M
MillTownCath
Guest
I know this topic has been brought up before, but I just want to know what role it has in has in the modern day Catholic Church, and your opinions on it.
- Status
N
nahbios
Guest
I’d be very interested to know in what role it has in the Church today as well. I don’t know much more about it than what I’ve read on Wikipedia (I know 
), but, in a nutshell, it’s a ‘third way’ of economics, between capitalism and communism. It is linked with the idea of subsidiarity, which is a notable part of Catholic social justice.
), but, in a nutshell, it’s a ‘third way’ of economics, between capitalism and communism. It is linked with the idea of subsidiarity, which is a notable part of Catholic social justice.
M
MillTownCath
Guest
I hate to label aspects of our faith, but in contrast to the Catholic teaching on abortion and homosexuality, that sounds very liberal.I’d be very interested to know in what role it has in the Church today as well. I don’t know much more about it than what I’ve read on Wikipedia (I know
N
nahbios
Guest
In the Catechism, subsidiarity means that “neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies” (CCC, 1894). If something needs to be done and just a few people can complete the task, then it should be done at that small community level; if a larger community is needed to complete the task, then the small community goes to that larger community for help. The writers of the CCC put it very well:
*Note that the footnote for this last quote references Bl. Pope John Paul’s Centesimus Annus and also points us towards Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo anno I, 184-186.
From what I understand, it’s true, of course, that one must combine subsidiarity with very Catholic values. Pope Benedict XVI does warn us that we can’t have solidarity without subsidiarity, or vice versa (cf. Caritas in Veritate, 58). See here for discussion - about halfways down the article, it talks about subsidiarity. (Interesting article in itself, outside of that short treatment of subsidiarity.)
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Like a lot of terms, it has accreted a number of meanings with usage.
First, there is the sort of communal sort of “Distributism” advocated by Dorothy Day and her followers. Rather leftist and collectivist.
Second, there is a sort of “back to the land” version that, in my view, is really a misunderstanding of the third.
Third, there is the “Distributism” advocated by Chesterton, Belloc and Lewis. It was largely derived from Pope Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum”. In it, Leo XIII condemned socialism, but he also condemned unbridled capitalism, and excessive corporatism and consumerism that tended to spring from it.
The Pope (and subsequent Popes also endorsed this view) that economic conditions should be arranged in such a fashion as to encourage and facilitate the individual and family acquisition of inheritable, productive assets. In Pope Leo’s day (as was somewhat the case with Belloc, Chesterton and Lewis) that meant farm land. Chesterton and Belloc favored that, but also small manufactories and shops as opposed to the massive importation of food and other goods, domination of commerce by large corporations and the consumerism it encouraged by making most people utterly dependent on wages.
The underlying rationale for the Popes was, and is, that dependency, whether on government or corporatism, leads to adoption of mores and thought processes determined by those entities instead of the family and religious orientation most people would adopt if they were more independent.
But, it also needs to be realized that there is a personal aspect to that notion of “Distributism”. It isn’t just organizational. It’s also personal. Do I, for example, as an earner, a husband, a father and a grandfather, try to accumulate inheritable, productive assets for the benefit of those to whom I owe the greatest responsibility, or do I squander my resources on my own consumption? Do I try to inculcate into my children the idea that their thinking should not be determined by government or the blandishments of advertising? Do I even attempt to find ways to lighten their economic burdens so they can perhaps spend more time with their own families and in the service of the Church and mankind?
A person could go on all day with this, but that at least provides some information on it.
First, there is the sort of communal sort of “Distributism” advocated by Dorothy Day and her followers. Rather leftist and collectivist.
Second, there is a sort of “back to the land” version that, in my view, is really a misunderstanding of the third.
Third, there is the “Distributism” advocated by Chesterton, Belloc and Lewis. It was largely derived from Pope Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum”. In it, Leo XIII condemned socialism, but he also condemned unbridled capitalism, and excessive corporatism and consumerism that tended to spring from it.
The Pope (and subsequent Popes also endorsed this view) that economic conditions should be arranged in such a fashion as to encourage and facilitate the individual and family acquisition of inheritable, productive assets. In Pope Leo’s day (as was somewhat the case with Belloc, Chesterton and Lewis) that meant farm land. Chesterton and Belloc favored that, but also small manufactories and shops as opposed to the massive importation of food and other goods, domination of commerce by large corporations and the consumerism it encouraged by making most people utterly dependent on wages.
The underlying rationale for the Popes was, and is, that dependency, whether on government or corporatism, leads to adoption of mores and thought processes determined by those entities instead of the family and religious orientation most people would adopt if they were more independent.
But, it also needs to be realized that there is a personal aspect to that notion of “Distributism”. It isn’t just organizational. It’s also personal. Do I, for example, as an earner, a husband, a father and a grandfather, try to accumulate inheritable, productive assets for the benefit of those to whom I owe the greatest responsibility, or do I squander my resources on my own consumption? Do I try to inculcate into my children the idea that their thinking should not be determined by government or the blandishments of advertising? Do I even attempt to find ways to lighten their economic burdens so they can perhaps spend more time with their own families and in the service of the Church and mankind?
A person could go on all day with this, but that at least provides some information on it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I should have added this. Then I’ll quit for now.
As Pope John Paul II said in an encyclical, there are adaptations to be made. He recognized that while farm land, in Leo XIII’s day was the primary “productive, inheritable asset”, it no longer is, as a practical matter and for most people. He did not, for example, endorse the idea of 401Ks or rental houses or landscaping machinery as a means of acquiring “productive assets”. But he endorsed the principle.
“Distributism” should not be confused with “Redistribution-ism” either. None of the Popes advocated redistribution of wealth. But they did express that social and political systems should be adopted that allow for reasonable access to wealth, even on a modest scale.
As Pope John Paul II said in an encyclical, there are adaptations to be made. He recognized that while farm land, in Leo XIII’s day was the primary “productive, inheritable asset”, it no longer is, as a practical matter and for most people. He did not, for example, endorse the idea of 401Ks or rental houses or landscaping machinery as a means of acquiring “productive assets”. But he endorsed the principle.
“Distributism” should not be confused with “Redistribution-ism” either. None of the Popes advocated redistribution of wealth. But they did express that social and political systems should be adopted that allow for reasonable access to wealth, even on a modest scale.
N
nahbios
Guest
Thanks Ridgerunner! If only the wisdom contained in the writings of the popes were more widely known and discussed… I’m sure there are plenty of non-Catholics who also want a ‘third way’ economic system.
J
JoeJPurnell
Guest
Here is a link to the effects of distributism in action. This is the story of the Mondragon Cooperative - started by a group of men who were advised by a Catholic priest back in the late 50s. The cooperative is still going strong today.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Ridgerunner,
I hope you are still watching this thread – maybe I ought to PM you.
I’m very interested in your analysis regarding the above. What was the misunderstanding in your view? Where did it lead? How could it have been prevented and/or corrected?
Thanks,
VC
T
tomarin
Guest
And does that surprise you?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You might have a look at “The Distributist Review”.
If you look at it historically, what you see is that toward the end of the feudal system, particularly in England, there was beginning to exist a kind of economic life which consisted of small land-holders, small businessmen, guild run trades, and so on. The rise of towns was changing the old feudal system to a situation where more and more individuals really owned their own livelihood.
But as we come along to the Industrial Revolution we see something else. We see business owners becoming more and more wealthy, and people being forced off their lands. More and more people become wage earners in businesses owned by rich businessmen. And any reading of history shows what the results of this uncontrolled capitalism were - they led to living conditions that were horrific, and a serious assault on the dignity of man. In fact, conditions were so bad that they resulted in a backlash.
It was this backdrop that the first social encyclicals need to be read against.
The question was, how to get a society that was real fair and respected human dignity. One thought was socialism. Instead of individuals having free reign on the market, people would only own personal sorts of goods. The real economic life and real capital, the productive aspects of society, would be owned collectively by all people. Then society would be able to make sure all had fair access to jobs, got a fair wage, were taken care of when old or sick or widowed, and so on. The workers, then, would really be in control of their own work.
Those who advocated third way systems were very sympathetic to the goals of the socialists, but said that in the end their methods were wrong. The essential problem is that in socialism the “ownership” is abstract. In real terms, everyone becomes a wage earner again, just as in the capitalist system. The real issue was to make the ownership of real capital - a farm, a business or part of a business, or whatever, actually possible for individuals and families.
So most ideas about what such a society would include would suggest lots of support for small business; probably a greater proportion of society involved in the more basic aspects of living like food production (and probably overall less throw-away material wealth like tvs and ipods); more families working together; credit unions; consumer and producer co-ops; housing co-ops and homesteads or people producing part of their own food; lack of laws and regulations promoting and supporting corporatism; a very changed banking and currency system; a tendency for more local control of things like social security, and so on.
Which doesn’t mean that higher levels of government would have no role, because they well might. THis would almost certainly include creating structures to make sure that people have the opportunities and resources needed to make a go in these communities, and discouraging the excessive centralization of production.
Historically and today there have been a number of movements related to these ideas. The Arts and Crafts movement; the Antigonish movement; aspects of the hippie movement; the labour government in the UK’s Big Society policy; the housing o-op movement; the organic/small farms movement; the Radical Homemaking movement; the Slow Food movement and the Eat Local movement.
There aren’t really any third way societies at the moment, especially since we are all on the same capitalist economic system world-wide. On a national level some of the mixed economy nations are probably closest in the West (Norway for example has a high proportion of entrepreneurs and small businesses) and then there are communities like the Amish or Mennonites. Even a place like The Farm includes a lot of the same ideas.
If you look at it historically, what you see is that toward the end of the feudal system, particularly in England, there was beginning to exist a kind of economic life which consisted of small land-holders, small businessmen, guild run trades, and so on. The rise of towns was changing the old feudal system to a situation where more and more individuals really owned their own livelihood.
But as we come along to the Industrial Revolution we see something else. We see business owners becoming more and more wealthy, and people being forced off their lands. More and more people become wage earners in businesses owned by rich businessmen. And any reading of history shows what the results of this uncontrolled capitalism were - they led to living conditions that were horrific, and a serious assault on the dignity of man. In fact, conditions were so bad that they resulted in a backlash.
It was this backdrop that the first social encyclicals need to be read against.
The question was, how to get a society that was real fair and respected human dignity. One thought was socialism. Instead of individuals having free reign on the market, people would only own personal sorts of goods. The real economic life and real capital, the productive aspects of society, would be owned collectively by all people. Then society would be able to make sure all had fair access to jobs, got a fair wage, were taken care of when old or sick or widowed, and so on. The workers, then, would really be in control of their own work.
Those who advocated third way systems were very sympathetic to the goals of the socialists, but said that in the end their methods were wrong. The essential problem is that in socialism the “ownership” is abstract. In real terms, everyone becomes a wage earner again, just as in the capitalist system. The real issue was to make the ownership of real capital - a farm, a business or part of a business, or whatever, actually possible for individuals and families.
So most ideas about what such a society would include would suggest lots of support for small business; probably a greater proportion of society involved in the more basic aspects of living like food production (and probably overall less throw-away material wealth like tvs and ipods); more families working together; credit unions; consumer and producer co-ops; housing co-ops and homesteads or people producing part of their own food; lack of laws and regulations promoting and supporting corporatism; a very changed banking and currency system; a tendency for more local control of things like social security, and so on.
Which doesn’t mean that higher levels of government would have no role, because they well might. THis would almost certainly include creating structures to make sure that people have the opportunities and resources needed to make a go in these communities, and discouraging the excessive centralization of production.
Historically and today there have been a number of movements related to these ideas. The Arts and Crafts movement; the Antigonish movement; aspects of the hippie movement; the labour government in the UK’s Big Society policy; the housing o-op movement; the organic/small farms movement; the Radical Homemaking movement; the Slow Food movement and the Eat Local movement.
There aren’t really any third way societies at the moment, especially since we are all on the same capitalist economic system world-wide. On a national level some of the mixed economy nations are probably closest in the West (Norway for example has a high proportion of entrepreneurs and small businesses) and then there are communities like the Amish or Mennonites. Even a place like The Farm includes a lot of the same ideas.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m probably not the best one to ask, and I see a subsequent poster has addressed it very well. But at the core, it seems to me, of the “misunderstandings” is a confusion between principles and details. So, if Pope Leo XIII, Chesterton and Belloc talked about enabling small farmers, why then small farming it is! So, some people, including some Catholics I have seen on here, felt that going “back to the land” was it. Some seem to have adopted Amish-like ways; the “Plain Catholics”.
If local cooperative organizations were advocated in order to provide an orderly exchange of goods and services on a local, entreprenurial level, why then cooperatives and communes were the thing, and the more the better! Entrepreneurial? What’s that? The efforts of the commune to sell its hydroponic tomatoes?
If one reads the social encyclicals and the early writers, it seems plain to me that their focus was enhanced independence of individuals and families in a more general way, without regard to particular means. As Pope JPII expressed, farm land really isn’t the answer anymore for very many. Other means have to be found. But the principle is the same.
It’s interesting to read, for instance, about millionaires in this country. Most are small business owners or farmers, and the greatest part of their weatlh is in their business or farm, not cash. But more importantly, they typically live well below their means. I see that around me all the time. This is a largely rural area, granted, but you truly can’t tell the difference between a millionaire and a fairly poor person by looking at them. You can’t even tell by what they drive, though the millionaire’s pickup is usually older than the factory worker’s. (Granted, his hunting rifle in the rear window is probably more expensive.) But that is true elsewhere in the U.S. as well. Most millionaires in the U.S. keep the same spouse for a lifetime. Most are church attendees. Most donate to charity more than average. The majority inherited no wealth of consequence.
Boring lives? Well, in a consumerist sense, yes. But they have independence of thought, of belief. If they are Baptists, they can choose the Baptist college for their children over the State U. If they are Catholics, they can choose, e.g., Thomas Aquinas or Wyoming Catholic College for their children if that’s what they believe is best for their children. Are they the way they are because they’re millionaires? No, they’re millionaires because of the way they are.
Not everyone can be a millionaire. But nearly everyone can live modestly, below his means. Nearly everybody, if he does so, can accumulate at least some modicum of wealth which, if combined with his labor (if it’s even “thought labor”) can be productive and aid his personal and family independence.
Government and economic systems can certainly enhance individual acquisition of productive assets, or discourage it, and that is an aspect of “Distributism” in its classic sense. But equally, if not more important, is the thought process of the individual, a thought process that both government and big business dependencies tend to discourage.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Well, Distributism does have individual attitudes as a large factor, but I don’t think one can look at the Distributists and say that was it. They were very clear about the idea that individuals actually own real capital, the means of production, rather than being wage earners. For all tat many of them were foggy on many things, that is understood to be fundamental - whether that is through owning land, businesses, or owning shares in co-ops, or some other mechanism for real ownership.
It’s important to not to confuse Distributism with the social encyclicals. It is something that was developed using the principles outlined in those works, but the encyclicals themselves were not meant to outline government policy or social structures.
It’s important to not to confuse Distributism with the social encyclicals. It is something that was developed using the principles outlined in those works, but the encyclicals themselves were not meant to outline government policy or social structures.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
To my knowledge, none of the Popes ever used the word “Distributism” in any of their Social Encyclicals, and you’re right that none purported to outline particular economic approaches.
Nevertheless, it is plain that Chesterton, Belloc and others had Rerum Novarum in mind when writing about “Distributism”. It is also plain that none of them really had concrete policies prepared specifically, e.g., legislative proposals or whatever.
But it is plain to me that the Popes did have at least principles in mind regarding government policies (like “subsidiarity”), and most definitely had concrete ideas about the social structures most conducive to spiritual development. (Emphasis on family independence, inheritability, localism, provision of charity through church structures, etc.)
T
tafan
Guest
Wow, when people think the concept of subsidiarity is liberal, we have a problem. It should be considered one of the most conservative ideals possible. If you want to know the opposite of it, look at 95% of the policies of the federal government.
T
tafan
Guest
Well, this is not quite correct. But part of the problem is that “Redistribution-ism” is not well defined, and certainly has bad political conotations in our day and age. First of all, we should all favor a higher distribution of wealth, this should be obvious to all. All of us should favor fewer poor people and the available wealth of our land being more evenly distributed. Now, when wealth is concentrated, by definition, you only reach a point of distributionalism by redistributing the wealth. But that does not necessarily mean governmentally forced redistribution of wealth (which is what the term brings to mind today). Please, understand what I am saying, as I tend to be very conservative politically and dispute the whole concept of taxes being used to distribute wealth.
From a historical standpoint, you are also not quite right. There have certainly been instances of land-reform in Europe, in transitionioning from a aristotical socisoety where nobility owned all the land to actually taking the land from the nobility and giving it to the peasants, that has been supported and encouraged by the Catholic Church. I would even say the instances of land-reform that have been successful are also the onese where the Church were more involved. When the Church has been shut out of land reform (Mexico in the 19th and 20th century) land reform has been a dismal failure. I only point this out to say that the statement none of the Popes have ever advocated redistribution of wealth is wrong, even from a government polciy perspective.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps you can quote from the Popes where they say that taking wealth from one to increase the wealth of another is the moral course, in some context other than “latifundia-based” static economies in which the only wealth is land and the only income is subsistence farming of crops.
“Re-distributionism” assumes a zero-sum economy, in which one man’s gain is always another man’s loss. That’s a Marxist concept derived from earlier “labor theories of value”, not true in advanced economies. It’s entirely possible in advanced economies for individuals to acquire wealth without taking it away from someone else. But the conditions for its accumlation and use have to be there.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
IIRC one of the social encyclicals specifically says that redistribution of wealth through taxes may not only be appropriate, but the duty of the state in some cases.
I’m afraid I can’t remember which one though.
I’m afraid I can’t remember which one though.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
That’s beautiful. It’s a shame that the leftist media is removing romanticism and true love in families by selling lust, drugs, and violence in the music, TV, and movies. But people are so in love with their media that they will keep a closed mind to what they are doing. Divorce doubles the number of dwellings payments and doubles the insurance payments, causing more struggle and less acquisition of inheritable, productive assets, which is not creating wealth for the family through land acquisition. As long as we allow them to dumb us down in the name of entertainment, people will keep begging for more, and more poverty will result. I say it will only get worse unless more people wake up. How about we not pretend to be shocked when it happens.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I’d say it is moderate. When favoring small businesses is considered liberal, and favoring private property is conservative, I’d say that balances out as moderate.
But my real reason for bringing this thread back is how you can get distributism to work in today’s world. How can we get more small businesses and make corporations smaller and have less power? Assuming that this is a relatively large part of distributism.
Basically I need more help in understanding distributism and how it would be able to work.
Another thing is, why are many supporters of distributism against banks (it seems like this after looking at wikipedia)? I mean, you can have local banks and stuff like that, etc. Because I support local banks over credit unions.
- Status