- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The problem with speaking about Distributism is that there are too many versions of what it is, ranging from versions fully consistent with free market enterprise to near marxism.
M
markomalley
Guest
Just as an FYI, there is an ongoing thread about distibutism.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
The author of the article cited in the OP pretty thoroughly answers the question "Why not distributism? Let’s wait and see if any of the distributists lurking in these forums have the courage to answer the author’s well researched points.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There might not be any persons purporting to be Distributists who actually adhere to those points to which the OP asserts that they adhere. Saying “Distributists” is like saying “capitalists”. They vary a great deal.
The OP is like saying “here’s what I think you are, now defend it.”
Personally, I agree with the four points in the first paragraph, but not the rest of it. Am I, then, a Distributist, a Distributist of a particular sort or none of the above, notwithstanding that I am a firm believer in the principles set out in the Papal Social Encyclicals?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
This is always a problem with labeled movements. If I call myself a Cathoic and I refuse to acknowledge the reality of the resurrection of Christ am I really a Catholic? People often play games with labels and, per your first post, people within a movement can have varying opinions.
However, the OP is really just a reference to a couple online articles. I trust you read them both. The second article goes much further than what I quoted detailing the views and history of the leaders of the Distributist movement, e.g. Chesterton’s flirtation with fascism.
There is always a risk, when an opponent presents an ideology, of his creating a straw man against which to argue. Is that the case here? Is anyone claiming that?
There is another related problem: deliberate duplicity. More than once I have encountered Distributists who disclaim any statist intention only to turn around later and demand state action to rectify perceived injustices. At some point charity becomes exhausted.
And, finally, we have to consider that some really can’t be bothered to analyze issues as deeply as others. A Distributist might, for example, demand “something” be done on the first four points and insist that capitalism is a failure then but refuse to think any further on what that would imply. I have encountered this too.
It’s a mess of a topic.
To your more substantial question, we should be suspicious of any Catholic who disagrees with the first four points. The four points are, in and of themselves, innocuous. And of course we should expect some sort of belief in the Papal Social Encyclicals from Catholics. I say “some sort of belief” because, as always, there are questions of interpretation and implementation. The hard questions arise when we consider how those first four points and the Papal Social Encyclicals are to be realized. It is really here that Distributists and non-Distributists part ways.
So, no, based on what I’ve read of Distributism and what I’ve heard from hard-core Distributists, I don’t think you should consider yourself a Distributist if you hold to the first four points but disagree with the rest.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“Hard core Distributists” vary all the way from people who hold the four points and regard the teachings in the social encyclicals, to latter-day “prairie populists” to hard-core “redistributionist” neo Marxists.
It seems unfortunate to me that this is the case, because, as one can plainly see in many CAF posts, people often do not perceive that one does not have to be either a socialist or a laissez-faire capitalist to live within the guidance given by every Pope since Pope Leo XIII. There is really no “named concept” which people can study and to which they can adhere.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Hard-core laissez-faire capitalist Catholics can hold to the first four points and to the teachings in the social encyclicals. So what you are claiming is that the Hard core Distributists include hard-core laissez-faire capitalists. I find that more than a little hard to swallow. Hard core Distributists typically define themselves by their disagreement with laissez-faire capitalists. They insist on interpretations of the the teachings in the social encyclicals that exclude laissez-faire capitalism.
This is really a core problem with Distributism as the second article related. Distributists insist that they alone hold the genuine interpretation of Catholic social teachings. The reality, as the author points out, is that the Catholic social teachings are very broad guidelines and allow for a wide variety of opinion on how to implement them. That doesn’t mean that there is not a true and correct implementation of them. It just means that the popes (and bishops) are more modest than Distributists allow and it is up to the secular world to find that true path under the guidance of the Church.
I really don’t understand why you would wish to call yourself a Distributist.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
I think it would be very hard to prove the latter point considering even watered-down laissez-faire economics, aka neoliberalism, have suffered harsh criticism from the Church
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I certainly do not aspire to be called a “Distributist” of the kind described in the OP. However, since I believe many have misunderstood a lot about the papal encyclicals, and since they are sometimes loosely identified with “Distributism”, I don’t mind the term at least to some degree.
Perhaps the thing least understood about them, (and you have obliquely pointed this out) is that a lot of what the encyclicals are saying is actually directed to the minds and souls of individuals, not to states. The state alone cannot possibly achieve what the encyclicals are encouraging, either by its actions or by its inactions. It cannot, because much of “Distributism” is a state of mind; a refusal to depart from life as the Church teaches it to embrace corporatism or statism, a refusal to put any social order ahead of the family.
I do not claim that Distributists are laissez-faire capitalists. I only said that “distributism” is as difuse in the interpretations put to it as 'capitalism" is.
I actually think, though, that Distributism, properly understood, is impossible without a significant degree of freedom on the part of capital and labor. If the goal is to have a wide distribution of productive, inheritable individual and family assets, a reasonably free market is essential. So is the “T” part of the formulation “Ic + Il =C+T” (income from capital plus income from labor equals consumption plus transfers) If the individual crowds out “T” with “C”, productive assets are not acquired. If government appropriates an excessive part of “T”, families cannot accumulate assets or even provide adquately for its members.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
This might be an interesting point to debate in a seperate thread but it is too far away from the subject of this thread. The question here is whether the author cited in the OP is correct in his criticism of Distributism.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Your point about how the encyclicals are directed is fair but I don’t think it is the main point. A state is, after all, simply a particular organization of individuals. Insofar as the encyclicals are directed at the minds of individuals it could rightly be claimed that it is to them as kings, representatives, burearucrats and voters as opposed to entrepreneurs, managers, investors, employees, and philanthropists.
The necessity of freedom of capital and labor is not something that necessarily comes from the papacy. It is more properly a question of the domain of economics, a field of knowledge analogous to physics or medicine with its own expertise. The mere fact that you are referring to such extra-papal knowledge sets your views apart from Distributism.
I continue to believe that you are watering down the term “Distributism.”
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I will readily agree that I am, at very least, watering down what SOME think of as “Distributism”. Better yet, I am rejecting it as not being truly faithful to the social encyclicals.
It is precisely the entrepreneurs, managers, investors, employees, etc that are targeted in the encyclicals. If they don’t act, then no potentate can do it for them. Recall that it is the mindset caused by corporatism (and accompanying consumerism) or statism that the encyclicals condemn.
The encyclicals do not espouse particular governmental formulations, but an economic atmosphere in which family autonomy and self-improvement is widely possible.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I’m less concerned with label purity than meanfulness of discourse. If someone claims to be a Marxist who favors limited government and free enterprise we could either regard Marxism as more elastic a term or dismiss his self-identification as an abberation. At some point stretching labels renders them useless.
I don’t think you and I disagree much on the substantive issues. But I I think you take too much for granted.
Whether we should hear the encyclicals as kings, representatives, burearucrats and voters or as entrepreneurs, managers, investors, employees, and philanthropists is very much in dispute. The encyclicals themselves are ambiguous and some have interpreted their demand for “political” solutions as a reference to the former over the later. (The term “political” is offered in contrast to the market and it’s unclear where charity would fall in that dichotomy. Catholic Charities is neither a government nor is it a business.)
I am disappointed that the hard core Distributists, who I know are lurking here, perhaps even following this thread, have so far not stepped forward to argue their case against the author.
M
manualman
Guest
I call myself a Distributist, but am totally a supporter of free-market economics (as little government ownership of the means of production as feasible). The difference you fail to see is that laissez faire capitalism tends towards ever-increasing gaps between the rich and poor and innately favors the investor over the entrepreneur and business operator.
Free market Distributists, on the other hand, believe that we need to establish legal and tax policies that favor the small businesses over the megacorporations. This is because the closer the ownership is tied to the operation of a business, the more humanity remains plugged into that business operation. The larger the corporate structure, the less human it is.
I really can’t understand why any non-millionaire is a laissez faire capitalist! Down that road lies a return to nobility and peasantry. No thanks. America got great because of accidental distributism. Our geography and population grew faster than any oligarchy could snap it all up. Sadly, that time is passing away rapidly. Maybe technology will continue to grow fast enough to create new opportunities faster than the monopolists can close it down. But I doubt it. Not so long ago, doctors, pharmacists, retail store managers, engineers, therapists, plumbers, carpenters and a long list of other professions were largely self-employed. Good luck in any of those industries today. 90%+ are employees, not owner-operators. Our economic structure favors dehumanizing conglomeration. It’s not good for us in the long run though. Just the handful of people on top who reap the profits.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
As tempted as I am to engage you in a debate over the virtues and vices of laissez faire capitalism, that would almost certainly district from the subject of this thread.
Instead, I’d like to point out something that you are implicitly concedeing that is at variance with Distributism: that there are empirical and theoretical truths in economics that are not discoverable by referenece to papal encyclicals and to which even popes must bow. You are asserting claims (some mistaken I think, but never mind), that are firmly in the realm the field of political economics (and maybe sociology).
If you have not already, you should read the two articles that I cited in the OP. Pay particular attention to the Distributist rejection of economics as a field of human study. This is no straw man, I can personally attest to receiving attacks on exactly this line of argument from Distributists in these forums.
A
Abu
Guest
This is a misrepresentation. Free enterprise economics is open to abuse when it is allowed to be *laissez-faire *governmental indifference to the general economic welfare. Where is this allowed to occur? This has never existed in any society or country, only in the minds of a few economists. The fixation on “laissez faire” shows an inability to distinguish economic schools; Dr Chafuen acknowledges the “considerable distance between the *laissez-faire *of the French economists and Austrian theory” and points out that “it was the Physiocrats who coined the phrase laissez-faire.” [Alejandro Chafuen, *Christians For Freedom, Ignatius, 1986, p153, 169]
“Capitalism” is a derogatory term coined by Karl Marx, and that’s perhaps why Bl John Paul II dislikes it, as he makes clear as he affirms free enterprise in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’
Why keep being mired in a fallacy, instead of recognizing the fact that free enterprise has been developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s affirmation: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).
The essential reference here is the understanding of free enterprise economics which arose with the Catholic Late Scholastics and is so substantially supported by the great acknowledged St John Paul II, and by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
M
manualman
Guest
I’ll certainly grant you that Distributism has no pope, no central authority to define it. Therefore, any weirdo can pretend to hold the definitive mantle to the definition of the word. But I suggest that you not throw out the ideas of everybody who holds to a favorable view of the word based on the worst of the examples. In other words, don’t discount Jesus because of Judas.
I suggest some reading on the “Robber Baron” era of US economics. When left entirely unregulated by government, companies shamelessly exploit the public. As a rule, the larger the company, the more shameless they are.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
You’re probably right, but I feel inclined to respond to another poster who responded differently.
39. Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other.” In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that* the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution**.* - Benedict XVI
More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as “neoliberalism” prevails; based on a purely economic conception of man, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust. (207) - John Paul II
351. The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favourable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be inspired by the principle of solidarity and* establish limits for the autonomy of the parties *in order to defend those who are weaker. - Compendium
88. Attention must be given also to another matter that is closely connected with the foregoing. 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 - Quadragesimo Anno
*for it cannot be denied that its (socialism’s) demands at times come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon. * - ibid
*Social Conditions in Leo’s Time
- As is well known, the outlook that prevailed on economic matters was for the most part a purely naturalistic one, which denied any correlation between economics and morality. Personal gain was considered the only valid motive for economic activity.** In business the main operative principle was that of free and unrestricted competition.** Interest on capital, prices—whether of goods or of services—profits and wages, were to be determined by the purely mechanical application of the laws of the market place. Every precaution was to be taken to prevent the civil authority from intervening in any way in economic matters. The status of trade unions varied in different countries. They were either forbidden, tolerated, or recognized as having private legal personality only.
- JPXXIII
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
- Status