Why not distributism?

[markomalley]

The first step to distributism is to realize that capitalism is unjust to the poor, measures the worth of humans by productivity, and relies on usury to succeed. It’s aim is not for the common good and leads to both consumerism and selfish individualism. Popes have spoken out against both capitalism and socialism, but distributism is consistent with Catholic Social Teaching.

Fine. Not that I agree (I have yet to read anywhere that the popes have spoken out against capitalism…unbridled capitalism, yes, but capitalism???

Where?

But more importantly, please answer this question:

*And, while you’re at it, why don’t you describe how you would suggest a State implement such a system on a national basis…without managing to violate all of Catholic Social Teaching in the process? *

 

[St_Francis]

Fine. Not that I agree (I have yet to read anywhere that the popes have spoken out against capitalism…unbridled capitalism, yes, but capitalism???

I would suggest that distributism is a form of capitalism, one in which the ownership *and control *of the means of production is thinly spread rather than concentrated as it is in the US.

But more importantly, please answer this question:

*And, while you’re at it, why don’t you describe how you would suggest a State implement such a system on a national basis…without managing to violate all of Catholic Social Teaching in the process? *

I think that the government could and maybe even must eventually be a factor in attaining a distributist ideal, but I think that a lot of groundwork would need to be laid first. Our society is not set up to be a distributist society, and I think it cannot be set up by government decree. I don’t think the government can *impose *distributism, but it can *encourage *it.

How can the government help? First, by reducing barriers to entry. For example, Texas recently passed a law which allows people to sell small amounts of home-prepared foods. This is a huge change from the law which states that all foods sold must be made in commercial kitchens! It means a mother of small children can make some extra money for her family by making biscuits and selling them through a gas station, another can have a small-scale bakery where she makes a few birthday cakes each month, another can sell jellies she makes once a year… This type of situation may allow a family to “make it” while allowing the mother to stay home.

But distributism requires a lot of social/civic cohesion. We have so little social cohesion in the US that if an area has a block party once a year people think it’s a close, friendly neighborhood.

We need actual small communities. This can be done in a city–New York had lots of small neighborhoods in the 1800s through the early part of the 1900s.

However, the way suburbia is laid out, where you have *all **the houses in one area and *all *the shops in another, and *all *the manufacturing places in yet another, where you have to drive somewhere if you spill your milk and need another gallon, that is imposed by the government through zoming, and that’s another way the government can help encourage distributism.

In the end, if there is a strong social network, if there are self-regulating professional associations and the like, if people are more involved with their communities, then I think that there will come a time when the big transnational corporations can be broken up into much smaller companies, just as AT&T was broken up.*

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would suggest that distributism is a form of capitalism, one in which the ownership *and control *of the means of production is thinly spread rather than concentrated as it is in the US.

I think that the government could and maybe even must eventually be a factor in attaining a distributist ideal, but I think that a lot of groundwork would need to be laid first. Our society is not set up to be a distributist society, and I think it cannot be set up by government decree. I don’t think the government can *impose *distributism, but it can *encourage *it.

How can the government help? First, by reducing barriers to entry. For example, Texas recently passed a law which allows people to sell small amounts of home-prepared foods. This is a huge change from the law which states that all foods sold must be made in commercial kitchens! It means a mother of small children can make some extra money for her family by making biscuits and selling them through a gas station, another can have a small-scale bakery where she makes a few birthday cakes each month, another can sell jellies she makes once a year… This type of situation may allow a family to “make it” while allowing the mother to stay home.

But distributism requires a lot of social/civic cohesion. We have so little social cohesion in the US that if an area has a block party once a year people think it’s a close, friendly neighborhood.

We need actual small communities. This can be done in a city–New York had lots of small neighborhoods in the 1800s through the early part of the 1900s.

However, the way suburbia is laid out, where you have *all ***the houses in one area and *all *the shops in another, and *all *the manufacturing places in yet another, where you have to drive somewhere if you spill your milk and need another gallon, that is imposed by the government through zoming, and that’s another way the government can help encourage distributism.

In the end, if there is a strong social network, if there are self-regulating professional associations and the like, if people are more involved with their communities, then I think that there will come a time when the big transnational corporations can be broken up into much smaller companies, just as AT&T was broken up.

I agree with this. “Capitalism” is nothing more than what people do and have always done if allowed to do it, which is trade that which they do well for that which they do less well, but want or need anyway. One cave man trading a handful of arrowheads to a hunter for a haunch of meat was “capitalism”.

Alll sorts of things can turn it sour, and government interference can be one of the worst, as it often promotes dependency, ideological mandates and “crony capitalism”.

“Distributism” is not dead in this country, however. Recall that most jobs in the U.S. are provided by small business people. If distributism was dead, that would not be the case.

Distributism is as much in the psyche of the individual and family as it is in what government does or does not do. Am I a willing “wage slave”, willing to spend all my earnings on consumer goods I really could do without, or do I retain as much of it as possible and invest it in productive, inheritable assets? Am I happy to have government provide more and more for people while taking more and more of their earnings and assets? If either of those is true of me, I am a long way from being a true “distributist”.

Achieving a “Distributist” mindset is accessible to virtually everyone, but it’s not easy. First thing is to redirect one’s allegiance from excessive consumerism on the one hand and government promises on the other. There was never anything easy about “Distributism” in the minds of its early proponents, e.g., Chesterton, Lewis, Belloc and Pope Leo XIII. It always involved honest work, prudence and a mind oriented to family and God. Only big business and big government fool us with their deceptive suggestions of “easy fulfillment” through allegiance to them.

 

[april32010]

As Jesus chastised His Apostles the mistaken should listen and learn.
To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18). (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42).

Don’t you know of the acknowledged St John Paul II’s support of free enterprise in *
, *1991?
CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. 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;’ [My emphasis].

Pope Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “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, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

Usury is not involved in free enterprise. It is people who do evil by being greedy, cheating, stealing and all the other vices.

1. The Pope immediately adds another right which the worker has as a person. This is the right to a “just wage”, which cannot be left to the “free consent of the parties, so that the employer, having paid what was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond”.23 It was said at the time that the State does not have the power to intervene in the terms of these contracts, except to ensure the fulfilment of what had been explicitly agreed upon. This concept of relations between employers and employees, purely pragmatic and inspired by a thorough-going individualism, is severely censured in the Encyclical as contrary to the twofold nature of work as a personal and necessary reality. For if work as something personal belongs to the sphere of the individual’s free use of his own abilities and energy, as something necessary it is governed by the grave obligation of every individual to ensure “the preservation of life”. “It necessarily follows”, the Pope concludes, “that every individual has a natural right to procure what is required to live; and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work”.24

A workman’s wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. “If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice”.25

 

[Midwest88]

You’re kidding, right?

 

[Midwest88]

A workman’s wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. “If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice”.25

It depends on what the man is doing. Fast-food as a cashier? Nope. The job wasn’t meant to support such a family. Hopefully the wife is getting a better deal if she’s employed.

Most of the jobs that do not support a family, alone, are the low end skills job. The pope, although well meaning, is misguided in his economics. Unfortunately, he’s borrowing a page of from socialism.

 

[april32010]

It depends on what the man is doing. Fast-food as a cashier? Nope. The job wasn’t meant to support such a family. Hopefully the wife is getting a better deal if she’s employed.

Most of the jobs that do not support a family, alone, are the low end skills job. The pope, although well meaning, is misguided in his economics. Unfortunately, he’s borrowing a page of from socialism.

slandering the Holy Father

 

[april32010]

You’re kidding, right?

take it up with the Magisterium

 

[april32010]

the cafeteria serves everybody.

 

[SamH]

First of all, Capitalism today does indeed involve usury. Private banks charge interest for countries using their worthless currency, and it is one of the reason why everything is coming apart.

Secondly, Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have routinely critique unregulated Capitalism. What do you think free enterprise is?

Could you tell me what country practices unregulated capitalism? I think I might want to move there.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Although I do not support distributism, I definitely do not support unregulated capitalism. We need a powerful government that keeps things in check, and provides for the needy. I agree with Pope Francis that it’s a disgrace that such poverty exists in the world. Everybody deserves the basic necessities of life.

 

[St_Francis]

You’re kidding, right?

Who?

It depends on what the man is doing. Fast-food as a cashier? Nope. The job wasn’t meant to support such a family. Hopefully the wife is getting a better deal if she’s employed.

Most of the jobs that do not support a family, alone, are the low end skills job. The pope, although well meaning, is misguided in his economics. Unfortunately, he’s borrowing a page of from socialism.

The thing is that it used to be that people at the beginning of their careers were usually apprentices who received room, board, and training in exchange for their work. They saw all aspects of their future work-lives, how it was integrated into the family life, etc.

Now, it is not as expensive to provide for an extra person to live in your home as it is to pay someone enough to maintain his own household. Minimum wage laws are a bit of a mess because they cover both people still living with their parents and people who are living on their own, but should have been moved on from by those with families. Additionally, minimum wage laws also generally affect union scales, so there is always a lot of push to increase the amount required.

And to top it all off, minimum wage laws apparently skew unemployment in that unemployment among youth starts differing between races (and possibly ethnicities). Dr Thomas Sowell (economist and now political commentator) discusses this in one of his books.

So the issue of wages is a tricky one. When the popes wrote about the living wage, there were a lot of terrible things going on: people being thrown off the land their families had worked for generations, etc, and the industrial revolution would hire them at such low wages that the children also had to work in order to eat. By children I mean children under 7 years of age, not 14-year-olds.

So there’s a lot of tension in that area, bit the issue is wider than it looks.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Although I do not support distributism, I definitely do not support unregulated capitalism. We need a powerful government that keeps things in check, and provides for the needy. I agree with Pope Francis that it’s a disgrace that such poverty exists in the world. Everybody deserves the basic necessities of life.

“Distributism” is not a particular thing. There is the “Distributism” of Chesterton, Belloc and Lewis, which is fundamentally about individual acquisition of assets and rejection of corporatism and statism. And then there is the “Distributism” of Dorothy Day, which is collectivist, albeit not state collectivist. And then there is the “Distributism” of many of her followers who are collectivist/statist.

So, nobody can be sure what you mean when you say you do not support distributism.

 

[Abu]

InJesusItrust #20
First of all, Capitalism today does indeed involve usury.

With free enterprise as developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury as far back as the fifteenth century.

Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.” Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.

The failure to even understand, much less appreciate, that it is NOT free enterprise but PEOPLE who commit sins bedevils all who are so myopic.

What do you think free enterprise is?

The system developed by Catholics which best serves the needs of all.
Precisely what the acknowledged St John Paul II affirmed which has been explained in post #19:
“….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…”

The state welfarism and interference of governments has precipitated economic crisis after economic crisis since the horrific debacle of the 1920’s and ‘30’s in the U.S.

So in Centesimus Annus, #49: “Apart from the family, other intermediate communities exercise primary functions and give life to specific networks of solidarity. These develop as real communities of persons and strengthen the social fabric, preventing society from becoming an anonymous and impersonal mass, as unfortunately often happens today. It is in interrelationships on many levels that a person lives, and that society becomes more ‘personalized’.”

Bl John Paul II shows us the destructive way which so many States have followed:
“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.

“In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.” Centesimus Annus, 1991, 48].

It is only the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason which enabled the escape of many millions from the poverty existing before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”. As with any new developments, unfortunately laws can be slow to follow, especially where reason and faith are confused or lacking.

Wealth can be distributed only after it is produced.

Unfortunately, with the rampant relativism and secularism in society and politics, the “protections” whether constraining investors, entrepreneurs, or employees will be imperfect, as with those nations that manipulate exchange rates to their advantage.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unfortunately, with the rampant relativism and secularism in society and politics, the “protections” whether constraining investors, entrepreneurs, or employees will be imperfect, as with those nations that manipulate exchange rates to their advantage.

This is interesting.

I recently read an article in which the writer reflected on the little disputed fact that the economic condition of the “working class” has deterioriated relative to the “upper middle and upper” classes because the compelling and constraining influences of generally accepted codes of conduct have deteriorated. According to the writer, all classes previously had “externally-imposed” codes from society, churches, and legal codes.

Those have deteriorated across the board, and it is now widely believed that “externally-imposed” codes of conduct are an unwarranted imposition on human freedom.

But why the class differences, then? The well-off have done well in the last couple of decades, while those on the lower rungs have lost ground. Well, this writer suggested, the upper classes are intellectually and educationally capable of developing their own “successful” (albeit often secular) codes of conduct, which they very much impose on their children. “You won’t get into a good college if you have a DUI record” “If you don’t study, you’ll be poor”, etc. The lower classes are not capable of devising successful idiosyncratic codes or imposing them on their children, either one.

But also of interest, the better-off classes actually do incorporate more of “externally-imposed” (largely religiously-derived) codes into their “personal and family codes”.

Without disciplining codes, many engage in self-destructive conduct like having children out of wedlock, not getting adequate education, indulging in drugs and antisocial behavior.

I was somewhat reminded by that article of something I have sometimes thought about the implosion of many religious orders since the 1960s. The big rebellion was precisely and quite overtly against externally-imposed discipline and rather rigorous codes of conduct, all in the name of “liberation” from “patriarchy” or “structural organization”. As a consequence of that largely successful rebellion, and the failure to somehow replace it with internally-devised discipline, it all just flew apart.

Interesting that the only orders that are receiving new postulants are the ones that are highly structured, with clear missions, and with very well-defined “externally-imposed” codes of conduct.

Returning at the last minute to Distributism, one has to wonder whether, if broad swaths of people are so indisciplined that they would squander every opportunity to gain productive, inheritable assets or not even know it would be good for them if they did, there is really any hope for a Distributist society.

Distributism, properly regarded, really does require discipline. That’s as true today as it was in Pope Leo XIII’s day.

 

[Robert_Sock]

“Distributism” is not a particular thing. There is the “Distributism” of Chesterton, Belloc and Lewis, which is fundamentally about individual acquisition of assets and rejection of corporatism and statism. And then there is the “Distributism” of Dorothy Day, which is collectivist, albeit not state collectivist. And then there is the “Distributism” of many of her followers who are collectivist/statist.

So, nobody can be sure what you mean when you say you do not support distributism.

I do not support distributism in any of its forms. I would support corporatism, provided they truly care for the needy throughout the world.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I do not support distributism in any of its forms. I would support corporatism, provided they truly care for the needy throughout the world.

That’s a bit like saying one would like cobras if only they didn’t bite.

Corporatism’s record is not very good, historically, in caring for the needy or in any other way.

 

[april32010]

with free enterprise as developed by the catholic late scholastics, the church defined what is meant by usury as far back as the fifteenth century.

Session x of the fifth lateran council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “for that is the real meaning of usury: When, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.” consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable. Session x of the fifth lateran council

We wish to make suitable arrangements on this question (in accord with what we have received from on high). We commend the zeal for justice displayed by the former group, which desires to prevent the opening up of the chasm of usury, as well as the love of piety and truth shown by the latter group, which wishes to aid the poor, and indeed the earnestness of both sides. Since, therefore, this whole question appears to concern the peace and tranquility of the whole Christian state, we declare and define, with the approval of the sacred council, that the above-mentioned credit organisations, established by states and hitherto approved and confirmed by the authority of the apostolic see, do not introduce any kind of evil or provide any incentive to sin if they receive, in addition to the capital, a moderate sum for their expenses and by way of compensation, provided it is intended exclusively to defray the expenses of those employed and of other things pertaining (as mentioned) to the upkeep of the organisations, and provided that no profit is made therefrom. They ought not, indeed, to be condemned in any way. Rather, such a type of lending is meritorious and should be praised and approved. It certainly should not be considered as usurious; it is lawful to preach the piety and mercy of such organisations to the people, including the indulgences granted for this purpose by the holy apostolic see; and in the future, with the approval of the apostolic see, other similar credit organisations can be established. It would, however, be much more perfect and more holy if such credit organisations were completely gratuitous: that is, if those establishing them provided definite sums with which would be paid, if not the total expenses, then at least half the wages of those employed by the organisations, with the result that the debt of the poor would be lightened thereby. We therefore decree that Christ’s faithful ought to be prompted, by a grant of substantial indulgences, to give aid to the poor by providing the sums of which we have spoken, m order to meet the costs of the organisations.

 

[Midwest88]

slandering the Holy Father

No, I’m disagreeing and I’m being blunt.

Who?

The OP and others who think capitalism should not be this country’s economic system.

take it up with the Magisterium

Meant for the OP and others who think capitalism is the wrong economic system.

 

[Midwest88]

This distributism stuff is just silly. This thread is like listening to drunken political science majors discuss who they could fix all of the nations problems. Silly.

Ranp

It’s the thought that counts, the idea! Who cares about history and results.