Monday, March 18, AD 2024 9:44pm

Dorothy Day: Anarcho-Capitalist, Perhaps

A Facebook friend brought my attention to the tug of war taking place over the legacy of Dorothy Day in recent months between pro and anti-capitalists. The Catholic Worker has criticized both the NY Times and Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute on Day-related matters. Liberals can’t claim her, so it is said, because she was anti-abortion and loyal to Church teaching, obviously never having gone the way of radical disobedient feminism. But conservatives and libertarians can’t claim her either because she rejected capitalism.

Or did she? As best I can tell, she neither practiced it or preached it as a way of life. And yet she did say the following:

We believe that social security legislation, now balled as a great victory for the poor and for the worker, is a great defeat for Christianity. It is an acceptance of the Idea of force and compulsion…

Of course, Pope Pius XI said that, when such a crisis came about, in unemployment, fire, flood, earthquake, etc., the state had to enter in and help.

But we in our generation have more and more come to consider the state as bountiful Uncle Sam.

If you don’t believe in “force and compulsion”, you believe – by logical necessity – that capitalism is at least permissible. At least capitalism as Fr. Sirico, Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard would define it, which is nothing more than private property + free exchange of goods and services. No capitalist along these lines, moreover, could or likely would raise any objection to voluntary collectivist projects such as workers cooperatives or agricultural communes. Voluntary Distributism, which Day supported in her writings, is capitalism.

At any rate it is evident that Day’s conception of “social justice” had little if anything to do with the modern conception on both the Catholic and secular left. If she rejected a “bountiful Uncle Sam”, what would she say about Uncle Barry? The practice of taxation and redistribution rests upon “force and compulsion”, which doesn’t magically become something else because the man with the gun to your head is wearing a badge.

I’m probably not as radical as Day, since I believe in minimal taxation for a minimalist state. I also think that she and her comrades did not fully understand the extent to which free-market capitalism would and actually did raise the standard of living for the poor. Many people fail to see this, however, for a simple reason: capitalism has spread so much wealth (peacefully and voluntarily) that the relatively few pockets of society that have failed to benefit from it are all the more distinctive. They take on the appearance of a crisis only because so much of the rest of society has attained a dignified standard of living, an unacceptable anomaly in our midst.

Even so, it is clear that Day wouldn’t have advocated the idea of shaking down “the rich” in order to address the problem. And this isn’t really where the Obama-money flows anyway. It has never really been about the poor, except perhaps to make sure that they stay pacified. It has been about the aggrandizement of the state – the padding of government salaries and department budgets, the purchase of demographic voting blocs, social engineering, and of course, the war machine. If anything is unmistakable about Day, she opposed the state in all of these endeavors. And since, unlike a lot of left-anarchists I have known, she was unambiguous in her rejection of the use of force and compulsion to obtain “social justice”, I don’t think it can be said that she opposed capitalism either.

Throw in her pacifism and pro-life position, and look at her photos as an older woman in a certain light, and she almost looks like this guy. I don’t go as far as she does with pacifism or anarchism, but she’s an inspiration to me all the same.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
126 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JL
JL
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 2:30pm

Thanks for writing this, Bonchamps. I have a growing interest in Ms. Day and her cause for canonization. When I was younger and heard mention of her, I think I dismissed her as some “peace and justice” hippy, but that just shows the limitations that impeded my understanding of comprehensive Catholicism at the time.

I do think she was as equally derisive of capitalism as she was of government-enforced socialism. I just read Merton’s “Seven-Storey Mountain,” and his ideas seem very similar. Day talks about “creating a new society within the shell of the old one.” Her ideas seem to be very communitarian and compatible with distributism.

http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=175

That is to say, there should be equity and moderation in society, but it is not the government’s role to enforce such things. It must come from the community. This also is probably what CS Lewis meant when he said in Mere Christianity that the ideal Christian community would probably be “more socialist” than we are now, not meaning that the government would redistribute wealth, but that people (or rather, civic, religious, and social institutions) would moderate themselves. This is what Deneen means when he says that liberty is “the cultivated ability to engage in self-governance.” That is, the community recognizes that their is one telos for humanity and that the virtues required to move individuals and the community toward that telos must be inculcated and grown, virtues that necessarily moderate and temper self-interest. I think this is supportive of MacIntyre’s assertion that a community where human flourishing can occur to the highest degree possible must be founded on “moral consensus,” as opposed to legally enshrined pluralism, which I would argue is the case in America. (For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Founders planned this to happen…it was probably inconceivable back in 1780 when basically everyone was a Christian of some stripe…still, I think they knew better than they built).

I also hesitate to support so absolutely the idea that capitalism has uplifted humanity. Capitalism is responsible for incredible things, like longevity, increased literacy rates, prosperity, etc. But focusing on these metrics is in many ways the same mistake the “bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth” crowd in favor of government redistribution of wealth are wont to make. Human flourishing is about far more than material advancements. I would argue that it’s about more souls getting to Heaven. Can we say with certainty that capitalism has contributed positively to this end?

Finally, I think that analyzing Day (and Merton and Chesterton, etc) in the context of the American political spectrum is too confining. She was neither a “conservative” nor a “liberal,” because she more or less rejected the philosophical underpinnings that America was built upon.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1860/dorothy_day_a_saint_to_transcend_partisan_politics.aspx#.USE4caU3uSo

Have you (or has anyone else) read Orestes Brownson?

JDP
JDP
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 3:05pm

“It has never really been about the poor, except perhaps to make sure that they stay pacified. It has been about the aggrandizement of the state – the padding of government salaries and department budgets, the purchase of demographic voting blocs, social engineering, and of course, the war machine.”

you seem to think anything that “expands the state” is automatically bad/sinister. obviously plenty of people have criticized the stimulus but generally even critics haven’t ascribed these basely cynical motives to it. i don’t see any reason to think Obama doesn’t legitimately believe in what he’s doing, whatever we may think of it. the fact that his version of trying to jump-start the economy involves government expansion is a consequence, sure, but that doesn’t make it the point, as though he would’ve acted the exact same if the economy’d been humming along in 2009.

as far as “war machine” we’re winding down in Afghanistan, so unless some drone strikes on al Qaeda operatives makes us a nefarious Empire i dunno what this means

ctd
ctd
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 4:51pm

As to Day, I think JL has it more right than Bonchamps. I’m not sure I would agree his description of Sirico’s capitalism as merely “nothing more than private property + free exchange of goods and services.” He is much further from Day than that (and for that matter, from JPII and Benedict XVI.)

Day was more akin to Chesterton who said something to the effect that capitalism is to private property what a harem is to the sacrament of marriage.

There is a tendency to equate respecting the right to economic initiative – which Day, Sirico, and Paul support(ed) – with support of the free market and then with capitalism. I’ve never read anything to support the claim that Day went that far. In fact, her writings appear to reject that conclusion.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 5:10pm

Re: “jump-starting the economy”: The recovery began in June 2009 (most economists say) and yet, three-and-a-half years later the Fed persists in printing $900 billion a year and keeping real interest rates negative, and the US gov still is spending $1.3 trillion more than it receives in taxes.

Zero Hedge quotes Mort Zuckerman, “Jobs! President Obama has set a record. In his speech to Congress on Tuesday, he uttered the word ‘jobs’ more than in any of his previous four State of the Union addresses. His 45 mentions were more than double the references to any of the other policy ambitions encapsulated in his speech by such words as health, education, immigration, guns, deficit, debt, energy, climate, economy, Afghanistan, wage, spend or tax (the runner-up). If only the president’s record on unemployment were as good. After four years America remains in a jobs depression as great as the Great Depression.”

Worse, the prices of food and fuel have skyrocketed. So, Obama wants to give a couple hundred billions to boondoggles like Solyndra.

None of it (unprecedented amounts of fiscal and monetary stimulus) is working (Obama’s is the weakest post-war recovery: compared to Reagan and all the others) because everything Obama does is ideological not economical. Obamacare will take over health; will further retard economic growth; and worsen care for all of us. Legalizing 11 to 35 million will quicken the bankruptcies of medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Dodd-Frank did not correct the causes of the banking crisis but, at best, papered over them, at worst, expanded them.

Obama is not about econmic growth and development. He is about changing society and enriching his Wall Street backers.

And, capitalism may not be uplifting (look to Jesus) of society, but it is the only economic system, along with freedom, that maximizes a nation’s and a people’s wealth. It’s not as if the alternatives have not been tested and found wanting, causing not only poverty (misallocation of resources by central planning and/or command economies), but mass misery in all aspects of human life.

In my travels, I have shopped at a “Giant Food” store which states in its signage that it is “100% employee-owned.” That sounds good to me.

Obama and his gang are either idiots or they are out to ruin America. I will not judge.

JL
JL
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 5:28pm

“And, capitalism may not be uplifting (look to Jesus) of society, but it is the only economic system, along with freedom, that maximizes a nation’s and a people’s wealth. It’s not as if the alternatives have not been tested and found wanting, causing not only poverty (misallocation of resources by central planning and/or command economies), but mass misery in all aspects of human life.”

I’m going to alter the original quote, but i don’t think GK would mind:

“Distributism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

I think capitalism is a system, and a system that can work (provided it’s grounded in a pervasive ethical system which is not merely “voluntarily” adhered to, an impossibility in America). That doesn’t mean that other approaches don’t exist or shouldn’t be explored.

JDP
JDP
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 5:37pm

T. Shaw:

i wasn’t commenting on how well said policies have worked. i just don’t share the cynicism that Obama is expanding government for purposely malignant purposes. attributing mala fides (and talking about “enriching Wall Street buddies” as though that’s the ultimate aim here) might be a nice way to avoid engaging separate views but it is lazy.

JL
JL
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 6:43pm

Hi Bonchamps,

“I haven’t seen it. But then, I haven’t read every word she ever wrote. I’ve browsed her writings at the Catholic Worker archive.”

I’m no expert on Ms. Day, but it’s out there. Her constant mis-representation as a Communist is largely in response to her critique of capitalism.

“As far as I know, she identified as a Distributist. But her brand of Distributism is entirely compatible with free-market capitalism.”

But what about distributism’s central claim that wealth-producing capital and property should be as widely distributed as possible (of course, not necessarily by government mechanizing)? Dorothy Day hated welfare and capitalism because she believed the poor should learn to be self-sufficient, neither beholden to the state nor corporations.

“Self-interest, properly understood, benefits the community. Selfishness benefits neither the selfish individual or the community.”

Do you have a good definitional distinction between the two? Were Goldman-Sachs execs not acting in their self-interest when they engaged in dubious lending practices and then bet against the market? They made off quite nicely. I expect the counter is that if the market had been allowed to operate successfully, they would have been punished accordingly.

“As for a community telos, that only exists in the Church. Unfortunately the two are no longer one. The community wanted a divorce.”

I’m optimistic that it can exist in intentional communities (recently spent a week at the Abbey of Gethsemani) and someday perhaps in some sort of confessional state.

Yes, I’ve heard of him and his assertion. It may be true but it is also irrelevant. It’s not like we have a choice between these two things. Legally enshrined pluralism was and remains the only political alternative to non-stop sectarian warfare. You can’t just create a moral consensus. It grows organically out of a culture. Christianity fought for its place in society amidst a kind of pluralism as well in the Roman Empire.

I would highly recommend reading After Virtue. His argument is serious and not easy to dismiss. Well, I think we do have a choice, but as you point out, one seems associated with the high possibility of sectarian strife. The other, though, is not convincingly better in my opinion. MacIntyre holds up the Greek polis as his model. The limitations are there, but his entire argument is that this type of society is where virtues flourish and humans fulfill their telos. I like to think we could have something like that without the sexism and racism and slavery of Aristotle’s day. Who knows, maybe it’s a pipe dream.

“The founders did want a pluralistic society. They basically embraced subsidiarity, as far as I can tell – moral instruction was the responsibility of parents and religious authorities at the local level. It certainly wasn’t the job of the government to create or enforce a “moral consensus.” I don’t know if MacIntyre thinks that it is, but some people I have seen quoting this view of his seem to think so. I think Obama thinks so too.”

I don’t think the founders thought it would be as pluralistic to the extent it is today. They all recognized the need for authentic religion and morality to moderate, as Adams put it, “avarice, ambition, lust, and licentiousness.” As Tocqueville predicted, society is now dominated by formless spiritualities that bend and move to adapt to peoples’ own base wants and desires. It’s not that America is unreligious, it’s that the religions people adhere to are their own personal concoctions, moral therapeutic deism or heresies posing as orthodoxy. Bad Religion by Douthat is an excellent examination of this phenomenon.

“It has materially. That really is indisputable. I didn’t say anything about other aspects of humanity, though. Technology is mostly morally neutral, to be used by human beings for good or evil. It also amplifies both the good and evil we are capable of.”

I agree that this is indisputable, but I wonder what the correlation is between material well-being and spiritual well-being.

“I don’t think it has been a net positive or negative. Capitalism has enabled a lot of filth to be spread. It has also enabled the word of God to reach billions. Roman roads were responsible for the spread of the Gospel in the ancient world. Fiber-optic cables fulfill a similar role today.”

True, true. I guess it’s easy to romanticize the past and hate the present. And vice versa.

You and I are both Ron Paul fans, but perhaps for slightly different reasons. I am no libertarian, but I recognize that with someone like Paul as president, we have a real chance of returning to authentic federalism (or at least as good as we’ve ever had), where states can be allowed to operate as mini-republics and the type of religiously oriented communities we saw in the colonial days would be realistic. Plausibly. What do you think of that theory?

ctd
ctd
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 6:51pm

I’m not sure I’ll find the time to find all the quotes from Day or Sirico, but I think that the basic problem here is that everyone is working with different definitions. Day, like her mentor Maurin, criticized a system where ownership and operation was controlled by those with capital rather than the workers. To them, that was capitalism. Sirico, and it appears like you as well, equate capitalism with economic liberty and the free market.

The other problem is that too much talk is about the results of these systems rather than the philosophical and theological bases for supporting, opposing, or criticizing them. Libertarians like Paul, and I would submit that Sirico does this as well, start by putting the freedom of the individual contra government as the fundamental principle. Day would never have done that. She put the person, in the context of community, first, and she criticized both government and corporations for failing to respect that.

JL
JL
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 6:52pm

“Why “voluntary” in scare quotes? What is it you want to force people to do? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, I really want to know – if not “voluntary”, then what and why?”

My thoughts can be found here: http://abovethespectrum.com/2013/02/15/the-merits-and-limitations-of-conscious-capitalism/

In a nutshell, if the ethical foundation that everyone from Smith to Adams to Strauss to Tocqeville recognized as necessary to the vitality of capitalism is completely voluntary, people will simply escape it in a liberal society where their right to will always be favored. Eventually, you’ll get to where we are today, where organized religion is pushed out of public life and into the private realm. It’s only capable of doing anything so long as people consent to it, and, as we can see, fewer and fewer people are. Their is no ethical foundation for capitalism to stand upon.

Have you read much of Patrick Deneen?

ctd
ctd
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 7:04pm

“I’ve seen some statements that might be construed that way, but I haven’t seen anything to the effect of “capitalism is evil and should be rejected.””

I don’t think any of us are saying that she said or would have said such a thing. What we are questioning is the jump in saying that her rejection of force and compulsion by government means she accepted capitalism.

If you haven’t done so, take a look at the publications of the Houston Catholic Worker (http://cjd.org/). They are probably the organization most remains true to Day’s actual views. And yes, there are some articles comparing Sirico with Day.

ctd
ctd
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 7:54pm

“I like what the old Joseph Ratzinger said, before he started talking about global financial regulations and the like as B16.”

But Catholics are not free to merely disregard Catholic social doctrine, which is what Caritas in Veritate is, just because they don’t like it.

“How does one become and remain self-sufficient? By working, producing, and exchanging, and also, if one has the willingness and ability, saving and investing. Private property + free exchange. Capitalism.”

As noted before, many would question this definition of capitalism, but besides that you seem to assume that a free exchange is just. Check the Catechism. “Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.” (2434). That chapter also makes clear that the state has an obligation to interfere in that agreement if necessary because it has an obligation to prevent theft and ensure justice.

ctd
ctd
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 8:35pm

I wasn’t arguing for responding to injustices by wages alone or anything like that. I was just pointing out one instance in thousands of pages of social doctrine where the Church clearly states (1) that economic freedom between individuals is not itself sufficient and (2) it is entirely proper for the state to intervene in economic matters. Those two principles do not mean that the Church has rejected capitalism, but they do indicate that it rejects the notion that ownership of property and free exchange are sufficient for the protection and fostering of the life and dignity of the human person.

I am troubled by your claim that the Church’s social doctrine has been shaped by a particular economic paradigm and the area itself is not a matter of faith and morals. There wasn’t much serious debate on the matter before John Paul II, but he nevertheless made it very clear that this was not the case. The Church’s social doctrine, including those related to economics, is an integral part of the Church’s teaching and part of the magisterium. It is not just the opinions of various pope’s responding only to particular issues relevant only to their time and experience.

JDP
JDP
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 8:45pm

“I’m not even going to discuss imperialism with someone who seems to think that it is the equivalent of military occupation. You dunno much about it.”

well that’s what it is. or is that too technical? i’m not a fan of conflating liberalism with socialism either for that matter.

by your metric the only way the U.S. can be non-“imperial” is if it stops caring about the outcome of certain conflicts/does not kill terrorist associates who are a direct threat, for fear of blowback. that’s rigging the argument.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 9:17pm

JDP,

Y’all either type fast or what.

Good job: take a phrase and disregard the facts/truth of the comment.

I don’t believe that Obama thinks he’s doing evil or a sin.

I think Obama believes he’s doing “good” destroying the evil, unjust free market system.

Similarly, Lenin thought he was doing good for Russia by killing hundreds of thousands of uncooperative peasants.

Or else, Obama and his gang simply are morons.

Get it, Bub?

JDP
JDP
Sunday, February 17, AD 2013 9:41pm

do you really think Obama wants to destroy the free market, or is he someone who believes in a large social safety existing with capitalism, a la certain European countries?

i realize some people think making this distinction is going soft on someone, but i think it’s important. it’s not like the latter situation can’t be argued against.

trackback
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 12:09am

[…] Catholic Stand The Denial of Being – Kevin O’Brien, Waiting for Godot to Leave Dorothy Day: Anarcho-Capitalist, Perhaps – Bonchamps, The American Cthlc Küng, Sex-Obsessed – New Catholic, Rorate Cæli Is Tim […]

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 4:09am

Catholic social teaching would appear to assign a greater rôle to the public authorities than either you or Dorothy Day allow:

As Pope Paul VI said in Populorum Progressio:

“33. Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” [John XXIII, Encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 414] the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man’s basic human rights.”

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 5:58am

i Really Think That Obama’s Intent Is To Destroy america.

Keynes (I am not a Keynesian) said something to the effect: future historians/economists will wonder in amazement that such a dull and illogical “regime” as (marxian) socialism could have exercised such influence (and caused such damage) over so many. Keynes also saw that economic “social justice” could morph to class envy/hate.

And, the Pope is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, not in matters of fiscal (taxes and expenditures); monetary (bank reserve requirements, interest rates, money supply) policy; nor price, income, and employment theory.

Generally, I don’t put any stock in CSJT. It’s used by evil people to promote evil. its cousin, socialism, plays on people’s envy and wrath (the seven deadly sins), as does Obama with his constant divisive, eliminationist rhetoric of “us” vs. “them”, e.g., 4,000,000 NRA members are mass murderers, and tax the rich.

It borders on tragic that the geniuses that dreamt up CSJT didn’t see that it could become the ally of, and aid and abet, evil, e.g., 47 million abortions. I know that was not the intent. It’s just how it plays out.

ctd
ctd
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 8:01am

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

“The Church’s social doctrine “belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology”. It cannot be defined according to socio-economic parameters. It is not an ideological or pragmatic system intended to define and generate economic, political and social relationships, but is a category unto itself.” (No. 72)

“This doctrine has its own profound unity, which flows from Faith in a whole and complete salvation, from Hope in a fullness of justice, and from Love which makes all mankind truly brothers and sisters in Christ: it is the expression of God’s love for the world, which he so loved “that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16). (No. 3)”

Caritas in Veritate:

“In this sense, clarity is not served by certain abstract subdivisions of the Church’s social doctrine, which apply categories to Papal social teaching that are extraneous to it. It is not a case of two typologies of social doctrine . . . differing from one another: on the contrary, there is a single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new. It is one thing to draw attention to the particular characteristics of one Encyclical or another, of the teaching of one Pope or another, but quite another to lose sight of the coherence of the overall doctrinal corpus. (No. 12)”

Rick
Rick
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 8:37am

Capitalism and individual freedom is obviously the only solution that has worked in raising a nations standard of living. This along with a limited government that supports distributism combined with a people that demands subsidiarity and seeks after God is what really works and is sustainable. This is no longer the case in the USA and we are now declining. Obama’s initiatives with new and massive debt spending, unprecedented in our history, are sealing our fate. With nostalgia we refer to the generation that fought in WW-II as the greatest generation. What followed should be called the worst generation. The ignorance and willingness to hand over freedom for another government program is appalling.

Michael PS
Michael PS
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 8:46am

To take two examples for Populorum Progressio, where “”Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development.”:

“22. Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth: “God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should flow fairly to all.” ) [Church in the World of Today, no. 69: AAS 58 (1966), 1090 [cf. TPS XI, 306].]

All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.”

And

“24. If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”

I would suggest hat only the public authorities can judge when “the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated” or landed estates (and, presumably other kinds of property) are to be expropriated.

John Frederic Kosanke
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 9:41am

Contrary to what is held by the anti-property anti-market left, in the absence of the state, the natural tendency is toward equality of opportunity. While there will continue to be a wide disparity of wealth – due to the fact that humans are not equal by nature (some are more ambitious and intelligent than others), the super rich will no longer have politicians from whom they can purchase or legislate immunity. The misguided left – including those who claim to be “anarchists” – are comfortable with the intrusive state because of their hatred of property.

Dr Carol Byrne
Dr Carol Byrne
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 12:06pm

The main problem with trying to discuss Dorothy Day is that there is very little objective knowledge about her, as most of what is believed comes from the pen of her most ardent supporters who happen to share one or more of her political positions. The only independent in-depth study of Day and the Catholic Worker is my book, ‘The Catholic Worker (1930-1988): a Critical Analysis’ (2010) which is based on documentary evidence from archival and other authentic sources. The research contained in the book shows that Day espoused a Socialist agenda for economic and social reform which she tried to disguise under the term “Christian Communism” so as to make it acceptable in the Catholic Church.
Day was imbued with Marxist ideology, which was the basis for her rejection of Capitalism.

As for the question of ownership, family rights, subsidiarity, distributism etc., it can be easily shown that Day’s position on each of them does not accord with Catholic principles. In her newspaper, ‘The Catholic Worker’ (CW) which she editied for almost 50 years, she favored many varieties of Socialism merging the ideals of Marxist, anarchist, utopian and religious groups which advocate the application of Communist policies in social life. Here are some examples of the Socialist solutions which she recommended in addition to her own Catholic Worker communes:
• the Koinonia community based on “the firm foundation of non-ownership” (CW May 1957)
• collectivized farming and living arrangements e.g. in China, the USSR and Cuba (CW February 1965), in Tanzania (CW December 1970), among the Hutterites (CW July-August 1969) or on a farming commune in California. (CW January 1972)
• the 19th-century North American pioneering settlements (CW April 1956) which were based on communal ownership of property
• the Israeli Kibbutz system, essentially a Socialist society based on, egalitarianism, non-ownership and communal child rearing (CW March 1968)

We can deduce that Day’s idea of Distributism which did not defend the right to private property was simply a form of Socialism in disguise. It is simply an illusion to imagine that communal ownership of property and the means of production could be achieved without state enforcement – in other words a totalitarian state.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 12:14pm

Here is a question for your favorite theologian: “Can God create a degree so useless that even He could not get a real job?”

Theologians and vatican bureaucracy, or whoever writes econocyclicals, know as much about economic growth and development as they do about fornication. With apologiies to General Patton.

Wherever they tried that stuff, people went broke. The contemporary US experience is that it increases the ranks of the poor and, even worse, aids and abets evil: abortion, class envy and mass wrath.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 12:21pm

Yesterday a commenter told me:

“attributing mala fides (and talking about “enriching Wall Street buddies” as though that’s the ultimate aim here) might be a nice way to avoid engaging separate views but it is lazy.”

I am lazy, but that’s okay: it’s the truth:

Joel Kotkin quoted at Instapundit, “To many presidential idolaters, this era will be known as the Age of Obama. But, in reality, we live in what may best be called the Age of Bernanke. Essentially, Obamaism increasingly serves as a front for the big-money interests who benefit from the Federal Reserve’s largesse and interest rate policies; progressive rhetoric serves as the beard for royalist results.”

“Many of the biggest losers in the Bernanke era are key Democratic constituencies, such as minorities and the young, who have seen their opportunities dim under the Bernanke regime. The cruelest cuts have been to the poor, whose numbers have surged by more than 2.6 million under a president who has promised relentlessly to reduce poverty.

“Things, of course, have not [been] too great for the middle-age and middle-class – more of them now supporting both aging parents and underemployed children. Median income in America is down 8 percent from 2007, and dropping. Things, in reality, are not getting better for anyone but the most affluent.

“A particular loser has been small business. As we enter the sixth year since the onset of the Great Recession, and nearly four years after the ‘recovery’ officially began, small business remains in a largely defensive mode. Critically, start-up rates are well below those than following previous downturns in 1976 and 1983. The number of startup jobs per 1000 – a key source of job growth in the past – over the past four years is down a full 30 percent from the Bush and Clinton eras. New firms – those five years or younger – now account for less than 8 percent of all companies, down from 12 percent to 13 percent in the early 1980s, another period following a deep recession.”

David H. Lukenbill
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 12:53pm

I’ve read Dr. Byrne’s book and studied Dorothy Day’s work in some detail–I have most of the books by her, even The 11th Virgin, and most of those about her–but Dr. Byrne’s book was a real eye-opener, and answered many questions.

I had been a fan of Dorothy Day, but was always somewhat curious why she never really came out strong against Communism after her Catholic conversion, especially as this was during a period when Communism was corrupting many people.

After reading Dr. Byrne’s book, I understood why.

David H. Lukenbill
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 1:09pm

Bonchamps

The Cuban episode is one of too many to write her off as merely having “a lapse in consistency”. She was much too intelligent for that, and her lapses all seemed to fall along the same general line.

Really, anyone who wishes to have a full picture of Dorothy Day, and American Catholics should as she is on her way to canonization, needs to read Dr. Byrne’s book.

JL Liedl
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 3:20pm

Wow. Things have certainly gotten interesting in here.

I really only want to respond to this:

“The only independent in-depth study of Day and the Catholic Worker is my book, ‘The Catholic Worker (1930-1988): a Critical Analysis’ (2010) which is based on documentary evidence from archival and other authentic sources.”

I don’t. This seems unlikely. Not saying it isn’t true. But just highly unlikely that there is only one “independent in-depth study of Day and the Catholic Worker.”

Min
Min
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 9:03pm

JL Liedl et al,

I met Dorothy Day when I was an undergraduate, wet behind the ears, in the mid-1960s. I felt a certain unease, especially after witnessing the lax morality at the Tivoli Catholic Worker (CW) farm, which I naively–and erroneously–thought Day did not know about. Many years later, after an arduous search on the Internet, I found Carol Byrne’s book, which helped me to see that my unease was realistic.

It may seem unlikely, but Byrne’s “The Catholic Worker Movement (1930-1988): A Critical Analysis” is still the only book I have been able to find that is an “independent in-depth study of Day and the Catholic Worker.” Day has been rightly called “the mother of the Catholic left.”

Jim Forest, author of three biographies of Day–all without footnotes–was a CW editor as well as a founder of the CW spinoff, the Catholic Peace Fellowship. He left the Catholic Church for the Orthodox but continues to advocate for Day’s “sanctity” as he heads the Orthodox Peace Fellowship and resides in the Netherlands.

Daniel Ellsberg’s son Robert spent 5 years at the CW, from 1970-1975, under Day’s tutelage. Robert Ellsberg is now the Publisher of Maryknoll’s Orbis Books as well as the editor of Day’s Selected Writings (“By LIttle and by Little”), Selected Letters (“All Is Grace”), and her published Diaries (“The Duty of Delight”), in addition to being on the Steering Committee for the Guild for Dorothy Day.

Patrick Jordan is a former CW and now a member of Day’s Guild’s Executive Committee. While he was Editor of “Commonweal,” Jordan edited a volume of Day’s writings from the magazine.

James H. Martin, SJ, is an editor of “America” and an advocate for Day. In “America,”he endorses her “Duty of Delight” as “one of the most powerful works of Christian spirituality I have ever read.” On the back cover of her Selected Letters, he enthuses: “Read these remarkable letters and come to know a saint.” So much for waiting for the decision of the Church!

Similarly, Robert Coles, prominent Harvard psychiatrist, advisor and friend to Ethel Kennedy, and author of two books about Day and the CW was–who’d a thunk it–a CW volunteer in the 1950s when he was attending medical school at Columbia; and as a professor he sent his students to the CW and also visited the CW with them.

Tom Cornell, also a co-founder of the Catholic Peace Fellowship, a draft-card burner in the 1960s with Day providing public encouragement, and head of the Marlboro, NY CW farm today, does his bit too on behalf of Day in interviews–with no mention of his being on the Executive Committee of Day”s Guild.

Earlier academic authors Nancy L. Roberts and Mel Piehl did studies of the CW that endorsed many of Day’s beliefs. Professor William D. Miller, who wrote the 1982 biography “Dorothy Day,” became Day’s friend and does not provide notes in his work. Rosalie Riegle Troester (now Rosalie G. Riegle post-divorce) is a college professor emerita who has also–surprise–been involved with the CW since the 1960s and is the editor/compiler of two volumes of “oral history” on the CW.

Paul Elie’s “The LIfe You Save May Be Your Own” deals with Dorothy Day’s influence as a Catholic writer and actually analyzes what she wrote–which may be why his work is not listed as a resource at the CW website. However, Elie does not question Day’s “significance,” and declares that her “influence … has spread far and wide” and notes uncritically that “Day is being considered for canonization as a saint in Rome.”

FYI, Dr. Byrne’s complete Supplementary Notes for “The Catholic Worker Movement 1933-1980: A Critical Analysis” are available at the blog “Dorothy Day Another Way” and are well worth reading.

JL
JL
Monday, February 18, AD 2013 10:30pm

Min, David, Dr. B,

Thanks for all the information. You’ve certainly given us all some pause for consideration. However, I still can’t shake the feeling that this seems like the internet combox version of an infomercial!

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Tuesday, February 19, AD 2013 2:08am

Hilaire Belloc often gave France as an example of distributism, pointing out that some ten million landless peasants were turned into heritable proprietors, largely through the transfer of state and municipal property to private individuals – the royal domain, the common lands, the village lands, the forest lands. the lendowments of dissolved corporations, like the guilds, colleges, hospitals, as well as the confiscated estates of emigrants and malignants – the very reverse of socialism or communism.

Min
Min
Tuesday, February 19, AD 2013 9:31am

Bonchamps, it might seem logical to believe that “unlike a lot of left-anarchists I have known, she was unambiguous in her rejection of the use of force and compulsion to obtain ‘social justice’, I don’t think it can be said that she opposed capitalism either.”

However, this view is contradicted by Day’s writings. The aim of the Catholic Worker according to Day and Peter Maurin is “to make a society in which it is easier for people to be good” by working “to make the rich poor and the poor holy”; Maurin’s favorite mottoes included “Work, not wages” and “Fire the bosses!” (Day, “The Long Loneliness,” 1952, 2006 reprint, pp. 195, 226-227). Throughout her life Day opposed capitalism, and favored the “social advances” of such governments as Castro’s Cuba, Red China, and Ho Chi Minh–which eliminated the advantages of the wealthy–as Carol Byrne documents.

Here are some relevant quotes, with sources, so that readers can confirm Day wrote them:

“Let us be honest and confess that it is the social order which we wish to change.” (“C.W. States Stand on Strikes,” Catholic Worker [CW], July 1936)

“The bourgeois, the material[ist], fights for abstractions like freedom, democracy, because he has the material things of this life (which he is most fearful of being deprived of).” ( “The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day,” 2011, p. 83)

“Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system.” (from a public speech; “Women on War,” Daniela Gioseffi, ed., 1988, pp. 103, 371)

“When people are standing up for our present rotten system, they are being worse than Communists, it seems to me.” (“Duty of Delight,” p. 98)

“We need to change the system. We need to overthrow, not the government, as the authorities are always accusing the Communists ‘of conspiring to teach [us] to do,’ but this rotten, decadent, putrid industrial capitalist system which breeds such suffering in the whited sepulcher of New York.” (“On Pilgrimage,” CW, September 1956)

The CW in Day’s time participated in demonstrations opposing Wall Street in the 1970s, and has supported and participated in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement of the present. As for Day’s opposition to force, she frequently stated she could not “condone” it, but she was able to overlook it when it was used by Communists and achieved “social reforms” (e.g., see CW articles on Cuba, 1962). She also wrote approvingly about the virtues of her old Communist friends Mike Gold, Anna Louise Strong, Rayna Prohme, and Communist Party Chair Elizabeth Gurley Flynn for her CW readers. No wonder President Obama declared her one of “the great social reformers” at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2012.

In the “Long Loneliness” Day declares, “There is so much more to the Catholic Worker Movement than labor and capital. It is people who are important, not the masses” (p. 221). Here are three samples of Day’s view of “people”:

[1] “To see only the good, the Christ, in others! Perhaps if we thought of how Karl Marx was called ‘Papa Marx’ by all the children on the street, if we knew and remembered how he told fairy stories to his children, how he suffered hunger and poverty and pain, how he sat by the body of his dead child and had no money for coffin or funeral, perhaps such thoughts as these would make us love him and his followers. Dear God, for the memory of that dead child, of that faithful wife, grant his stormy spirit ‘a place of refreshment, light and peace.’

And there was Lenin. He hungered and thirsted and at times he had no fixed abode. Mme. Krupskaya, his widow, said that he loved to go into the peace of the pine woods and hunt mushrooms like old Mrs. Dew down at Easton did, and we with her one October. He lived one time in the slums of Paris, and he lived on horse meat when he had meat, and he started schools for the poor and the workers. ‘He went about doing good.’ Is this blasphemy?” (“On Pilgrimage,” CW, April 1948)

[2] The head of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Charles Schwab “had defrauded the worker of a just wage. His sins cried to heaven for vengeance. He had ground the faces of the poor. “Let not the oil of the sinner fatten my head” (Ps. 140:5)….”He that sheddeth blood, and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire, are brothers” (Ecclus. 34:24-27). (From Union Square to Rome, 1938; 2006 reprint, p. 137).

[3] “Marx . . . Lenin . . . Mao Tse-Tung. . . . These men were animated by the love of brother and this we must believe though their ends meant the seizure of power, and the building of mighty armies, the compulsion of concentration camps, the forced labor and torture and killing of tens of thousands, even millions.” (“The Incompatibility of Love and Violence,” CW, May 1951)

JL, please read Day’s writings and see if your judgment changes. When I did this, my initial reaction was shock and disbelief at the difference between Day’s “popular” image and what her writings reveal.

Michael PS
Michael PS
Tuesday, February 19, AD 2013 10:05am

She also says in the same article ((“The Incompatibility of Love and Violence,” CW, May 1951)

“Peter Maurin was constantly restating our position, and finding authorities from all faiths, and races, all authorities. He used to embarrass us sometimes by dragging in Marshal Pétain and Fr. Coughlin and citing something good they had said, even when we were combating the point of view they were representing. Just as we shock people by quoting Marx, Lenin, Mao-Tse-Tung, or Ramakrishna to restate the case for our common humanity, the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God.”

I can admire the patriotism and courage of Charlotte Corday, without endorsing assassination as a political weapon; I can admire the public spirit and integrity of Robespierre, without approving of the Terror.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top