I am a distrubutist and i am proud of it - Catholic Distrubutism makes me proud of being Catholic!

[Rocinante]

There must be a radical flaw in any political system which does not ensure that all its citizens enjoy the basic necessities of life. The prime responsibility of any government is to ensure there is not gross inequality which leads to unnecessary deprivation and suffering.

i agree. many here seem to think that justice is something to wait for in the next world rather than to work for in this world. on earth as it is in heaven.

the vast gulf between the rich and poor in the US is certainly a symptom of a sickness. so is the fact that we imprison 2% of our population.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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

Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 120
​

Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 48
​

Just something to think about.

The enlightened person you quoted obviously didn’t mean socialism in the context you are stating it here. I wish people would stop associating socialism with basic human rights. Its a straw-man and a red-hering.

 

[tonyrey]

i agree. many here seem to think that justice is something to wait for in the next world rather than to work for in this world. on earth as it is in heaven.

Jesus was executed because He was viewed by the Romans as a revolutionary. Indeed He was, not through attempting to overthrow the regime but fighting against the injustice of society.

the vast gulf between the rich and poor in the US is certainly a symptom of a sickness. so is the fact that we imprison 2% of our population.

Crime is largely the result of poverty and deprivation which should not exist in one of the richest nations on earth. The worst criminals are not those in prison but those who exploit others…

 

[Abu]

yorkshiregirl
markomalley is very accurate and knowledgeable – you would be well advised to carefully consider his posts.

MindOverMatter2
I wish people would stop associating socialism with basic human rights. Its a straw-man and a red-hering.

Wishful thinking helps no one. Face reality, that socialism denigrates human nature.

The socialism that is condemned by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931 has the following false theories:

1. The Welfare State as the supreme objective.
2. Everything belongs to the State, thus excluding the real rights to private property.
3. The elimination of free enterprise in favour of state-controlled production and distribution.
4. Rejects the principle of subsidiarity.

Any ONE of these condemnations, based on the understanding of human nature, eliminates the scourge of socialism which is an ideology.

The freedom of the individual here is the freedom so forcefully declared in the Encyclical Letter *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Social Concerns), 1987, #42, Pope John Paul II teaches: “Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.

On Caritas in Veritate [catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102]](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102])
Fr John De Celles points out that the Pope clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also, not only does the encyclical not even once use the world “capitalism”, but it does refer repeatedly to the “market economy,” a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is “the path to true economic and civil progress.” See Centesimus Annus, 42. And rather than attacking capitalism Benedict generally embraces it, while calling for its renewal, as it were, in charity and moral truth. It is this renewal that will make the old order “new.”

Fr De Celles: “….the Pope writes specifically of the need for the “redistribution of wealth,” which many say is anathema to capitalism. Unfortunately, his use of the term is often ambiguous, but in no way suggests a massive effort by government to take from the rich, by taxes or other means, to give to the poor. In fact, he seems to argue against that kind of radical redistribution when he later proposes the need for an “effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” [CV 57]. The only time he is clear on what he means by “wealth redistribution” is when he uses it to mean increasing the share of wealth of the poor by normal market economic activity such as, better jobs, increased profits, etc. [CV 42]. No capitalist I know would object to that, or even to the normal redistribution of wealth that comes through reasonable taxation…… This seems consistent with what he said just six months prior to releasing CV: ‘the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. …Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty… if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.’ Message of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2009.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

yorkshiregirl
markomalley is very accurate and knowledgeable – you would be well advised to carefully consider his posts.
Wishful thinking helps no one. Face reality, that socialism denigrates human nature.

The socialism that is condemned by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931 has the following false theories:

1. The Welfare State as the supreme objective.
2. Everything belongs to the State, thus excluding the real rights to private property.
3. The elimination of free enterprise in favour of state-controlled production and distribution.
4. Rejects the principle of subsidiarity.

Any ONE of these condemnations, based on the understanding of human nature, eliminates the scourge of socialism which is an ideology.

The freedom of the individual here is the freedom so forcefully declared in the Encyclical Letter *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Social Concerns), 1987, #42, Pope John Paul II teaches: “Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.

On Caritas in Veritate [Library : The Truth about Caritas in Veritate | Catholic Culture]](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102])
Fr John De Celles points out that the Pope clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also, not only does the encyclical not even once use the world “capitalism”, but it does refer repeatedly to the “market economy,” a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is “the path to true economic and civil progress.” See Centesimus Annus, 42. And rather than attacking capitalism Benedict generally embraces it, while calling for its renewal, as it were, in charity and moral truth. It is this renewal that will make the old order “new.”

Fr De Celles: “….the Pope writes specifically of the need for the “redistribution of wealth,” which many say is anathema to capitalism. Unfortunately, his use of the term is often ambiguous, but in no way suggests a massive effort by government to take from the rich, by taxes or other means, to give to the poor. In fact, he seems to argue against that kind of radical redistribution when he later proposes the need for an “effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” [CV 57]. The only time he is clear on what he means by “wealth redistribution” is when he uses it to mean increasing the share of wealth of the poor by normal market economic activity such as, better jobs, increased profits, etc. [CV 42]. No capitalist I know would object to that, or even to the normal redistribution of wealth that comes through reasonable taxation…… This seems consistent with what he said just six months prior to releasing CV: ‘the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. …Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty… if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.’ Message of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2009.”

You are again making a straw-man and red-herring of my argument.

"This concern for the poor in general and the poor worker in particular has been a consistent theme of Catholic social doctrine since the time of Leo’s writing (1891, not long after the Bismarckian reforms). The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

They are:

** The right to a just wage.**
* The right to rest.
* The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers’ physical health or moral integrity.
* The right that one’s personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one’s conscience or personal dignity.
* The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.
* The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
* The right to social security connected with maternity.
* The right to assemble and form associations."

 

[Abu]

MindOverMatter2
You are again making a straw-man and red-herring of my argument.
through the eyes of right wing capitalists who see the faith as a justification to exploit the poor.

The repetition ad nauseam of the same list conceals your continued inability to answer:
How is Catholicism seen to justify exploiting the poor? Which “right wing capitalists” do such a thing to Catholicism, and how?

This conceals your inability to acknowledge the free economy as developed by the Church as best suited to enable the creation and distribution of wealth – as Pope John Paul II emphasised: Pope John Paul II acclaimed the free economy that recognises the “fundamental role” of private property and the freedom of mankind to economic creativity, as “the path to true civil and economic progress” within “the fundamental and positive role of business, the market”… “and the resulting responsibility for the means of production.” Centesimus Annus #42, 1991].

 

[yorkshiregirl]

Good morning Abu

“markomalley is very accurate and knowledgeable – you would be well advised to carefully consider his posts.”

I’m sorry but I thought this was an open forum - why are my comments on this any different or less important than his or anyone else’s - or are you his apologist. I did not go against anything he had said, but merely tried to point out that the idea of ‘socialism’ as it is constantly derided on here, and I’m sorry but by many americans, is not how it is viewed in Europe.

We don’t actually want some huge state telling us what to do and ‘interfering’ but how is someone that comes from poverty supposed to help themselves if they don’t have some of the same chances - good diet, good education etc. - that the rich have. That is why the Welfare State was set up in the UK. I’m not saying it hasn’t gone a bit far but its ideals were then, and still are, good and true. Socialism (with a small ‘s’ if you like) is all about justice in society - giving people a chance. If you think that the Catholic church is against that then I would question why they fight so much for the poor in the third world. Or do you think that there is not injustice and inequality in non Third World countries?

 

[Rocinante]

You are again making a straw-man and red-herring of my argument.

"This concern for the poor in general and the poor worker in particular has been a consistent theme of Catholic social doctrine since the time of Leo’s writing (1891, not long after the Bismarckian reforms). The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

They are:

** The right to a just wage.**
* The right to rest.
* The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers’ physical health or moral integrity.
* The right that one’s personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one’s conscience or personal dignity.
* The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.
* The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
* The right to social security connected with maternity.
* The right to assemble and form associations."

wow. the church is socialist after all!

 

[Rocinante]

Actually, what the government did was to hold a gun to the heads of our nation’s banks that required them to level the playing field, allowing access to the American Dream by everybody, under the pain of forfeiture of the right to do business. The results of CRA is what we currently have. The meltdown. First caused by forcing the economy into depression, then expecting that reduction in the value of stuff to somehow be handled by its own collapse. Yep, our government (USA) failed to ensure that corporations serve all of the people, including the stockholders.

JDaniel, are you talking about the community reinvestment act? that’s what really caused the meltdown???

wow, JD, to think that every so-called expert i’ve heard and read doesn’t seem to know this. you should write a book to set the record straight. everyone else seems to think it has something to do with irresponsible and predatory lending, screwy derivatives trading, over-leveraging, heads i win tails you lose speculation, and other such technical stuff. you should tell people about how the banks were actually the victims here.

but wait a second. that can’t be right. bank profits are up. maybe you’ll need to do a little more research before you write that book.

rocinante

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The repetition ad nauseam of the same list conceals your continued inability to answer:
How is Catholicism seen to justify exploiting the poor?

This is just another straw-man and a red-herring. Did i say that Catholicism justifys the exploitation of the poor? It seems to me that i have been arguing to the contrary and you and others have been arguing for the free exploitation of the poor.

 

[Abu]

MindOverMatter2
Did i say that Catholicism justifys the exploitation of the poor? It seems to me that i have been arguing to the contrary and you and others have been arguing for the free exploitation of the poor.

Your post #18:
“I now believe that i was ignorant of what my faith actually taught and was instead seeing it through the eyes of right wing capitalists who see the faith as a justification to exploit the poor. I was seeing it the way they wanted me to see it.”

So you seem incapable of justifying your claim in post #18 as you cannot answer: How is Catholicism seen to justify exploiting the poor? Which “right wing capitalists” do such a thing to Catholicism, and how?

Your claims have not been substantiated.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Your post #18:
“I now believe that i was ignorant of what my faith actually taught and was instead seeing it through the eyes of right wing capitalists who see the faith as a justification to exploit the poor. I was seeing it the way they wanted me to see it.”

So you seem incapable of justifying your claim in post #18 as you cannot answer: How is Catholicism seen to justify exploiting the poor? Which “right wing capitalists” do such a thing to Catholicism, and how?

Your claims have not been substantiated.

You are taking the OP out of context.

What i will say is that it is evidently not the Church that is justifying it, but it is instead deceptive or brainwashed people who don’t really understand their faith, claiming that the church is teaching something that it does not. Anybody can read what has be written on this thread and see evidence of that. This is what i was talking about in the OP. Those with eyes to see will see it.

Instead of wasting your time trying to trip me up, you should read this

The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

They are…

*** The right to a just wage.**
* The right to rest.
* The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers' physical health or moral integrity.
* The right that one's personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one's conscience or personal dignity.
* **The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.**
* The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
* The right to social security connected with maternity.
* The right to assemble and form associations.

That’s all i have to say on the matter. Peace be with you and Godbless.

 

[reggieM]

Belloc and Chesterton sketched out some good ideas on Distributism.

Joseph Pearce’s book, Small is Still Beautiful is a good new book on the topic (more of like an application than a description).

 

[Abu]

MindOverMatter2
it is instead deceptive or brainwashed people who don’t really understand their faith, claiming that the church is teaching something that it does not.

As you have shown that you are quite unable to justify your prejudices after multitudinous opportunities, and no one else can do so either, your case against the Catholic Late Scholastics, and the Church, is empty.

You’ve been unable to challenge the teaching of Pope John Paul II who acclaimed the free economy that recognises the “fundamental role” of private property and the freedom of mankind to economic creativity, as “the path to true civil and economic progress” within “the fundamental and positive role of business, the market”… “and the resulting responsibility for the means of production.” *Centesimus Annus *#42, 1991].

Distributism, was proposed by G K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc who wanted “productive property” to be widely dispersed, and to achieve this typically favoured “prohibitive taxation of chain stores, department stores, and large distributors, in order to level the playing field for the smaller operator.” Wage earners are called “wage slaves”! The system has never had wide-spread support. One of the reasons may be that “the market economy consists of voluntary property exchanges. There is no mechanism of ‘distribution’ whatsoever.” (Thomas E Woods, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 161, 201).

Of Centesimus Annus, George Weigel remarks “Moreover, *Centesimus Annus *jettisoned the idea of a ‘Catholic third way’ that was somehow ‘between’ or ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ capitalism and socialism — a favourite dream of Catholics ranging from G. K. Chesterton to John A. Ryan and Ivan Illich.”

Weigel asserted that “Centesimus Annus not only summarized deftly the intellectual structure of Catholic social doctrine since Leo XIII; it proposed a bold trajectory for the further development of this unique body of thought, emphasizing the priority of culture in the threefold free society (free economy, democratic polity, vibrant public moral culture).

Gregory Gronbacher points to “a central problem with many schools of Catholic thought, namely the inability to integrate both the logic of the market and the logic of morality….There are foundational market realities that cannot be ignored for any reason, including moral concerns, because, in so doing, further harm may result to both market mechanisms and morality.” As Etienne Gilson put it, “Piety is no substitute for technique.” [Quotes from Woods, p 9].

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Straw-man and a red herring, since i have not been arguing against the church. I have been arguing against you. I agree with the church. See the following…

The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

They are…

*** The right to a just wage.**
* The right to rest.
* The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers' physical health or moral integrity.
* The right that one's personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one's conscience or personal dignity.
* **The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.**
* The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
* The right to social security connected with maternity.
* The right to assemble and form associations.

That’s all i have to say on the matter. Peace be with you and Godbless.

 

[JRRTFAN]

While I disagree with socialism for pragmatic reasons, I don’t think there’s anything about socialism in and of itself that prevents a Catholic from endorsing it. Please inform me if I’m wrong about this. Of course they may be (and I would say definitely are) elements in the way that specific governments implement socialism that contradict the faith.

Overall I would be concerned if you were considering leaving the Church over any political system. It’s dangerous to subscribe ideologically to any specific strain of political thought - there’s no one political system that is always best in all times and places. If your political views conflict with your faith, you should first try to determine what’s wrong with those views.

Distrtibutism has nothing to do with, in fact is anti-thetical toward, socialism. Unfortunately the name sounds like it is socialism.

 

[JRRTFAN]

I was honestly beginning to think that the faith was merely a vehicle for right wing liberal greedy capitalism. But now I have recently found this Distrubitist theory of economics, advocated by the Thomist Donald P. Goodman III and many learned and important Catholics, and this has made me see an alternative to leaving the faith and becoming a socialist. I am feeling so happy and joyous right now. I am really apart of something special.

See here - distributistreview.com/mag/

youtube.com/watch?v=IRtyOkfpvSI&feature=related

Peace.

Very few people know what Distributism is and they’re going to think it’s Obamism. I gurantee it. It is actually the preferred economic situation of the Church. In summary, it means that everyone owns his own means to produce an income necessary to support his own family. It has nothing to do with the state owning anything, in fact, it abhors the state owning any means of production. It also hates banks and insurance as part of a system.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Very few people know what Distributism is and they’re going to think it’s Obamism. I gurantee it. It is actually the preferred economic situation of the Church. In summary, it means that everyone owns his own means to produce an income necessary to support his own family. It has nothing to do with the state owning anything, in fact, it abhors the state owning any means of production. It also hates banks and insurance as part of a system.

I have never advocated that the state should own the means of production. That is not my position. And i am in complete agreement with what you have written above. I don’t like banks either.

Do you have any idea as to how disturbutists intended to implement their theory in practical reality, given that most of us are at the mercy of the cooperate ownership of the means to production? What i mean by that is, i don’t actually own anything accept the cloths on my back, which actually gives free advertisement for businesses (cloths with designer logos). I rent everything; my electric, gas, my bedsit flat, communication technology, ect, and in order to maintain that i must work for somebody who is free to charge me what they like and reject me when they like. I am more or less an economic slave to the whim of big business and profit margins; and that is why there are so many people unemployed because in the cities they don’t have the means to production and thus neither the power to implement it. This means that if you are poor, like i am, it is very difficult to develop you own means of production with success, and those that succeed appear to be few and far between. Survival of the fittest, competition, and profit seems to be the core goal and motivation of today’s business world. The end benefits tend to be extremely individualistic and thus it would be an irrational stretch to say that the common good is the intended end of big business. So it would seem that distrubutism cannot work under the current system on a large scale, and thus would require a complete and fundamental change to the system. But Is this change even possible, how would it come about, if not through force of the state?

 

[reggieM]

Survival of the fittest, competition, and profit seems to be the core goal and motivation of today’s business world.

I think you know what off-topic theory I would blame for that.

So it would seem that distrubutism cannot work under the current system on a large scale, and thus would require a complete and fundamental change to the system. But Is this change even possible, how would it come about, if not through force of the state

E. F. Schumacher’s, Small is Beautiful (and his other books) might give a good answer. He developed distributist thinking, or actually just had his own original ideas.

Basically, it wouldn’t look for a “large scale” approach. That’s part of the problem where the largest interests dominate.

It starts by giving more freedom and incentive for smaller businesses. The state can invest in smaller, more labor-intensive activities to give more people a job.

In my opinion, no political or economic system can work if the attitude of the people is built on self-interest, survival of the fittest, competition versus cooperation, war between management and labor – and anti-Catholic ideas.

But even still, people are willing to economically support smaller businesses and pay more for a quality product, and this gives more people a chance for business ownership.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think you know what off-topic theory I would blame for that.
E. F. Schumacher’s, Small is Beautiful (and his other books) might give a good answer. He developed distributist thinking, or actually just had his own original ideas.

Basically, it wouldn’t look for a “large scale” approach. That’s part of the problem where the largest interests dominate.

It starts by giving more freedom and incentive for smaller businesses. The state can invest in smaller, more labor-intensive activities to give more people a job.

In my opinion, no political or economic system can work if the attitude of the people is built on self-interest, survival of the fittest, competition versus cooperation, war between management and labor – and anti-Catholic ideas.

But even still, people are willing to economically support smaller businesses and pay more for a quality product, and this gives more people a chance for business ownership.

I appreciate what you have said; although i don’t fully agree with all of it.

In my opinion, while i am prepared to accept the rejection of the idea that the wealth of individuals must be equally distributed, i don’t believe the same is true for the means of production. I believe that each state could legitimately spread the means of production equally or a sufficient means of production to all or most human beings, and thus greatly reduce if not remove unemployment entirely. This is not to be confused with the belief that the “wealth” of individuals should be taken and spread equally. See my new thread here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=507685.