.

In the bad old days, before we became enlightened, we had to think things through for ourselves. Now we have farmed the job out to experts who claim to understand the complexities that their own “expertise” created. In those times, philosophers did not hesitate to address themselves to mundane subjects of commerce and kingship, and every theologian worth his stipend routinely addressed matters of state and business. It was considered part of their job. But the “experts” have, once again, botched things up; Fab Tourre failed to understand the monstrosities he created, although he did understand how to profit from them, at our expense; he was an expert in all the wrong things. It may be time to call again on the philosophers; the Prominent Economist may have to subject his thought to the theologian, the banker to the philosopher.

The SEC has finally moved, albeit somewhat after the fact. It may be merely a political ploy, a way for the Administration to put some pressure on the Republicans, who have vowed to stop any banking regulation, no matter what. The Administration will dribble out cases like this from now to election day, and will call some votes in the Senate that will be stopped short of action by the Republicans. They will force the Republicans to stop them from doing what they don't want to do, make real reforms. They can embarrass the Republicans, even in front of their Tea-Party supporters, while not actually having to take any action. Politically, it's a good deal, and may give them some leverage going into November.

But just in case anybody does want real reform, we might turn to those who have given the market real thought, thought that has survived 2,500 years of scrutiny. Bank regulation is a MEGO subject (“My Eyes Glaze Over”), and if you, loyal reader, have gotten this far in this essay, it is likely that you are a nerd or have mild Asberger's Syndrome; you may be the kind of person who would actually read a prospectus. But despite the lack of interest and understanding, we must have some public interest in these things, apart from the “experts” like Fabrice Tourre and John Paulson. We cannot do without a proper finance system. Between the planting and the harvest, there is a gap, and likewise between opening a production line and the sale of a product. This gap must be financed. But finance itself must be made to serve this gap, to bridge it for the common good. When it has no other point but to enrich the few at the expense of the many, then the real economy has no future, and if it has no future then neither do we, nor do our children. We could do worse than turning the system over to people who have read a little Aristotle and Aquinas.

Yes to a Plan, No to this One

2010-04-14T13:49:00.001-07:00

The Distributist Review

Capitalist-Socialist-Distributist Debate

2009-04-15T04:43:00.001-07:00

For the article, please go to The Distributist Review.

Is There A Bellocian Response For Today's Economics Crisis?

2009-03-10T09:29:00.001-07:00

For the article, please go to The Distributist Review.

The True Sources of Wealth

2009-02-20T08:40:00.000-08:00

This post was cross-posted to Donald Goodman III's personal blog.

In light of the timely Call to Action posted at The Distributist Review yesterday, I'd like to suggest another practical means of helping establish distributism in the present time: creating wealth.

It's nearly universal for our politicians to tell us that we need to get back to creating wealth. This much is true; sadly, however, our politicians want to get back to creating wealth by getting people to borrow more money to buy more stuff, most of which was made in foreign countries by foreign workers, and most of which they couldn't afford even if they weren't going into still more debt in order to buy it.

Why does our age, alone among all, consider increased consumer debt and the increase in consumption that goes along with it to be "creating wealth"? Isn't this truly merely consuming wealth? And given that the vast majority of these consumer goods that we're purchasing with our borrowed stimulus funds are made in foreign factories by foreign workers, while our own citizens are occupied predominantly with serving each other (increasingly foreign-produced) food and selling each other incomprehensible financial documents (not to mention helping to import the foreign products that we're doing all this in order to buy), isn't this consumption of wealth without ever replacing it with anything?

Certainly, these foreigners (who are mostly perfectly decent people in their own right) are creating wealth, and we're paying them to do so. But what happens when they decide to start selling their new wealth to their own people? And even besides this, is it right for us to rely on the Chinese keeping their workers in borderline slavery in order to provide us with cheap goods, while we fritter away our immense national resources, both human and natural, voraciously consuming the wealth produced on other shores than ours?

At this point distributist readers will doubtlessly expect me to begin railing against industrialization and capitalism. But truly, this financial system isn't even really industrial capitalism (which can certainly be rightly railed against); it's something called finance capitalism, which in some ways is even worse. Industrial capitalism does, in fact, isolate all the means of production into the hands of the wealthy few, leaving the rest in near-slavery; however, at least the non-owning many can easily ascertain that they're being exploited by the owning few. Finance capitalism, on the other hand, ostensibly raises the wealth of the non-owners, and they acquire more and more material goods. This lulls the non-owners into total complacency, unaware that they and their nation are being stripped to the bone by the financiers, who are funding the shipment of the national wealth to foreign countries to be worked by foreign slaves.

Still, our benevolent leaders insist that this sort of activity is really creating wealth for our nation. But what is wealth, really? Surely it's not simply money, green paper or binary signatures on banks' hard drives? No; money is simply an agreed-upon standard for exchanging wealth, not wealth itself. Hillaire Belloc, in his seminal distributist work The Servile State, defined wealth as "matter which has been consciously and intelligently transformed from a condition in which it is less to a condition in which it is more serviceable to a human need." In other words, wealth is anything that's been worked on to make it more useful; so, for example, lumber, which are trees made into a more useful form for building, is wealth. Wealth is created by production, which is the "special, conscious, and intelligent transformation of his environment which is peculiar to the peculiar intelligence and creative faculty of man." The means of production, then, are simply the tools, such as saws and hammers, and resources, such as land and timber, necessary to produce wealth.

Certainly, the non-owning worker has more stuff than ever before; he has more things which have been made more useful for human needs, and consequently he is in possession of more wealth. However, he still does not own the means of production, the way in which wealth is produced. Under industrial capitalism, for a very long time, the non-owning worker was confined in poverty and squalor, and distributists have always identified this as truly evil. Many capitalists have hailed the arrival of finance capitalism as the end of that era, in which even the lowly non-owning workers are awash in unprecedented amounts of wealth. Doesn't this, truly, eliminate the objections of distributists to the capitalist economy? The workers, after all, are well cared for.

However, while distributism has always decried the physical exploitation of the worker, it has first and foremost decried his economic exploitation. Distributists object strongly to a characteristic common to both industrial and finance capitalism, one which remains no matter how stuffed with Chinese-made garbage the non-owning worker's heavily-mortgaged house might become: the fact that the vast majority of society are non-owning workers, with only a very few owners of productive property. In other words, while workers in the capitalist world often now have wealth, they still have no means of producing wealth, and that makes all the difference.

As Belloc observed, "[w]ithout wealth man cannot exist." Without the constant transformation of natural resources to a form more useful for man's needs, man will die. And so it follows that "to control the production of wealth is to control human life itself." But in our society, the means of producing wealth are owned by only a very few, and even those few have moved most of those means into the custody and control of foreign producers. Which means, of course, that the vast majority of our society, who are non-owning workers, are really and truly controlled by those few owners and their foreign counterparts. Thus, the state is, in a very real sense, servile, as Belloc warned. (As an aside, it is also servile in a way that Belloc never predicted: not only are the citizens of the state servile to the owning few, but the state as a whole is servile to the other nations which produce the wealth which it consumes.) As Leo XIII observed, two decades before The Servile State flowed from Belloc's pen, ownership by only a few in this way has "laid a yoke almost of slavery on the unnumbered masses of non-owning workers." (Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum.)

That is what distributists despise most about our current system: that it makes the vast majority of us near-slaves of the owning few. Furthermore, it makes the state as a whole incapable of producing what it needs itself; it must instead rely on other states to produce it, which is what has led to many of our economic problems today. Distributism, on the other hand, seeks to establish the distributist state, in which, as Belloc said, so great a number of the citizens are owners that the society as a whole takes on the character of owners, rather than of non-owning workers. Distributism seeks the greater distribution of productive property, the means of producing wealth. That is the first and primary economic goal of the system.

What property is productive? There are almost limitless correct answers to that question, but fundamentally wealth is produced from four forms of such property: the fields, the forests, the factories, and the mines. By fields we mean those pieces of land that are used for the all-important necessity of raising food, both farmland and pasture. By forests we mean those pieces of land that are covered with trees and wild growth, from which can be harvested timber, furs, and innumerable other natural resources. By factories we mean those pieces of land, including the improvements thereon, that take the products from the other three types of productive property and transform them into more useful forms, including the tools necessary to do so; it covers everything from a corner shoemaker's shop to an automaking factory. Finally, by mines we mean those parts of the land that are dedicated to the extraction of mineral resources to be used as such, such as gold, silver, iron, and copper mines.

Notice what is not included in this list. Restaurants; real estate brokers; attorneys (my own profession); stock traders; merchants; shopping malls; supermarkets. All of these professions are necessary (even if some ought to be made much smaller) and good within their proper spheres; but none of them are productive of wealth, and thus all of them are secondary to those which are. Even in a distributist society there will be non-owners who perform certain necessary tasks; however, the vast majority of citizens will be owners of wealth-producing property.

In those four places are the creation of wealth, not Wall Street, and certainly not the Washington mall. None of the proposed government projects to help expand our imploding economy involve creating wealth; they just involve the non-productive consumption of it, which we've been doing for far too long already. So we'll just keep consuming the wealth created by others until either they realize that they don't need us anymore (since they're already producing all the wealth themselves), or we realize that we're almost slaves and rise up to fix the problem ourselves.

But to return to the stated purpose of this article, how can the distributist help establish the distributive state right now, even within the bowels of finance capitalism? It's really quite simple: begin producing wealth. Even if one is in a non-productive profession within our currently terminal economy (as I am), and even if one has no financially feasible means of escaping that situation, one can produce wealth, even if in only a modest way.

If the distributist has a productive hobby, let him practice it until it becomes a second profession. I know a gentleman (not a distributist, sadly) who's an engineer by trade, but who has a great love of woodworking, and produces many things of great beauty while practicing that hobby. In so doing, he's established a small factory, one of the four great means of production; he is really producing wealth, a distributist thing for him to do, though his economic principles vary.

Personally, I am an attorney, one of those that Dmitry Orlov called "mere embroidery on the fabric of an affluent society" (Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century (Part Two of Three)). While this overstates the point, it does identify the truth that this profession is not productive of wealth in any direct way. However, that fact does not mean that I, as a distributist, cannot do my part in creating a distributist state. While I'm quite halting with my woodwork, I deeply enjoy gardening, though I'm very inexperienced. So I'm reading up on natural and sustainable gardening, and I'm practicing as best as I can. While I don't have much land, I'm using what little I have to produce some wealth; that is what God made it for, after all. It is hard to imagine someone with no interest in any productive craft; let the distributist select one and practice it, and get to work on the all-important economic task of producing things of value. It may be countercultural, but it's also the only way our society can ever recover.

Wealth is wonderful; but he who produces the wealth controls the world. Let us begin to more widely distribute productive property according to our principles, and let us do so by beginning with ourselves.

Praise be to Christ the King!

Note: This is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Announcements, Announcements, Announcements!

2009-02-15T09:40:00.000-08:00

For the article, go to The Distributist Review.

Something Old, Something New

2009-02-14T17:20:00.001-08:00

For the article, go to The Distributist Review.

Why Distributism Can Work (For Us, Right Now) Part I

2009-01-15T07:49:00.000-08:00

For the article, please go to The Distributist Review.

An Interview With Thomas Storck

2009-01-08T13:04:00.001-08:00

For the full interview, please go to The Distributist Review.

Why Care about Distributism?

2008-12-13T14:13:00.000-08:00

This post was cross-posted at Donald Goodman's personal blog.

An old friend has been commenting on my post Consumer Confidence or Consumer Recklessness, and he's led me to an interesting question. He asked me why I bother with this whole distributism thing at all? After all, he observes, it's exceedingly unlikely that I'd ever live to see distributism put into place; why not focus on making capitalists more virtuous, rather than explaining to them why the system itself is bankrupt?

I can respond in two ways. First, of course, is that while I might not see a distributist system in place in my lifetime, I can certainly see certain distributist principles put into practice. Some of this is happening already, though often under different names. The credit union system, for example, is in a certain way quite distributist (in others not really at all). Another example is the increasing prominence of farm co-ops. The people who form these efforts rarely go by the name "distributist"; however, these efforts are eminently in accord with distributism, and can and should be supported as such by distributists. My advocacy for distributism can therefore forward these and other efforts that I can actually effect, even if an entire distributist system is unlikely in the immediate future.

Second, I advocate for distributism the same way I advocate for Catholicism. While I'm talking to a Protestant, for example, it might be extremely unlikely that I'll convert him entirely to Catholicism, but pretty easy to convince him that he should venerate Mary. I'll certainly try to convince him to venerate Mary (as I certainly now try to convince capitalists to be more virtuous); but that doesn't mean that I give up trying to convince him to adopt Catholicism (as I don't give up trying to advocate for distributism over capitalism).

Well, this friend replied, you do that because God has commanded you to try to convert people to Catholicism, so it's different. However, God has commanded us to spread the truth, and distributism's economic principles are truth, while capitalism's are falsehood. To spread the truth, then, I must try to spread distributism; I can't exclude this one part of the truth any more than I could exclude Marian veneration from spreading Catholicism.

The capitalist at this point generally smirks knowingly, as he's now certain that his interlocutor is not quite straight in the head. Are you seriously claiming, he'll ask, that distributism is just as important as Catholicism? That's absolutely absurd. Well, yes and no; is distributism just as important as Catholicism? Obviously not. But is Catholic social teaching just as important as Catholicism? Unquestionably, yes; indeed, it is part and parcel of Catholicism, and one cannot be had without the other.

Is that absurd? If so, I'm afraid you'll have to tell that not just to me, but also to John Paul II, who said precisely that. Catholic social teachings, he argued, are an integral part of the Gospel and must be spread along with it. Rerum Novarum, for example, the flagship of Catholic social teaching, "is a document of the Magisterium and is fully a part of the Church's evangelizing mission, together with many other documents of this nature." Centesimus Annus, no. 54. Think for a moment about how strong a statement that is; the late Pope is saying that Catholic social teaching is part of the message that the Church must spread throughout the world. That's a pretty high-octane statement if spreading distributism is pointless.

Now, distributism is a name for an economic system that attempts to embody Catholic social teaching; as such, it could be mistaken in some particulars, and can't be called, by itself, part of Catholicism. But the Catholic social teaching that it seeks to embody unquestionably is such. So I must, when spreading the Gospel, spread Catholic social teaching, including those parts that are fundamentally antithetical to capitalism. Such as:

Just wages cannot be set merely by the market, but must be compelled to be at least sufficient to support a worker and his family. Rerum Novarum no. 63; Quadragesimo Anno p. 36; Centesimus Annus no. 15.

Women should be legally compelled to avoid certain occupations, no matter to what the market might lead them. Rerum Novarum no. 63.

Some industries not only might, but ought to be owned and run by the state. Quadragesimo Anno, p. 55.

Onwership of private property is a right, but the use of private property is not, and is subject to just state and community regulation. Rerum Novarum no. 25; Quadragesimo Anno p. 24-25; Centesimus Annus no. 30.

Free competition is not the best, or even a good, way to organize economic affairs. Quadragesimo Anno p. 44.

Social justice and social charity are just and, in fact, are the "soul" of a just economic order. Quadragesimo Anno p. 45.

Income earned by a man which is not necessary for his upkeep according to his state is subject to just regulation and use by the state and community. Quadragesimo Anno p. 26.

And these are just specifics; they barely begin to get into the principles of capitalism as opposed to the principles of Catholic social teaching.

So yes, it is important to spread Catholic social teaching, and as such the particular way of embodying it that I support, which is called distributism. To spread Catholicism without it would be omitting an essential part of the Gospel message. Truth is truth; I will try to spread all of it whenever I can.

What We Want, And How

2008-11-26T09:03:00.000-08:00

For the article, go to The Distributist Review.

Consumer Confidence or Consumer Recklessness?

2008-11-10T18:05:00.000-08:00

This post was taken from Donald Goodman's personal blog.

The current economic crisis is often blamed in part on a “crisis of consumer confidence.” The essential problem, according to those who place such blame, is that consumers just aren’t confident enough. Because they’re not confident enough, they’re not making lots of purchases, which cuts down on orders from retailers, which cuts down on transportation orders for distributors, which cuts down on orders from manufacturers, and thus hits everybody. The important thing, it’s said, is to get consumers confident again so that they’ll start spending again.

Along this vein is the oft-repeated statement that “the consumer is two-thirds of the economy.” Since the consumer is two-thirds of the economy, we need to get him spending his money, or the other one-third won’t work anymore. What’s more, that single two-thirds will shrink, thus costing everybody, consumer and otherwise.

Let’s think about those statements for a moment, however. First, let’s take “the consumer is two-thirds of the economy.” Really? If consumption is two-thirds of the economy, what exactly is the consumer consuming? Presumably, the other one-third is production and services; but let’s be charitable to our dear country and presume that the other one-third is production. (In reality, of course, a great deal of it is, in fact, services; but we’re being charitable.) That means that we’re consuming twice what we’re producing.

Think about that for a moment. If we’re consuming twice what we’re producing, where is all that extra stuff coming from? The answer is China; Japan; Europe. Essentially, elsewhere. And because we’re consuming twice what we’re producing, we’re also spending twice what we’re earning. Where does the extra money come from? The answer is China; Japan; Europe. In other words, we’re borrowing to cover for the extra consumption that doesn’t balance what we produce. And, as a corollary, we’re accumulating a great deal of debt and paying a great deal of interest on it.

And that leads us to thinking about the other notion now, that the problem here is one of “consumer confidence.” Don’t we really mean “consumer recklessness?” The problem, such people say, is that consumers just aren’t spending their money like they used to; they’re saving it instead. Tightening their belts. Never mind that once this great country prided itself on the thrift of its hard-working citizens, noting that said thrift and hard work are the elements which made it economically great. Such people, though, want us “consumers” to just keep spending our money, even though we really need to save it. Even though, in the past, the money that we’ve spent is often money that we didn’t have, and that we had to borrow to spend. We need to retrench; pay off our past debts; save up a cushion in case of a fall. That means that we, as consumers, are not “confident.”

In reality, though, it means that we, as consumers, are not reckless. We’re being wise for a change; we’re being careful only to spend money that we actually have; we’re foregoing present pleasures for the sake of future safety; we’re actually, horror of horrors, paying off some debts instead of constantly racking up new ones. This is terrible! Consumers aren’t confident! Can you imagine what might happen to the economy if this spreads? What horrible disasters might befall our nation if such ludicrous practices spread, and our government adopted such an insane scheme so lacking in “confidence?”

Modern economics have led us to a strange place. Though this country was built on working hard, producing goods, foregoing unnecessary consumption, taking debt as rarely as possible, and paying off necessary debt as quickly as possible; though the wealth of every country has been based on these perennial, thrifty, and diligent practices; we have nevertheless convinced ourselves that our wealth is based on spending as much as we can, racking up as much debt as we need to in order to get everything we currently want, and letting other countries bother with the annoying hard work, production of useful goods, and delayed gratification.

Here is national suicide. We need to return to the basic principles of sound economic management. Namely, that it is production which is primary, not consumption; that it is better to save than to buy what we don’t need; that it is better to be free of debt than to have debt; and that gratification of our present desires need not be immediate, or even occur at all. Thrift; moderation; looking to the future. There is national prosperity. There, and there alone, is the solution to our economic crisis.

Praise be to Christ the King!

2008-11-02T13:08:00.000-08:00

"Untouched by the breath of God, unrestricted by human conscience, both capitalism and socialism are repulsive." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

For the article, go to The Distributist Review

Catholic? Socialist? Distributist.

2008-10-21T07:13:00.001-07:00

See Bill Powell's recent article at Inside Catholic and support him with your comments.

You can buck the system

2008-10-18T17:42:00.000-07:00

Even though it is so many weeks away from Christmas, retail industries are already preparing. As I am a retail manager, I am very much aware of the fact that there are 6 pallets of Christmas candy clogging up my receiving area, and Christmas trees and ornaments are already displayed, even as costumes and candy for the stupidest holiday ever invented are being sold in another place.

This is not only at my establishment, which I generally refer to as the devil's biggest retailer, but also at many others. When I was a kid, people remarked that Christmas items were up for sale and Christmas commercials were aired too early, because it was not yet Thanksgiving! Now it is not yet Halloween. I'm certain that when my son is about 8 people will remark that we are seeing Christmas products for sale and it is not yet Labor day. Everyone is trying to turn a buck, the earlier the better, but in the process what little culture we have in America has been cheapened and exploited. How many families could celebrate Christmas without presents? How many could still enjoy themselves without the biggest turkeys and the best decorations? How many people could not believe it was Christmas without a million useless toys?

This brings us back towards how we can live Distributism. In my immediate family we have very few presents, and rightly so, Christmas is not about presents. We are more happy being able to go to Mass together than with trinkets and junk. People always ask what to give, and really the best thing would be to pay some bills. If one wanted to be REALLY good there is a bottle of scotch from Balvenie which is aged 21 years. I've never tried it because I can't stand before God and justify that kind of spending with my bills. Nevertheless, Christmas would still be Christmas without it.

Lately, we are all being told to shop. After 9/11 Bush told everyone to go shop. When the economy was week Congress gave us a "stimulus check" so we would shop, now Warren Buffet is telling us to shop. We don't have any money! Oh, that's what credit cards are for. I forgot.

What we urgently need, as we enter this Christmas, is to do the opposite of what the enlightened ones have told us. We need to not shop. We ought not contribute a penny to the system, nor conform to the corrupt culture. Instead, we should put our money into small business, buy hand made goods of lasting value, things with utility, if we need them. If not, then by all means stick to food and make Christmas merry, but please let us not drop another dime in the system. It is in a gradual meltdown and I say we should let it do so. Let us show those that have money that what is necessary is to invest in America. You see, that is the thing of it, we hear so much about "investors", and we are almost commanded to "shop" so frequently, we should rather be asking which investors, and what shop? They are usually somewhere other than America. China generally, but also in numerous 3rd world countries from Latin America to Asia. That is where people seem to want us to invest. They only want us to buy, but no one wants to invest in America, in American workers, only in corporate swindlers who preside over wealth created at a pittance by the poor and displaced in the third world.

If instead, we invested in America, in American workers, in the production of American resources into wealth rather than strip malls and McDonalds, and furthermore, into products which served the common good, we would not be speaking of an "economic crisis" but merely hard times every now and again.

This Christmas, the Distributist thing to do is contribute as little to the service economy as humanly possible and go on with your lives. Make it about family, and not the worthless trinkets and games of Capitalism, which are meant to lock you in a trajectory of a consumer, and never an owner.

Ali Paulson and his 40 thieves

2008-10-10T08:38:00.000-07:00

Before I launch into why the bailout was bad and will fail to do what it is supposed to, I want to remark that there was a solution in place of saying no to the bailout. While often doing nothing does not hurt that much, in this case they would because all sane people should know now, markets head toward ultimate meltdown when they are free. They need to be regulated by positive regulation, and the lack of it had caused this meltdown. Of course, it would not have been instant. There are foreign banks with capital (mostly in China and Abu Dabi) who have a vested interest in slowing American economic collapse. In the long term it is a boon for them but in the short term it will wreck their national economies. What would Abu Dabi be but a mud hole in the desert without greedy Americans buying its oil by the refined bushel? So no, we would not have instantly been reduced to a "post-Katrina" like situation all over the country. It would on the contrary hasten our dependence on foreigners for our daily sustenance, and in the long term we would see the end which the chicken little's in the executive branch are predicting.

Now Free Market economists, seeing the complete defeat of all their theories, proposed an alternative plan which in itself violated them that would present government insurance for the mortgages in question. It was certainly a better plan than Paulson's but tainted by the same flaw, it doesn't understand the problem. Their plan aims at creating the same house of sand which existed before, not alleviate its problem, that there is not enough production within the country to justify the services, and not enough to do with the money which lenders have. Regardless, since it was rejected by the Bush dictatorship and rejected by congress, now they have to distort reality by claiming it is government's fault for forcing lending institutions to give mortgages to "minorities" and low income applicants.

Now it is true that under Clinton and W the government put pressure on banks to abandon prudent behavior and offer sub-prime mortgages low-income borrowers. However, taken by themselves these do not threaten the financial system and every institution within it, just as my lending a bad loan to a neighbor who can't pay will not hurt the institution across town, even if I service many other loans. These would hurt the institution in and of itself. The meltdown of Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns or AIG due to bad sub-prime loans taken by themselves could never in a million years caused a meltdown of the whole system. What caused the meltdown was Free Market principles in and of themselves, because wherever they are tried they inevitably fail, even if they are tried in limited areas.

The meltdown we are witnessing, and the free fall of stocks and banks even after the bailout has been passed, is due to bad securities, short selling, and derivatives. The actual losses from sub-prime loans may in fact be less than 600 billion, which themselves would ruin certain institutions but not the whole system. While I despise the whole lending system and await the day of its demise, not every banker is also a satanist, and there are banks which by themselves would be solvent and sensible both in their lending and what they try and give back to the community. It is the mixing of sub-prime loans, and assorted bad debts into securities packages with solvent ones (even loans made to large and continually paying businesses) and sold. That wasn't enough so bets had to be hedged on the packages which brought more speculation, and tied more prudent investments up with imprudent ones, and like a bunch of lights on a series circuit, if one goes out they all go out. The system of derivatives is completely unregulated, and done so in accordance with free market principles, and it is directly responsible for the meltdown of our economic system. That the meltdown has been so severe is because, much like the Treasury, the banks do not have any money themselves. Bear Stearns was operating at something like a 33 to 1 ratio, for ever $1 they had in their vault they had $33 of debt. Banks themselves do not have to maintain the necessary capital to cover losses on investments. So when default piles upon default, the banks become completely insolvent, whereas had they any money they could cover the bad debt. Hence they need our future.

The reason banks carry not a cent to cover their investments is due to "free market" thinking. Even Communism is not so stupid as to think that debt is a good thing, as is the trend in modern economic liberalism. The current treasury secretary, Ali [sic] Paulson, who was the head of Goldman and Sachs (remember that), met with the Securities and Exchange commission in 1993 and asked for the end to government regulation requiring banks to carry the money to cover their investments. That was the first inroad of many to free banks from government regulation which kept banking from becoming "too big to fail". This was an achievement under a Democratic administration yes, but of Free Market principles in particular, and the baton was passed to W.

What the bailout does in point of fact, is transfer the bad debt from Paulson's 40 thieves, the bad debt of the firm he used to run to public books, and saves his friends and colleagues from bankruptcy. There is no 700 billion dollars because the 700 billion does not exist. The Treasury does not have even $1. All of the budget shortfalls year to year are met by loans from foreigners (China, India, Japan, The Emirates). And as spending increases on worthless education, on two immoral wars, and generally useless and misdirected social services, the interest only goes higher. There is no money to give Paulson and his 40 thieves, unless the Treasury is to embark on Weimar 3.0. Rather, they simply transfer the debt from them to us, and allow the banks to end the year in the black and toast themselves at their time shares in tropical islands, while the rest of the hoi polloi burn. It is a greater theft than any novelist has ever made up, or any wannabe criminals have ever lied about.

Thus both the National Socialist solution passed by congress in defiance of their constituents, and the free market solution proposed by the Emperor's new clothes crowd, both miss the point. There is not sufficient production within our country to base a healthy and stable economy. Production, as John Medaiile of the Distributist Review puts it, must come from farms, fisheries, forests, factories and mines in order to be real wealth, not something produced by services and credit cards. An economy can not be driven only by consumption because by necessity you must have something to consume. We likewise consume production, but it is someone else's consumption in a factory in east Beijing, and so there is no real wealth created within our own country, except for small businesses here and there which manage to subsist, or "Agri-business". More people have to produce, because in times of weakness when we can't afford ships of apples and led filled milk from China, there will be a severe famine due to the lack of American production.

The bailout was not meant for us, and it will not help us. It will help Ali Paulson and his forty thieves at Goldman and Sachs, AIG, Fannie and Freddie, who are already having big spa parties, but it will not help small business nor the individual taxpayer nor the homeowner. For that we must restructure our economy to reflect real wealth, not to be built, as the Pope put it, on sand.

Lastly, Bernanke, Paulson and Bush all told us until two weeks ago that everything was fine, the economy was in great condition and we would bounce back with ease. Not long after that they come out and say the sky is falling. We are expected to believe them that the money that has been voted to them will save the economy? Good grief.

A human solution to the economic meltdown

2008-09-25T08:04:00.000-07:00

I've waited to make any comment on what is going on for several reasons, one is to gather facts rather than off the cuff assertions, and two because I simply don't have time.

However, after having taken in three weeks of this spectacle, I feel I won't see anything new that either isn't expected or predicted.

My first reaction to all of it, which is more of the anarchist in me than anything, is the nuclear option. Why help these idiots who ran their businesses into the ground and now expect the public to bail them out with a golden parachute? Let the whole lending system burn down. We don't need it anyway. As I said that is more the anarchist in me than anything, because in reality, a government watchful for the common good can not do that. The meltdown of economic markets as they are (predicted by Chesterton and Belloc), while enjoyable from the standpoint of the anti-capitalist spectator, will not long be enjoyable unless one is already self sufficient and well armed. If the power goes out in a major city for a few hours there is looting, rape and pillage. If there is a mass failing of business due to the meltdown of credit, the detriment to the common good is unimaginable. Apart from the fact that every criminal element of society will be unleashed, that millions of innocent people will starve and be bereft of material necessities, the result will be either constant anarchy or a police state.

Americans are overly individualistic, we do not knit together into a likeminded culture solicitous for the common good. As such, the best of us who tend toward that will be victimized by the worst who don't. Subsequently a parralell economy would form largely criminal in nature, with or without a strong central authority or martial law (perhaps in collusion with it as in the aftermath of the Soviet breakdown).

However, all of this will be the result of an overall descent which will take time to effect. Apart from random acts of crime which will break out, no doubt inspired by media hyperstimulation and hysteria (I always say TV news is a defeat for humanity), the country will not fall apart from a market crash. It will merely transform into anarchy or a police state, or a terribly unhealthy mix of both, and even then steps could be taken to avert that course.

There are of course alarmists who are running out and declaring that the sky is falling. I have heard radio hosts saying if the government doesn't do something the whole country will be destroyed. Not the least of the alarmists are Geroge W. Bush, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson and their banking buddies. If our society had any moral fibre they would all be drawn and quartered, and perhaps burned alive (satire). Instead we listen as they advocate that we buy up the debt, and take a huge loss in doing it, so as to re-constitute Mammon. I have read every statement by the three aforementioned characters, and essentially that is their plan. Borrow money from China or print more treasury notes or both, buy up the debt and reconstitute the money lending empire which put us in this mess. It will be, as it is now, a society built on debt. Well, debt for some and filthy profits (mammon) for CEOs who will repeat this whole fiasco down the road, if there is enough time for them to do so. In the mean time, where is the public good? You must pass this bill they say. Then the Democrats say okay, just give us some things we want. They then claim they support the middle class, but pushing for some relief for tax payers and some such things is not sufficient to solve the problem. Then come in the free market economists with their fairy tales.

It is truly incredible. They will blame the current crisis on a whole host of things. They will blame Bush as I blame him, but for different reasons. They will condemn the bailout as I do, but not because they believe there is something better, but because government shouldn't be involved in the market forces which shape the economy. This is where the fairy tales are necessary. What the hellen keller are market forces? They are rather like the tooth fairy or the easter bunny, they neither exist nor communicate any valuable message or moral in their telling. There is no such thing as a market force, or markets which rebound or markets which come into being or crash, or for that matter which are free. There are men who determine the actions other men must make by their inventments, their trades, and their blunders. There are men who initiate bad practices, and other men who react to them. But there is no hidden hand at Wall Street which comes into play and guides men safely so long as governments leave it alone. Yet that is what they will have you believe. If only George Bush didn't interfere with the market, after all, sub-prime mortgages are his fault according to one author, part of a scheme to create an "ownership society" (the horror if men owned something and didn't pay greedy bankers!) like in Argentina. Or, this is all the fault of tax policies and spending.

All of that is fiction. The situation we are in arose precisely because government followed these principles and provided no oversight and no intervention, just as Economic liberals want. The reality is that Free Market Economics (i.e. Economic Liberalism) are a failure. The current situation allows us to write economic liberalism's obituary as surely as Richard Pipes could write Communism's obituary. They will still gasp from the grave, just as the leftover communists do today, but it is clear that Free Market principles are as effective in economics as excrement is at keeping away flies. We need government regulation in the economy to make sure that greed, the sole force involved in a "free market" does not endanger the public good.

However, what kind of government intervention we need is the real question. The answer should be that which tends toward the common good. When we consider government intervention in that light, it is incumbent upon voters to reject this proposed $700 billion bale out on its face as a phony solution which will do nothing to "sure up the economy", that is make it stable. (They won't, they will take it as they have taken every step of Bush's creation of National Socialism, and this is no exception).

A stable economy is necessarily defined by real ownership. It is sad that ownership must be qualified with the adjective "real", but today people have the idea that when they are paying three or four times what something is worth that they actually own the thing rather than that they are renting it from the bank until the latter has several pounds of flesh, which as we have seen they can then invest badly or soundly, not dependent upon illusory market forces but upon the skills or lack thereof of the investor. People have the idea that an Ipod bought on a credit card is "theirs". Regardless there is no ownership in that scenario, except on the part of those who have caused the economic meltdown, which are a gross minority. The "bail-out plan" does nothing to fix the lack of equity in society's ownership. Worse than that even, is that there is no standard by which worth is to be judged in all of this worthless debt which the government is about to buy, only to sell back in the future. How do we know that the banks will not cheat the government? Will the government, staffed by individuals who used to work for the same firms which they are now bailing out, such as Mr. Paulson a former Goldman-Sachs employee, act in the people's interest or in the bank's interest? Yes, that is rhetorical. Like all political hacks and quislings, from Bush down to the lowest treasury appointee, they serve the banks, as they have for 150 years if not more.

Even worse than all of that, is the fact that this plan as it is currently proposed gives unprecedented power to government bureacrats in the treasury department. (source)They will be free from judicial overview, from congressional oversite, and answerable to no voter and no veto. And people wonder why I don't vote. You don't live in a democracy, you live in a National Socialist dictatorship, where the hands are hidden rather than seen like in Germany or Russia, where the change is gradual rather than sudden, as in Hitler's appointment or the Bolshevik Revolution. This is just the icing on the cake, and if this bill goes into effect that is exactly what it will create. But never mind that.

We were talking about stability. The plan, as old as the 1930's, is to bail out the fools who created the problem, thinking that if we re-establish the status quo, we won't end up in the same place. This is literally like saying we will put the train backward 20 miles, we will sure up the track, but don't worry, we won't end up in Chicago again. The primary problem is that what the bail out aims at creating is not a stable economy, nor a safe one. It is an attempt to stimulate business and lending. NOTHING MORE, by saddling you and I with worthless assets. This is nothing other than welfare for the rich.

If the government were to take an action that seriously aimed at helping people below a net worth of a million or so, there is one thing it could do. It is so simple as to be more or less unthinkable, principly because it is too human and religious. Amnesty.

Only a year ago amnesty was a hotly debated topic, being advocated by a majority of the government as a grand solution to the problem of illegal immigration. When opponents declared that it will only make the problem worse, proponents declared that they would re-structure the government and put laws in place to prevent an increase in illegal immigration.

Well...... no one said that such a thing couldn't work, only that the government would never live up to the committment. And one would probably have been right. Nevertheless, let us apply the same concept to this situation. The government could just declare an amnesty, particularly on mortgages. If it limited itself to this, and did not try to also bail out credit cards where more than 50% was spent on comoddities, then something unthinkable might be achieved: ownership. Some will say but this will only encourage people get into debt again. This is easily solved, place terms and conditions. The homeowner would have to agree not to sell for 7 years. That should be a fair amount of time to satisfy the governments interests and sure up some of the debt problem. Essentially what I am proposing is that debt be wiped right off of the books. Nothing for the rich, heaven knows they can afford it, afterall, they got us into the mess, there is no need to reward them.

Declaring an amnesty for home mortgages under certain conditions has more benefits: It prevents a wave of homlessness which certainly leads to crime while at the same time presents an asset with a verifiable value, as opposed to the sewage debt that the banks will foist upon the government. Concommitant with this move would be to foster the growth of small business and local community. At the present slugs like you and I are seen by Wall Street as one thing: A consumer income. We don't own anything, we can not stop and buy a house or a car, but we can by worthless commodities, and we are told this will keep the economy running. We know now that this is false. The economy will not keep running because people buy chinese made crap at Walmart.

Yet what if we not only formed small economic communities, championed by ownership, but also produced goods which people need? You mean we don't need to get it from China? No. You mean I can buy it out of my pocket? Yes. You mean I can perform a service to society or produce something for it, rather than speculate about it in New York? Damn straight.

But it won't happen. To do that means alienating the money class, the business owners, the banks, and all of their cronies in government, presuming they are not running the whole show from behind the scenes. To do that means dismantling the status quo and getting people to think differently, which the government has no interest in. Hilaire Belloc essentially said the same thing a hundred years ago in his classic "The Servile State". In that work, he predicted that the capitalist state, constituted as it was in England at the beginning of the 20th century (more or less what it is here and now, just on a smaller scale) would fall apart because credit would get so out of control some defaults would effect the whole system, and lead to an overall collapse and millions out of work, as with Capitalism's beginning. The solution? Slavery. When Belloc says we will return to slavery, he does not mean it in the sense of ancient Rome or Greece, because he recognized that we have created such an animus to slavery. So instead of "slavery", it will be reinstituted under a different name, "lifetime employment". A well to do banker, bailed out by Mr. Paulson's plan, will one day be able to go to the employment office and pick up a "lifer", someone guaranteed to work for him for life.

In the event you are shaking your head in disbelief, consider the results of my non-scientific sociological experiment. Feel free to conduct it yourself. Just in the work place, both of them in fact, I popped the question to various co-workers of different sexes and positions, through a general run down of how in the future we will lose our jobs, and then slavery will be introduced only it will be called "lifetime employment. Out of 50 people, only 2 people objected. The response from everyone else was "well, that sounds kind of nice actually. Job security", or "Well, I wouln't have to pay for food and rent, would I?" I suppose not. Freedom in exchange for food and shelter. People have lived long enough without owning or producing anything of value, that food, clothing and shelter for free for life won't be such a bad deal in exchange for work.

Community Supported Agriculture

2008-04-21T02:44:00.000-07:00

From: The Idaho Statesman

Casey O'Leary pedals to her dream job, towing a shovel, a hoe, a rake and a flat of tiny vegetable starts on her bike trailer. Her rubber boots shed yesterday's mud as she rides.

Her dog, Norm, who has been waiting all morning, runs alongside her on their way to a small plot of land - one of three that O'Leary cultivates in Boise's Collister neighborhood.

"I used to think I had to get out of the city to get back to nature," O'Leary said. "Urban farming is the ideal interface between city and country."

You won't find O'Leary at the farmers market. She already has sold her harvest to 25 shareholders, or members of her CSA farm. They've paid upfront for 18 weeks of fresh food.

"My members just cherish the work I do," O'Leary said. "It's because of them that I'm able to have this absolutely beautiful life that I love so much."

WHAT'S A CSA?

Community-supported agriculture is a mouthful to say, but it is an easy idea to grasp.

Members agree to pay farmers in advance of planting for a season of food. That gives farmers money when they need it most, in early spring.

Members receive a guaranteed source of fresh produce and the security of knowing where their food comes from, how it was grown and who grew it.

"I like to buy as much as I can from the farmer directly," said Nina Bied, a CSA member of Morning Owl Farm in Southeast Boise. "Food is our medicine. If we eat the proper food, why would our bodies break down?"

Farmers and members also share the risk of crop failure, which helps keep small-acreage farms in business.

Most farmers have a drop site for vegetable pickup once a week, although arrangements vary. For $4 extra a week, for example, O'Leary will make a home delivery, by bicycle.

To market directly to eaters, farmers who want to use a CSA model often must learn to navigate the Internet, network among social groups and put in lots of face time every week, in addition to completing the work the growing cycle demands.

"There's a myth that it's the D students who end up on the farm," O'Leary said. "I've never been more intellectually challenged in my life."

Since the publication of recent books "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver, the idea of eating locally grown food has swept into the national consciousness, O'Leary said.

Shares of her farm sold out last fall, and by March 15, most CSA memberships in the Treasure Valley were taken.

Despite the spark in interest, only about 10 farms in the Treasure Valley offer CSAs. Several of them are profiled here. Each has modified the traditional model to fit its needs.

CHANGING FOOD CULTURE

Eaters in the United States usually decide what's for dinner while contemplating a large selection of produce from around the country and the world.

The CSA model turns that culture on its head. A member starts with a bag of food and makes meals with what's inside.

A typical share feeds a family of four. Some farmers sell half shares, and others offer work opportunities in exchange for shares. Most shares in Treasure Valley farms cost $300-$550 for 18-22 weeks of food.

Mary Ann Newcomer has a share in O'Leary's CSA.

"The first year, it was hard to keep up with the amount we got," she said. "I ended up making greens the centerpiece of the meal and pushed the store-bought chicken and fish to the side."

Eating what's growing in season can be a challenge. Many CSA farmers provide recipes and helpful hints with their produce every week to introduce members to vegetables they've never seen before.

MORNING OWL FARM

Because CSA farmers have to supply food every week, about 20 percent of the vegetables they grow no one has heard of, said Mary Rohlfing, who operates Morning Owl Farm in East Boise.

But not everyone wants to add exotic vegetables to their diet. This year, Rohlfing is trying something new with her CSA. She's setting up a farm stand on Wednesday nights, where members can buy what they want with their pre-paid shares. The stand will be open to the public on Thursday nights.

"My fear is, what if everyone wants carrots?" she said. "What about the bok choy?"

Nina Bied, a member of Rohlfing's CSA, said she's excited about the farm stand but never had a problem getting her two kids to eat vegetables.

"I teach my children about all the vegetables and fruits," she said. "To them, whatever I cook for them is great."

Rohlfing started her CSA five years ago because she liked the idea of being connected to the people who ate the food she grew. It is that connection - the phone call in February from a member having tomato dreams - that keeps her farming, she said.

"You start with a love of your fellow species, and then you want to feed them all," Rohlfing said.

Rohlfing uses ducks, about 300 of them, to maintain the ecosystem on her farm. They eat the bugs and weeds, lay eggs and provide manure.

"We're becoming a no-till farm. We run the ducks," she said. "I don't have to run a tractor over three acres of land, and that's better for everybody."

Rohlfing recently received a $15,000 grant from Western Sustainable Agriculture Research Eduction. The program is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

She will study the viability of using ducks for many purposes on a farm. She will let 40 ducks graze on a pasture for three years as part of the study.

Research is nothing new for Rohlfing. In her past life, she was a tenured professor at BSU.

"Health insurance is a scary thing to let go of," she said.

Part of what motivated her to change her life was a conversation she had with her uncle shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Her uncle had walked home from his office in the World Trade Center.

"He said to me, 'You need to do what you want to do, and you need to be fearless,' " she said.

FARMING IN THE SUBURBS

Farmers for hire Doreen Guenther and Jenn Harrington signed a three-year contract to manage production at the Hidden Springs Community Farm.

When the subdivision was built, the developer saved the farm, Guenther said, which was certified as organic last year.

This is their first year running the CSA. Only five of the 26 acres will be in production.

"Having two brains is nice," Guenther said. "I can see why families want to do this together."

Guenther and Harrington offer 200 shares, as well as a work-share program - four hours of work a week in exchange for a share. Shares are open to anyone, not just residents of Hidden Springs; there still are some left.

"We did a preseason survey of former members," Harrington said. "They told us they want more of the basics."

NOT JUST VEGGIES

The Vogels used to raise just hogs on their Kuna farm. They exported the meat to Japan.

As the houses got closer, they felt the need to downsize and try to sell the meat in the Treasure Valley. Having a CSA is part of their farm's survival strategy.

"No way, if we expanded, would we recoup the money," said Debi Engelhardt-Vogel, who operates the farm with her husband, Eddie. "Doing this, we hope we can stay here longer."

According to a 2002 study by the American Farmland Trust, 1.2 million acres of farmland nationwide is lost annually to development - about two acres of farmland per minute.

In the six years between 1997 and 2003, Idaho lost 56,600 acres of farmland to urban development, according to the National Resources Inventory.

The Vogels raise hogs and cattle and will add about 100 chickens by midsummer. All the animals are born and raised in Kuna and butchered, frozen and USDA certified in Meridian.

"So much of the cost of meat comes from getting it places," Engelhardt-Vogel said. "When you buy meat at the store, you don't know where it came from."

The Vogels grow their own feed, sending the cattle out to pasture to forage for themselves. They don't use antibiotics or hormones, and their animals are left to grow at their own rate.

A full share in the Vogel's CSA includes 30 pounds of meat, pork and beef, for $107 a month plus tax. For subscriptions that are paid six months in advance, the Vogels pay the taxes.

"Some customers will buy a whole hog (140 pounds) and just take a beef subscription," Engelhardt-Vogel said.

They'll also have a stand at the Kuna Farmers Market.

Eddie Vogel's family has been in the hog business for more than 50 years. Debi moved to Kuna from Seattle after she and Eddie married 10 years ago.

"I hated pork when I lived in Seattle," she said. "It was tasteless. I had to marinate it."

FROM ORCHARD TO FIELD

Cathy and Chan Cabalo keep their bees in the fridge, so the pollinators think it is winter until the apple trees blossom.

The Cabalos started farming four years ago on Cathy's family orchard of about 1,000 trees. They grow four kinds of apples and three kinds of pears, along with pie cherries, prunes and plums.

"When we took over the farm, we assumed they had a clientele," Cathy Cabalo said. "Three years ago, we had a beautiful crop and no one to buy it."

She remembered how her dad used to talk about the Kuna Farmers Market, but it didn't exist when she moved home. So she and her husband set about reviving it.

"We used to go with whatever I could put in the back of a Suburban," she said.

The success of the Kuna Farmers Market led them to try a CSA this year for the first time. They plan to cultivate four acres of vegetables, a large part of which will be a you-pick pumpkin patch.

"I have to be able to fill the subscriptions and still have enough to go to market," Cathy Cabalo said. "My first number was 10, but I thought if I could do 10, I could do 20."

The Cabalos still have shares available.

Three years ago, they converted to organic practices because their daughter has allergies, Cathy said.

"We had a crop failure in the orchard when we were switching," Cathy said. "Every single apple had a sting here or a bite there. It takes a while to regain the balance."

The Cabalos feel the pressure from residential development encroaching on their farm.

They are teaming up with the Vogels to offer events, like an apple blossom festival, throughout the growing season to connect people from town with where their food comes from.

Plainly visible through the rows of bare trees in early spring, a McMansion sits at the far side of their orchard.

"Someday, somebody's gonna starve to death because we grew houses and not food," she said.

Orestes Brownson on the oppression of "Free Labour"

2008-04-08T02:31:00.000-07:00

Orestes Brownson was a late convert to Catholicism in the 19th century, and described by the Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman as "The Greatest thinker the United States has ever produced."

From The Boston Quarterly Review; 3 (1840): 368-370

In regard to labor, two systems obtain: one that of slave labor, the other that of free labor. Of the two, the first is, in our judgment, except so far as the feelings are concerned, decidedly the least oppressive. If the slave has never been a free man, we think, as a general rule, his sufferings are less than those of the free laborer at wages. As to actual freedom, one has just about as much as the other. The laborer at wages has all the disadvantages of freedom and none of its blessings, while the slave, if denied the blessings, is freed from the disadvantages.

We are no advocates of slavery. We are as heartily opposed to it as any modern abolitionist can be. But we say frankly that, if there must always be a laboring population distinct from proprietors and employers, we regard the slave system as decidedly preferable to the system at wages.

It is no pleasant thing to go days without food; to lie idle for weeks, seeking work and finding none; to rise in the morning with a wife and children you love, and know not where to procure them a breakfast; and to see constantly before you no brighter prospect than the almshouse.

Yet these are no infrequent incidents in the lives of our laboring population. Even in seasons of general prosperity, when there was only the ordinary cry of "hard times," we have seen hundreds of people in a not very populous village, in a wealthy portion of our common country, suffering for the want of the necessaries of life, willing to work and yet finding no work to do. Many and many is the application of a poor man for work, merely for his food, we have seen rejected. These things are little thought of, for the applicants are poor; they fill no conspicuous place in society, and they have no biographers. But their wrongs are chronicled in heaven.

It is said there is no want in this country. There may be less in some other countries. But death by actual starvation in this country is, we apprehend, no uncommon occurrence. The sufferings of a quiet, unassuming but useful class of females in our cities, in general seamstresses, too proud to beg or to apply to the almshouse, are not easily told. They are industrious; they do all that they can find to do. But yet the little there is for them to do, and the miserable pittance they receive for it, is hardly sufficient to keep soul and body together.

And yet there is a man who employs them to make shirts, trousers, etc., and grows rich on their labors. He is one of our respectable citizens, perhaps is praised in the newspapers for his liberal donations to some charitable institution. He passes among us as a pattern of morality and is honored as a worthy Christian. And why should he not be, since our Christian community is made up of such as he, and since our clergy would not dare question his piety lest they should incur the reproach of infidelity and lose their standing and their salaries? . . .

The average life--working life, we mean--of the girls that come to Lowell, for instance, from Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, we have been assured, is only about three years. What becomes of them then? Few of them ever marry; fewer still ever return to their native places with reputations unimpaired. "She has worked in a factory" is almost enough to damn to infamy the most worthy and virtuous girl. . . .

Where go the proceeds of their labors? The man who employs them, and for whom they are toiling as so many slaves, is one of our city nabobs, reveling in luxury; or he is a member of our legislature, enacting laws to put money in his own pocket; or he is a member of Congress, contending for a high tariff to tax the poor for the benefit of the rich; or in these times he is shedding crocodile tears over the deplorable condition of the poor laborer, while he docks his wages 25 percent. . . . And this man too would fain pass for a Christian and a republican. He shouts for liberty, stickles for equality, and is horrified at a Southern planter who keeps slaves.

One thing is certain: that, of the amount actually produced by the operative, he retains a less proportion than it costs the master to feed, clothe, and lodge his slave. Wages is a cunning device of the devil, for the benefit of tender consciences who would retain all the advantages of the slave system without the expense, trouble, and odium of being slaveholders.

2008-04-03T16:00:00.001-07:00

Distributism in Action

As John Médaille from The Distributist Review pointed out recently, various new endeavors are in preparation for the coming year.

We hinted in the past about a future conference. Now we are working in earnest to secure a site and date for the event. This will be a full day conference with eight speakers who have generously offered their time and support. Please return to our site for updates as developments unfold.

A Grassroots Movement Rising…Again

The original Distributist League initially met at the Devereux pub and spawned 24 like-minded branches across Great Britain within a single year.* These in turn hosted lectures and conferences, and coordinated with complimentary organizations such as Fr. McQuillan’s Catholic Land Association.

In recent years, many have made efforts to re-introduce Distributism and, as a result, discussions surrounding the topic have been increasing on the world-wide-web. These consequences are not negligible. Book publishers, online and print journals, lectures, universities, and television programs have either touched on the topic or have dedicated themselves to it.

Short-term Goals

We would like to notify our readers of the following proposed objectives we will meet:

1. The establishment of a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to educate society about and in support of Distributism. This apostolate will engage in the dissemination of educational materials, semi-annual lecture series, and conferences.

2. A chronicle in print is in development with the intent of discussing solutions to our current global dilemmas. Conceptually the magazine will concentrate on both the practical application of Distributism, as well as analysis of various movements conformes with Distributist thought. This journal will include some of the writers featured on our online archive and debates with capitalists and socialists will also be welcome.

3. Fund-raising will play a supporting role towards keeping our costs down for events and all materials. All profits will be used toward our described efforts.

You Can Have an Impact

Send us an email and let us know whether you would like to be contacted with updates and information about said events. We will not release your information to any third parties and you will not have to provide your name if you desire not to do so. Just send us an email that you wish to subscribe and please provide us with your country of residence, city and state/province. This will assist us when preparing future events.

Ultimately we would like to lecture across the globe, so please support this effort by being a part of the mailing list

Establishing a database will allow us to quantify the existing support for these ventures, and inform our readers when and where they will take place.

Please contact us at:

societyfordistributism@gmail.com **

Country of residence:
City:
State/Province:

Sending us your information will be invaluable in our efforts to coordinate these goals

Servire Deo Regnare Est!

Richard Aleman
The ChesterBelloc Mandate

*According to John Michael Thorn’s book, An Unexplored Chapter in Recent English History, these branches were founded between 1926 and 1927.
**Upon the establishment of a non-profit, we will notify our subscribers of our new email address.

Tent City

2008-03-16T05:35:00.000-07:00

Tent city in suburbs is cost of home crisis
Subprime woes plague California
By Dana Ford

ONTARIO, California (Reuters) - Between railroad tracks and beneath the roar of departing planes sits "tent city," a terminus for homeless people. It is not, as might be expected, in a blighted city center, but in the once-booming suburbia of Southern California.

The noisy, dusty camp sprang up in July with 20 residents and now numbers 200 people, including several children, growing as this region east of Los Angeles has been hit by the U.S. housing crisis.

The unraveling of the region known as the Inland Empire reads like a 21st century version of "The Grapes of Wrath," John Steinbeck's novel about families driven from their lands by the Great Depression.

As more families throw in the towel and head to foreclosure here and across the nation, the social costs of collapse are adding up in the form of higher rates of homelessness, crime and even disease.

While no current residents claim to be victims of foreclosure, all agree that tent city is a symptom of the wider economic downturn. And it's just a matter of time before foreclosed families end up at tent city, local housing experts say.

"They don't hit the streets immediately," said activist Jane Mercer. Most families can find transitional housing in a motel or with friends before turning to charity or the streets. "They only hit tent city when they really bottom out."

Steve, 50, who declined to give his last name, moved to tent city four months ago. He gets social security payments, but cannot work and said rents are too high.

"House prices are going down, but the rentals are sky-high," said Steve. "If it wasn't for here, I wouldn't have a place to go."

'SQUATTING IN VACANT HOUSES'

Nationally, foreclosures are at an all-time high. Filings are up nearly 100 percent from a year ago, according to the data firm RealtyTrac. Officials say that as many as half a million people could lose their homes as adjustable mortgage rates rise over the next two years.

California ranks second in the nation for foreclosure filings -- one per 88 households last quarter. Within California, San Bernardino county in the Inland Empire is worse -- one filing for every 43 households, according to RealtyTrac.

Maryanne Hernandez bought her dream house in San Bernardino in 2003 and now risks losing it after falling four months behind on mortgage payments.

"It's not just us. It's all over," said Hernandez, who lives in a neighborhood where most families are struggling to meet payments and many have lost their homes.

She has noticed an increase in crime since the foreclosures started. Her house was robbed, her kids' bikes were stolen and she worries about what type of message empty houses send.

The pattern is cropping up in communities across the country, like Cleveland, Ohio, where Mark Wiseman, director of the Cuyahoga County Foreclosure Prevention Program, said there are entire blocks of homes in Cleveland where 60 or 70 percent of houses are boarded up.

"I don't think there are enough police to go after criminals holed up in those houses, squatting or doing drug deals or whatever," Wiseman said.

"And it's not just a problem of a neighborhood filled with people squatting in the vacant houses, it's the people left behind, who have to worry about people taking siding off your home or breaking into your house while you're sleeping."

Health risks are also on the rise. All those empty swimming pools in California's Inland Empire have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes, which can transmit the sometimes deadly West Nile virus, Riverside County officials say.

'TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECT'

But it is not just homeowners who are hit by the foreclosure wave. People who rent now find themselves in a tighter, more expensive market as demand rises from families who lost homes, said Jean Beil, senior vice president for programs and services at Catholic Charities USA.

"Folks who would have been in a house before are now in an apartment and folks that would have been in an apartment, now can't afford it," said Beil. "It has a trickle-down effect."

For cities, foreclosures can trigger a range of short-term costs, like added policing, inspection and code enforcement. These expenses can be significant, said Lt. Scott Patterson with the San Bernardino Police Department, but the larger concern is that vacant properties lower home values and in the long-run, decrease tax revenues.

And it all comes at a time when municipalities are ill-equipped to respond. High foreclosure rates and declining home values are sapping property tax revenues, a key source of local funding to tackle such problems.

Earlier this month, U.S. President George W. Bush rolled out a plan to slow foreclosures by freezing the interest rates on some loans. But for many in these parts, the intervention is too little and too late.

Ken Sawa, CEO of Catholic Charities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, said his organization is overwhelmed and ill-equipped to handle the volume of people seeking help.

"We feel helpless," said Sawa. "Obviously, it's a local problem because it's in our backyard, but the solution is not local."

© Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.

Vintage Distributism

2008-03-08T20:00:00.000-08:00

"Usury", as found in "Essays of a Catholic"
by Hilaire Belloc

Suppose there is an oasis of date-palms in the desert, the water-supply of which is got at by very primitive means. There comes a financier who lends money for development. The capital is productively used; artesian wells are sunk; the water-supply is largely increased; a better organization of the date-cultivation is begun; the produce of the oasis rapidly grows from year to year; the profits legitimately demanded by the financier are a apart of the total extra annual wealth, the presence of which has been due to his enterprise. All are well-to-do; everything flourishes.
Then, whether through fatigue, or through war or pestilence, or variations in the eternal market, or some calamity of climate, things begin to go wrong. The annual wealth produced by the oasis declines. But the interest on the money lent must still be paid. As the cultivators get more and more embarrassed they borrow in order to pay that interest, and there comes a time of "overlap," during which, paradoxically enough, the banker appears to be more and more prosperous, though the community which supplies him is getting less and less so. But it is mere arithmetic that the process must come to an end. There will arrive a moment after which the cultivator can no longer find the money to pay the interest, which has long since ceased to be morally due. Mere coercion under an all-powerful police system has got the last penny out of him. The "overlap" between real prosperity and apparent-merely financial or paper- prosperity ceases; and the temporary wealth enjoyed by the lender comes to an end, as had previously come to an end the real prosperity of the borrower.
In other words, great banking prosperity in any particular period may be, and commonly is, the proof of all-round prosperity in that period; but it is not necessarily nor always so. The one is not an inevitable adjunct of the other.

"Island Hopping" to Distributism

2008-02-27T17:05:00.000-08:00

by Athanasius

In the Second World War, the United States employed a tactic known in our history books as "Island hopping", to defeat the Japanese. Instead of merely throwing all of our military might indiscriminately, we took key Islands in order to create a path straight to the Japanese mainland.

Whenever large tasks are undertaken correctly, they are taken in this manner, by prioritizing and making gains step by step, even if the gains added up do not equal the over all objective, they may in fact lead to it.

Today however, the way men engage in accomplishing tasks suggests that they don't understand this philosophy. Likewise they look at step by step strategies as cumbersome rather than throwing weight at the problem. It would be as if they were to look down on General MacArthur and chide him for making his troops fight to the death with the Japanese over a mile wide strip of island.

The greatest example of that today is in the political process here in the United States. When men try to take on the institutionalized 2-party juggernaut of "Republicrat" and "Democan", they usually aim for the mainland without securing the island path by running presidential candidates who have no recognition and whose message is rarely heard.

"Island hopping" a third party into existence takes time and patience, perhaps as much as ten years to run candidates at a local level before acquiring state and later national recognition, by which one could compete with the big parties. At present any 3rd party candidate running for president will be boxed out every time because of the lack of support and recognition, like a military strike for the main target that goes astray for lack of support and back up.

This is also true when we consider Distributism. There can be no question of walking out with a referendum to establish a distributist society, nor of laws enacted to establish Distributism without the edifice of support first. Thus like MacArthur, we must identify a) The goal and b) the steps to get there.

A. The Distributist society is one in which private productive property is widespread but limited so that the availability of property will always be present.

According to Belloc not every man needs to own his own property, but only a sufficient number to mark the society with a character of ownership. As Chesterton said, if a man chooses not to own, that's his own business, but the opportunity that is not present today for the rest of society will be. Another way to put it, is that we are going to create more Capitalists than the elite over at Wall Street. Laws are in force to keep the large unit from destroying the small, or the small from becoming too large, and in this fashion protecting ownership by the many.

B. The steps to get there are suggested best and most orderly in Hilaire Belloc's book An Essay on the Restoration of Property. Yet these are by no means the only ways to do it, nor is it some be all and end all. Belloc proposed a process by which a restoration might take place in England in his day. He wrote specifically of England because "If it can be done in England, it could be done anywhere." The beautiful thing about Distributism is that it is not limited to what the founders believed or thought, but is eminently adaptable. Thus it is not called Chester-Bellocism, because while their ideas serve as a strong foundation, they are not a fixed and stagnated list of proposals. Even within Distributism, there were disagreements. Arthur Penty believed in government price setting (for most of his life) while Chesterton and Belloc thought it was a rotten idea.

The first step, without which Distributism could never flourish, is to create the desire in men for ownership. If men do not want to own there is little chance of re-establishing ownership. There are many ways in which this could be done, certainly apologetics and spreading more information about Distributism is a start. Before I read Chesterton and Belloc's works I scarcely would have aspired to owning my livelihood. However even that would not be sufficient to sway most men who have now become accustomed to living as proletarians. The first step is to make ownership a thing possible for men to consider it is to remove the blatant bias in our laws and financial system for large entities. We do not have to favor small units necessarily, just make it so a small business could succeed.

Here I mean in the way of government taxes, fees, and endless rounds of paperwork and tax forms, which are easily dealt with by large units with their legions of law firms, and their large bank book, but not by the small business which must pay the same fees as with a smaller budget. Let us say if the government was to remove all inspection fees (but not the inspections!) on small businesses which made less than $60,000 a year (that figure after of course expenses such as salaries and taxes, accounting of losses, etc.); or minimizing the taxes on such businesses. My own Father was self employed for many years, and made somewhere near that amount, but then had to pay half of it to the government between state and federal taxes and fees, even absurd things like "use" taxes for his equipment. When one thinks of 50 cents of every dollar he makes going to Washington, it is little wonder he must think twice about a business. For larger operations, not only does 15 cents of every dollar go for Social Security, but 7 1/2 cents of every dollar he pays his employees must go to the government, while they pay the other 7 1/2 cents.

Perhaps the biggest corruption and scandal of the 20th century is the government thievery we otherwise call "Social Security" which became a big blank check that increasingly demands more and pays less, and now can scarcely meet its obligations. A reform in this obscene and ridiculous theft by the government under the guise of retirement care which allowed small businesses to keep that 15 cents of each dollar would be a huge boon to ownership. This is even before we have considered the points of Belloc's essay.

The next step after the desire for ownership has been established is to make it more possible to own property, and that is by actively penalizing the purchase of small institutions by larger ones, penalize mergers, and leave no or a tiny fee for small entities acquiring property from larger ones. The large institution can always shoulder the cost, but the small one cannot, thus you remove that penalty. Thus if a man wants to own a mechanic shop, (and following the earlier suggested, the $60,000 which he must make before he can begin to make $1 of profit to pay for groceries and bills has dwindled to something more reasonable at this time, like $10,000) and a large national chain such as Jiffy Lube (known for its poor service) comes in and buys his shop, they receive a large tax for doing so, something like 60 or 70% of the sale. If a man on the other hand wanted to buy a failing Jiffy Lube (again known for its shoddy service as many thousands can attest who have paid for new air filters several times and yet have the same one!) and make it into a small mechanic business, he has no tax on the sale, or perhaps 5%, and receives fees proportionally smaller for inspection. This process can be applied to the small grocer, the self employed contractor, co-owned or employee owned stores, etc. And particularly small agriculture. Instead of subsidizing farmers, which hurts them in the long run and hurts farmers around the world at present, we should be removing taxes and fees on agricultural output which is under a certain amount and raise on those of an amount to constitute agribusiness.

Ultimately, the next step must deal with Usery, which the Catholic Church has always and everywhere condemned. Hilaire Belloc gives an excellent description of Usery, it is money charged for money, rather than money charged for a productive loan. If a bank loans money, and demands a payment of so much extra of the loan regardless of the use and production from that money, this is what the Church has always condemned. Yet, if money should be given, even by a bank, and a percentage of the profits earned (plus the money back) are demanded, then the Church has nothing to say because one is entitled to the profits his money earned, just as the one who borrows the money is entitled to the profits he earned with the money.

Yet Usery is the source of the power of modern banking institutions, and it is the agent that maintains capital in the hands of but a few. It allows capital to be hoarded by a bunch of investment firms in New York and Geneva, when the community is starving for the substance to even make ends meet. The substantial credit card debt of the majority of our nation should be sufficient to attest to that, and the frankly criminal FICO system which is used as a pretext of denying even jobs to men who have made even a few mistakes. In some places you can not even rent an apartment if you have a "credit score below so much".

This power has to be positively broken in order for ownership to be achieved. The best way is to outlaw usery and limit the amount demanded on loans to the positive profit from it. Whether or not this can even be done in our modern plutocracies which we misname "democracy" is something which remains to be seen. The chief power in our system is in the hands of banks. I personally would not be surprised to discover that all of our elections were rigged by the same, but that is positive conspiracy theory for which I have no evidence. I am not even sure if it is true, it is only a thought.

Next, unrestrained competition needs to be reigned in. This is what Pope Pius XI tells us in Quadragesimo Anno, is the "poison spring from which all evils flow." A larger unit should not have the power to ruin the smaller one by taking losses the small man can never take with the aim of ruining his livelihood and taking the market share at the expense of the small man's family. The truth is, we are not free to do with our property what we please. Thus the state, in the form of the local authority (we'll get to local power over central power next) needs to set laws curbing unjust competition.

Local currencies help local communities establish a local economy, and as such allow local reckoning for goods and abilities to pay through barter or through other means, and keep the power over currency away from banks. Thus they go along way toward curbing unjust competition by giving a local standard for which companies must operate. To do this in our country the Federal Reserve Act must be repealed, and the Federal Reserve must be completely destroyed. It is a corrupt institution which holds more power over our country than all three branches of Government combined.

Lastly, if all of this can be done, the focus has to be on a local, rather than national or heaven forbid "global" economy. Global trade should only be carried out for goods which can not be produced locally. For local economies we need local power restored and centralized authority minimized. This is because a community has the most control over its local authorities and the least control over its central authorities. If a mayor wants to use emminent domain to steal your house and give it to the rich, some protest of 10,000 men is sufficient to detour him, since ignoring the protest would be the end of his political life. Yet, when the Supreme Court says that the government can steal your house and give it to the rich, what can you do?

Thus for local communities you need local bodies, such as can train, take on apprentices, make loans for property out of the overall group possessions, etc. Co-ownership of large machinery and factories for example would be a positive good in that direction, overseen by local authorities. A community will be more outraged and take more action over someone losing his property to unjust competition than a central authority which is more or less accountable to no one. Yet all of this hinges on people wanting the property. As I have mentioned before in my writings, Distributism can not be established by a minority over a majority like Capitalism or Communism, it must be something which comes from society itself as it did at the end of the Roman Empire in the West.

All of these of course are ways that it could be done, not ways that it must be done. Distributism is capable of adapting to new needs and new ideas, it remains the same in as much as it makes its aim for widespread ownership of property.

Books: Modernity's Abuse of an Art

2008-02-10T20:28:00.000-08:00

by Donald Goodman

Having read lately the words of the great Hilaire Belloc on modernity's ignorance of books and their importance (I'd encourage readers who aren't familiar with the work to read through it themselves, at Belloc Speaks: On the Decline of the Book), I thought I'd extend that to the decline of the mechanical art of the book---that is, to the simple make-up of a good, sturdy book. Like most crafts, that of bookbinding has suffered a vast decline in the modern age; but once, the make-up of a book was a piece of great artistry and talent.

Most modern readers will blink a little bit at this and, after remarking that they like a well-put-together book as much as anyone, will be perfectly satisfied with their paperbacks or hardcovers and never think another thing about it. But the fact is that modernity, thanks to the sort of thinking that gives rise to both capitalism and socialism, has destroyed a once great art, an art that deserves learning and maintaining for our descendents. That is the subject of this article.

I begin by saying that this article owes absolutely nothing to my own skill in this ancient art, which is slight and halting. For the knowledge contained herein, I am indebted first and foremost to the master binders at Colonial Williamsburg, who spent four good years answering my constant inquiries despite the fact that they didn't even know my name. Much of the technical knowledge, which could not be gained without an apprenticeship, I have acquired through reading, most especially Douglas Cockerell's Bookbinding and the Care of Books and Edith Diehl's Bookbinding: Its Background and Technique. Those interested in this most important craft are encouraged to seek further information there.

Books were once precious; purchasing one might take a month of an average man's wages, and the vast majority of the populace owned none or only one or two (generally the Bible or a Primer). The rich owned many, and the Church, of course, had many; but each of these was a work of art in itself, even speaking purely mechanically, independently of its content. Books carried knowledge, and knowledge is power; they imparted wisdom and understanding to those who understood them, and were formed and cared for appropriately considering this great, almost mystical, property which is uniquely theirs.

The book was a long time in developing, and always got better and more sensible until the arrival of modern economical philosophies rendered art a financial liability and artlessness an inducement to profit. A brief history of this development, drawn more or less entirely from Diehl's excellent work mentioned above, will be helpful in determining what I mean.

The first set of records put together for a specific purpose was the "foundation cylinder." Symbols were inscribed upon the outside of the cylinder, and the reader turned it as he read; when he had turned it all the way around, he had read the entire "book." This is, clearly, a cumbersome way of recording things, and is suitable only for short passages. A better form had to be devised.

It was followed by the clay tablet, a simpler though larger form of record, which was first used by the ancient Babylonians. Often the writing would continue from tablet to tablet, and they would be covered and organized by subject matter on shelves, just as books are. The first library in recorded history was of clay tablets, at Nineveh. It was destroyed along with that city at the fall of the Assyrian empire.

The classical scroll was first used in Egypt; papyrus sheets were pasted together, and the writer simply continued pasting until he was finished. The roll was then tightened and placed in a cylindrical container. This held writings very compactly, but was cumbersome to read, requiring the unrolling of the scroll in such a way as to prevent its complete unravelling but still permitting reading. The material of papyrus was used for millenia, but greatly limited the form of records. It was too brittle to be folded without breaking, which meant that it could never be used for a book. So the scroll was the only acceptable form until a better writing medium was devised.

That medium came with the invention of vellum. The skins of animals had been used for writing before, but they had always been prepared by tanning, like other leather. Vellum, however, is prepared not by tanning, but by another process too complicated to enter into here, though Diehl treats it in some detail. For a time vellum was used in scrolls just as papyrus was; however, the material permitted a superior form of record to develop.

Scrolls were generally inscribed (that is, written upon) in one of two ways. First, the lines would sometimes be continued all along the length of the scroll, then returned to the beginning. This was somewhat cumbersome for later reading, so the second form developed: continue the lines along the length of the scroll for some sensible distance, then return to just below where the first line began and start again. Continue doing this until one reached the bottom of the scroll, then start a new column. Essentially, this made a scroll a long line of pages lined up one after another. The new medium of vellum allowed these pseudo-pages to become pages in fact.

Somewhere in the Middle East, someone got the idea of folding the scroll, to make it into a pile of these "pages" that could be unfolded as one read. Two boards (unattached to the folded "scroll") were placed on top and underneath to keep the folds flat. This, of course, lent itself to another development: why not cut the folds off on one side, and keep the other side bound together, allowing one to just flip through the pages rather than having to unfold one side and fold up the other as one read? When the backs of these books were bound, and the boards on top and bottom were attached (now to protect the pages, rather than merely to keep them flattened), the early Christian codex was born. This was, for all intents and purposes, our book.

Such is the power of this seemingly simple form that no less a rationalist and scientific utopian than Isaac Asimov, in "The Ancient and the Ultimate," described the perfect form for preserving our thoughts and ideas for the future and for other men: nothing other than our ancient, perfect book. Yet despite its apparent simplicity, man took four thousand years to develop it, eighteen hundred years perfecting it---and only one hundred and fifty destroying it. But I'm afraid I'm moving ahead of myself; the book has still only just been made.

Throughout the Christian era, the book's form was strengthened and made more permanent, more eduring, to befit most of the material which was being bound, the classics of pagan and Christian philosophy and, of course, of the Christian religion, especially the Scriptures and books of the Sacraments. Gradually, the boards came to be attached to the manuscript itself; cords were sewn to the signatures, or leaves, of the book, and they were then laced into the boards (generally oaken, at least in northern Europe), ensuring the permanency of the binding. These boards would then be covered by leather of many types, from pigskin to lamb. The medieval craftsmen withheld no effort or expense in their quest to make permanent, beautiful volumes; the cords used for binding were not single, but double, and made of leather; even the head and tail guards were sewn throughout and laced into the boards. This was the age when binding, as such, truly came into being; these books would last for centuries, and when they finally did wear out, after five or six hundred years, they could be unbound, the paper still intact, and rebound with new boards and covers.

The medieval diligence was relaxed somewhat with the invention of printing; the volume of books was simply too great to permit such extravagance with every project. However, permanency and beauty was never sacrificed; the cords were no longer doubled, perhaps, and the boards were no longer wooden; the head and tail guards were not sewn throughout, nor were they laced in. But the quality of these books was still superb; and the stronger, older bindings could still be executed for books of particularly lasting value, like the Scriptures or the breviary.

A summary of the condition of the book at this point (call it the late eighteenth century) would be helpful. Books of any lasting value (that is, everything but propaganda tracts, almanacs, and the like) were printed mostly on paper, not vellum; however, this was rag paper, not wood pulp paper, and would last literally for centuries without deterioration of any significant kind. I personally have handled four-hundred-year-old rag paper and found it still supple, not at all brittle, and though it had been handled repeatedly and even occasionally roughly it was in perfectly legible and sturdy order.

Many "pages" of the book were printed on a single sheet of this rag paper; the bookbinder took these large sheets (often called "broadsides," on which newspapers are still printed) and folded them appropriately so that the pages would all appear in the proper sequence. These folded sheets are known as "signatures." The binder then pressed the signatures for several days to ensure that they would lay perfectly flat; this done, he put the back of the book (what we now would call, improperly for modern books, the "binding") against cords, made of acid-free linen (medieval binders used leather, stronger but stiffer), generally five in number, and sewed each and every signature, by hand, to each and every cord, adding a "kettle-stitch" about halfway between the final cord and the end on both the top and bottom of the back. He used linen thread for this, as well; cotton deteriorates too quickly, and tends to be weak under pressure. He later laced the cords firmly into the front and back boards (what we'd call, properly for modern bindings, the "covers"), to ensure their firm attachment.

The signatures sewn, he began a complicated process known as "backing," in which the back ("binding") of the book was treated so that it would open freely and easily (indeed, such books could be opened and folded back on themselves without any harm to the back itself, though with today's books such activity is disastrous). This involved many steps, not least of which involved covering the whole of the back in a fine layer of hide glue (too much would make the back brittle; too little, weak). It was important to ensure that the curvature of the back was precisely correct, or the book would be too "tight" (that is, it would not rest open, but constantly try to
close itself by the force of its back). Furthermore, the few signatures at the beginning and the end of the book had to be knocked down, so that, when the boards were added, they would form a tight joint, without knocking them down so much that they would overlap, and possibly lose parts of their texts into the binding. This was rightly considered the most delicate part of the process, short of decorating the actual covers.

After the book was backed, the binder would put on the head and tail pieces (small lines of linen on the top and bottom of the back; these prevented the pages from getting caught or worn when the book was removed from or replaced on the shelf, and were often quite an art form in themselves).

Then the boards would be added. These were not simply pasted to the end papers (the blank sheets on the top and bottom of the book), as they are in modern books, but were firmly attached and seen as an integral part of the volume. When the book was backed, the binder had knocked down the two edges of the curve to provide a spot for the joint between the back and the boards. Now, the boards were fitted into that joint. The location of the cords were marked on the boards; the boards were removed, and the binder then punched holes in them at the proper locations. He then replaced the boards in the joints, one at a time, and laced the cords (already sewn, remember, individually to each and every signature) through the boards. Care was taken that the boards were not attached too firmly, lest the book not open far enough or easily enough; properly, the book should, when opened and set on a table, rest opened without any tendency to close itself, and without any damage being done to the binding (note that in modern books this behavior can only be achieved by "cracking" the binding, which completely ruins what little strength it has). This completed, the book was ready for the final step: the covering.

The binder had several choices for covering, conventionally known as the quarter-cover, the half-cover, and the full-cover. The quarter cover consisted of leather wrapped around the back of the book and over part of the sides; it was rarely used. The half-cover, much more common, consisted of a quarter cover embellished by leather also wrapped around the two fore corners; it was common for utilitarian volumes like bankbooks. Finally, the full cover, utilized for any book of lasting and significant value, consisted of leather wrapped around the entirety of the book. This cover would often be decorated, as explained below.

We'll presume a full-cover here. The leather was first treated; not chemically, but with a special blade called a "paring knife." The leather was pared, or thinned to the appropriate thickness. This had to be done with great care, lest the leather be thinned to the point that it was no longer strong enough to protect the volume. Various parts of the leather were kept thicker, and various thinner, depending on where strength and flexibility was most needed. The precise spots would vary based on the book itself and how its construction had proceeded. Especially important to pare were the edges; these had to be wrapped around the edges of the boards, and if too thick would prevent the book from closing flush to the pages, but if too thin would be prone to tearing from the edges of the boards.

Different types of leather would be selected. In medieval times, especially in northern Europe, pigskin was common; this was strong, of course, but also comparatively inflexible. By the heyday of the binder's craft, the early to mid eighteenth century, two types of leather were recognized as the best: skiver, or lambskin, which was strong but so thin that it scarcely required any paring, and Moroccan goatskin, which was highly valued for its skiver-like characteristics combined with its delightful reddish color.

The binder then applied a layer of wheat paste to the entirety of the inside of the leather; he then stretched the leather in one piece around the whole of the book. This had to be done quickly; the moisture of the wheat paste expanded the leather, and it would shrink as it dried, so it was important that it be in its proper place before the shrinkage began. Especially difficult were wrapping around the corners and at the binding, as the leather had to be folded properly behind itself at the binding, where there was no board for it to be wrapped around. Some edges, once the cover was on and dried, would be snipped; then the end papers were pasted on, over the edges of the leather. Remember that this was rag paper, and the paste did not have the ruinous effect that it has on cheap modern pulp.

It is important to note that for the master binder of binding's golden age, the cover served two purposes: strength and beauty. It did not hold the book together; it made the book stronger, more resistent to the elements, easier to use, and more beautiful. But the binding, the part that really held the book together in one piece, had already been done before the leather was even pared. That is, it was the binding part of the book: the backs of the signature sewn to the cords and properly backed. The cover added to its strength, but it did not form it. The book was firm and strong before the leather was ever added.

The leather would then be decorated, if desired. This decoration could be as elaborate or as simple as the nature of the book and the desire and talent of the binder were able to justify. The cover was decorated either with blind tooling (simple designs imprinted on the leather) or gold leaf (blind tooling into which real gold leaf was placed). Many binders created works not only of solid material craftsmanship, but also of stunning artistic beauty in this way.

Of course, shorter-lived books were bound differently; once pressed and flattened, the binder simply punched three holes from top to bottom on the back, then laced it together through them with some sturdy linen cords. This would do for works of only transient significance, such as almanacs, short stories, and political tracts (and was indeed considerably sturdier than most of even the strongest modern bindings). But lasting works were done as just described.

This, then, is the condition of the book after fifteen hundred years of development, the art being passed down and improved from master to apprentice for a millenium and a half. The book is a craft and an art; its focus is on quality, strength, and beauty first, and the profitability of the trade only second. Then, however, enter modernity and capitalism; the whole art begins to break down.

The nineteenth century began the doom of this great art. The first blow was the development of wood pulp paper; this supplanted almost entirely (and continues to supplant) the use of the studier and nearly immortal rag paper which had previously been used. This paper begins to deteriorate after a mere decade or so; if treated very well, it may last for a century or more, but only if treated very well. But the old rag paper lasted centuries even when treated badly and used heavily. This was unquestionably a step down, and began the change for bookbinding from long-lasting art to merely profitable business.

Bindings began to be reduced in quality. With signatures sewn strongly and beautifully on cords, the cords show through on the back, providing a beautiful and functional reminder of the book's solid craftsmanship and strength. For whatever reason, however, it became stylish to have smooth backs, and so binders, succombing to the all-important profit motive, often sacrificed the integrity of their craft on the altar of increased gain. They sawed into the backs of the signatures and embedded the cords within; this significantly reduced the strength of the back and the longevity of the paper, which with the introduction of wood paper had already been immensely reduced. Eventually, they began to sew the signatures on mere flimsy tapes, rather than the sturdy linen, or even leather, cords; this gave rise to the phenomenon of books only five or ten years old literally falling apart at their seams, the bindings sadly lasting even less time than the low-quality paper they attempt to hold together.

Soon, even true binding was abandoned; rather than binding the entire set of signatures together, a mere fraction of the signatures were sewn on three, rather than the usual and sensible five, cords. Soon, those cords were even eliminated, being replaced with flimsy plastic tapes. Most of the job of "binding" (that is, holding the signatures together) was now done by a layer of paste wiped over the back, a sad substitute for the strong bindings of the prior age. Those flimsy tapes were no longer laced into the boards, either, thus truly binding together the signatures, the boards, and the cover, but rather the boards were attached to the signatures only by the endpapers, pasted to the inside of the boards (once only one of the many ways in which the book was held together), and the cover (rarely if ever leather) merely wrapped around that, completely separate from the binding. This would rightly have shocked the traditional binder; the book is no longer really bound, but merely cased, with boards on either side, going almost all the way back to the old codex. The art, and even the trade, of really binding had died; now mere casing, almost universally mechanical, controls.

And all this decay, remember, is entirely hardcover; we have not even begun to mention the inferiority of paperback "bindings."

Why did this happen? For the same reason that all the great traditional crafts have been broken: the love of money. Binders (and, more often, their employers) could sell more books for less, and thus make greater profit, the lower the quality of their bindings. The average person, unschooled in the ancient art, won't know the difference, thinks a book is a book, and will simply buy without worrying about it. This is the death of crafts and the severe wounding of art, and a capitalist will never worry about it. Why should he? It must be good; it's increased the profit margins.

That's the reason that, for example, great architecture is practically never produced, why the capitalist age has never produced anything even remotely comparable to the Gothic cathedrals or the great palaces of the old world: there's no money in it. People need places to stay and do things; they'll stay and do things in a mediocre building just as readily as in a beautiful one, and it's much cheaper to build that way. They'll fancy a building up, of course; people like perks. But beauty isn't always profitable, so capitalism doesn't need it. Herein lies one of the greatest evils of capitalism (and with it, socialism, though for an entirely different reason): it kills art in the name of merely material gain.

This situation in books is parallel to that of many once-great arts, and many arts which could become great if not stifled by the all-powerful necessity of seeking the greatest possible profit with the least possible expenditure. What can the distributist do, practically, to help slow, or even reverse, this process? What we can do for books will provide some principles for what we can do with everything, even though naturally the details will change according to the subject.

For books, the first step is the most important: print fewer books. There is no need for the vast quantity of print that is churned out of publishing houses year after year. Certainly, there is no need to go back to copying vital manuscripts by hand; a large volume of books is a valuable and important thing. But a large volume of books is useful only if it is a large volume of good books. Can we honestly claim that the books which moderns are constantly cranking from the presses are vital to human flourishing? Some of them are, certainly; but the vast majority are frivolous, unnecessary, and often positively harmful publications that ought never to have been printed. They are published not because they will edify their readers, enlighten the populace, or serve to build virtue in society; they are published because they will sell well. To foster the mechanical art of books we must eliminate such frivolous publication. The fewer the books and the more important their content, the more likely that men will see their value and prepare them mechanically in a manner worthy of their subjects. Further, the fewer the books, the fewer men will buy; this will not only focus their attention more on the contents of those books, having less frivolous nonsense to read, but will make men more willing to spend the necessary funds on quality binding for those books, since they are buying many fewer. Granted, this point is beyond the purview of the binder and within that of the printer, but it's a necessary step in the process.

The second step is equally simple: guage the quality of binding based on the importance of the book. For example, when binding a copy of Holy Writ, the best of bindings is not good enough; we must always execute the most permanent possible binding for such volumes. Books of the Sacraments must be likewise treated with the utmost respect. This is difficult to understand, sometimes, in these postconciliar days, when new "translations" and "editions" and outright revisions of the sacred rites seem to be published every week or two, but when the world returns to some measure of sanity it will thank us for our care and foresight. Sacred books deserve only the best; we would not offer the Holy Mass with a mere wineglass, and neither should we hold our Scriptures in a low-quality paper case. Some books are more important than others, and ought to be treated as such. This will allow the binder to handle a large volume of books, and even make a profit from them, while still preserving the full glory of his craft where it is truly needed.

Most importantly, of course, and also the sine qua non, is what distributists have been saying since the notion of distributism was invented: institute and live out the Social Reign of Christ the King. Remember Christ, and remember that greed should not be the driving force of the economy. Encourage and enable craftsmen to free themselves from their employers and become their own masters, which will also free themselves from the demands of corporate profitability. Then, remind craftsmen that there are more important things than turning an ever-increasing profit far beyond what anyone needs to maintain themselves and their families. Hearken them back to the guilds of past ages, who carefully set their prices to ensure both affordability of their products, sustainability of their craftsmen, and, most relevant here, the integrity of their craft. Modernity doesn't care about craftsmanship unless it makes them money, and in this case it just doesn't make enough for the ever-increasing appetite of modern man. But a craftsman loves and values his craft; if he can make a living, he will settle for his living, and refuse to sacrifice his craft for the sake of getting more.

Our society does not encourage craftsmen; it encourages businessmen. Thus, it does not encourage production of works of craftsmanship, but rather of money. Let us try to change our society; let us focus once again on using our God-given talents not to produce greater quantities of digitized green paper, but on producing works of value, of beauty, and of grace. Only by submitting ourselves and our society to the rule of Christ the King can we overcome our greed and selfishness and focus instead on doing good. Let us work for and welcome that reign; only in this way can we regain this and all the other lost crafts and glories that we once raised up to our Savior.

I conclude with the prayer to our Almighty Father, that through the intercession of the glorious and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, the ancient art of bookbinding might return to its former glory, and the holy and elevated things will again be esteemed and treated as the precious things that they are. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Who founded Distributism? A response to TIA

2008-02-04T21:16:00.000-08:00

by Athanasius

There is a particular logical fallacy that is employed very frequently by the left and the right in national politics to reject an idea without even once engaging any of its ideas, or accurately depicting it to begin with. This fallacy is called "guilt by association". What it means is a syllogism is constructed in the following manner: A believes B. A is bad, therefore B is bad too. Take for example, any argument out of political debates of our day. Because a small percentage of Catholic priests are guilty of molesting young adolescent males, all Catholic priests are presumed to be involved in something bad. This is a clear case of guilt by association. Or, liberals eat organic food, liberals are bad, therefore organic food is bad. This type of absurd logic governs the lives of many people.

It is unusual however to find the same thing on the conservative side of things, coming from a Traditionalist entity which should be conscious of how logical and rational discourse ought to be carried out according to Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy.

Tradition in Action, which is a pro-Capitalist organization, has two articles attacking Distributism on their website. Interestingly, none of them deal with Distributism proper, none of them make an attempt to engage the ideas behind Distributism or its foundation in Catholic social teaching.

Both instead, engage in guilt by association and other empty reasoning which can be summarized thus: These two people are unlikeable, they were Distributists, therefore Distrubtism is unlikeable.

Here we will consider the first article, Eric Gill, the pedophile founder of Distributism, by Patrick Odou,TIA makes every misrepresentation possible, and then expects you to nod your head because, after all, Mr. Gill was a sexual reprobate.

A father and brother like Gill should raise the indignation of Catholics! They should have an equally strong rejection of any of his ideas. It is my opinion that this man should have been removed from society and put in a psychiatric hospital for sex maniacs. It seems absurd that a man with these moral patterns should be accepted and followed as an ideologue who knows what is good or bad for society. Notwithstanding, today we can see, even among Catholics, the name of this depraved father and brother being promoted as a founder of Distributism.....

Now, after studying Eric Gill, I see that Catholics are also being advised to stomach the terrible morals of a pornographic and blasphemous author. It is incomprehensible that any Catholic would suggest lending an ear to such a filthy creature.

The italicized portion should be of concern. What if he had an idea that also happened to be right? What happened to St. Thomas' principle that one should reject what is false from sources such as pagans and accept what is true?

Let us go one step further. Let us agree wholeheartedly that Eric Gill did what the author of this article alleges, and let us also agree Mr. Gill's art is profane and abominable, and that Catholics should be rightly indignant over his life. Based on my own research into Mr. Gill I have no reason to doubt any of that. The man was driven to perversion and had problems to say the least. He's despicable. How does that make him a "founder" of Distributive principles and how does that take away from the movements arguments. Furthermore, can Mr Odou point to any Distributist that has asked Catholics to accept Mr. Gill's aberrant morality? A further search of the Tradition in Action site reveals only people claiming Mr. Odou's facts were wrong. Nowhere do we find anyone saying that we must accept his life or imitate it. Morever Mr. Odou provides no citation from Gill's works on Distributism, or the article which appears in Distributist Perspectives that suggests any connection between Mr. Gill's disgusting private life and the belief that property should be well divided in society and the rights of the common man to own property should be protected against those of the wealthy. This is because there are none. Can no one say that because one pervert once said it? If so, then no one can be a Christian because one of the original founders betrayed his master for 30 pieces of silver. In fact, his master was known to eat with sinners and touch lepers. Probably not a good thing there.

In all honestly that is what it comes down to. The argument of Mr. Odou and all of TIA's remarks on Distributism are specious. It would be one thing if the article were to ask why Distributists would include a work by Gill in an anthology. I have the exact same question for IHS' editors. I would rather not be associated with Mr. Gill either, and his artwork would make better firewood than anything else. Did Mr. Odou or TIA attempt to contact the editors of IHS to find out why? They rightly ask the questions, but did they do anything that amounts to 2 minutes to write an e-mail? No.

Not only does that say nothing about Distributism, Gill is also not "the" founder much less a founder. By far the founders are Chesterton and Belloc. Without them there would not be a Distributist movement for Gill to be apart of. Chesterton and Belloc themselves derive their ideas from Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI who spells it out more clearly. In His encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI calls Free Market Capitalism a poisoned spring from which all evils flow. Perhaps Mr. Odou is going to suggest to us that Chesterton, Belloc and Pius XI were all pedophiles too, all because Eric Gill was? That follows from what he has already written, even though I am sure he would not say such a thing. It has nothing to do with "following Eric Gill", it has everything to do with following Catholic social teaching. If all he had to say was why are Distributists making use of this man who is a British version of Kinsey, I should echo him rather loudly. But he has gone much further and suggested that Distributism is to be rejected because this man held to it. That is intellectually irresponsible. Should we reject Catholicism because Popes such as Nicholas II, Alexander the VI and John XII broke the vows and engaged in sexual experimentation (and with the exception of Nicholas II while they were Pope!)? After all, we should not believe anything they held to!

It is shocking to see an organization dedicated to Catholic Tradition using shallow arguments more reminiscent of Communist smear tactics than clear Thomistic logic, but there you have it.

Lastly, in other articles such as this one, Mr. Odou claims again that all these men must have been in on something bad together, after all look, Eric Gill drew a picture of Belloc, he was Vice President of the League. What he forgets is men who live lives of sin often do so in secret, and unfortunately for Mr. Gill he didn't get away with it, what was wrought in darkness has been brought to light, and his fault will always injure a good cause. It is eminently possible that Mr. Gill could be guilty of all these things and more, and no one ever knew about it. Often people such as this have a certain dynamism that attracts people, or that leaves a lasting and respectable impression so that when you find out that such and such has happened, you are quite shocked. One would need that type of dynamism in order to keep his wife quiet (who undoubtedly knew all of this) and to get his daughters to allow an act of incest even at age 16 without all of this coming out in his lifetime. It is also possible that such people can have fundamental disconnects between something they acknowledge as true, and something they do which they know is evil. Can we not find Popes of this nature in history? Mr. Odou has failed to produce anything from Eric Gill's writings on Distributism that would suggest anything wrong with Distributism itself. The only thing produced was testimony from Gill himself proving he was a sick man and needed the grace of Jesus Christ to be saved, and we commend such twisted men to the mercy of our Lord.

2008-01-03T13:46:00.000-08:00

From The ChesterBelloc Mandate:

Editor's Note: The past few months have been quite busy for two reasons. The first is due to a book in the works. This book will be Chesterton and the Distributists as has not been seen since the early days of Distributism. The title of this work will be Found Wandering. More information on this will be posted as details are confirmed.

The second is as follows. We at the ChesterBelloc Mandate have considered and gathered information to form a possible Distributist conference by the end of 2008. This conference, and we might add it is not definite, will be successful by the attendance of our readers and those interested in Distributism.

While certain names have already been spoken to as possible guest speakers, many of whom our readers are familiar with, none have been confirmed as of yet. Talks would include topics about the origins of Distributism, economic history, the Distributist economic model, and what we can do to further Distributism in contemporary society. This would start as a one day conference and hopefully blossom in the years to come as a two-day. Lunch would be offered as an option to attendees as well as conference rates at the hotel for anyone wishing to stay overnight.

You can help.

As we need to get a pulse for the growing interest in Distributism and whether or not a conference like this is desired, we ask our readers to vote in our poll located at the sidebar. We ask that only those considering attendance vote. It is understandable that we have many readers overseas, however we ask that those voting are seriously considering attending a conference of this nature, here in the States.

The conference would most likely take place in New Jersey or New York City, both great locations for anyone attending in the New England and Tri-State area, as well as affording those in the Maryland and Washington areas the possibility of attendance. Of course, we hope some of those attending would consider flying or other means of transportation to attend, but we believe the Tri-State area is our best chance for exposure.

To vote, please go to The ChesterBelloc Mandate.

Thank you all for your patience these past couple of months. May this year be promising for all of us as we restore Christendom.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

2007-10-09T17:37:00.000-07:00

Brief excerpt from Dorothy Day
The Catholic Worker, February 1954

"We need to look back to the city states of Italy (all of their good aspects, as Kropotkin did) and to the guilds; to our own early American principles, "he governs best who governs least;" we need to study such a teacher as Don Luigi Sturzo who held political office and founded a party which worked towards credit unions, cooperatives, labor unions, land for the people, as the beginning of an order in which men could be conscious of their dignity and responsibility; we need to consider the principle of subsidiarity when we talk of authority and freedom.

Everything needs to be broken down into smaller units to be workable and according to man's nature, whether it is States, cities, factories. A union, a cooperative, is no better than the men in it, than the locals or cells which make it up.

Man must be responsible, in other words, to exercise his freedom which is God's greatest gift to him. The greatest message which Peter Maurin had for us was this reminder of man's freedom."

Busy

2007-09-23T15:40:00.000-07:00

We thank all of our regular readers and apologize to them for our absence. Unfortunately writing material for blogs doesn't pay our bills and we are all very busy. Please keep us in your prayers and keep coming! Hopefully we'll have updates soon.

Vintage Distributism

2007-09-15T13:20:00.000-07:00

Land for the People
by Fr. Vincent McNabb

Readers, and especially Distributist readers, of G.K.'s Weekly, must share the good news that has come to re-kindle the fires of Distributist hope. Before me, as I write, there lies a new journalistic venture called, convincingly, Land for the People. Its title-page tells us that it is the Organ of the Scottish Catholic Land Association, and that its editor is one not unknown to G.K.'s Weekly, the Rev. John McQuillan, D.D.

I think I am speaking the mind of the Editor of the organ, who is also President of the Association in saying that the Association has come of a conviction that the withered hand can be cured only by being stretched out. Propaganda by the spoken and the written word is of (chronologically) first importance, because "in the beginning is the word." But in practical matter words must end in deeds, because the doing of the work is of (really) first importance. To quote the wise wisdom of Aquinas; "Finis est principium in operabilibus" (in practical matter the end is the principle).

It was easy to see but hard to accept the fact that if Distributist energy was to be expended merely on the spoken or written word, the enemy could quietly advance its fighting line and halve its fighting forces. Distributism, in order to live, had to take action.

Only two forms of action promised victory. Distributists could take political action, or both political and economic action. Moreover, that action to be effective would have to be taken at once against an enemy always alertly active and now entrenched in an almost impregnable position. What Soviet Russia is now attempting as a mere experiment in Marxian Socialism England, may be driven to attempt, as the last effort, to prevent destruction. Mass production with collective, servile labour is being applied to Russian agriculture, not in order to justify Russian Marxian Socialists. But English and Scottish agriculture, with all its attendant crafts, is in such a state of ruin that, all other experiments having failed, no argument could be urged against the methods of Big Business, Mass Production and Servile Labour.

To some Distributists a campaign of mere words seemed as helpful for economic salvation as the fiddling of Nero was helpful when Rome was burning. Something, of course, had to be said: indeed, something had to be said again and again and again. Thank God, G.K.'s Weekly was saying it, with an emphasis and distinction which gave it a place apart in journalism.

But something had to be done as well as said, if only to justify what was being said by the men whose craft was the word and the saying of the word. We, pulpit-craftsmen of the world, know how useless would be the best of all we say if nowhere in the world there were homes and cloisters living in the principles that are proved only by being lived.

It is to the credit of the Scottish Catholic Land Association that, leaving Distributist political action to others, they have determined to face salvation by taking economic action by leading men, women and children from the dens of Glasgow to the glens of Scotland.

Though nt all, nor perhaps not many, of the Scottish Land Association are Distributists, yet the starting-force of the Association was a borrowing from Distributism. How much the Association already owes to its first President it can hardly be expected to know. Nor again can the President know the extent of his indebtedness to the group of writers and thinkers that ahve made their orbit round G.K.'s and its two predecessors.

But the President and his fellow-Distributists have thought their best repayment of their borrowings was to do in Scotland what their creditors were asking men and women to do in England.

The rest may be told in the "Stater of Objects" in the Land for the People.

The Scottish Catholic Land Association has been formed for the following objects. -

1. The acquisition of land for distribution among Catholics.

2. The acquisition of information regarding Land Settlement, and the furthering of, by lectures and other propaganda, the transfer of Catholics from the town to the country.

3. The education of Catholics in the working and use of land.

4. The financing of Catholic prospective farmers to enable them to settle on th eland.

5. The formation of a Land Bank or Co-operative Trust, or both.

6. The doing of all such other lawful acts as are identical or conducive to the attainment of the above object.

7. Collecting monies for the advancement of the above objects.

I can best end this article by quoting from a letter occassioned by my sending the Land For The People to the West Country.

"Dear Rev. Father, __ Many thans for the Land For The People, which arrived this morning. The first paragraph of your article was illustrated to me only yesterday.

A farmer's wife came to see me. She told me of how they now have the wireless and a motor-car and a piano and her girls go to dances, and her boys have money in their pockets. They had never dreamed of such ease and comfort. 'But we are no happier than when I was a girl, an' us had none o'these things. And we all stayed at 'ome together, and all of us from grandfather to the baby discussed the farm and the family.' Then she wept. 'I don't think we'd a been so hard on George (a younger son who got into a scrape and was banished the farm) if we'd all just talked about him together. We seem to be losing our common sense.'"

But at any rate there seems an untouched bed of common sense and even heroism North of the Tweed.

Through A Glass Clearly,

2007-09-13T19:53:00.000-07:00

by Athanasius

In recent weeks there have been numerous recalls on Chinese products, especially toys because they had lead paint. Consumers have complained for years of Chinese goods soaked in formaldehyde, clothes sprayed with pesticides, and seafood raised in sewage. It is right and good for Americans to take a serious look at Chinese business practices, however it might do us well to have a look at our own.

It is rather like the concern over MSG in Chinese food. In the 1980's, everyone complained about Monosodium-Glutamate in Chinese food, and as a result many Chinese restaurants now advertise that their food is MSG free. This is excellent. However, has anyone looked at the extent to which MSG is used in American food by American restaurants? Just buy a bag of fried chicken at the grocery store and look at the ingredients, in the middle of the nomenclature, you will find MSG.
In fact upon closer inspection of stock and bullion cubes, you will also find MSG in the ingredients. Seasoning packets and gravy powders have the same. If you got ingredients from many restaurants, you would find MSG among them, and has anyone asked about pizza crusts? Yet no one thinks about that, they think about Chinese food.

This is very similar to what we see with Chinese goods. It is true that China not only engages in de facto slave labor, is a partner in the sex slave trade, and does not have American interests at heart (understandably, as they are Chinese not American), but they are also guilty of the safety and health violations that have produced so many recalls. Yet what is going on with products made elsewhere? Consider clothes for example.

Most are completely soaked in formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen (i.e. cancer causing) and is absorbable through the skin. While causing cancer, allergies, and killing brain cells, formaldehyde also tends to give textiles that wrinkle free effect. Hence, they are prevalent in the textile industry. While rightfully raising concerns about Chinese goods and textiles, we should realize that right here in the USA, we take our clothes to the dry cleaners, which also use unsafe chemicals. Traditional dry cleaning makes use of a chemical solvent, called perchloroethylene, to remove stains. That is the same chemical used in rocket fuel. The residue of this solvent is toxic to humans; in fact, many people experience adverse reactions from dry-cleaned clothing as dizziness, headache, sinus congestion, and shortness of breath. Perchloroethylene has also been found to cause cancer in animals.

But they save money, so everything else be damned.

Furthermore, before going out to the store, mall, or wherever you use your credit cards, consider that many companies we routinely buy from have formaldehyde in their products:

• Dove® Deep Moisture Body Wash
• L'Oreal® Lash Out Mascara
• Zeasorb® Super Absorbent Foot Powder
• Baby Magic® Gentle Baby Bath
• Revlon® Professional Cuticle Remover
• Hagen Flea & Tick Shampoo for Cats
• Phisoderm® Deep Cleaning Cleanser
• Blush By Cover Girl®
• Pond’s® Dry Skin Cream
• Huggies® Natural Care Baby Wipes
• Cover Girl® Simply Powder Foundation
• Hagen Tearless Shampoo for Dogs. - Source

Thus, while rightly condemning toxins in Chinese products, we should also not turn a blind eye to what companies closer to home are doing as well. In trying to establish a sensible stewardship of the environment, without the global warming hysteria, and to get man closer to the earth and into a healthier lifestyle, we should be looking for alternatives to the scourge of chemicals in our products and our environment.

The Rupert Murdoch Media Empire

2007-09-11T17:58:00.000-07:00

by Athanasius

Here is an excellent article from Chronicles Magazine on the perils of gigantic media outlets. Here is a short excerpt:

Murdoch already uses his media power to influence public officials, domestic and foreign—which is a legitimate cause for worry. In 2003, Congress considered a regulation that would have required Murdoch to sell some properties. As the New York Times reported, one man who was behind the new rule was Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), an alleged conservative. Then Lott changed his mind. HarperCollins had paid Senator Lott $250,000 in advance royalties for his unheralded book, Herding Cats. Before that, Murdoch’s publishing house had offered a $4.5 million advance to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, which precipitated such vehement reproach that Gingrich returned it.

The most scandalous of Murdoch’s monkeyshines occurred in China. When he publicly proclaimed that modern media “proved an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere,” the Chinese Reds banned private ownership of satellite dishes, which threatened Murdoch’s Asian broadcasting venture, Star TV. No problem. HarperCollins published Deng Xiaoping’s biography, which, according to Joseph Kahn of the New York Times, included “mainly recycled propaganda about Mr. Deng.” Murdoch schmoozed with Deng’s handicapped son as well. He “chartered a jet to ferry a troop of disabled acrobats that the younger Mr. Deng had promoted to perform abroad.” And Star TV dumped the BBC because the Chicoms didn’t like its newscasts. That should worry journalists everywhere.

What I like about this is that it is not a hysterical hit piece from the left about Murdoch because he is supposedly "conservative" (which he is not). Rather, it puts Murdoch in perspective with the other media corporations and empires, they all have too much power and they are all corrupt.

What I also like is the author is not crying about how Murdoch will or will not run the news, but rather makes the case for small family owned media. An increase in the owners of media creates more choice and helps information flow better, while when it is concentrated into a few hands it removes choice, as with everything else.

Vintage Distributism

2007-09-08T18:44:00.000-07:00

Poverty Without Tears
An Excerpt
By Dorothy Day
The Catholic Worker, April 1950

"But there is not much chance that this book [Poverty, An Essential Element in the Christian Life, Translated by Rosemary Sheed] will find its way into the hands of the kind of people we meet up with, who are the destitute and the poor. So let us hope that it will reach and convert a tremendous number of lay apostles who themselves will espouse poverty and live it gloriously and bring a sense of joy to those who are poor. That joy will bring them the energy and power to praise God and begin to take what they need of His creatures instead of allowing themselves to be poisoned and perverted and deadened by the non essentials of our industrial America.

This is really a call to a general strike, a revolution, an expropriation of land and tools. It could be dynamite, this book, but it won't be, because the argument will go on as to what is poverty and what destitution, and how can you stop making bombs and tanks and airplane parts and television sets and pepsi-cola and brassieres and chewing gum and ash trays, and wouldn't it throw people out of work, and how can you stop buying all these things too, since that too would throw people out of work? The interminable idiocy of the talk about poverty! As soon as you begin talking of stripping yourself of cigarettes, (and ash trays) chewing gum and pepsi-cola, and (if you can afford it) television sets--then you are called a Jansenist or a Manichaen, negative in your approach, a deviationist heretic of an opponent of the working class as well as of the Church. If you cry aloud for land and home and tools and the good natural life for the poor without which a good supernatural life is impossible, then you are either an escapist and an inhabitant of an ivory tower, or you are a Communist in disguise trying to do away with property.

And you are a communist also if you cry out for peace and against increased armaments-- against the making of the hydrogen and atom bombs and the paying of federal taxes for the making of those bombs. We know, who picketed March 15 before the tax offices up on 45th street, because we heard these jibes as we walked to and fro with our signs.

Yes, it is hard to talk of the glory of poverty and the joy of poverty without offending all. "You make things sound too easy, too pleasant," is the accusation leveled at us by our own friends and readers when we talk of the pleasant aspects of living in the slums of the city, or in poverty on the land. Or--"What do you want --that people should stay in this condition?"

We can only reply with Eric Gill, that the aim of the Church is to make the rich poor and the poor holy. "There is always enough for one more," as a Spanish friend said, "Everyone just takes a little less." "If everyone would try to be better, then everyone would be better off," Peter Maurin said. "No one would be poor if everyone tried to be the poorest.""

Science, Normative and Positive

2007-08-29T19:39:00.000-07:00

by John Médaille

Donald Goodman, in yesterday's post, points out that economics is not a science in the same way that physics and mathematics are sciences. And yet, economics is nevertheless a real science. The argument is often placed as a contest between "positive" sciences (like chemistry or physics) and "normative" sciences (which involve some normative judgments, like psychology). This, I believe, is a false dichotomy for any science. I just happened to be writing an article on the proper place of science and natural law, and I hope this excerpt will clarify the issue:

Some wag somewhere has remarked that economists suffer from “physics envy.” One could certainly make that charge against W. S. Jevons (1835-1882), one of the founders of marginal economics, when he wrote that a “perfect system of statistics … is the only … obstacle in the way of making economics an exact science”; once the statistics have been gathered, the generalization of laws from them “will render economics a science as exact as many of the physical sciences.”[1] More than a century has passed since Jevons wrote these words, and in that time there has been a growth of vast bureaucracies, both public and private, devoted to establishing this “perfect system” of statistics. Yet today economics seems no closer to being an exact science than it was in Jevons’ day. Despite this failure, economic orthodoxy clings to the notion of itself as a positive science. As Milton Friedman puts it:

"Positive economics is in principle independent of any particular ethical position or normative judgments. As [J. N.] Keynes says, it deals with “what is,” not with “what ought to be.” Its task is to provide a system of generalizations that can be used to make correct predictions about the consequences of any change in circumstances. Its performance is to be judged by the precision, scope, and conformity with experience of the predictions it yields. In short, positive economics is, or can be, an “objective” science, in precisely the same sense as any of the physical sciences."[2]

Friedman makes predictive success the criteria for judging a positive economics, yet such success is doubtful, despite the fact that we have access not only to vast amounts of statistics, but to computing power unimaginable in Jevons’ day. Yet the models, worked out in great precision and computed on engines of vast power, seem to lack any predictive reliability whatsoever.[3] Nevertheless, economists are (as Lev Landau said of cosmologists) “frequently in error but never in doubt.”[4]

In light of these failures, can we ask if economics really is a positive science? Let me suggest that the question is meaningless. Every science, insofar as it really is a science, is both positive and normative. Every science, insofar as it is a science, must be “normalized” to some criteria of truth. These truths will arise from two sources: an internal and an external source. The internal criteria involve a science’s proper subject matter and methodology. But these criteria are insufficient to found any science as a science. In addition, there must be external criteria of truth, and these truths can only come from one or more higher sciences. In the absence of such an external check, the science will merely be circular, dependent on nothing but itself and unconnected with the hierarchy of truth. Thus, for example, biology is responsible to chemistry, chemistry to physics, physics to mathematics. No biologist can violate the laws of chemistry, and no chemist can reach a conclusion contrary to physics. Thus every science is responsible to its own methodology (and therefore “positive”) and to the higher sciences (and therefore “normative”). Every science has, therefore, both its own proper autonomy, based on its subject matter and methodology and its own proper connection to the near sciences, based on the hierarchy of truth. In speaking of the autonomy of a science, we should note that it is only a relative autonomy, not an absolute one. A scientist’s obligation to be faithful to his proper method does not relieve him of the obligation to higher truths.

No science can provide its own criteria entirely without being merely circular. When a science attempts to do so, one of two things happens. The first possibility is that the science breaks up into mutually warring camps whose disputes can never be resolved because there are no accepted criteria of truth by which to resolve them. The second possibility is that the science becomes merely dogmatic, and no rational examination of its premises is permitted. In economics, both things have happened; the science is divided into warring factions with no arbiter of truth among them; the principles of the various factions have become dogmatic statements with little connection to reality.

Thus any science, to be a science, must be properly located within the hierarchy of truth that is science. Our first task is to determine what the “higher sciences” are for economics. Now, the physical sciences terminate in physics and mathematics, but the humane sciences terminate in some view of anthropology derived ultimately from philosophy and theology. Therefore, some theology must be the ultimate source of truth for economics with, perhaps, some intermediate stops at psychology and sociology. It would seem to be self-evident that a complete view of man would involve theology, philosophy, sociology, and psychology, yet this view is not at all universally (or even generally) accepted by economists. How is it possible that a humane science can cut itself off from these indispensable sources of knowledge about humans? The answer lies in the fact that it doesn’t. It can’t. It is not possible to theorize about human actions without some theory of humans. What actually happens is that neoclassical economists accept as a purely economic truth that which is, in fact, a purely philosophic stance, namely that of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, and its various descendants. What actually happens is that a philosophic assertion becomes a pseudo-scientific dogmatism, placed beyond all question and critique. What happens is that the science becomes less scientific and more dogmatic.

Natural Law and Naturalism

Part and parcel of the error about science is an error about the natural law itself. Modern economics was forged in the fires of Enlightenment rationalism, which may be defined as the effort to bypass the authorities of religion and custom and look directly at nature for answers to the most perplexing problems. The success of this approach was proved beyond any doubt by the success of Isaac Newton, whose simple mechanics solved problems which had vexed both scientists and theologians for 300 years. The enthusiasm for Newton is indicated by Alexander Pope’s famous couplet, “Nature and nature’s law lay hid in night/God said “Let Newton be,” and all was light.” The enthusiasm was not merely for the answer, but for the method; “nature” by herself, and without the help of religion, really did enlighten the mind, and complex problems could be reduced to the operation of a few simple laws. How much better this was than the absurdities of the theologians, the persecution of Galileo, or the religious wars of the 17^th century. And as Newton tamed the complex movements of the stars with the inverse-square law, economists hoped to tame the movements of the markets with a similarly simple law. Economics thus became a search for some “social” Newtonian principles. Adam Smith believed he had found them in the Labor Theory of Value and the Invisible Hand of self-interest. And when J. B. Clark refers to marginal productivity as the “deep-acting natural law” that fairly allocates all rewards, he is offering it as a social Newtonian, an economic “inverse-square” law.

However, such naturalism is a misunderstanding of the natural law. Natural law deals with how objects are moved to their ends. When we are dealing with objects such as rocks and stars, atoms and planets, such naturalism suffices, because their movements are determined by rigorous laws, and a study of their movements exhausts a study of their ends. Such objects can neither choose their ends nor deviate in their movements. But with objects like “men” and “women” it is otherwise. These “objects” must discover their ends and choose their means. In these cases, the natural law is the process of practical reason that helps us discover our true ends, the ends most in accord with our natures. For the operation of the practical reason, we must select a goal and judge our “movements” in relation to that goal. Therefore, natural law starts with teleology, the end or purpose of a thing. The determination of a various ends will give various “laws,” each of which seems “natural” to those who hold those ends. For example, if the end of man is to acquire all he can, one set of rules will make perfect sense; if his end is to live in peaceful community with his fellow-man, another set of rules will be reasonable. And if our journey through life is a preparation for another kind of life, then a third set of rules will be “natural.” In other words, natural law is not known by a mere inspection of nature, rather it involves a discernment and a judgment about the proper end and purpose of a thing, and especially of the "thing" called "man."

In applying the natural law to economic science, we must first determine what is the purpose or end of economics. Self-evidently, economics is the study of “the process of providing for the material well-being of society.”[5] Once we have determined an end, we have a rule by which we can judge the success or failure of a thing. In this case, we can judge how well or poorly the economic system provides for the material well-being of society. Such a rule is precisely what the practical reason needs to operate at all. Without such practical rules, there can be no practical science. But the rule cannot be determined from within the science itself. Some other discipline will have to instruct economists on the nature of man and the nature of his society. Those are questions beyond the competence of economics per se. The whole point of neoclassical economics was to avoid such messy teleological questions. In attempting to avoid the discussions of the purpose of things in order to become “scientific,” economics avoids the one thing that can make it a true science.

[1] Quoted in James E. Alvey, "A Short History of Economics as a Moral Science," Journal of Markets and Morality 2, no. 1 (Spring, 1999): 62.

[2] Milton Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 4.

[3] Paul Ormerod, The Death of Economics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994), 120-7.

[4] Ibid., 93.

[5] Robert L. Heilbroner, and William Milberg, The Making of Economic Society, Eleventh ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002), 1.

Distributism: A Catholic System of Economics

2007-08-28T19:04:00.001-07:00

by Donald Goodman III

The Scientific Status of Economics

Many, particularly those who hold opinions contrary to those expressed in the papal encyclicals, hold that the Church has no authority in economic matters. Economics, they claim, is advanced and practiced as a science, on the model of physics and mathematics. The Church cannot make authoritative pronouncements about science; she cannot, for example, decree that the freezing temperature of water will be anything other than 32. Similarly, the Church cannot declare that when supply rises demand will also rise. Such things are simply true or not, and it is beyond the Church's competency to speak on them. This view, however, must be rejected on careful consideration. In the first place, it is a matter of open debate whether economics is truly a science in the same sense as physics and chemistry. This debate largely centers around the unpredictability of human action and the predictive power of science. Success in the empirical sciences is generally gauged by how well that science can predict the actions of its objects. Physicists, for example, formulate theories to predict the actions of light waves, and the truth of those theories (that is, the degree to which those theories accurately describe light waves) is proportional to the accuracy of those predictions. Economists can do no such thing; it seems unlikely, then, that it is truly a science in the sense described above.

Economists' definition of their purported science further prove that economics cannot be considered the same way as physics or chemistry. According to Christian economist Ronald Nash,7 economics is the study of "the choices human beings make with regard to scarce resources. "

As Aristotle teaches, the definition of a thing is its genus specified by its specific difference; that is, the type of thing that it is specified by whatever of its features makes it different from the other things of its type.9 In this case, the genus of "economics" is the "choice human beings make" and the specific difference is with regard to scarce resources. We know, then, that economics is a study of human choices, like ethics or politics, but that it studies those choices specifically as regards scarce resources, which makes it something other than the other sciences which study human choices. Nash has given us a very compact and specific definition, one which he believes describes a very scientific type of inquiry.

However, this definition does not describe a science because the study of human choices is never an exact science. The human will is, as good philosophy and revealed faith teach us, free, and therefore not subject to the operations of economic laws. The economist, then, cannot make accurate predictions about the choices that human beings will make with regard to scarce resources. He can certainly make generalizations: if you glut the wheat market, the price of wheat will go downand that is certainly a very useful and valuable ability; it is not, however, truly an empirical science, in the sense of physics or chemistry.

Other, more learned arguments have been made against the status of economics as a science, particularly by MacIntyre10; the end result is that economics, if it is to be regarded as a science in the sense of physics and chemistry, must be regarded as a singularly bad one. But within its own sphere, that of predictive generalizations, it is, of course, useful and honorable, and my argument should not be construed as advocating its abandonment.

Even if these cogent arguments against the status of economics as a science are rejected, however, one still cannot claim the immunity of economics from the moral authority of the Church. First, of course, conomics is the study of human choices, and human choices are always moral and therefore subject to the decrees of Holy Mother Church. But second, and more significantly, what we call economics, as a study of human action, is simply a branch of political knowledge, and as such is a subset of ethical science, the authority of the Church over which no Catholic can deny.

The Profit Motive

It is axiomatic among capitalists that riches are not sinful. This is, of course, true; riches are not per se sinful. However, it is indisputable that riches are proximate causes of sin. Wealth is a dangerous thing, which Our Lord and His Church have been teaching throughout the ages. But still many of the rich insist that their possession of wealth represents no hindrance to their virtue or the obtaining of eternal happiness. Our Lord, however, thought otherwise, and not infrequently took the opportunity to say so. For Christ tells us that "[i]t is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."61 The wealthy, however, often seem to think that the camel can navigate the eye of the needle without difficulty, thus putting the words of Our Lord to naught. Again, the rich young man approached Our Lord and asked what he must do to gain the kingdom of heaven. As happens so often, Our Lord responded, "Go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."62 The young man's wealth was a hindrance to his salvation; Our Lord therefore, in His infinite goodness, instructed him to give it up, for "if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell."63 Can we, in the face of Our Lord's clear words, claim that riches are neutral in our pursuit of eternal salvation?

The Church, indeed, supports the teaching of the Gospel. Even in Rerum Novarum, concerned principally with the poor and not the rich, we and a warning about the dangers of wealth.

Therefore, the well-to-do are admonished that wealth does not give surcease of sorrow, and that wealth is of no avail unto the happiness of eternal life but is rather a hindrance; that the threats pronounced by Jesus Christ, so unusual coming from Him, ought to cause the rich to fear; and that on one day the strictest account for the use of wealth must be rendered to God as Judge.64

The Church is not condemning the rich to Hell, any more than Christ Himself is; she merely, following her divine Founder, seeks to warn those of her children with wealth of the dangers they are facing. It is maternal care, not socialistic vindictiveness, which motivates her cautions.

This is certainly not to say that riches render virtue impossible. Indeed, riches can be the source of great virtue; witness King St. Louis, for example, or any other of many wealthy saints. But their sanctity was due to their resposible use of their wealth for the benefit of others; had they used it for their own benefit, they could never have become the saints they did. As Leo XIII says, "No one, certainly, is obliged to assist others out of what is required for his own necessary use or for that of his family, or even to give to others what he himself needs to maintain his station in life becomingly and decently."65 Indeed, thepontiff even quotes St. Thomas Aquinas to this effect. However, he does not hesitate to insist that "when the demands of necessity and propriety have been su-ciently met, it is a duty to give to the poor out of that which remains."66 In so saying Leo is echoing the words of Our Lord, Who teaches that with "that which remaineth, give alms; and behold, all things are clean unto you."67 The holy pontiff teaches unequivocally that:

[t]he substance of all this is the following: whoever has received from the bounty of God a greater share of goods, whether corporeal and external, or of the soul, has received them for this purpose, namely, that he employ them for his own perfection and, likewise, as a servant of Divine Providence, for the benefit of others.68

So we see that riches are not unalloyed good; they impart grave responsibility on their holders, and we must always recall that great axiom of the moral life: "from those to whom much is given, much is expected."

(For the full text go to Goretti Publications)

Capitalism and Economic Liberty, and the aims of Distributism

2007-08-25T17:08:00.000-07:00

I could do a great many things before I came to definitely anti-social action like robbing a bank or, worse still, working in a bank.
-G.K. Chesterton

One of our opponents, is still confused by a modern myth, the idea that wages (which are not within his control) and renting (something which is owned by others and consequently not within his control) are more "stable" and provide more "freedom" (over things he has no control over) than owning one's own means of production (which he does have control over) and owning his own property (which surprise! he also has control over). If that is the case, then by all means, let us call unstable "stable" and restriction "freedom". For that matter, let us also call the spend crazy "frugal", and that which is poisonous "healthy", or, that which is cheap "good quality". In fact, industrial capitalism does all that too!

In attempting to make various terms clear in the debate between Distributism and Capitalism, he says (note: all emphasis mine)

The capitalist tends to define an economic system by what the legal apparatus does and does not allow. This point of view defines capitalism as the system in which economic freedom maximized, i.e. where goods and services are bought and sold freely without government interference. (source)

This is entirely false. If Capitalism maximizes economic freedom, it does so for only one group: the wealthy owner. This is because one type of freedom is maximized within the capitalist system: the freedom to buy. It turns the traditional understanding of freedom into a materialist, like an angel dressing up as a devil. The traditional understanding of freedom is the ability to choose to do the good. For the capitalist, it is to buy, and only one group in society benefits from this, that is the owner. The owner decides what is made and consequently what men will buy. Men then basically have the freedom to do what the owner wishes them to. Perhaps we are not so far from Belloc's servile state as we may think.

The reality is, the standard by which freedom is judged is entirely false, which is why everything else in the Capitalist system is false. Furthermore there is no other area of society in which freedom is judged by this standard. To be true to reality, this view in fact represents a minority of the thought within Capitalist economics to begin with, which makes the idea that it could be a science more laughable. There are numerous different schools of capitalism, some favoring tarrifs and trade protection, some favoring high taxes and government made social services (which are not tantamount to socialism per se), and some, those of the economic liberals, which favor no government action of all in the realm of economics, that somehow, a hidden hand will make markets smooth and all men rich.

Of course when we come back to reality not many men are rich. In fact, not many men are well off. Some are better off than others. Now some have nice trinkets and goods, nice computers, nice televisions (which they don't really own, some bank owns them through funds it lent them via a credit card). Most struggle to get by and require their spouse to work in order to pay the bills. They are not free to start a business venture, because a bank will not give them a loan, or if one does, it is on such unfavorable terms as to make the venture impossible or so risky as to be foolish. A company which is already millions of dollars in debt with a proven track record for inefficiency and poor customer service on the other hand has no problem getting large loans, much more money than what is proposed to be given to those who start a small business. Why is this state of affairs? Because without any interference in the economy, there is only one motive: greed. The larger businesses, indebted as they are with debts bigger than the economies of 3rd world nations, have the illusion of permanence, and thus the bank invests in the large businesses, because the interest on large loans (that will never be paid off) will yield more money than the small business will ever see. It may be that the small businessmen will never have economic freedom, will work until they are dead, and be forced to buy from the big shops where the bank invests, but that scarcely bothers the businessman, or the banker. It is quite simple, human beings, when left to themselves, operate according to a wounded human nature. This human nature so wounded, places an immediate good in place of a final good. As such, the immediate good of enrichment is far more desirable to most men than the overall good of a healthy society, or helping the poor not with a handout but with a share in ownership, which Pope Leo XIII described as the only way to cure the social evils addressed in Rerum Novarum.

Capitalism in all of its forms necessitates toward the same end, what Belloc and Chesterton called the "Capitalist paradox". What this means is that the laborer will become so poor that he is unable to buy the goods he produces, and the owner will be unable to find a market for the goods. Is that any surprise since wages are now lower than they were in the previous generation? Mortgage loans are defaulting at a staggering level, which had caused a free-fall in the stock market until recently when the government borrowed money from other countries to put money in the banking industry. As men have less money at their disposal, they are unable to meet usurious rates of loans, which are now necessary to own property in this country. Then of course no one will have economic freedom. Given the high cost of the basic means for getting to a job, gas and a car, can we seriously maintain there is a high level of economic freedom simply because the wealthy can market their products to us without the government keeping open a window for us to enter the playing field?

Thus, the definition given by Belloc, that capitalism is the concentration of wealth and the means of production in the hands of the few, is entirely correct for this reason: In every capitalist society this is the net result of so-called "economic freedom". Arguing this point is almost like arguing with Communists about the evils of Communism. They often deny that Communism is intrinsically bad, they will just say it got corrupted by Stalin (ignoring Lenin's murderous rampage). The fact is that wherever Communism has been tried it requires a murderous rain of terror to concentrate property in the hands of the state. Likewise in Capitalism, wherever it is tried it concentrates society's wealth into an elite: a small class of owners and a group of bankers whose interests are international. If you doubt that consider World War II. International banking and oil interests bankrolled both the Nazis and the Allies throughout the war. J.D. Rockefeller helped produce tank engines for Roosevelt and sold fuel additives from U.S. standard oil to Hitler through a partner, I.G. Farben which allowed Hitler to bomb Britain. Union Banking Corps, based in New York City, gave millions to Hitler, funded his rise to power, and at last after the war was discovered with tons of Nazi money in their vaults. American business and banking interests supported both sides, because in war, governments borrow from banks, and enrich banks, they buy from big business, and enrich them, which is why big business necessitates toward war. That is why we had a World War twice, and have been involved in umpteen billion wars since. What of the economic freedom of the men putting their lives on the line for these business interests? In war, no wealth is produced, though it is often destroyed. Governments borrow money, and money produces more money, for the elite, which they hold from the community and invest in the interests which they alone wish to invest. It is not the common man who is economically free.

Moreover, it is in a desperate attempt to cling to this false reality, that our opponent must mischaracterize our solution, unless we have been so vague as to cause him to not yet grasp it:

The capitalist defines distributism as the system in which the government prejudices the legal apparatus against the large business, in favor of the small venture (source).

This is also incorrect. Distributism, unlike Capitalism, favors local government. The term "government" is used of course in the pejorative, as if it is a bad thing to have government! With the exception of economic liberals such as our opponent, Capitalism supports big government since the big government necessarily must borrow money from banks, and the interest guarantees a continued indebtedness to the banks and a slave status for government. Our opponent is an unwitting ally of this concept by supporting big business, even though it is against his ideology.

Distributism does not favor big government. It favors strong local government, and mediating economic bodies such as a guild, to set pricing, restrict (though not eliminate) competition,
and protect small business from ruination by the direct actions of larger entities. By applying this controls and checks on the economy, Economic freedom is thus preserved for the family, at the expense of the greedy. No grandiose promises of wealth and fortune are made, they are certainly possible, but something far better is offered within this framework, security for the family.

Distributism is then defined as the economic system in which the vast majority of people have personal ownership of productive capital, ie are running small businesses. The historical exemplar of this is an agrarian farming community with the occasional non-farming specialty tradesman, but distributists stress that they are not advocating that everybody turn to farming or reject technology (source).

This should be expanded and clarified. The agrarian question is a thorny issue. What percentage of society will have to be agrarian in order for the society to have enough food. Donald Goodman, in his e-Book "Distributism, a Catholic system of economics" suggests that it would need to be as much as 50%. This is possible, but perhaps it is lower, maybe 35%. To interject with my subjective experience, the number of people who I have known who wanted to farm but could not meet the financial burden placed by the twin evils of big government and big business suggests to me that it is a sufficient number in society to meet that percentage. Furthermore, most economic liberals (though I believe our opponent is an exception in this) have advocated in recent years opening the borders, getting in as many illegal immigrants as possible to do farm work. Why? Because major bloated farms need lots of workers, but they can't pay a lot of money to attract commuters because Agribusiness is overproducing food, and in the absence of an agent to set prices to a just level, they follow simple supply and demand and drop. When the prices drop, privately owned farms suffer. Because these farms operate on a Capitalist rather than Distributist model, they are big and bloated and removed from habitation, so there are no young children to hire for a few hours of work, no teachers on summer vacation, no townspeople in general to assist, and no local market for the food which drives up the costs to begin with. So abusing Mexicans and paying them low wages seems like the answer to most free market economists! By having farms near markets, that meet the demands of local markets, most of these evils are eliminated or severely reduced.
The historical exemplar is not an agrarian economy per se, because the Roman Empire used such an economy, but it was a slave economy. Distributism's exemplar was the economic model that the Catholic Church built during the middle ages, which transformed the Roman Slave into the serf who inherited rights and protection, and from that into the medieval peasant who was free and who could will his land to his descendants, and no one could take it from him, until society itself broke down, as it did with the Reformation.
Now modern society provides all forms of private enterprise that can be understood as Distributive. The concept of a co-operative for example, where all the employees are owners, would not qualify as a big business, because all the employees were owners. This follows the concept of subsidiary, namely if smaller units can do the work they ought. There are irreducibly complex goods like computers, like cars (although one man could build a car, that would scarcely be possible economically), power equipment and industrial goods. Distributism does not propose thousands of technicians in shops producing these goods night and day to meet demand. Instead we propose co-ownership as the means of "gaining the share in the land". Then workers will receive a living wage verses a minimum wage, and profits according to the goods they produce.

The distributist defines his terms differently, although both competing definitions seem to referencing the same state of affairs in most cases. (Source)

The difficulty here is there are two different applications. There is the society we want to get to, namely a society that can be called Distributist, where the mark of that society is of widespread ownership, and there is the present society, where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, which we want to see made into a Distributist society. That means transformation. The principles inherent to a process of transformation do not apply after the transformation is complete. When you have turned flour, oil, butter, salt and yeast into a loaf of bread by applying heat of 400 degrees Fahrenheit in an oven, you do not continue applying that temperature after the transformation! This is true in transforming the character of society, except with Communism, where the murder used in establishing the government seems to continue after it is established. Thus, where Belloc talks about using taxation against large businesses and subsidizing small business for a time, he does not intend that to mark Distributive society, but to establish one. When he talks about taxing heavily the purchase of property by the wealthy from the small man, but lightly taxing if taxing at all the purchase of property by the small man from the wealthy, it is only for an intermediary period. Thus these are the two applications of ideas in establishing a Distributist society. However, unlike Capitalism and Communism, which as far as we are concerned is generally the same thing, one where an elite owns capital, and another where the state owns it, Distributism can not be established from above by a minority on the majority. There must be desire for it in society. You can not entrust property to someone who has no desire for it, the stroke will go rather astray. Thus the first mission of Distributism, is to increase a desire for economic liberty that comes with property amongst the populace, and then, only then, can some reform be enacted.

Vintage Distributism

2007-08-23T17:22:00.000-07:00

The Significance of Distributism
An excerpt by George Maxwell

Human labour has two purposes. One essential and permanent, the other incidental and transient. The essential end is to develop and perfect himself as a person. The transient end to enable him to earn his living.

When free men meet together for the purpose of producing shoes or anything else, they do not shed their dignity as "persons" or as responsible social beings ruled by justice and charity. The specific objective of their work is the making of shoes or whatnot, but the principle objective is the perfection of the person in union with other persons. Under industrialism it is the reverse. Is this one of those things of which Mr. Chesterton said: "You may look at it 999 times and not see it. If you look at it the 100Th time you are in grave danger of seeing it for the first time."

The second factor in Distributist policy is the restoration of property. By property I mean the effective ownership and control of the means to exercise liberty. The essential means for responsibility. A homely illustration will, I think, suffice to show its necessity. You will have heard it said that, "No kitchen was ever built big enough to hold two women." Its a generalisation and the idea underlying the saying is, I believe, true - and trust that it will remain so. Here is the commonest though noblest of all craftsmen - the maker of the home. She takes for granted that her workshop, her workbench, her tools, her policy and the tempo of her work shall be in her sole control to order as she wishes. Her responsibility. Any attempt to interfere with this control by whomsoever it may be, is met at once by opposition. Her defences are called into play and are usually effective and sometimes subtle, such as would put the T.U.C. to shame. Nevertheless when the need arises she understands the need for charity and in these days she is not wanting. This theme could be developed more but it should not be necessary.

Had men insisted on keeping the ownership and control of their tools as she has, insisted on responsibility in their work to anything like the same extent, the position to-day would be different. But a fifth column is active against the home in all sorts of ways. The philosophy of Distributism is the only one I know which can counteract this. The only one I know which embraces the personal and social life of the whole man. Its chief significance lies in that everyone, in no matter what circumstances can move towards its goal. It may be very shortly and with halting steps, but so long as one is moving in the right direction then a path is being made to make it easier for others whose steps may be still more faltering, but willing to move to restore the lost culture of Christianity to men and to England.

As things are at present, to some there may be a temptation to rewrite in the mind the Gospel of St. John, to read "In the beginning were the circumstances, and the circumstances are with us, and the circumstances are omnipotent." This is despair and by definition this is mortal sin. Take consolation from that, because if it is mortal sin, it can't be necessary. The service of truth will bring Freedom, and Truth is not a concept of the mind, but a 'person.'

Taken from The Distributist

Vintage Distributism

2007-08-23T16:20:00.001-07:00

On Usury
By Hilaire Belloc
taken from The Crisis of Civilization

Usury, to take that first, like the greed from which it proceeds, is as old as human society. Like the other evils proceeding from the Reformation it was not created by the movement. We shall find in the case of Usury, as in the case of unbridled Competition (the force which, coupled with Usury, achieved the creation and enslavement of the proletariat), as likewise we have already found in the case of Contract replacing Status, that the seeds of the change had been sown long before the actual disruption of Christendom took place. What happened after the Reformation was not that these new evils, including Usury, then appeared for the first time but, as I have said, that they turned from exceptions into admitted and general habits. They were accepted, they grew, and at last came to cover the whole field of Society.

Unlike the transformation of Status into Contract and the undue growth of Competition, Usury was an evil in itself.

It was not only evil because it got out of proportion, and swelled beyond due measure, as did the replacement of Status by Contract and the practice of Competition, but was of its own nature a thing to be condemned and extirpated, if possible, as a disease. It may be remarked that it had already permeated like a mortal poison the society of pagan antiquity at its close and was one of the main evils under which the society of Graeco-Roman civilization collapsed in the West, and before the Mohammedan invasion of the East.(1)

The morals of the Church, when the Church gradually overcame the world and molded a new Europe, forbade Usury as strongly though not with so much practical effect, as did later Mohammedanism. Every sane philosophy, every religion, had forbidden it. The Greek pagan philosophers with Aristotle at their head denounced it; so did the Oriental pagans; so did the Jewish law.

Now why was this? Why was Usury thus regarded universally as immoral, and why has it been found in practice to be a poison ultimately destroying Society?

In order to answer these questions we must first understand what Usury is, in the sense in which we here employ the term; for there is great ambiguity in the use of the word and therefore misunderstanding of the thing which the word connotes.

Usury in the sense of an economic evil does not mean the taking of interest on a loan. It does not mean the taking of interest higher than some permitted minimum. It means that taking of interest upon a loan of money alone (or still worse, upon a mere promise to lend money, an instrument of credit) whether that money be invested soundly or no, whether it represent productive energy or no. Usury is, properly speaking, the taking of increment upon a loan of money merely because it is money, or worse still the taking of such increment upon a credit-instrument.

The reasons for condemning interest upon money alone, as distinguished from profit, are twofold: First, it is asking a tribute from Society as the price of releasing currency hitherto withheld from its proper function of acting as the circulating medium of exchange; secondly, it is arranging a claim for payment of a share in profit which may, but also may not, exist.

As an example of the first evil, let us consider a market in which the supply of currency is in the hands of a small number of those present, buyers and sellers; or even in the extreme case (the case of a bank in a small market town), in the hands of one controller only.

No transactions in the market, save those of mere barter, can take place unless the monopolist holding the currency permit it to be used for its natural purpose.

The natural purpose of currency is this: the facilitation of the multiple exchange of goods. If I have a surplus of wheat, having produced more than I can consume of that article, while my neighbor has a surplus of hay, having produced more than his establishment can consume, we will, if we are in contact, naturally exchange the hay for the wheat; since it is to the mutual advantage of both of us that we should do so.

Now let us suppose a third party, who had produced more potatoes than he can consume, but has not sufficient hay for his purpose; a fourth who has livestock for food in excess of his needs and would exchange the surplus for wheat; a fifth who is a craftsman and has produced clothes and boots for the supply of others in exchange for goods which he needs. Then there arises a condition not of simple barter but of multiple exchange.

The man with the hay is not in contact with the man who produced boots, nor either of them with the man who has the surplus of potatoes. There must be present a common medium of exchange which shall circulate among them if the various surpluses are to be distributed according to the demands of the producers and purchasers.

That is the true function of money, and of instruments of credit based upon money: to make possible the action of multiple exchange.
Now insofar as the monopolists hold back this current medium from general circulation, demanding a price for its use, they are demanding increment for something which has no natural increment: which does not breed. They are asking for a surplus although that which they advance produces of itself no surplus. Although that which they advance produces of itself no surplus. They are holding up the community by refusing it its normal medium of exchange.

That is the first wrong attaching to taking interest upon money alone. The second and in complex times such as ours, much the more important-evil attaching to usury is the taking of increment from a non-productive loan.

This is manifestly immoral.

A man comes to me and says: "I have found upon my property a vein of ore, but it lies deep, so that I shall require a considerable capital-say $100,000-to extract the valuable metal. That metal, when it shall have been extracted, will be worth at least $200,000. But I cannot obtain this advantage until I purchase the instruments for developing the mine and have hired the labor required to work it. Lend me the $100,000 necessary for the operation. I answer him: "If I do so, you must give me a share in the profit, say half of the total." He agrees, that without my capital he could not develop the mine; without his ore my capital would not be used. The combination of the two is productive of wealth, and we share that wealth. That is a perfectly moral transaction, even if the profit be one of 100 percent or 1000 percent over the original investment; so that if, with my stipulated half profit, I make 50 percent or 500 percent on my original loan, I am in now way to blame. The increment is not properly speaking interest on a loan of money: it is a share of real wealth.

But if I lend the money, saying; "I care not what your profits may be, nor whether there be a profit or no, but I demand $10,000 a year for the use of my $100,000"- then in case the speculation fails the borrower will be bound to pay the $10,000 perpetually, without any production of wealth to correspond to it. He will then be paying interest on an unproductive loan, and it is manifestly immoral to ask for share of wealth which does not exist.

Now, any loan at interest which is a loan of mere money may partake of this character; and among a number of such loans many will partake of this unproductive character. Of the money bearing interest merely because it is money, some large proportion at any one time must be demanding interest from activities which create no wealth out of which to pay the interest.
For instance, nearly all of the War loans issued in the belligerent countries to pay for the Great War [WWI] were loans unproductive of wealth, yet bearing interest. The money was expended, not in developing productive capacity not in turning potential wealth into actual wealth, but in feeding men occupied in killing each other, in clothing them, in giving them their wages, and armament. When the effort was over, a vast indebtedness remained; a vast annual interest was claimed in perpetuity- and yet there has been no wealth produced out of which such increment could come.

But though Usury is in itself immoral, and justly condemned by every ethical code, its chief and worst defect in the particular case we are now examining, the growth of Capitalism and its increasing proletariat, is the centralization of irresponsible control over the lives of men: the putting of power over the proletariat into the hands of a few who can direct the loans of currency and credit without which the proletariat could not be fed and clothed and maintained in work.

1. It must be remarked that one of the principal factors of success in the Mohammedan over-running of half Christendom between the 7th and 8th centuries was its active penalizing of Usury. This leading tenet of Islam in its social morals gave immediate relief to myriads of debtors in North Africa, Syria and Mesopotamia. It is strictly enforced today. Nothing is more remarkable in the Mohammedan countries of North Africa today than to see how, under the rule of Europeans there, the Mohammedan still refuses to take interest from his fellow Mohammedan on a mere loan of money, and how the whole trade of Usury is confined to the European immigrants and the native Jews.

Workers Enjoy Fruits of Their Labour

2007-08-23T15:48:00.000-07:00

Firms owned by staff have beaten the FTSE all-share. So why aren't there more?

Antoinette Odoi
Monday August 20, 2007
The Guardian

Imagine working for a company that provides heavily subsidised hotel accommodation in Dorset's Brownsea Castle and discounts of up to 50% on theatre tickets. But much better than that, it makes you a partner, entitling you to a share of the profits.

This is a reality for thousands of John Lewis partners, who received an 18% bonus this year, equivalent to nine weeks' full pay. This year profit before tax at the partnership was £319m, with £164m being reinvested. The rest, £155m, was shared between the partners.

John Lewis Partnership is probably the best known successful employee-owned company. Its 68,000 permanent staff own its 26 John Lewis department stores, 185 Waitrose supermarkets, online catalogue John Lewis Direct, three production units, a farm and Greenbee, a tickets, travel and insurance service. The whole group had a combined turnover of nearly £6bn last year.

Despite its success, employee-owned companies are only slowly emerging as a credible business model.

Data from Equity Incentives, a company providing a share plan service to private and quoted companies, reveals the monetary benefits. It set up an employee ownership index in 1992 to see if employee-owned companies could outperform the average quoted company. It shows £100 invested in the index would have been worth £349 by the end of June 2003; the same £100 invested in the FTSE all-share index would only have grown to £161.

The Employee Ownership Association carried out a survey in 2005 that revealed that 72% thought staff worked harder under a co-ownership structure, 81% said they took more responsibility, 49% thought competitiveness was enhanced and 44% confirmed profits were higher.

Despite this, co-owned companies make up only an estimated 2% of the economy, or £25bn in annual turnover. But Patrick Burns, executive director, sees a strong case for them.

Extra mile

"You get a remarkable level of employee involvement and people are prepared to go the extra mile. People feel their companies are more productive, and the companies are very sustainable," he says.

Director of personnel at the John Lewis Partnership, Tracey Killen, says: "The great strength of the partnership's model is that employees have a real stake in the business ... co-ownership allows the partnership to take a long-term view, because we do not have to answer to external shareholders who are usually seeking quick returns."

A John Lewis spokesman adds: "In the 1990s, performance was quite sluggish. If we were a listed company shareholders would have been asking questions. We invested a lot of money ... but we didn't see the consequences until four, five, six years down the line."

The investment seems to have worked. John Lewis has come first in the Which? survey of the nation's favourite retailers. It has now made a £500m investment in 11 new stores to be built within 10 years.

Loch Fyne Oysters is another example. The company (separate from the Loch Fyne restaurant chain, which was sold to Greene King for £68m last week) turns over £10m a year. It was bought by more than 100 staff in 2003 after they borrowed £2m from the Baxi Partnership, an organisation which helps business become employee-owned through a trust structure, and about £1m from the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Virginia Sumsion, marketing manager at Loch Fyne Oysters, says co-ownership "gives employees a sense of security" but the system requires participation which has not always been easy.

"[Co-ownership] ... means [middle management] has to get employees more involved. In the early stages it's quite difficult to know what to ask." But after the teething problems, she says, "now the culture of the company has become more open".

Fig leaf

Mark Constantine, chief executive of Lush, the natural cosmetics shop, is considering co-ownership. While he stresses the idea is still in the embryonic stage, he wants the 5,500 employees who have contributed to Lush, which has a turnover of £145m a year, to get something back.

He says one reason would be to prevent a buyout from a company that doesn't share Lush's ethics, including its stance against animal testing, but merely wants it as an "ethical fig leaf". "If a business goes public it has to consider its shareholders above all else. I realise the people you [can] trust most are your own staff."

Shared ownership has its critics. Some doubt the ability to make the right decisions and make them quickly, and the level of risk that can be taken with so many people dependent.

But Mr Burns counters: "It's true that some companies do find it difficult to make decisions, but it's a misconception that everybody has to be consulted to make every single decision."

Mr Constantine also dismisses the worries: "Decision-making can become slow at any time. It's about the quality of the management."

But if the benefits are so clear, why is co-ownership not more widespread?

Jonathan Bland, chief executive of the Social Enterprise Coalition, says Britain has a very "thin" model of business. The reality, he says, is that there are "a range of fantastic business models but a real ignorance about the fact we can use them and be successful".

Mr Burns lays some of the blame on business advisers. "Owners looking to sell their business will hardly ever be advised to sell to their own employees. Very few are aware this option is there."

When Gordon Brown scrapped tax relief on company contributions to employee benefit trusts in 2003 it made it more difficult for companies to be trust-owned, he says.

"It was really aimed at tax-avoiders, and [the government] threw out the baby with the bathwater."

John Alexander, managing director of the Baxi Partnership, agrees. Having been in operation for seven years and helped eight companies with 700 staff become employee-owned, he feels employee-ownership could be given a boost if the government brought in "capital gains tax relaxation for anyone who sells into a co-owned structure".

"If there were a nil-rate band for businesses transferred into a co-owned structure, " he says, "it would be brought to the attention of every single accountant and lawyer in the country."

Case studies

Wilkin & Sons

Jam-maker Wilkin & Sons shows that adopting an employee-ownership structure does not mean sacrificing good organisation and profit. Businesses that have adopted ownership schemes involving their employees benefit from staff loyalty and improved work ethic.

Twenty-five years ago, the business behind Tiptree conserves changed its structure and now its 240 employees hold just under 50% of the 122-year-old company via an employee benefit trust. The rest is owned by the founding family members and some minority shareholders.

The company distributes shares annually according to length of service to everyone from the director to the assistants on the shopfloor. When workers retire, Wilkin buys their shares back and redistributes them among the rest of the employees.

Tim Came, Wilkin's sales and marketing manager, says: "We didn't want a predator to approach the business, asset-strip, close the factory and take it elsewhere without regard for the family's work here for generations."

Peter Wilkin, great grandson of the founder Arthur Charles Wilkin, is maintaining the family's interest in the business as chairman and joint managing director. The firm last year had a turnover of £16.5m.

It has also diversified and responded to market demands, introducing its organic Christmas pudding in 1999 and organic chilli mustard in 2003.

Sunderland Home Care Associates

Sunderland Home Care Associates began in 1994 when Margaret Elliot decided to set up a group in the Sunderland area that would provide personal care services to people in their own homes.

"I saw an ad in the local paper for expressions of interest to provide home care and applied," she says. Social services gave the company an initial £50,000 but the company has operated independently since then, and now the Sunderland branch has an annual turnover of £1.8m. The company, which bids for contracts from local social services organisations, has 200 staff in Sunderland and has expanded with operations in North Tyneside, Newcastle and Manchester.

The original Sunderland operation became employee-owned in 2002 because Mrs Elliott felt that giving employees a financial stake would ensure the highest standard of care.

Shares are issued annually to be held for a minimum of five years, but no employee can own more than 2% of the business.

Other co-ownership firms:

Arup Group (100% owned in trust): a global design and business consulting firm. The group has 19 UK offices with 2,500-3,000 staff in Britain, in addition to 9,000 staff working in more than 37 countries. It became employee-owned in 1979.

Compton Fundraising Consultants (wholly owned): group of fundraising consultancies catering for not-for-profit organisations. It was founded more than 40 years ago and has always been employee-owned but to varying degrees.

St Luke's (wholly owned): advertising and communications company bought by its employees in 1995. It has about 60 employees.

School Trends (100% owned in trust): focusing on the supply of school uniforms, it was set up in 1988 and moved to employee ownership status in 2004. It has approximately 150 employees.

Pope Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno

2007-08-22T16:46:00.001-07:00

Table of Contents

The Church and Her Right to Spread the Eternal Law

Private Property

Communism

The Many Masks of Socialism

Capitalism

The Two Fold Character: Neither Capitlalism nor Socialism

Economics as Subject to Ethics, Faith and Morals

Work and the Family

The Employer/Employee Covenant

Against Unjust Competition

The Guilds

The Imperative of the State

Subsidarity

The Catholic Duty and Call For the Third Way

THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHT TO SPREAD THE ETERNAL LAW

The (Pope Leo XIII's) Encyclical On the Condition of Workers, without question, has become a memorable document and rightly to it may be applied the words of Isaias: "He shall set up a standard to the nations"

Yet before proceeding to explain these matters, that principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters. Certainly the Church was not given the commission to guide men to an only fleeting and perishable happiness but to that which is eternal. Indeed" the Church holds that it is unlawful for her to mix without cause in these temporal concerns"; however, she can in no wise renounce the duty God entrusted to her to interpose her authority, not of course in matters of technique for which she is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office, but in all things that are connected with the moral law. For as to these, the deposit of truth that God committed to Us and the grave duty of disseminating and interpreting the whole moral law, and of urging it in season and out of season, bring under and subject to Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves

Nor is the benefit that has poured forth from Leo's Encyclical confined within these bounds; for the teaching which On the Condition of Workers contains has gradually and imperceptibly worked its way into the minds of those outside Catholic unity who do not recognize the authority of the Church. Catholic principles on the social question have as a result, passed little by little into the patrimony of all human society, and We rejoice that the eternal truths which Our Predecessor of glorious memory proclaimed so impressively have been frequently invoked and defended not only in non-Catholic books and journals but in legislative halls also courts of justice

PRIVATE PROPERTY

We shall begin with ownership or the right of property. Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, you know that Our Predecessor of happy memory strongly defended the right of property against the tenets of the Socialists of his time by showing that its abolition would result, not to the advantage of the working class, but to their extreme harm

For they have always unanimously maintained that nature, rather the Creator Himself, has given man the right of private ownership not only that individuals may be able to provide for themselves and their families but also that the goods which the Creator destined for the entire family of mankind may through this institution truly serve this purpose

The right of property is distinct from its use.[30] That justice called commutative commands sacred respect for the division of possessions and forbids invasion of others' rights through the exceeding of the limits of one's own property; but the duty of owners to use their property only in a right way does not come under this type of justice, but under other virtues, obligations of which "cannot be enforced by legal action."[31] Therefore, they are in error who assert that ownership and its right use are limited by the same boundaries; and it is much farther still from the truth to hold that a right to property is destroyed or lost by reason of abuse or non-use

Those, therefore, are doing a work that is truly salutary and worthy of all praise who, while preserving harmony among themselves and the integrity of the traditional teaching of the Church, seek to define the inner nature of these duties and their limits whereby either the right of property itself or its use, that is, the exercise of ownership, is circumscribed by the necessities of social living. On the other hand, those who seek to restrict the individual character of ownership to such a degree that in fact they destroy it are mistaken and in error

COMMUNISM

Communism teaches and seeks two objectives: Unrelenting class warfare and absolute extermination of private ownership. Not secretly or by hidden methods does it do this, but publicly, openly, and by employing every and all means, even the most violent. To achieve these objectives there is nothing which it does not dare, nothing for which it has respect or reverence; and when it has come to power, it is incredible and portentlike in its cruelty and inhumanity. The horrible slaughter and destruction through which it has laid waste vast regions of eastern Europe and Asia are the evidence; how much an enemy and how openly hostile it is to Holy Church and to God Himself is, alas, too well proved by facts and fully known to all. Although We, therefore, deem it superfluous to warn upright and faithful children of the Church regarding the impious and iniquitous character of Communism, yet We cannot without deep sorrow contemplate the heedlessness of those who apparently make light of these impending dangers, and with sluggish inertia allow the widespread propagation of doctrine which seeks by violence and slaughter to destroy society altogether. All the more gravely to be condemned is the folly of those who neglect to remove or change the conditions that inflame the minds of peoples, and pave the way for the overthrow and destruction of society

THE MANY MASKS OF SOCIALISM

Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist

It belongs to Our Pastoral Office to warn these persons of the grave and imminent evil: let all remember that Liberalism is the father of this Socialism that is pervading morality and culture and that Bolshevism will be its heir

We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel

Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth

Because of the fact that goods are produced more efficiently by a suitable division of labor than by the scattered efforts of individuals, socialists infer that economic activity, only the material ends of which enter into their thinking, ought of necessity to be carried on socially. Because of this necessity, they hold that men are obliged, with respect to the producing of goods, to surrender and subject themselves entirely to society. Indeed, possession of the greatest possible supply of things that serve the advantages of this life is considered of such great importance that the higher goods of man, liberty not excepted, must take a secondary place and even be sacrificed to the demands of the most efficient production of goods. This damage to human dignity, undergone in the "socialized" process of production, will be easily offset, they say, by the abundance of socially produced goods which will pour out in profusion to individuals to be used freely at their pleasure for comforts and cultural development. Society, therefore, as Socialism conceives it, can on the one hand neither exist nor be thought of without an obviously excessive use of force; on the other hand, it fosters a liberty no less false, since there is no place in it for true social authority, which rests not on temporal and material advantages but descends from God alone, the Creator and last end of all things

And therefore, to the harassed workers there have come "intellectuals," as they are called, setting up in opposition to a fictitious law the equally fictitious moral principle that all products and profits, save only enough to repair and renew capital, belong by very right to the workers. This error, much more specious than that of certain of the Socialists who hold that whatever serves to produce goods ought to be transferred to the State, or, as they say "socialized," is consequently all the more dangerous and the more apt to deceive the unwary

Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone

Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now which is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to Socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists

Yet let no one think that all the socialist groups or factions that are not communist have, without exception, recovered their senses to this extent either in fact or in name. For the most part they do not reject the class struggle or the abolition of ownership, but only in some degree modify them. Now if these false principles are modified and to some extent erased from the program, the question arises, or rather is raised without warrant by some, whether the principles of Christian truth cannot perhaps be also modified to some degree and be tempered so as to meet Socialism half-way and, as it were, by a middle course, come to agreement with it

There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity

For they are greatly in error who do not hesitate to spread the principle that labor is worth and must be paid as much as its products are worth, and that consequently the one who hires out his labor has the right to demand all that is produced through his labor

CAPITALISM

But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life--a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle...But it cannot curb and rule itself

Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain

Yet while it is true that the status of non owning worker is to be carefully distinguished from pauperism, nevertheless the immense multitude of the non-owning workers on the one hand and the enormous riches of certain very wealthy men on the other establish an unanswerable argument that the riches which are so abundantly produced in our age of "industrialism," as it is called, are not rightly distributed and equitably made available to the various classes of the people

But since manufacturing and industry have so rapidly pervaded and occupied countless regions, not only in the countries called new, but also in the realms of the Far East that have been civilized from antiquity, the number of the non-owning working poor has increased enormously and their groans cry to God from the earth. Added to them is the huge army of rural wage workers, pushed to the lowest level of existence and deprived of all hope of ever acquiring "some property in land," and, therefore, permanently bound to the status of non-owning worker unless suitable and effective remedies are applied

For since the seeds of a new form of economy were bursting forth just when the principles of rationalism had been implanted and rooted in many minds, there quickly developed a body of economic teaching far removed from the true moral law, and, as a result, completely free rein was given to human passions

The easy gains that a market unrestricted by any law opens to everybody attracts large numbers to buying and selling goods, and they, their one aim being to make quick profits with the least expenditure of work, raise or lower prices by their uncontrolled business dealings so rapidly according to their own caprice and greed that they nullify the wisest forecasts of producers

Since the instability of economic life, and especially of its structure, exacts of those engaged in it most intense and unceasing effort, some have become so hardened to the stings of conscience as to hold that they are allowed, in any manner whatsoever, to increase their profits and use means, fair or foul, to protect their hard-won wealth against sudden changes of fortune

The root and font of this defection in economic and social life from the Christian law, and of the consequent apostasy of great numbers of workers from the Catholic faith, are the disordered passions of the soul, the sad result of original sin which has so destroyed the wonderful harmony of man's faculties that, easily led astray by his evil desires, he is strongly incited to prefer the passing goods of this world to the lasting goods of Heaven

This concentration of power and might, the characteristic mark, as it were, of contemporary economic life, is the fruit that the unlimited freedom of struggle among competitors has of its own nature produced, and which lets only the strongest survive; and this is often the same as saying, those who fight the most violently, those who give least heed to their conscience

This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will

but rather because men, hardened by too much love of self, refused to open the order to the increasing masses as they should have done, or because, deceived by allurements of a false freedom and other errors, they became impatient of every authority and sought to reject every form of control

THE TWO FOLD CHARACTER:NEITHER SOCIALISM NOR CAPITALISM

For toward the close of the nineteenth century, the new kind of economic life that had arisen and the new developments of industry had gone to the point in most countries that human society was clearly becoming divided more and more into two classes. One class, very small in number, was enjoying almost all the advantages which modern inventions so abundantly provided; the other, embracing the huge multitude of working people, oppressed by wretched poverty, was vainly seeking escape from the straits wherein it stood

Quite agreeable, of course, was this state of things to those who thought it in their abundant riches the result of inevitable economic laws and accordingly, as if it were for charity to veil the violation of justice which lawmakers not only tolerated but at times sanctioned, wanted the whole care of supporting the poor committed to charity alone. The workers, on the other hand, crushed by their hard lot, were barely enduring it and were refusing longer to bend their necks beneath so galling a yoke; and some of them, carried away by the heat of evil counsel, were seeking the overturn of everything, while others, whom Christian training restrained from such evil designs, stood firm in the judgment that much in this had to be wholly and speedily changed

He (the Holy Father) sought no help from either Liberalism or Socialism, for the one had proved that it was utterly unable to solve the social problem aright, and the other, proposing a remedy far worse than the evil itself, would have plunged human society into great dangers

For, as one is wrecked upon, or comes close to, what is known as "individualism" by denying or minimizing the social and public character of the right of property, so by rejecting or minimizing the private and individual character of this same right, one inevitably runs into "collectivism" or at least closely approaches its tenets

It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good

Unquestionably, so as not to close against themselves the road to justice and peace through these false tenets, both parties ought to have been forewarned by the wise words of Our Predecessor: "However the earth may be apportioned among private owners, it does not cease to serve the common interests of all"

By this law of social justice, one class is forbidden to exclude the other from sharing in the benefits. Hence the class of the wealthy violates this law no less, when, as if free from care on account of its wealth, it thinks it the right order of things for it to get everything and the worker nothing, than does the non-owning working class when, angered deeply at outraged justice and too ready to assert wrongly the one right it is conscious of, it demands for itself everything as if produced by its own hands, and attacks and seeks to abolish, therefore, all property and returns or incomes, of whatever kind they are or whatever the function they perform in human society, that have not been obtained by labor, and for no other reason save that they are of such a nature

For We observe that consciences are little affected by this reduced obligation of accountability; that furthermore, by hiding under the shelter of a joint name, the worst of injustices and frauds are penetrated; and that, too, directors of business companies, forgetful of their trust, betray the rights of those whose savings they have undertaken to administer. Lastly, We must not omit to mention those crafty men who, wholly unconcerned about any honest usefulness of their work, do not scruple to stimulate the baser human desires and, when they are aroused, use them for their own profit

First, so as to avoid the reefs of individualism and collectivism. the twofold character, that is individual and social, both of capital or ownership and of work or labor must be given due and rightful weight. Relations of one to the other must be made to conform to the laws of strictest justice--commutative justice, as it is called--with the support, however, of Christian charity. Free competition, kept within definite and due limits, and still more economic dictatorship, must be effectively brought under public authority in these matters which pertain to the latter's function. The public institutions themselves, of peoples, moreover, ought to make all human society conform to the needs of the common good; that is, to the norm of social justice. If this is done, that most important division of social life, namely, economic activity, cannot fail likewise to return to right and sound order

The laws passed to promote corporate business, while dividing and limiting the risk of business, have given occasion to the most sordid license

In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure

It is certainly most lamentable, Venerable Brethren, that there have been, nay, that even now there are men who, although professing to be Catholics, are almost completely unmindful of that sublime law of justice and charity that binds us not only to render to everyone what is his but to succor brothers in need as Christ the Lord Himself, and--what is worse-- out of greed for gain do not scruple to exploit the workers. Even more, there are men who abuse religion itself, and under its name try to hide their unjust exactions in order to protect themselves from the manifestly just demands of the workers. The conduct of such We shall never cease to censure gravely. For they are the reason why the Church could, even though undeservedly, have the appearance of and be charged with taking the part of the rich and with being quite unmoved by the necessities and hardships of those who have been deprived, as it were, of their natural inheritance. The whole history of the Church plainly demonstrates that such appearances are unfounded and such charges unjust. The Encyclical itself, whose anniversary we are celebrating, is clearest proof that it is the height of injustice to hurl these calumnies and reproaches at the Church and her teaching

There remains to Us, after again calling to judgment the economic system now in force and its most bitter accuser, Socialism, and passing explicit and just sentence upon them, to search out more thoroughly the root of these many evils and to point out that the first and most necessary remedy is a reform of morals

Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect

ECONOMICS AS SUBJECT TO ETHICS, FAITH AND MORALS

Even though economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere, it is, nevertheless, an error to say that the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter. Certainly the laws of economics, as they are termed, being based on the very nature of material things and on the capacities of the human body and mind, determine the limits of what productive human effort cannot, and of what it can attain in the economic field and by what means. Yet it is reason itself that clearly shows, on the basis of the individual and social nature of things and of men, the purpose which God ordained for all economic life.

Those who are engaged in producing goods, therefore, are not forbidden to increase their fortune in a just and lawful manner; for it is only fair that he who renders service to the community and makes it richer should also, through the increased wealth of the community, be made richer himself according to his position, provided that all these things be sought with due respect for the laws of God and without impairing the rights of others and that they be employed in accordance with faith and right reason. If these principles are observed by everyone, everywhere, and always, not only the production and acquisition of goods but also the use of wealth, which now is seen to be so often contrary to right order, will be brought back soon within the bounds of equity and just distribution

Yet it is not rash by any means to say that the whole scheme of social and economic life is now such as to put in the way of vast numbers of mankind most serious obstacles which prevent them from caring for the one thing necessary; namely, their eternal salvation .

But this order, which We Ourselves ardently long for and with all Our efforts promote, will be wholly defective and incomplete unless all the activities of men harmoniously unite to imitate and attain, in so far as it lies within human strength, the marvelous unity of the Divine plan. We mean that perfect order which the Church with great force and power preaches and which right human reason itself demands, that all things be directed to God as the first and supreme end of all created activity, and that all created good under God be considered as mere instruments to be used only in so far as they conduce to the attainment of the supreme end

No genuine cure can be furnished for this lamentable ruin of souls, which, so long as it continues, will frustrate all efforts to regenerate society, unless men return openly and sincerely to the teaching of the Gospel

With the rulers of economic life abandoning the right road, it was easy for the rank and file of workers everywhere to rush headlong also into the same chasm; and all the more so, because very many managements treated their workers like mere tools, with no concern at all for their souls, without indeed even the least thought of spiritual things. Truly the mind shudders at the thought of the grave dangers to which the morals of workers (particularly younger workers) and the modesty of girls and women are exposed in modern factories; when we recall how often the present economic scheme, and particularly the shameful housing conditions, create obstacles to the family bond and normal family life; when we remember how many obstacles are put in the way of the proper observance of Sundays and Holy Days; and when we reflect upon the universal weakening of that truly Christian sense through which even rude and unlettered men were wont to value higher things, and upon its substitution by the single preoccupation of getting in any way whatsoever one's daily bread. And thus bodily labor, which Divine Providence decreed to be performed, even after original sin, for the good at once of man's body and soul, is being everywhere changed into an instrument of perversion; for dead matter comes forth from the factory ennobled, while men there are corrupted and degraded.

Thus it came to pass that many, much more than ever before, were solely concerned with increasing their wealth by any means whatsoever, and that in seeking their own selfish interests before everything else they had no conscience about committing even the gravest of crimes against others. Those first entering upon this broad way that leads to destruction[66] easily found numerous imitators of their iniquity by the example of their manifest success, by their insolent display of wealth, by their ridiculing the conscience of others, who, as they said, were troubled by silly scruples, or lastly by crushing more conscientious competitors

For, according to Christian teaching, man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth so that by leading a life in society and under an authority ordained of God he may fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness

WORK AND THE FAMILY

In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers

Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately

THE EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE COVENANT

Hence it follows that unless a man is expending labor on his own property, the labor of one person and the property of another must be associated, for neither can produce anything without the other

We consider it more advisable, however, in the present condition of human society that, so far as is possible, the work-contract be somewhat modified by a partnership-contract, as is already being done in various ways and with no small advantage to workers and owners. Workers and other employees thus become sharers in ownership or management or participate in some fashion in the profits received

In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers. If, however, a business makes too little money, because of lack of energy or lack of initiative or because of indifference to technical and economic progress, that must not be regarded a just reason for reducing the compensation of the workers.

...a feeling of close relationship and a Christian concord of minds ought to prevail and function effectively among employers and workers.

...the worker's human dignity in it (work) must be recognized. It therefore cannot be bought and sold like a commodity

This opportunity depends largely on the wage and salary rate, which can help as long as it is kept within proper limits, but which on the other hand can be an obstacle if it exceeds these limits. For everyone knows that an excessive lowering of wages, or their increase beyond due measure, causes unemployment

Hence it is contrary to social justice when, for the sake of personal gain and without regard for the common good, wages and salaries are excessively lowered or raised

But it does violate right order when capital hires workers, that is, the non-owning working class, with a view to and under such terms that it directs business and even the whole economic system according to its own will and advantage, scorning the human dignity of the workers, the social character of economic activity and social justice itself, and the common good

For the doctrine was preached that all accumulation of capital falls by an absolutely insuperable economic law to the rich, and that by the same law the workers are given over and bound to perpetual want, to the scantiest of livelihoods...these false ideas, these erroneous suppositions, have been vigorously assailed, and not by those alone who through them were being deprived of their innate right to obtain better conditions, will surprise no one

AGAINST UNJUST COMPETITION

But if the business in question is not making enough money to pay the workers an equitable wage because it is being crushed by unjust burdens or forced to sell its product at less than a just price, those who are thus the cause of the injury are guilty of grave wrong, for they deprive workers of their just wage and force them under the pinch of necessity to accept a wage less than fair

THE GUILDS

But complete cure will not come until this opposition has been abolished and well-ordered members of the social body--Industries and Professions--are constituted in which men may have their place, not according to the position each has in the labor market but according to the respective social functions which each performs

To the founding of these associations the clergy and many of the laity devoted themselves everywhere with truly praiseworthy zeal, eager to bring Leo's program to full realization. Thus associations of this kind have molded truly Christian workers who, in combining harmoniously the diligent practice of their occupation with the salutary precepts of religion, protect effectively and resolutely their own temporal interests and rights, keeping a due respect for justice and a genuine desire to work together with other classes of society for the Christian renewal of all social life

...They (Catholic clergy and laity) encouraged Christian workers to found mutual associations according to their various occupations, taught them how to do so, and resolutely confirmed in the path of duty a goodly number of those whom socialist organizations strongly attracted by claiming to be the sole defenders and champions of the lowly and oppressed

There were even some Catholics who looked askance at the efforts of workers to form associations of this type as if they smacked of a socialistic or revolutionary spirit

This second method has especially been adopted where either the laws of a country, or certain special economic institutions, or that deplorable dissension of minds and hearts so widespread in contemporary society and an urgent necessity of combating with united purpose and strength the massed ranks of revolutionarists, have prevented Catholics from founding purely Catholic labor unions. Under these conditions, Catholics seem almost forced to join secular labor unions. These unions, however, should always profess justice and equity and give Catholic members full freedom to care for their own conscience and obey the laws of the Church. It is clearly the office of bishops, when they know that these associations are on account of circumstances necessary and are not dangerous to religion, to approve of Catholic workers joining them, keeping before their eyes, however, the principles and precautions laid down by Our Predecessor, Pius X of holy memory. Among these precautions the first and chief is this: Side by side with these unions there should always be associations zealously engaged in imbuing and forming their members in the teaching of religion and morality so that they in turn may be able to permeate the unions with that good spirit which should direct them in all their activity. As a result, the religious associations will bear good fruit even beyond the circle of their own membership

To the Encyclical of Leo, therefore, must be given this credit, that these associations of workers have so flourished everywhere that while, alas, still surpassed in numbers by socialist and communist organizations, they already embrace a vast multitude of workers and are able, within the confines of each nation as well as in wider assemblies, to maintain vigorously the rights and legitimate demands of Catholic workers and insist also on the salutary Christian principles of society.

For under nature's guidance it comes to pass that just as those who are joined together by nearness of habitation establish towns, so those who follow the same industry or profession--whether in the economic or other field--form guilds or associations, so that many are wont to consider these self-governing organizations, if not essential, at least natural to civil society

For justice alone can, if faithfully observed, remove the causes of social conflict but can never bring about union of minds and hearts. Indeed all the institutions for the establishment of peace and the promotion of mutual help among men, however perfect these may seem, have the principal foundation of their stability in the mutual bond of minds and hearts whereby the members are united with one another

Strikes and lock-outs are forbidden; if the parties cannot settle their dispute, public authority intervenes

It is easily deduced from what has been said that the interests common to the whole Industry or Profession should hold first place in these guilds. The most important among these interests is to promote the cooperation in the highest degree of each industry and profession for the sake of the common good of the country

THE IMPERATIVE OF THE STATE

Just freedom of action must, of course, be left both to individual citizens and to families, yet only on condition that the common good be preserved and wrong to any individual be abolished. The function of the rulers of the State, moreover, is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor

The same feeling those many Catholics, both priests and laymen, shared, whom a truly wonderful charity had long spurred on to relieve the unmerited poverty of the non-owning workers, and who could in no way convince themselves that so enormous and unjust an in equality in the distribution of this world's goods truly conforms to the designs of the all-wise Creator

Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property

That the State is not permitted to discharge its duty arbitrarily is, however, clear. The natural right itself both of owning goods privately and of passing them on by inheritance ought always to remain intact and inviolate

Wherefore the wise Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes. "For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man's law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the common weal."[36] Yet when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods, which the Author of nature in His most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them

The social policy of the State, therefore, must devote itself to the re-establishment of the Industries and Professions

SUBSIDARITY

When we speak of the reform of institutions, the State comes chiefly to mind, not as if universal well-being were to be expected from its activity, but because things have come to such a pass through the evil of what we have termed "individualism" that, following upon the overthrow and near extinction of that rich social life which was once highly developed through associations of various kinds, there remain virtually only individuals and the State. This is to the great harm of the State itself; for, with a structure of social governance lost, and with the taking over of all the burdens which the wrecked associations once bore. the State has been overwhelmed and crushed by almost infinite tasks and duties

Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do

The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State

THE CATHOLIC DUTY AND THE CALL FOR A THIRD WAY

We have outlined rather than fully described, are so numerous and of such import as to show plainly that this immortal document does not exhibit a merely fanciful, even if beautiful, ideal of human society. Rather did our Predecessor draw from the Gospel and, therefore, from an ever-living and life-giving fountain, teachings capable of greatly mitigating, if not immediately terminating that deadly internal struggle which is rending the family of mankind. The rich fruits which the Church of Christ and the whole human race have, by God's favor, reaped therefrom unto salvation prove that some of this good seed, so lavishly sown forty years ago, fell on good ground. On the basis of the long period of experience, it cannot be rash to say that Leo's Encyclical has proved itself the Magna Charta upon which all Christian activity in the social field ought to be based, as on a foundation. And those who would seem to hold in little esteem this Papal Encyclical and its commemoration either blaspheme what they know not, or understand nothing of what they are only superficially acquainted with, or if they do understand convict themselves formally of injustice and ingratitude

Therefore, with all our strength and effort we must strive that at least in the future the abundant fruits of production will accrue equitably to those who are rich and will be distributed in ample sufficiency among the workers--not that these may become remiss in work, for man is born to labor as the bird to fly-- but that they may increase their property by thrift, that they may bear, by wise management of this increase in property, the burdens of family life with greater ease and security, and that, emerging from the insecure lot in life in whose uncertainties non-owning workers are cast, they may be able not only to endure the vicissitudes of earthly existence but have also assurance that when their lives are ended they will provide in some measure for those they leave after them

Therefore, let all men of good will stand united, all who under the Shepherds of the Church wish to fight this good and peaceful battle of Christ; and under the leadership and teaching guidance of the Church let all strive according to the talent, powers, and position of each to contribute something to the Christian reconstruction of human society which Leo Xlll inaugurated through his immortal Encyclical, On the Condition of Workers, seeking not themselves and their own interests, but those of Jesus Christ,[81] not trying to press at all costs their own counsels, but ready to sacrifice them, however excellent, if the greater common good should seem to require it, so that in all and above all Christ may reign, Christ may command to Whom be "honor and glory and dominion forever and ever

Venerable Brethren and Beloved Sons, let us not permit the children of this world to appear wiser in their generation than we who by the Divine Goodness are the children of the light

Since the present system of economy is founded chiefly upon ownership and labor, the principles of right reason, that is, of Christian social philosophy, must be kept in mind regarding ownership and labor and their association together, and must be put into actual practice

...of that Church which in this field also that We have described, as in every other field where moral questions are involved and discussed, can never forget or neglect through indifference its divinely imposed mandate to be vigilant and to teach

And may these free organizations, now flourishing and rejoicing in their salutary fruits, set before themselves the task of preparing the way, in conformity with the mind of Christian social teaching, for those larger and more important guilds, Industries and Professions, which We mentioned before, and make every possible effort to bring them to realization

Expending larger incomes so that opportunity for gainful work may be abundant, provided, however, that this work is applied to producing really useful goods, ought to be considered, as We deduce from the principles of the Angelic Doctor

To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is laboring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice

And these goods ought indeed to be enough both to meet the demands of necessity and decent comfort and to advance people to that happier and fuller condition of life which, when it is wisely cared for, is not only no hindrance to virtue but helps it greatly

Even today this is not, it is true, the only economic system in force everywhere; for there is another system also, which still embraces a huge mass of humanity, significant in numbers and importance, as for example, agriculture wherein the greater portion of mankind honorably and honestly procures its livelihood

Still, in order that what he so happily initiated may be solidly established, that what remains to be done may be accomplished, and that even more copious and richer benefits may accrue to the family of mankind, two things are especially necessary: reform of institutions and correction of morals

Are We Better Off?

2007-08-20T12:26:00.000-07:00

by Gen Ferrer

We are for the most part enduring the same things in the first world. Salaries increase nominally (or decrease) and everything else increases substantially, particularly private property. Private property, even when it slows down or drops, still maintains a level for the most part unaffordable to single income earners. A home was once a realistic goal for a young couple looking to raise a family on a single income. Salaries provided enough for the sustenance of the family with a little extra for savings and home maintenance. Today we see a different picture with both parents forced to work in order to make the basic payments. They have been hit hard by property values as well as the burden of property taxation.

The market determines real estate values by the demand of an area being met under the current supply regardless of local average income. Wealthy out-of-towners may buy up an area, increasing the market value of those towns, whilst the offspring of those townspeople, people who have no intention of cashing in on this new profit, are forced to move out or swallow themselves in possible foreclosures and/or lifelong debt. In some cases, young people are looking elsewhere in the United States for a future home. With little incentive or support to start their own business or to find comprehensive work, the new generations must leave or suffer exorbitant real estate prices and bloated property taxes. The first world is playing a game of musical chairs with local residents moving to other areas of their home state, or in some cases to another state altogether in order to secure for themselves a little property.

In the 1950s the average citizen was able to afford a modest home on a single income in Long Island, New York. His wife was able to raise the children, giving them a Christian upbringing, spending quality time with them and sharing in their children's activities (little league games, schools, etc). Property promised to be an asset paid for within a reasonable amount of time and the promise of inheritance handed over to the next generation.

Today the margin between a monthly mortgage and wages is wider than that of previous generations. A couple must work. Their paychecks barely make enough to sustain a mortgage so they must look to other locations in order to survive with just enough to get by. Due to the steep financial climb of real estate, a family must consider an area where property is comparable with the wages they earn. If they can afford this luxury they may move to greener pastures even as they wave their local communities goodbye. If not, they must rent to avoid foreclosure. They find themselves in the hole of renting, a pit so deep one can find it quite difficult to climb out. Renting weakens the chance of property ownership and becomes a spiral that affects the inheritance of future generations.

We have forgotten to ask ourselves the most important question. If for all the talk of great economies or the depressing unemployment figures we are truly progressing as a society. I trust the readers of these articles we write at The New Distributist League must be asking themselves the same questions we do: namely, whether a society is basking in economic glories when we regress into liability or require two people to remain in 30 year real estate debt versus the one of the past. Are we better off when we have disposable goods at our finger tips at rock-bottom pricing, when we can't afford the thrift of life-long materials like our parents had and maintained? Are we better off outsourcing our jobs than controlling our own means of production through self-ownership? And finally, are we more secure working for companies interested in the ghost entity, with no promise of attaining a pension or without job security than working persistently to be self-sustained?

Interestingly enough, these are the questions asked in the United States as in the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain or Italy. They are the preoccupations of pubs in Ireland or cities in Canada. We are not speaking of underdeveloped nations or countries where our labour and services has disappeared to. We are speaking of the first world and that is where this New League is writing from. We are asking if we have progressed or regressed. We are asking if paper towels for 1 dollar is more important than the kitchen. We are looking to quality and value and thrift. We are questioning whether we wish to continue to consume from companies which turn their backs on their nation, believing they may return to sell to to that nation. We are defying socialist and capitalist politicians who ignore these questions, choosing instead to create needs which do not exist as an excuse to centralise more power.

Finally, I wish to tell the reader of a nefarious opinion I have similar to the whispering of the ear by Chesterton. I fear the society which continues to believe in choice above goodness, consumption instead of thrift, rent instead of ownership. It is the match lighting the fire of slavery. The Socialist insists on property appropriation as a consequence to an imagined cause - the war of classes, whilst the Capitalist insists on property appropriation for the cause of making money. Already they have begun their secret pact. Already they are both making money by convincing us of a war of the causes. There will always be those who believe in coincidences. These insist the same results amongst the first world is simply a playful circumstance or that man has been affected by the "spirit of the age" so nothing can be done. They insist the machine cannot be stopped even if a man is left to purchase affordable land on a sinking tugboat. This is the fallacy of their tug of war. But there is one way out of this same rope and it is alone the common sense possessed by the Distributist. It is only Distributism that in this economical tug of war uses the scissor.

Distributism and the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ

2007-08-19T13:10:00.000-07:00

by Athanasius

Part of the difficulty of arguing with Economic Liberals (libertarians, Austrian school, Acton institute, etc.) is that we have entirely different conceptions of the constitution of society, and we have fundamentally different notions of society's end. (the other part of course is that we define all of our terms differently). Distributism, in advocating the intervention of the state and subsidiaries at the local level to intervene in the economy when necessary, do so because the end of the state is to create an environment conducive to the salvation of the soul and the moral perfection of man within the context of the common good.
Economic liberals on the other hand, conceive of the state quite naturally in the context of liberal democracy as historically condemned by the Church. That the government should be secular and not openly religious one way or the other, permitting men to freely choose their religion and activity so long as it doesn't appear to harm others, with no determined end on account of the fact that this would represent an undue government intrusion into man's right to act freely. As such society could have as many ends as there are people in that society, which does not fit the traditional understanding of society, but rather of a subtle anarchy. One of the principle fallacies in the conception of economic liberals is the notion of freedom. In their framework, freedom, particularly in economy, is the freedom to use one's property and wealth in any way he sees fit.

Catholic Teaching on Freedom

This utterly unCatholic view of freedom is condemned explicitly by Pope Leo XIII (all emphasis in red are my own both here and throughout):

The eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law….What has been said of the liberty of individuals is no less applicable to them when considered as bound together in civil society. For, what reason and the natural law do for individuals, human law, promulgated for their good, does for the citizens of States. -Libertas Praestantissimum, no. 10

When applied to economics, such would be anathema to the ears of today's economic liberals, but it nevertheless remains apart of the corpus of Catholic teaching. Annunciating this same principle, Leo says in the same encyclical:

Such, then, being the condition of human liberty, it necessarily stands in need of light and strength to direct its actions to good and to restrain them from evil. Without this, the freedom of our will would be our ruin. First of all, there must be law; that is, a fixed rule of teaching what is to be done and what is to be left undone. This rule cannot affect the lower animals in any true sense, since they act of necessity, following their natural instinct, and cannot of themselves act in any other way. On the other hand, as was said above, he who is free can either act or not act, can do this or do that, as he pleases, because his judgment precedes his choice. And his judgment not only decides what is right or wrong of its own nature, but also what is practically good and therefore to be chosen, and what is practically evil and therefore to be avoided. In other words, the reason prescribes to the will what it should seek after or shun, in order to the eventual attainment of man's last end, for the sake of which all his actions ought to be performed. This ordination of reason is called law.
In man's free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man's actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments.

(Ibid, no. 7)

Fine so far. One would find that our economic liberal friends would agree with this, saying that of course man has need of law. Simply not in economics of course. Pope Pius XI however, applying these principles of human liberty and human freedom to the market, had this to say:

Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life -- a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle. This function is one that the economic dictatorship which has recently displaced free competition can still less perform, since it is a headstrong power and a violent energy that, to benefit people, needs to be strongly curbed and wisely ruled. (all emphasis mine)

Pius XI is telling us that the principles of economic liberalism, what today we call libertarianism or Austrian economics, does not serve as an effective directing principle for society, and it is precisely because it is based on Enlightenment heresies on human freedom.

Now the Church does not propose the destruction of the Capitalistic disorder in a vacuum (as say a Socialist who wants all property entrusted to an atheistic state to hold in trust for the community). She proposes instead a unity of Church state and society, with the same ends and goals. This is because what is in view is an ordered state, ordered to the same end for all of its members. Bl. Pope Pius IX, stated it as an error to divorce the Church from the State's laws and ends (with my emphasis as before):

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
-Pius IX, Quata Cura no. 3

Normally I prefer to refrain from referencing long strings of quotations to make a point, but when it concerns Catholic social teaching and Catholic political teaching it is sorely needed due to the great ignorance out there, unwilled of course for most men have never heard it. The assault of modern ideas, modernism if you will, is always directed against the political order of Christendom, that is Catholic society that began and evolved from King Clovis until the Reformation in 1531. Yet the Church continues to put forth that ideal and the principles that underlie it as the model of the Catholic state, even as the benighted social scientists, economists, natural scientists and politicians of our day continue to mock her. When looking at our current debate, we see part of the source of disagreement between Distributism and the framework of Economic liberalism. The latter, is conceived in a state of being where society is not ordered on a Catholic framework, where error is freely allowed rather than merely tolerated or curbed by government power, and where government does not work with the Church toward any given end of society, it merely lets its members go this way and that.
The latter on the other hand, is a system of economics conceived solely within a Catholic Framework, or at least in the framework that embodies those principles. Namely, that the government works with the Church to ensure the same end in society, so that as Pope Pius XI says it is as an ordered whole, an organism.

Order of Society

At this point no few voices are heard to cry Theocracy, and talk about the evils of kings and that all evils come from the unity of Church and State. The problem is that those raising such opposition generally do not understand what they are attacking, and as such our terms must be clearly defined. First of all, England provided a model of government that was truly Theocractic, namely that the high priest of the Church of England was the King, who was also the head of the state. This was unique in Christendom, because historically the Church and State were united, but not the same thing. In fact there was a clear sphere in which the Church operated and which the state operated. In rare cases of course, a Bishop might rule a given area, the Pope ruled the Papal States. Yet in countries like France, or in the Holy Roman Empire, Hungary, Denmark, pre-reformation England, or Spain, there was no Theocracy, and this term is falsely bandied about to describe all of Europe prior to the ignominious Enlightenment. Theocracy, as I noted, best describes post-Reformation England where the State ruled the Church and vice versa, or Islamic monarchies where the Sultan, or the supreme ruler in Islam the Calipha, was at once the religious authority and the governor of the state. In the case of the latter, he is the person in Islam who stands in the office of the prophet Muhammed.

It was in Christendom where the harmonious union of Church and State was achieved without one ruling the other. This is the type of order the Church has always supported, because it is oriented toward the same end, establishing the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ in society. Pope Pius XI declared concerning the Kingship of Christ in society:

Christ as our Redeemer purchased the Church at the price of his own blood; as priest he offered himself, and continues to offer himself as a victim for our sins. Is it not evident, then, that his kingly dignity partakes in a manner of both these offices?
It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia.
Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ."[Annum Sacrum] Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. "For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?" If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ.
-Quas Primas, no. 16-18

Thus according to the good Pope, the state is required to acknowledge the rule of Jesus Christ over all nations of the Earth. What does that include? Necessarily, you can not accomplish this unless one is promoting the moral teaching of Christ's kingdom, which is the Church. The state need not be composed of priests to accomplish this goal. But it can not be a state so utterly divorced from the true religion that it can have no official creed, or without discrimination allow men to follow whatever creed and moral practice. Society must be subordinated to a particular end, which is the salvation of the soul through entry into the Catholic Church, and a moral life conducive to that end. Thus the state can not be taken out of play when it comes to men's decisions, it must as much as possible, be conducive to freedom to choose the good, which is eternal truth.

Distributive Justice

The name "Distributism" was derived by Hilaire Belloc from a very ancient principle of justice, which goes back to Aristotle called "Distributive Justice." St. Thomas in Pars Secunda Secundae of the Summa Theologiae describes Distributive Justice, as well as a related form of Justice called "Commutative":

As stated above (58, 7,8), particular justice is directed to the private individual, who is compared to the community as a part to the whole. Now a twofold order may be considered in relation to a part. On the first place there is the order of one part to another, to which corresponds the order of one private individual to another. This order is directed by commutative justice, which is concerned about the mutual dealings between two persons. On the second place there is the order of the whole towards the parts, to which corresponds the order of that which belongs to the community in relation to each single person. This order is directed by distributive justice, which distributes common goods proportionately. Hence there are two species of justice, distributive and commutative.
-Pars II; II Q LXI, A 1

Commutative justice focuses on the dealings between two persons independent of society. It is focused with equalizing them in order to judge justly. Distributive justice on the other hand focuses more upon the social order as a whole. Therefore when applied to a Catholic conception of economics, Distributive justice aims at ensuring an equal distribution of possession of the means of production. The actual distribution will be unequal of course, as it was in feudal and distributist medieval societies, but widespread distribution will be a fact in any event. Leo XIII is clearly speaking of this in Rerum Novarum, when he said:

This is first and foremost, namely that they protect equitably each and every class of citizens, maintaining inviolate that justice especially which is called distributive..... The law ought to favor this right and so far as it can, see that the largest possible number among the masses of the population prefer to own property. If this is done, excellent benefits will follow, foremost among which will surely be a more equitable division of goods.
-Rerum Novarum, no. 49, 65-6, (Quoted in Distributism a Catholic system of Economics by Donald goodman)

Thus if one is conceiving of life in a state which has no creed, which makes no particular aim of attaining the common good in the context of the reign of Christ the King, then most certainly it is difficult to conceive of a Distributist system, even though it is possible to attain such in a secular society, simply more difficult. Moreover, if the role of the state is to lead people to heaven as best it can, then necessarily it must create and enforce laws which are conducive to the salvation of man's soul, not only in his moral conduct, but also in economic conduct to ensure that in society the majority of the population can gain a share in the land. As Pius XII declared: "Man can never introduce a complete separation from the temporal ends he pursues and the final purpose of his existence."
In this context, the quotes from the pontiffs above acquire more force and make more sense, that it produced a more Catholic economic order, oriented not toward windfall, but to a different wind, that of the Holy Ghost (John III).

Vintage Distributism

2007-08-18T18:52:00.000-07:00

On Pilgrimage-February 1949

An Excerpt b
Dorothy Day

"We talked of President Truman's suggestion to build Federal Steel plants, a first step to nationalize the industry, everyone foretells. The CIO men thought such a step in the right direction but according to the Popes and Eric Gill respectively, such steps are only taken when (1) the industry is too great for private management or (2) should be only a step towards turning over the means of production to much smaller groups representing the workers themselves. The latter certainly must be educated towards it, and must think in terms of the responsibility which goes with ownership.

First of all they must be taught to want it and as far as I can see, the drift of the clerical advisers of the workers is all in the other direction. Ownership of tools or factories is not all a necessary development of the life of man; the proletarian state is perfectly compatible with sanctity, the belt, the assembly line, must be accepted, "it is here to stay," "you can't turn the clock back."

Even "my friend who ate sweet meats with me," as the Palmist said, those of the Catholic Rural Life Conference, in a public statement at their last conference in December have come out against us of the Catholic Worker movement in the recent Commonweal controversy in endorsing our present industrial system and advocating a "moderate decentralization." All they want, what they will settle for, is a share of the profits, instead of a share in the ownership, and the decentralization of the physical business of factories and production, and not a decentralization of control by widespread ownership. As far as I can see the Catholic is far behind the pagan even in fighting trusts or corporations. What distinguishes most social planners is their desire to keep the Status Quo.

Their best dig around us here is a dig at our poverty, part of which is holy in that we voluntarily accept what we cannot help. We use it as a means of sharing what we have with others, and is something we will accept as inevitable if we want to get on the land, or out into the village atmosphere, away from the "occasions of sin" which both the Holy Father and Fr. Vincent McNabb have termed our gigantic cities. God knows nobody is helping the family towards these aims. There are no trust funds on which they can draw, no credit unions to advance money to young couples to buy on the land, little help from brother Catholics (although the letter from Farmer Hinks of the Eastern Shore of Maryland is an exception). Certainly what hurts most of all, there is no teaching in that direction, so that those who are caught in the economic machine are positively discouraged from hoping to lead their children to another way of life.

In their anxiety not to appear "crackpot," or "fuzzy idealist" or "romantic agrarian" they bend over backward to boost what is at best a short range program and lose sight completely of the long range view of another social order. They not only disregard the lessons of history--why else did the Russian revolution come about except in desire of the people for land and work and responsibility, a sense of their dignity as workers? They are secularists in thinking that by bettering conditions on the belt, man the remainder of his time can be a whole man. As though one can "sin a little" or be just "a little bit pregnant," as one controversialist said.

To have any vision of "ownership by the workers of the means of production," a distributist economy, personal responsibility, a regional economy, is to them "visionary." They delight in pointing to the failure of the "vision" of the leaders of the Socialist Soviet Republics and they fail the people by expecting nothing more from them than the irresponsibility they now show as a result of the evil system under which they have so long lived.

The Dangerous State

In fact, our critics in their exaltation of the state, in their acceptance of the state, are guilty of the Marxism they condemn, as they little by little let the State encroach on one field after another. For instance if they endorse socialized medicine now (as the editor of America has done) they may find themselves in the situation of Cardinal Mindzcenty tomorrow, because they will be forced sooner or later to protest the encroachment of the State, the little by little encroaching State which the Bishops of the United States warned against in their most recent statement.

Yes, the workers must be brought to want communal ownership so far have they strayed from the "responsible man." Now they want the security of government ownership. They want the government rather than the corporations to take over, so that they can all become civil or federal employees. Many a time in talking to young people at schools, I have noticed that their idea of security is to work towards a city job."

Overall Weakness of a Global Economy

2007-08-18T07:51:00.000-07:00

by Athanasius

Today we are constantly inundated with the concept that bigger is better. When Americans lose jobs that go over seas to countries with lower standards of human dignity, we are told that this is a great thing for business, and for industry because it means prices will go down.

The problem with this view, made ever more apparent by the continual collapse that Wallstreet has been in, is that eventually we come to a point where we don't produce anything. On top of that, no real trade is actually occurring. Instead of producing in America, companies are producing under the same name and brand in East Beijing. What is really going on is labor is sent out to other countries. When this occurs not only in America, but in any economy, it becomes more expensive to produce one's own goods than it is to buy them from abroad. This leaves a nation in an inherently dependent situation. If a nation does not produce any of its own goods, apart from taking away jobs from its local citizens, it has no stable economic market. Everything must be shipped thousands of miles before it gets into a Walmart, or a Target, or a neighborhood Supermarket, which requires....gas.

Now let us suppose something catastrophic were to occur, such as a war with Iran which produces 20% of the world's oil, or with Venezuela which produces a large percentage, I can't remember how much. One does not even need a war necessarily, let us assume that China could afford to buy the same oil we do currently from these countries, they could just decide they don't want to sell to Americans because they hate us. Either way, if we were to start bombing Iran, which Bush Administration rhetoric makes increasingly clear is on the table, oil could go up to obscene prices. How high? According to Peter Brooks, the Head of the National Security Foundation and Center for Asian Studies, oil could go up to $200 a barrel. At present oil is $70 a barrel, and we pay around $3 here in Southern California. Perhaps my colleagues on the East pay something around that figure. If the proportions remain similar, let us imagine a 200% increase in gasoline prices, that would be $9 a gallon.

First let us figure that cost here in southern California. Unlike New York, or San Francisco, or Washington D.C., there is no public transportation. What little we have is more expensive than driving, such as commuter trains, which are a very limited capacity. Every day men and women commute as much as 180 miles to work in Los Angeles from North and South, even people who live north of me. First off, that is because we have no local economies in the suburbs north of city, and the only thing that can pay a mortgage is a service based job in Los Angeles. If gas was $9 a gallon, that commute would be impossible to afford even on a 60k income from LA. That would lead to a huge economic recession in this area.

That is only considering a small corner of the ill effects of globalization. In grocery stores, retail outlets, etc., the costs of basic groceries will rise beyond what the average consumer could possibly pay. Goods produced in Asia might very well be cheap wholesale, but the shipping costs would rise proportionally to oil costs. This is an inherent weakness to an economy dependent upon a commodity that is not produced locally in large quantities, such as oil. If that commodity were to disappear the economy would collapse.

Now if on the other hand, we had local economies, where food was grown locally by a series of growers and supplemented by trade, there would be much more stability. When jobs exist locally and money is created in a local community, it tends to stay within that local community increasing its strength. It wouldn't matter if kiwi were shipped in from New Zealand, as long as fruits, grains and vegetables were grown locally. But if all fruits, grains and vegetables are grown abroad and shipped in, the community is inherently unstable because a few minor catastrophes could create a famine.

Thus, if globalization meant increasing foreign trade to supplement stable local economies with goods they do not produce, it is something that could scarcely be opposed. However such is not the reality, and what ultimately results is not a freedom of choice, but a freedom from choice. If the American consumer decides to boycott goods coming from China for instance, it is next to impossible, and almost entirely impossible with food which rarely has a place of origin marked. Seafood is the only exception on this count. The choice is removed from the community because it is not the producer of anything, but only the consumer, and at the mercy of the owner of the means of production. In essence a global economy which supplants rather than works with a local economy, removes stability and choice from markets and limits the power of the consumer, presuming he still has the income to buy the products in question. If it were not for easy credit, the majority of sales at today's retail industries would not occur and they would not be in business. That is the only thing that separates the American consumer from the African consumer who can not afford to buy the shoes he produces in the Nike factory, that the American has credit cards and the African does not. One day however, just as the sham of the global economy must inevitably come crashing down, so must the sham of easy credit, and in their wake a depression which will dwarf 1929.

Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum

2007-08-13T08:59:00.000-07:00

Table of Contents

THE CHURCH'S RIGHT TO SPEAK ON THIS AND ALL MATTERS
CAPITALISM HAS LED TO USURY AND PRODUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE FEW
ON SOCIALISM, EQUALITY AND ADVANTAGE
THE DESIRE FOR SELF OWNERSHIP AND MORAL LIVING
ON THE COVENANT OF EMPLOYMENT
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
THE FAMILY AS CENTER OF PROPERTY AND GUIDANCE FOR MORALS
THE STATE AND IT'S RESPONSIBILITY
PUBLIC AID AND CHARITY

THE GUILDS AND FALSE UNIONS

THE CHURCH'S RIGHT TO SPEAK ON THIS AND ALL MATTERS

We affirm that if the Church is disregarded, human striving will be in vain. It is the Church, again, that strives not only to instruct the mind but to regulate by her precepts the life and morals of individuals, that ameliorates the condition of the workers through her numerous and beneficent institutions, and that wishes and aims to have the thought and energy of all classes of society united to this end, that the interests of the workers be protected as fully as possible

CAPITALISM HAS LED TO USURY AND PRODUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE FEW

A devouring usury, although often condemned by the Church, but practiced nevertheless under another form by avaricious and grasping men, has increased the evil; and in addition the whole process of production as well as trade in every kind of goods has been brought almost entirely under the power of a few, so that a very few rich and exceedingly rich men have laid a yoke almost of slavery on the unnumbered masses of non-owning workers

ON SOCIALISM, EQUALITY AND ADVANTAGE

To cure this evil, the Socialists, exciting the envy of the poor toward the rich, contend that it is necessary to do away with private possession of goods and in its place to make the goods of individuals common to all, and that the men who preside over a municipality or who direct the entire State should act as administrators of these goods. They hold that, by such a transfer of private goods from private individuals to the community, they can cure the present evil through dividing wealth and benefits equally among the citizens

But their program is so unsuited for terminating the conflict that it actually injures the workers themselves. Moreover, it is highly unjust, because it violates the rights of lawful owners, perverts the function of the State, and throws governments into utter confusion

Therefore, inasmuch as the Socialists seek to transfer the goods of private persons to the community at large, they make the lot of all wage earners worse, because in abolishing the freedom to dispose of wages they take away from them by this very act the hope and the opportunity of increasing their property and of securing advantages for themselves

But, what is of more vital concern, they propose a remedy openly in conflict with justice, inasmuch as nature confers on man the right to possess things privately as his own

These men grant the individual the use of the soil and the varied fruits of the farm, but absolutely deny him the right to hold as owner either the ground on which he has built or the farm he has cultivated. When they deny this right they fail to see that a man will be defrauded of the things his labor has produced

If incentives to ingenuity and skill in individual persons were to be abolished, the very fountains of wealth would necessarily dry up; and the equality conjured up by the Socialist imagination would, in reality, be nothing but uniform wretchedness and meanness for one and all, without distinction

From all these conversations, it is perceived that the fundamental principle of Socialism which would make all possessions public property is to be utterly rejected because it injures the very ones whom it seeks to help, contravenes the natural rights of individual persons, and throws the functions of the State and public peace into confusion

Therefore, let it be laid down in the first place that a condition of human existence must be borne with, namely, that in civil society the lowest cannot be made equal to the highest. Socialists, of course, agitate the contrary, but all struggling against nature is vain. There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents, nor the skill, nor the health, nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments. And clearly this condition of things is adapted to benefit both individuals and the community; for to carry on its affairs community life requires varied aptitudes and diverse services, and to perform these diverse services men are impelled most by differences in individual property holdings

The best course is to view human affairs as they are and, as We have stated, at the same time to seek appropriate relief for these troubles elsewhere

For while justice does not oppose our striving for better things, on the other hand, it does forbid anyone to take from another what is his and, in the name of a certain absurd equality, to seize forcibly the property of others; nor does the interest of the common good itself permit this

THE DESIRE FOR SELF OWNERSHIP AND MORAL LIVING

Clearly the essential reason why those who engage in any gainful occupation undertake labor, and at the same time the end to which workers immediately look, is to procure property for themselves and to retain it by individual right as theirs and as their very ownWherefore, the law ought to favor this right (private property) and, so far as it can, see that the largest possible number among the masses of the population prefer to own property.

But if the productive activity of the multitude can be stimulated by the hope of acquiring some property in land, it will gradually come to pass that, with the difference between extreme wealth and extreme penury removed, one class will become neighbor to the other. Moreover, there will surely be a greater abundance of the things which the earth produces. For when men know they are working on what belongs to them, they work with far greater eagerness and diligence. Nay, in a word, they learn to love the land cultivated by their own hands,

Christian morals make men content with a moderate livelihood and make them supplement income by thrift, removing them far from the vices which swallow up both modest sums and huge fortunes, and dissipate splendid inheritances

Whether you abound in, or whether you lack, riches, and all the other things which are called good, is of no importance in relation to eternal happiness. But how you use them, that is truly of utmost importance

Certainly, the great majority of working people prefer to secure better conditions by honest toil, without doing wrong to anyone

For however good and desirable mortal life be, yet it is not the ultimate goal for which we are born, but a road only and a means for perfecting, through knowledge of truth and love of good, the life of the soul

Hence, in the third place, will flow the benefit that men can easily be kept from leaving the country in which they have been born and bred; for they would not exchange their native country for a foreign land if their native country furnished them sufficient means of living.

ON THE COVENANT OF EMPLOYMENT

When the worker places his energy and his labor at the disposal of another, he does so for the purpose of getting the means necessary for livelihood. He seeks in return for the work done, accordingly, a true and full right not only to demand his wage but to dispose of it as he sees fit. Therefore, if he saves something by restricting expenditures and invests his savings in a piece of land in order to keep the fruit of his thrift more safe, a holding of this kind is certainly nothing else than his wage under a different form; and on this account land which the worker thus buys is necessarily under his full control as much as the wage which he earned by his labor. But, as is obvious, it is clearly in this that the ownership of movable and immovable goods consists.

Among these duties the following concern the poor and the workers: To perform entirely and conscientiously whatever work has been voluntarily and equitably agreed upon; not in any way to injure the property or to harm the person of employers; in protecting their own interestsThe following duties, on the other hand, concern rich men and employers: Workers are not to be treated as slaves; justice demands that the dignity of human personality be respected in them, ennobled as it has been through what we call the Christian character. If we hearken to natural reason and to Christian philosophy, gainful occupations are not a mark of shame to man, but rather of respect, as they provide him with an honorable means of supporting life. It is shameful and inhuman, however, to use men as things for gain and to put no more value on them than what they are worth in muscle and energy. Likewise it is enjoined that the religious interests and the spiritual well- being of the workers receive proper consideration. Wherefore, it is the duty of employers to see that the worker is free for adequate periods to attend to his religious obligations; not to expose anyone to corrupting influences or the enticements of sin, and in no way to alienate him from care for his family and the practice of thrift.

...the rich and employers must remember that no laws, either human or divine, permit them for their own profit to oppress the needy and the wretched or to seek gain from another's want. To defraud anyone of the wage due him is a great crime that calls down avenging wrath from Heaven, "Behold, the wages of the laborers...which have been kept back by you unjustly, cry out: and their cry has entered into the ears of the Lord of Hosts." [5] Finally, the rich must religiously avoid harming in any way the savings of the workers either by coercion, or by fraud, or by the arts of usury; and the more for this reason, that the workers are not sufficiently protected against injustices and violence, and their property, being so meager, ought to be regarded as all the more sacred

But if the question be asked: How ought man to use his possessions? the Church replies without hesitation: "As to this point, man ought not regard external goods as his own, but as common so that, in fact, a person should readily share them when he sees others in need. Wherefore the Apostle says: 'Charge the rich of this world...to give readily, to share with others'." [11] No one, certainly, is obliged to assist others out of what is required for his own necessary use or for that of his family, or even to give to others what he himself needs to maintain his station in life becomingly and decently: "No one is obliged to live unbecomingly." [12] But when the demands of necessity and propriety have been met, it is a duty to give to the poor out of that which remains. "Give that which remains as alms." [13] These are duties not of justice, except in cases of extreme need, but of Christian charity, which obviously cannot be enforced by legal action. But the laws and judgments of men yield precedence to the law and judgment of Christ the Lord, Who in many ways urges the practice of alms- giving: "It is more blessed to give than to receive," [14] and Who will judge a kindness done or denied to the poor as done or denied to Himself, "As long as you did it for one of these, the least of My brethren, you did it for Me." [15] The substance of all this is the following: whoever has received from the bounty of God a greater share of goods, whether corporeal and external, or of the soul, has received them for this purpose, namely, that he employ them for his own perfection and, likewise, as a servant of Divine Providence, for the benefit of others. "Therefore, he that hath talent, let him constantly see to it that he be not silent; he that hath an abundance of goods, let him be on the watch that he grow not slothful in the generosity of mercy; he that hath a trade whereby he supports himself, let him be especially eager to share with his neighbor the use and benefit thereof

...their energy and effectiveness are so important that it is incontestable that the wealth of nations originates from no other source than from the labor of workers. Equity therefore commands that public authority show proper concern for the worker so that from what he contributes to the common good he may receive what will enable him, housed, clothed, and secure, to live his life without hardship

We are told that free consent fixes the amount of a wage; that therefore the employer, after paying the wage agreed to would seem to have discharged his obligation and not to owe anything more...to work is to expend one's energy for the purpose of securing the things necessary for the various needs of life and especially for its preservation. "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." [32] Accordingly, in man sweat labor has two marks, as it were, implanted by nature, so that it is truly personal, because work energy inheres in the person and belongs completely to him by whom it is expended, and for whose use it is destined by nature; and secondly, that it is necessary, because man has need of the fruit of his labors to preserve his life, and nature itself, which must be most strictly obeyed, commands him to preserve it...concerning the amount of the wage...one greater and more ancient than the free consent of contracting parties, namely, that the wage shall not be less than enough to support a worker who is thrifty and upright. If, compelled by necessity or moved by fear of a worse evil, a worker accepts a harder condition, which although against his will he must accept because an employer or contractor imposes it, he certainly submits to force, against which justice cries out in protest.

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

What stands out and excels in us, what makes man man and distinguishes him generically from the brute, is the mind and reason. And owing to the fact that this animal alone has reason, it is necessary that man have goods not only to be used, which is common to all living things, but also to be possessed by stable and perpetual right; and this applies not merely to those goods which are consumed by use, but to those also which endure after being used

The fact that God gave the whole human race the earth to use and enjoy cannot indeed in any manner serve as an objection against private possessions.

On it (private possessions) he leaves impressed, as it were, a kind of image of his person, so that it must be altogether just that he should possess that part as his very own and that no one in any way should be permitted to violate his right.

Now civil laws, which, when just, derive their power from the natural law itself, confirm and, even by the use of force, protect this right of which we speak. -- And this same right has been sanctioned by the authority of the divine law, which forbids us most strictly even to desire what belongs to another. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his house, nor his field, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his."

For God is said to have given the earth to mankind in common, not because He intended indiscriminate ownership of it by all, but because He assigned no part to anyone in ownership, leaving the limits of private possessions to be fixed by the industry of men and the institutions of peoples. Yet, however the earth may be apportioned among private owners, it does not cease to serve the common interest of all, inasmuch as no living being is sustained except by what the fields bring forth. Those who lack resources supply labor, so that it can be truly affirmed that the entire scheme of securing a livelihood consists in the labor which a person expends either on his own land or in some working occupation, the compensation for which is drawn ultimately from no other source than from the varied products of the earth and is exchanged for them.

Let it be regarded, therefore, as established that in seeking help for the masses this principle before all is to be considered as basic, namely, that private ownership must be preserved inviolate

Rights indeed, by whomsoever possessed, must be religiously protected; and public authority, in warding off injuries and punishing wrongs, ought to see to it that individuals may have and hold what belongs to them

We have seen, in fact, that the whole question under consideration cannot be settled effectually unless it is assumed and established as a principle, that the right of private property must be regarded as sacred

THE FAMILY AS CENTER OF PROPERTY AND GUIDANCE FOR MORALS

Rights of this kind which reside in individuals are seen to have much greater validity when viewed as fitted into and connected with the obligations of human beings in family life

No law of man can abolish the natural and primeval right of marriage, or in any way set aside the chief purpose of matrimony established in the beginning by the authority of God: "Increase and multiply." [2] Behold, therefore, the family, or rather the society of the household, a very small society indeed, but a true one, and older than any polity! For that reason it must have certain rights and duties of its own independent of the State. Thus, right of ownership, which we have shown to be bestowed on individual persons by nature, must be assigned to man in his capacity as head of a family. Nay rather, this right is all the stronger, since the human person in family life embraces much more

It is a most sacred law of nature that the father of a family see that his offspring are provided with all the necessities of life, and nature even prompts him to desire to provide and to furnish his children, who, in fact reflect and in a sense continue his person, with the means of decently protecting themselves against harsh fortune in the uncertainties of life. He can do this surely in no other way than by owning fruitful goods to transmit by inheritance to his children.

If a worker receives a wage sufficiently large to enable him to provide comfortably for himself, his wife and his children, he will, if prudent, gladly strive to practice thrift; and the result will be, as nature itself seems to counsel, that after expenditures are deducted there will remain something over and above through which he can come into the possession of a little wealth

THE STATE AND ITS RESPONSIBILITY

And in like manner, in the case of the worker, there are many things which the power of the State should protect; and, first of all, the goods of his soul.

But if citizens, if families, after becoming participants in common life and society, were to experience injury in a commonwealth instead of help, impairment of their rights instead of protection, society would be something to be repudiated rather than to be sought for.

Paternal authority is such that it can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State, because it has the same origin in common with that of man's own life. "Children are a part of their father," and, as it were, a kind of extension of the father's person; and, strictly speaking, not through themselves, but through the medium of the family society in which they are begotten, they enter into the participate in civil society

Inasmuch as the Socialists, therefore, disregard care by parents and in its place introduce care by the State, they act against natural justice and dissolve the structure of the home

And to accomplish this purpose (regulations) she holds that the laws and the authority of the State, within reasonable limits, ought to be employed.

Nay, rather the favor of God Himself seems to incline more toward the unfortunate as a class; for Jesus Christ calls the poor [19] blessed, and He invites most lovingly all who are in labor or sorrow [20] to come to Him for solace, embracing with special love the lowly and those harassed by injustice

Nevertheless, an abundance of corporeal and external goods is likewise a characteristic of a well-constituted State, "the use of which goods is necessary for the practice of virtue"Nevertheless, those who govern must see to it that they protect the community, because nature has entrusted its safeguarding to the sovereign power in the State to such an extent that the protection of the public welfare is not only the supreme law, but is the entire cause and reason for sovereignty; and the constituent parts, because philosophy and Christian faith agree that the administration of the State has from nature as its purpose, not the benefit of those to whom it has been entrusted, but the benefit of those who have been entrusted to it. And since the power of governing comes from God and is a participation, as it were, in His supreme sovereignty, it ought to be administered according to the example of the Divine power, which looks with paternal care to the welfare of individual creatures as well as to that of all creation. If, therefore, any injury has been done to or threatens either the common good or the interests of individual groups, which injury cannot in any other way be repaired or prevented, it is necessary for public authority to intervene

It is vitally important to public as well as to private welfare that there be peace and good order; likewise, that the whole regime of family life be directed according to the ordinances of God and the principles of nature, that religion be observed and cultivated, that sound morals flourish in private and public life, that justice be kept sacred and that no one be wronged with impunity by another

In protecting the rights of private individuals, however, special consideration must be given to the weak and the poor. For the nation, as it were, of the rich, is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself, relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wage workers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight

Hence follows necessary cessation from toil and work on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation

PUBLIC AID AND CHARITY

If a family perchance is in such extreme difficulty and is so completely without plans that it is entirely unable to help itself, it is right that the distress be remedied by public aid, for each individual family is a part of the community.

Charity. Certainly, the well-being which is so longed for is chiefly to be expected from an abundant outpouring of charity; of Christian charity, we mean, which is in epitome the law of the Gospel, and which, always ready to sacrifice itself for the benefit of others, is man's surest antidote against the insolence of the world and immoderate love of self; the divine office and features of this virtue being described by the Apostle Paul in these words: "Charity is patient, is kind...is not self- seeking...bears with all things...endures all things

THE GUILDS AND FALSE UNIONS

After the old trade guilds had been destroyed in the last century, and no protection was substituted in their place, and when public institutions and legislation had cast off traditional religious teaching, it gradually came about that the present age handed over the workers, each alone and defenseless, to the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors.

But associations of workers occupy first place, and they include within their circle clearly all the rest. The beneficent achievements of the guilds of artisans among our ancestors have long been well known. Truly, they yielded noteworthy advantages not only to artisans, but, as many monuments bear witness, brought glory and progress to the arts themselves. In our present age of greater culture, with its new customs and ways of living, and with the increased number of things required by daily life, it is most clearly necessary that workers' associations be adapted to meet the present need. It is gratifying that societies of this kind composed either of workers alone or of workers and employers together are being formed everywhere, and it is truly to be desired that they grow in number and in active vigor. Although We have spoken of them more than once, it seems well to show in this place that they are highly opportune and are formed by their own right, and, likewise to show how they should be organized and what they should do.

But the opinion is, and it is one confirmed by a good deal of evidence, that they (Secretative Guilds) are largely under the control of secret leaders and that these leaders apply principles which are in harmony neither with Christianity nor with the welfare of States, and that, after having possession of all available work, they contrive that those who refuse to join with them will be forced by want to pay the penalty. Under these circumstances, workers who are Christians must choose one of two things; either to join associations in which it is greatly to be feared that there is danger to religion, or to form their own associations and unite their forces in such a way that they may be able manfully to free themselves from such unjust and intolerable opposition. Can they who refuse to place man's highest good in imminent jeopardy hesitate to affirm that the second course is by all means to be followed?

Workers' associations ought to be so constituted and so governed as to furnish the most suitable and most convenient means to attain the object proposed, which consists in this, that the individual members of the association secure, so far as possible, an increase in the goods of body, of soul, and of prosperity

When the regulation of associations are founded upon religion, the way is easy toward establishing the mutual relations of the members so that peaceful living together and prosperity will result.

Associations of Catholics, moreover, will undoubtedly be of great importance in promoting prosperity in the State.

Vintage Distributism

2007-08-07T18:44:00.000-07:00

Babies and Distributism
by G.K. Chesterton

I hope it is not a secret arrogance to say that I do not think I am exceptionally arrogant; or if I were, my religion would prevent me from being proud of my pride. Nevertheless, for those of such a philosophy, there is a very terrible temptation to intellectual pride, in the welter of wordy and worthless philosophies that surround us today. Yet there are not many things that move me to anything like a personal contempt. I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification. I do not feel any contempt for a Bolshevist, who is a man driven to the same negative simplification by a revolt against very positive wrongs. But there is one type of person for whom I feel what I can only call contempt. And that is the popular propagandist of what he or she absurdly describes as Birth-Control.
I despise Birth-Control first because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly word. It is also an entirely meaningless word; and is used so as to curry favour even with those who would at first recoil from its real meaning. The proceeding these quack doctors recommend does not control any birth. It only makes sure that there shall never be any birth to control. It cannot for instance, determine sex, or even make any selection in the style of the pseudo-science of Eugenics. Normal people can only act so as to produce birth; and these people can only act so as to prevent birth. But these people know perfectly well as I do that the very word Birth-Prevention would strike a chill into the public, the instant it was blazoned on headlines, or proclaimed on platforms, or scattered in advertisements like any other quack medicine. They dare not call it by its name, because its name is very bad advertising. Therefore they use a conventional and unmeaning word, which may make the quack medicine sound more innocuous.
Second, I despise Birth-Control because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly thing. It is not even a step along the muddy road they call Eugenics; it is a flat refusal to take the first and most obvious step along the road of Eugenics. Once grant that their philosophy is right, and their course of action is obvious; and they dare not take it; they dare not even declare it. If there is no authority in things which Christendom has called moral, because their origins were mystical, then they are clearly free to ignore all the difference between animals and men; and treat men as we treat animals. They need not palter with the stale and timid compromise and convention called Birth-Control. Nobody applies it to the cat. The obvious course for Eugenists is to act towards babies as they act towards kittens. Let all the babies be born; and then let us drown those we do not like. I cannot see any objection to it; except the moral or mystical sort of objection that we advance against Birth-Prevention. And that would be real and even reasonable Eugenics; for we could then select the best, or at least the healthiest, and sacrifice what are called the unfit. By the weak compromise of Birth-Prevention, we are very probably sacrificing the fit and only producing the unfit. The births we prevent may be the births of the best and most beautiful children; those we allow, the weakest or worst. Indeed, it is probable; for the habit discourages the early parentage of young and vigorous people; and lets them put off the experience to later years, mostly from mercenary motives. Until I see a real pioneer and progressive leader coming out with a good, bold, scientific programme for drowning babies, I will not join the movement.
But there is a third reason for my contempt, much deeper and therefore more difficult to express; in which is rooted all my reasons for being anything I am or attempt to be; and above all, for being a Distributist. Perhaps the nearest to a description of it is to say this: that my contempt boils over into bad behaviour when I hear the common suggestion that a birth is avoided because people want to be "free" to go to the cinema or buy a gramophone or a loud-speaker. What makes me want to walk over such people like doormats is that they use the word "free." By every act of that sort they chain themselves to the most servile and mechanical system yet tolerated by men. The cinema is a machine for unrolling certain regular patterns called pictures; expressing the most vulgar millionaires' notion of the taste of the most vulgar millions. The gramophone is a machine for recording such tunes as certain shops and other organisations choose to sell. The wireless is better; but even that is marked by the modern mark of all three; the impotence of the receptive party. The amateur cannot challenge the actor; the householder will find it vain to go and shout into the gramophone; the mob cannot pelt the modern speaker, especially when he is a loud-speaker. It is all a central mechanism giving out to men exactly what their masters think they should have.
Now a child is the very sign and sacrament of personal freedom. He is a fresh free will added o the wills of the world; the is something that his parents have freely chosen to produce and which they freely agree to protect. They can feel that any amusement he gives (which is often considerable) really comes from him and from them and from nobody else. He has been born without the intervention of any master or lord. He is a creation and a contribution; he is their own creative contribution to creation. He is also a much more beautiful, wonderful, amusing and astonishing thing than any of the stale stories or jingling jazz tunes turned out by the machines. When men no longer feel that he is so, they have lost the appreciation of primary things, and therefore all sense of proportion about the world. People who prefer the mechanical pleasures, to such a miracle, are jaded and enslaved. They are preferring the very dregs of life to the first fountains of life. They are preferring the last, crooked, indirect, borrowed, repeated and exhausted things of our dying Capitalist civilisation, to the reality which is the only rejuvenation of all civilisation. It is they who are hugging the chains of their old slavery; it is the child who is ready for the new world.

America's Relations with China: Contradicting Our Values?

2007-08-07T14:49:00.000-07:00

By Justin Soutar

We Americans have a peculiar love of freedom. In fact, for almost one hundred years, our government has taken up an impressive mission to spread freedom to all the peoples of the world. But in practice, our government restricts its focus to what it determines to be the worst examples of tyranny. Iran tops the list due to its anti-Western Shiite Muslim government, its alleged sponsorship of terrorism, its persecution of religious minorities, its nuclear program, and its harsh criticism of Israel. Next comes Syria with another anti-Western, Baath regime, sponsorship of terrorism, persistent meddling in the affairs of its neighbor Lebanon, and hostility to Israel. North Korea ranks third for the cruel Communist dictatorship of Kim Jong Il, the mass imprisonment and torture of political opponents, the manufacture of nuclear missiles and weapons. Although not nearly so cruel, Cuba is another bastion of Communism. Finally, our government ostracizes Myanmar (Burma) for its unelected military junta, and Zimbabwe for its steeped in government corruption and resulting poverty. Despite the fact that personal and political interests and issues heavily shape this list, there is no question that all the countries on this register are guilty of human rights violations to various degrees

But one major country is disturbingly absent from the Bush administration’s list. Having been so completely neglected for so many years now, the absence of this giant nation’s Communist regime from American concern for human rights and freedom is no longer conspicuous. The dramatic shift in American foreign policy thinking after the collapse of the USSR, preoccupation with the “War on Terrorism” and most significantly the narrow bias of Western media are together largely responsible for this omission. By what they cover and don’t cover, the news executives of the Beltway determine how the American people view the world. Fox News, CNN and MSNBC have steadily ignored the situation in China, creating the popular American perception that the Chinese regime is no longer a threat to its people. In any event, we think, the Chinese have attained economic independence thru the globalization system. The Cold War ended in 1991, and Communism now lies utterly discredited.

Such a perception couldn’t be more misleading. Communism has indeed been discredited, but it is far from gone. The second largest country on earth, boasting one fifth the world’s population and now the second largest economy in world history, is still ruled by a Communist dictatorship. Freedom of religion does not exist, and clerics who adhere to a spiritual authority above the government continue to spend years, and even die, in prison. Journalists and political opponents get incarcerated for challenging the ruling Communist party and reporting the hideous methods used to keep control, respectively. With the practice of censorship, freedom of the press is still a dream. Indigenous separatist movements are brutally repressed with military force, torture, and murder. No, China is not a free country like the United States.

Nor is it prosperous. Internationalization of the Chinese regime-controlled economy has made little dent in the glaring widespread poverty afflicting a number of people larger than the whole US population. As many as 325 million Chinese citizens go without clean drinking water, and a staggering 780 million lack modern sanitation. (1) American trade with China has certainly been booming for more than a decade and a half, and investors from Wall Street to Hong Kong have catapulted the huge Asian country into the status of an indispensable link in the global economic chain. But with such a small portion of the Chinese population enjoying the benefits of financial globalization, China cannot truthfully be called wealthy. The average Chinese citizen (about three in five) (2) possesses a small farm and tries to cope with heavy taxes; 350 million others accept a grueling, 100 hour per week “sweatshop” factory job that provides less than 1 dollar an hour. (3) For the latter group, independent labor unions are illegal, stifling hope for better working conditions and wages. Participation in the privatized Chinese market for this 1.1 billion (4) human beings is increasingly a lose-lose situation. Only the foreign investors, their bloated multinational corporations and a relatively few lucky college-grad Chinese expatriate businesspeople draw benefit from this scheme, at the price of hundreds of millions serving against their will—and in violation of their freedom—as sources of cheap labor.

While the American term “Red China” has fallen into disuse, the state is still governed by an authoritarian, political Communist regime. Yet America is unwilling to confront this massive and egregious violator of human rights. Why? Because it is no longer politically correct. America’s present worship of wealth has reached its logical conclusion, where economic considerations trump moral and ethical ones. From Wal-Mart to Microsoft to McDonald’s, every major US business has a crucial stake in China. Uniting with the international community to pressure the Chinese rulers for a more just government might rock the boat—might create some friction and internal “instability”, words that corporate executives do not like to hear. Furthermore, a change of regime would empower separatist movements in Xinjiang, Tibet and other regions, harming the US battle against terrorism. Communists, big business magnates, and supporters of the “War on Terrorism” have all weirdly discovered a common goal: suppress freedom in the name of freedom.

In the excitement of its headlong dive into the world’s oldest continuous civilization, American business to date has left ethical considerations on the diving board. China’s repression of religious liberty, after all, does not hurt the multinational tycoons, who tend to be nonreligious and regard the observance of a weekly day of rest, for themselves and their hapless wage slaves, as an irksome enemy of profit. At the clamor of American investors, the regime has been slipping closer and closer to total laissez-faire economics. Conversely, in fields outside of economics, the Red Chinese regime has maintained tight control over its people’s lives. With its politics, militarism, violations of human rights, and hostility to religion, Red China is a practical demonstration of the wild “free market” at its worst.

Now, I will not deny that capitalism is the ultimate basis for a sound national economic system, or that the worldwide version of it is a real and exciting opportunity for the benefit of the human race. But it is just as true that without civic government based on a foundation of ethics, the human race will destroy itself. Common sense as much as the moral law dictates the necessity of basic principles of justice to guide the world market. To shape a competitive economic system that is both free and fair for all the peoples of the world is a challenge and a responsibility that confronts America more and more each day, with ever-growing monopolies and acts of international “Islamic” terrorism. If only for the sake of world peace, we must strive to carry out this task with international assistance.

The “War on Terrorism”, however, because it is a war on political freedom and economic fairness, conflicts with our duties in regard to Red China. Two hundred thirty years ago, America was born as a result of England’s consistent, deliberate failure to remedy the English colonists’ economic and political grievances. Having evolved into a unique people and facing a repressive government, the colonists believed that they had a right to form their own country. Nationalist and separatist movements in northwestern China and Tibet as well as thruout the Middle East, Africa, Europe and South America are all products of serious injustices remaining unresolved for a significant period of time. When grievances lie disregarded by the government for too long, citizens are likely to reject or even overthrow that government. And according to our Declaration of Independence, such oppressed citizens have not only the right, but the duty to oust a despotic regime.

Yet instead of championing the human freedom of all including the Chinese people, America has politicized the concept of freedom to suit the interests of big business. The tyrannical Red Chinese regime is the most outstanding example of this double standard. Repeating the slogan that Communism is dead and a thing of the past enables the US to cover up this evil policy for dishonest, voracious multinational corporations.

By shamelessly monopolizing the market and squeezing out all competitors, big businesses and multimillionaire investors unite with our government in attacking human freedom. The average Chinese citizen has no prospect of starting a successful small business or improving his or her life, and lacks the money to attend college or university. While the Red Chinese regime has significantly released the nation’s economy and merged it with the international economy, the result has not been vibrant financial health for the nation as a whole. Excessive privatization leads to a wildly insecure market that negatively affects the greater part of the Chinese, and world, population.

Classic Communism is a mistaken response to such economic travail and injustice which does just as grave damage as unrestrained capitalism. Between the extremes of total central economic planning and ridiculous laissez-faire indifference, only a balanced financial system established on moral and ethical principles will succeed. If government does not exercise some degree of regulation over the national economy, if businesspeople can operate above the rule of law, the road is open for wealth to be progressively concentrated in fewer hands at the ever-increasing expense of poorer citizens. Red China‘s speed in traveling down this road does not bode well for the future.

The Communist philosophy which dictates every facet of Chinese public life is evil. Moreover, this current hybrid form in which civil and political rights are curtailed and big business is allowed to dominate the ordinary people is the very antithesis of freedom. Yet America pathetically acquiesces in the first form of repression and actively promotes the latter. What happened to our will to fight Communism? Partly due to our waging of a Cold War and partly to Communism’s inherent economic and political flaws, Russia, Eastern Europe, and most of South America and Africa are free of it. Multinational executives and investors have bribed our government policymakers into facilitating their access to the lucrative Chinese market at the price of capitulating to the last major Red power. We should keep working tirelessly and, as much as possible, peacefully to wipe Communism off the earth.

The “War on Terrorism” emerged from a clear misunderstanding of what terrorism is. It’s simply a method of extortion that some people resort to, in order to compel a government to address their grievances. Although Red China tramples our values, it has received unstinting praise from President Bush as a firm ally in the “War on Terrorism”. This makes no sense and is an inconceivable logic gap. Righting injustices eliminates terrorism. But since the grievances too often concern the huge wealth disparities resulting from the international economic system which America protects, we will not lift a finger to resolve them, causing terrorism to continue unabated.

Sadly, greed has politicized our moral values and distorted our concern for basic human rights. While America should not be an interventionist that builds a worldwide empire, our foreign policy must be guided by the light of our moral values. Governments guilty of systematic and serious violations of the human rights and freedom of their people must be held accountable in the UN and be subject to our diplomatic pressure to change their ways. Red China fits that description. If in spite of these actions it continues to impose Communist dictatorship on its massive and helpless population, we must arm and train Chinese separatists for a revolutionary war of independence—as we did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, with spectacular success.

ENDNOTES

(1) Figures calculated from percentages of the population retrieved from Terrorism Knowledge Base, “Country/Area Overview: China”, at www.tkb.org/Country.jsp?countryCd=CH.

(2) Rural population distribution is 60 percent. Retrieved from www.tkb.org/Country.jsp?countryCd=CH.

(3) Sarah Anderson, “Wal-Mart’s Pay Gap”, Institute for Policy Studies, retrieved from www.ips-dc.org/projects/global_econ/walmart_pay_gap.htm.

(4) Equal to population on farms plus population in sweatshops.

Copyright © 2006, 2007 by Justin Soutar. This article may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the explicit written permission of the copyright holder.
Email Justin Soutar.

Living Distributism: One day at a time

2007-08-07T14:00:00.000-07:00

by Athanasius

Critics of Distributism argue that oh, it is impossible, it can't be done, you will never get that in say America, or England. We may also not get the Traditional Latin Mass in Los Angeles, and we may not find exceptional beer in the area we live in. Yet this doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Social movements are often started by the work of individuals at the grass roots level, even when they are not aware of it. To start living Distributism, the first and obvious goal should be the attainment of property and working on small agricultural plots, or working some kind of trade, even if it is only in our spare time.

Yet for many, given the state of the modern economy where house prices rise 80% but wages only 2%, this is also very difficult. So then we have to stop and say, how do we live a Distributist lifestyle, and begin rejecting the atheistic materialist yoke of Capitalism? It starts in our daily lives, with how we use our resources, and what we spend our money on.

The first step is frugality. One of the things which drives the consumerist culture is the throw away society created by advertising and crummy goods. The cheap worthless goods of our society are beyond number. Consider cheap t-shirts which fall apart, clothes not stitched well, bad food, furniture which falls apart, American cars, appliances which break after 2 uses, all carted to the dump and conveniently discarded.

Donald P. Goodman in his book "Distributism, a Catholic System of Economics", gives this example:

Landfills are so full that states are trucking their garbage elsewhere to dump it; everything, from toys to groceries, comes wrapped in at least one layer of packaging; we now actively choose wasteful methods rather than those which conserve and reuse. This culture of waste is fundamentally antithetical to distributism, which emphasizes cultivation over exploitation, and is an aspect of modernity which everyone can fight. More than that, it is an aspect of modernity which everyone can benefit from fighting. The expense of our wasteful habits is more enormous than most of us realize. Let us take a relatively benign example: paper plates. While real dishes are not only of greater utility and durability than paper ones, most in our society choose to employ paper plates because they are much less of a bother. They need not be washed or put away; they can be simply used and discarded.....
Waste is, we must all remember, a sin, and distributism is in large part an attempt to eliminate societal structures that are based on sin.

Another way not to waste, is to utilize everything available to you. Instead of supporting the immoral fashion industry, which works overtime to make women look as slutty as possible, and make men look as "pimp", "gangster", and buffoonish as possible, even from 6 months old, learn how to sew or make your own clothes. Buy American brands from small companies only, accept hand me downs. Don't throw clothes away once the children out grow them, as every family did within my memory. Baby clothes and most infant materials come to mind. Instead of buying a new crib for every baby, or redesigning rooms at enormous expense, or buying designer baby clothes, one can save the clothes for the next baby. After all, babies do not normally wear clothes out, they simply outgrow them or get them dirty.

Instead of supporting mass industrial companies, we can put our money into small family owned businesses which produce quality goods. That can be quite a sacrifice to us, especially when convenience appears to make it look better. Instead of buying garbage at McDonalds, one might try saving his money and going to a quality restaurant once in a while. Consequently he might try conserving his money and making quality food at home instead of buying frozen dinners with no nutritional value that remove the delight of the culinary activity which has kept human civilization going for many centuries. Instead of supporting Walmart or Target or other retailers in any manner, we might try family owned shops. This is more possible thanks to the internet, which decentralizes, rather than centralizes like the "Big Shop", a horrible creation that has only served to continually cheapen human life. As Chesterton noted in the Outline of Sanity:

I think the big shop is a bad shop. I think it bad not only in a moral but a mercantile sense; that is, I think shopping there is not only a bad action but a bad bargain. I think the monster emporium is not only vulgar and insolent, but incompetent and uncomfortable; and I deny that its large organization is efficient....As applied to things like shops, the whole thing is an utter fallacy. Some things like armies have to be organized; and therefore do their very best to be well organized. You must have a long rigid line stretched out to guard a frontier; and therefore you stretch it tight. But it is not true that you must have a long rigid line of people trimming hats or tying bouquets, in order that they may be trimmed or tied neatly. The work is much more likely to be neat if it is done by a particular craftsman for a particular customer with particular ribbons and flowers. The person told to trim the hat will never do it quite suitably to the person who wants it trimmed; and the hundredth person told to do it will do it badly; as he does. If we collected all the stories from all the housewives and householders about the big shops sending the wrong goods, smashing the right goods, forgetting to send any sort of goods, we should behold a welter of inefficiency. There are far more blunders in a big shop than ever happen in a small shop, where the individual customer can curse the individual shopkeeper. Confronted with modern efficiency the customer is silent; well aware of that organization's talent for sacking the wrong man. In short, organization is a necessary evil--which in this case is not necessary.

Taking such a thought to heart, avoiding the big shop altogether is the best course for the Distributist. Society reflects in its character the tenor of its microcosm, the family. The more families that live frugally, not spending freely but spending in necessity alone, the more we spread the gospel of ownership.