Why not distributism?

[Rence]

Why do many Catholics jump to defend Capitalism like its the only just economic system here?

Why have you not moved to a community that sustains itself with distributism, instead of telling everyone else to give up their money? They have such communities. Why have you not yet moved to one and proven it’s success? You first, I’ll watch

 

[St_Francis]

If distributism suddenly became the law of the land here, I’d just quit my job and hold my hand out and collect like everyone else. Why would I continue to work when my earnings would be taken away from me. I put myself through school (still paying it off) and work hard. That’s right, it’s just silly.

So you want to play Obama and take the money I work really hard for and give it to others? Well, why would I keep working if the fruit of my work is taken from me? Why would I not sit back with my hand out for my share of distribution and banging a drum at some Occupy-Someplay event?

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

Distributism and redustribution are not at all the same things, whatsoever. Totally different.

So distributists do *not *advocate taking from the rich and giving to the poor willy-nilly.

However, I believe that both of you should be aware that the Church is not against a *prudent *taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

 

[Rence]

Distributism and redustribution are not at all the same things, whatsoever. Totally different.

So distributists do *not *advocate taking from the rich and giving to the poor willy-nilly.

However, I believe that both of you should be aware that the Church is not against a *prudent *taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

It doesn’t matter. None of the above matters one bit. I still wouldn’t tolerate money that I have earned being taken away and redistributed. That is something I do not consent to, and I don’t know a single person in real life who would. I’m sure there are people out there with their hands out wishing for exactly that. I’m not one of them.

 

[Robert_Sock]

It doesn’t matter. None of the above matters one bit. I still wouldn’t tolerate money that I have earned being taken away and redistributed. That is something I do not consent to, and I don’t know a single person in real life who would. I’m sure there are people out there with their hands out wishing for exactly that. I’m not one of them.

Are you in favor of humanitarian values? If so, how would you propose we implement them given all the greed within our society?

 

[SamH]

“Socialism is the Philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~Winston Churchill

 

[Ridgerunner]

It doesn’t matter. None of the above matters one bit. I still wouldn’t tolerate money that I have earned being taken away and redistributed. That is something I do not consent to, and I don’t know a single person in real life who would. I’m sure there are people out there with their hands out wishing for exactly that. I’m not one of them.

But you already do tolerate money earned being taken away and redistributed if you pay taxes.

It’s not really a matter of “whether”, but of “how much”.

 

[Stfassisi]

But you already do tolerate money earned being taken away and redistributed if you pay taxes.

It’s not really a matter of “whether”, but of “how much”.

Great Point,dear friend

Also, all forms of Usury is money being taken away, and Usury is condemned by the Catholic Church dogmatically which means Christ condemns Usury

 

[Stfassisi]

But you already do tolerate money earned being taken away and redistributed if you pay taxes.

It’s not really a matter of “whether”, but of “how much”.

Just to add one other thing, The Council of Carthage condemned Usury and the Council of Carthage also condemned those who taught against Infant Baptism.

Anyone who thinks the Council Of Carthage was not Infallible is ignorant of Catholicism

 

[Abu]

Cirdan XII #92
Capitalism is a specific philosphy that didn’t emerge until about the 17th and 18th Century and that is rooted in the same philosphical substrate as the reformation, preaching that there is no absolute moral authority but only relative authority.

Many false ideas here.

While the Sacred Scriptures condemn greed and wrong use of wealth, commerce or merchants are not condemned. St Augustine stated that price was not only of the seller’s costs but of the buyer’s desire for the item sold. The first examples of free enterprise appeared in the great Catholic monasteries, about the ninth century. (John Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages, St Martin’s Press1969, I; The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p xii, 55-58).

The fact is that Catholic philosophy and theology, based on reason and faith, enabled the birth of free enterprise. From the great monastic estates in the ninth century, immense increases in agricultural productivity grew from “such significant innovations as the switch to horses, the heavy moldboard plow, and the three-field system” away from subsistence agriculture to specialised crops and products, sold at a profit to initiate a cash economy. “As their incomes continued to mount, this led many monasteries to become banks, lending to the nobility.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 58].

Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, *The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, 1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].

Further, false ideas of usury abound here. The laws concerning usury were originally concerned not with business deals, but with lending from the rich to the poor who were seeking survival. [Roger Charles, S.J., Christian Social Witness and Teaching, Vol. I, 95]. Money was seen as sterile. Then, as trade expanded the demand for money expanded from a means of exchange to “a store or measure of value. It could be used to make more money; it was capital*.” [Ibid. p 201. Italics added. (*Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Connor Court Publishing, 2011, p 76)].

That is why the teaching developed as given in post #34: ‘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.”

Usury is not part of free enterprise. It is some people who are greedy, cheat, steal and display other vices.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The real issue is the lack of humanitarian values, and how to implement them in the very greedy and pitiful society that we live in today.

 

[markomalley]

Distributism and redustribution are not at all the same things, whatsoever. Totally different.

So distributists do *not *advocate taking from the rich and giving to the poor willy-nilly.

However, I believe that both of you should be aware that the Church is not against a *prudent *taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Most of all it is essential, where the passion of greed is so strong, to keep the populace within the line of duty; for, if all may justly strive to better their condition, neither justice nor the common good allows any individual to seize upon that which belongs to another, or, under the futile and shallow pretext of equality, to lay violent hands on other people’s possessions. Most true it is that by far the larger part of the workers prefer to better themselves by honest labor rather than by doing any wrong to others. But there are not a few who are imbued with evil principles and eager for revolutionary change, whose main purpose is to stir up disorder and incite their fellows to acts of violence. The authority of the law should intervene to put restraint upon such firebrands, to save the working classes from being led astray by their maneuvers, and to protect lawful owners from spoliation.

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 38
​

There are definitely social obligations that come with the ownership of property. When those are prudently exercised by those who have property, many blessings to all result. We can see what happens when these obligations are enforced by State fiat (look, for example, at the riots that have occurred in Greece since government austerity began to be enforced)

There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition

Ibid, 17
​

The problem with a distributist national policy is that it cannot be accomplished without property redistribution…at the point of a tax-man’s gun. Property owners (by property, I mean “capital”, not “dirt”) can, of their own free will informed by their conscience, choose to live in this fashion…and that is a very good thing…and government policy can allow this and encourage this…but the minute it is done through government fiat, it becomes profoundly unjust.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

If distributism suddenly became the law of the land here, I’d just quit my job and hold my hand out and collect like everyone else. Why would I continue to work when my earnings would be taken away from me. I put myself through school (still paying it off) and work hard. That’s right, it’s just silly.

Distributism doesn’t mean somebody would take all your money from you, just some percentage of it. In case you haven’t noticed, that’s already what is happening now. Have you quit working yet?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Why have you not moved to a community that sustains itself with distributism, instead of telling everyone else to give up their money? They have such communities. Why have you not yet moved to one and proven it’s success? You first, I’ll watch

From what i understand Denmark has a pretty high standard of living, lower unemployment and higher literacy than the United States.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

While the Sacred Scriptures condemn greed and wrong use of wealth, commerce or merchants are not condemned. St Augustine stated that price was not only of the seller’s costs but of the buyer’s desire for the item sold.

All very well, but Capitalism is not the same as Free Enterprise.

Free Enterprise is a neutral thing, just saying that people can exchange goods and capital if they so wish. It’s a description of a mechanism without any judgement of the result. Capitalism goes a huge step further and says that the end result of this is the best of all possible worlds and that the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. Therefore whereas free enterprise can live side by side with other mechanisms of assuring the mobility of capital and restrictions and bounds which should not be crossed, Capitalism itself cannot tolerate any other.

 

[Stfassisi]

Many false ideas here.

While the Sacred Scriptures condemn greed and wrong use of wealth, commerce or merchants are not condemned. St Augustine stated that price was not only of the seller’s costs but of the buyer’s desire for the item sold. The first examples of free enterprise appeared in the great Catholic monasteries, about the ninth century. (John Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages, St Martin’s Press1969, I; The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p xii, 55-58).

The fact is that Catholic philosophy and theology, based on reason and faith, enabled the birth of free enterprise. From the great monastic estates in the ninth century, immense increases in agricultural productivity grew from “such significant innovations as the switch to horses, the heavy moldboard plow, and the three-field system” away from subsistence agriculture to specialised crops and products, sold at a profit to initiate a cash economy. “As their incomes continued to mount, this led many monasteries to become banks, lending to the nobility.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 58].

Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, *The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change

, 1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].

Further, false ideas of usury abound here. The laws concerning usury were originally concerned not with business deals, but with lending from the rich to the poor who were seeking survival. [Roger Charles, S.J., Christian Social Witness and Teaching, Vol. I, 95]. Money was seen as sterile. Then, as trade expanded the demand for money expanded from a means of exchange to “a store or measure of value. It could be used to make more money; it was capital*.” [Ibid. p 201. Italics added. (*Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Connor Court Publishing, 2011, p 76)].

That is why the teaching developed as given in post #34: ‘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.”

Usury is not part of free enterprise. It is some people who are greedy, cheat, steal and display other vices.

Outstanding Post!

From the words of Hilaire Belloc…

Usury does not mean high interest. It means any interest, however low, demanded for an unproductive loan. It is not only immoral [on which account it has been condemned by every moral code-----Pagan-----Mohammedan-----or Catholic] but it is ultimately destructive of society. It has only been the rule of our commerce to take usury since the breakup of Europe following on the Reformation. Usury will destroy our society, but meanwhile there is no escape from it. We are coming near the end of its maleficent action, not through awaking to its evils but because it is reaching the end of its resources. The Great War loans, which are almost entirely usurious, have powerfully accelerated this process.

let us note the very interesting development of modern times since the break-up of our common European moral and religious system at the Reformation. After that disaster usury gradually became admitted. It grew to be a general practice sanctioned by the laws, and the payment of it enforced by the civil magistrate. In England it was under the reign of Cecil, in the year 1571, that interest, though limited to ten percent, became legal without regard to the use made of the loan. The birth year of what may be called “Indiscriminate Usury” is 1609, when, under Calvinism, the Bank of Amsterdam started on its great career of stimulating fortunate capacity and ruining the unfortunate. In general the governments which broke away from the unity of Christendom one after the other introduced legalized usury, and thus got a start over the conservative nations which struggled to maintain the old moral code. To the new moral, or rather immoral, ideas thus introduced we owe the rapid development of banking in the “reformed” nations, the financial hold they acquired and maintained for three centuries. Everyone at last fell into line, and today Usury works side by side with legitimate profit, and, confused with it, has become universal throughout what used to be Christian civilization. It is taken for granted that every loan shall bear interest, without inquiring whether it be productive or unproductive. The whole financial side of our civilization is still based on that false conception.
catholictradition.org/Classics/belloc2-2.htm

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t know how to answer you and those who advocate the continuation of our current system with some tweaking, because the divide between the two views is very wide and foundational, and you keep bringing up itty bitty details. It’s like trying to give 1 page of directions from NY to LA and having that person erratically focus in on what the towns along the way look like while totally ignoring the fact that they are traveling west.

First, distributism would be built from the bottom up. As a result, it might not look like what I expect; ie, many Distributists are fans of coops but i myself… not so much. I look and see that they seem to be working for businesses on an industrial level, tho, so I am not against them, either.

Secondly, Distributism aims for a de-centralization of power and economy and towards local control and local economy. This would require a lot of strong mediating structures, that people would need to be involved in.

Along with decentralization of power comes a focusing of responsibility. So that rather than assuming that a vast diffused corporation will either be responsible and moral in its actions, we expect the federal government to do it. And given the structure of the corporation, that makes sense; however, if instead we had a situation in which one local person were to hold the responsibility fully, and this person were held responsible by the local people (whether in the form of a professional association or the local government or some other structure), then there would be a two-fold benefit: rectification of problems would be accomplished much more quickly and the central government (federal, in the US) would be less involved and therefore less powerful. Imagine when someone notices that Company X is putting dirty liquids into the water what the difference would be between the current ssystem and a localized system.

With regards to redustribution, if localities were responsible for their own poor people, with higher levels of government stepping in only as needed, think how a locality could shape its policies in a way to help the local poor people best. In one town, the system might look completely different than in the next town over, and each town’s solutions would be most suitable to its situation, unlike the current centralized system which requires conformity over a wide variety of environments.

Moreover, localization in the care of those in need would encourage charity. Right now, it is all too easy to say I gave at the office and be done with it. All that money coming out of my paycheck–why should I do more?

However, if the care of those in need were to become a local responsibility, people would actually have to see the poor; they would be forced to see those in need. It would be necessary to consider the poor as individuals. This would help soften people’s hearts and get them to come up with ideas which are really helpful. Moreover, people in need would be more accountable and aware of what the help they receive entails, and maybe be involved in helping others in ways they can manage.

Not to mention that the reduction of the current 70% “administration costs” of the chrrent system would be most helpful to our economy!

These are just a few of the aspects of distributism which I think are ignored by those who advocate for simply fixing bit otherwise continuing on with our current system. I don’t think we can fix our current system enough. I think the problems in Greece and other parts of the world are systemic and represent the end point to which our current system leads, not the result of little errors in the system.

PS I had too many characters which is why I removed the quotes you had. I am sorry that I also removed the link.

There are definitely social obligations that come with the ownership of property. When those are prudently exercised by those who have property, many blessings to all result. We can see what happens when these obligations are enforced by State fiat (look, for example, at the riots that have occurred in Greece since government austerity began to be enforced)

The problem with a distributist national policy is that it cannot be accomplished without property redistribution…at the point of a tax-man’s gun. Property owners (by property, I mean “capital”, not “dirt”) can, of their own free will informed by their conscience, choose to live in this fashion…and that is a very good thing…and government policy can allow this and encourage this…but the minute it is done through government fiat, it becomes profoundly unjust.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Outstanding Post!

From the words of Hilaire Belloc…

Usury does not mean high interest. It means any interest, however low, demanded for an unproductive loan.

So, what’s an “unproductive loan”?

If I get a bank loan to buy cattle in order to raise cattle that I couldn’t possibly afford to buy with case, and if my intend (and outcome) is that I make money selling cattle, is that an “unproductive loan”? I don’t think Belloc would say so.

I certainly wouldn’t. If not for having borrowed money, I would not now have 99% of what I now own.

Is borrowing money to buy a car to go to work an “unproductive loan”? Hard to think so if I can’t take a job if I don’t have a car.

Is borrowing money to buy a big screen TV an “unproductive loan”? Well, that probably is, because it’s hard to characterize the big screen TV as anything I really need or can turn to productive purposes.

But if the lender for the TV is guilty of a moral failing, then I’m every bit as guilty. If I don’t have the cash to buy the TV, then I have no business “selling” my future earning potential for it.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

So, what’s an “unproductive loan”?

If I get a bank loan to buy cattle in order to raise cattle that I couldn’t possibly afford to buy with case, and if my intend (and outcome) is that I make money selling cattle, is that an “unproductive loan”? I don’t think Belloc would say so.

I certainly wouldn’t. If not for having borrowed money, I would not now have 99% of what I now own.

Is borrowing money to buy a car to go to work an “unproductive loan”? Hard to think so if I can’t take a job if I don’t have a car.

Is borrowing money to buy a big screen TV an “unproductive loan”? Well, that probably is, because it’s hard to characterize the big screen TV as anything I really need or can turn to productive purposes.

But if the lender for the TV is guilty of a moral failing, then I’m every bit as guilty. If I don’t have the cash to buy the TV, then I have no business “selling” my future earning potential for it.

I don’t think the problem of usury is productivity. It is risk sharing.

So instead of the bank giving me a loan to buy cattle, the bank could buy shares in my cattle and so benefit if things go well and share the hurt if the wolf or a deadly virus comes and kills all the cattle. Usury is essentially a separation of risk from profit.

If I need a car to go to work, the bank could buy a share in the car and I could pay them a sum per mile I drive, so again we share the hurt if the car gets stolen or if I lose my job and no longer need the car.

Likewise I could set up a pay per view agreement with my bank when they give me money for a TV. That might encourage me to spend less time in front of the TV and more time doing something useful.

 

[markomalley]

I don’t think the problem of usury is productivity. It is risk sharing.

So instead of the bank giving me a loan to buy cattle, the bank could buy shares in my cattle and so benefit if things go well and share the hurt if the wolf or a deadly virus comes and kills all the cattle. Usury is essentially a separation of risk from profit.

If I need a car to go to work, the bank could buy a share in the car and I could pay them a sum per mile I drive, so again we share the hurt if the car gets stolen or if I lose my job and no longer need the car.

Likewise I could set up a pay per view agreement with my bank when they give me money for a TV. That might encourage me to spend less time in front of the TV and more time doing something useful.

The bank assume risk that you won’t past them back. The lower the risk, the less interest.

Note: I am not defending interest paid on loans. Nor am I defending interest paid to you when you loan somebody money (such as if you invest in municipal bonds or invest in Ginnie Mae securities, or in savings bonds, etc).

It is a real risk. For example, imagine those people who invested in tax free municipal bonds issued by Detroit.

But that’s how it works: financial risk is mitigated through interest rates.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think the problem of usury is productivity. It is risk sharing.

So instead of the bank giving me a loan to buy cattle, the bank could buy shares in my cattle and so benefit if things go well and share the hurt if the wolf or a deadly virus comes and kills all the cattle. Usury is essentially a separation of risk from profit.

If I need a car to go to work, the bank could buy a share in the car and I could pay them a sum per mile I drive, so again we share the hurt if the car gets stolen or if I lose my job and no longer need the car.

Likewise I could set up a pay per view agreement with my bank when they give me money for a TV. That might encourage me to spend less time in front of the TV and more time doing something useful.

What if I don’t want to share my profits with the bank? If I didn’t think I could make more on the cattle than what the bank’s getting in interest (more than double it if you wish) I wouldn’t do it at all. Why should I be obliged to share my profits with the bank if the bank’s happy enough with the rather modest interest it’s going to get? Why should I force my children (my heirs) to partner with some bank?

The bank isn’t going to be out there in January feeding hay to the cattle in the drizzle. It’s not going to help me with vaccinations. Why shouldn’t I get the lion’s share of what they bring? If I’m willing to risk the wolves and disease (which i can prevent, by the way, while the bank can’t) myself, why shouldn’t I be allowed to do that?

I have made a lot more off the bank’s loans than the bank ever did.

I don’t know. Maybe feudal serfs were okay with feudalism. But I wouldn’t be.

Finally, most of the interest goes to the savings customers and bank employees anyway.
Banks only make about 1.5% actual profit on the money they loan. So, if some old lady has her savings in a bank, is she going to bear my cattle risk with me? Why should she?
How do I justify asking her to do that?

And if that old lady lives off her savings interest, but can’t get stable income because I demand she share risks, how is that just?