Catholic Social Thought

From “Third Ways” to the First Way

Published Wednesday, December 12, 2012 A.D. | By Bonchamps

The search for an economic and political “third way” between socialism and capitalism has been underway since the early 20th century, if not sooner. In Catholic circles, Distributism is a third way that many are eager to discuss. I suspect many of the people reading this blog have heard of Distributism by now.

I was once attracted to the idea of Distributism, until I came to the vital question of who would be doing the “distributing” of the private property that everyone was supposed to own and how it would be done. To be vague or silent on this question is completely unacceptable. And yet there are really only two possible answers. Either people will be persuaded via reasonable argument and successful example to get together with like-minded people and distribute property in various ways, or people will be forced to do it at gunpoint.

It didn’t take me long to realize that there was really no “middle ground” between these two options, just as there is really no middle ground between free will and determinism (even if various factors can influence person’s will). If you haven’t persuaded someone to do what you want, the only other way is force. So the question becomes: is it legitimate to use force to impose an ideology on society? Is it legitimate for a band of political visionaries to come together and either use the power of the existing state or establish a new state to drag the unwilling or apathetic masses along? And does a system which is supposedly in man’s best interests need to be established at gunpoint, as if it weren’t?

Continue reading →

Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand: An Assertion With Evidence

Published Monday, August 13, 2012 A.D. | By Lisa Graas

My compatriot Paul Zummo posts: Assertion Without Evidence.

Here find my reply.

Mr. Zummo writes:

“Show, don’t tell” is an admonition often given to writers. Usually it applies to fiction, but it works with non-fiction as well. If you make an assertion about someone’s beliefs, it is generally good form to provide evidence supporting your argument, at least if you want to be taken seriously. It is true that the blogopshere doesn’t necessarily allow for extended treatises, yet it’s still possible within the confines of a few hundred words or more to demonstrate credible evidence of your assertions.

When it comes to Paul Ryan and his evil Randian ways, however, such worries are cast aside.

The claim is that there is no evidence to support the assertion that Paul Ryan is “Randian.” That is, that he ascribes to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

First, it is very clear that, in recent years, Paul Ryan was an avid supporter of what he called the “morality of capitalism” as defined specifically by Ayn Rand. (Video here.)

Secondly, when political blowback was clear, Ryan stated that the claims that he supports Ayn Rand are “urban legend.” The term “urban legend” is commonly understood to describe a myth. In other words, his reply was that the claims are “not true,” but we have the video, don’t we? Robert Costa added undue credibility to Ryan’s assertion:

These Rand-related slams, Ryan says, are inaccurate and part of an effort on the left to paint him as a cold-hearted Objectivist.

It is ironic that Ryan will not acknowledge that the poor are “due” assistance, even as he is given undue credibility by Costa and National Review. More troubling indeed is Costa’s assertion that the source of this “lie” is political opponents on the Left. This gives the impression that Ryan is a person of privilege who will be defended by National Review, which is heavily-staffed with Catholic columnists, even against true claims against him. In this way, the credibility of Catholic conservatives is eroded. That is something I certainly do not want to see.

Let it be noted that I have never claimed that Ryan is an Objectivist, per Costa’s article, but only that he is opposed to the preferential option for the poor. I would love to see any quote from Ryan claiming that the poor are “due” economic assistance from those who have more. Certainly, Rick Santorum would tell you that the poor are “due” assistance by virtue of the fact that they are poor. He would say it a thousand times without flinching, though he may disagree with some on the structures it takes to make that happen effectively. Ryan appears to have no belief that the poor are “due” assistance.

Finally, on the main point about whether Ryan is “Randian,” if we assume that he’s had a “conversion” from Rand, then a couple of things would be required to make it an actual conversion. First, you would have to convert “to” something else. Secondly, you would have to demonstrate somehow that you actually believe that philosophy that you’ve converted to.

Ryan claims that he follows St. Thomas Aquinas, not Ayn Rand.

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

If he follows Aquinas, as claimed, this would make him a proponent of Distributism. Try quoting Aquinas’ remarks on Distributism to any conservatives who have not read them before and ask them what it sounds like to them. I’ll be shocked if they don’t call it “socialism.”

As stated above (Article 1), in distributive justice something is given to a private individual, in so far as what belongs to the whole is due to the part, and in a quantity that is proportionate to the importance of the position of that part in respect of the whole. Consequently in distributive justice a person receives all the more of the common goods, according as he holds a more prominent position in the community. This prominence in an aristocratic community is gauged according to virtue, in an oligarchy according to wealth, in a democracy according to liberty, and in various ways according to various forms of community. Hence in distributive justice the mean is observed, not according to equality between thing and thing, but according to proportion between things and persons: in such a way that even as one person surpasses another, so that which is given to one person surpasses that which is allotted to another.

Aquinas goes on to say that it is the poor, as Jesus said, who are to be considered to have the more prominent position in the community. G.K. Chesterton was a proponent of Distributism. No heretic, he.

Several times today alone, I have shared the above quote from Aquinas with conservatives and have been told it is “redistribution of wealth,” the term frequently employed by conservatives to describe socialism. I would argue that most people would say the quote above describes Obama policy better than it describes Ryan policy. Herein lies the conundrum of ignorance which plagues us and foments division in the Church through political confusion. Not one among us who call ourselves conservative would let Barack Obama get away with saying that he follows Aquinas, but if Paul Ryan says it, no one bats an eyelash? Well, not me. Not me. And so, here I am before you asking you not to let any man get away with claiming he follows Aquinas when he does not, least of all a candidate for high office, and especially so when it is a candidate for high office who identifies as Catholic on the national stage.

Certainly, Ryan’s philosophy continues to more closely resemble the philosophy of Ayn Rand than of Aquinas. CLICK HERE to see why that is so dangerous to the Church in America, and yes, even to Western Civilization itself.

As for Mr. Zummo’s attempt to compare Paul Ryan to Rick Santorum, there is no comparison. They are vastly different, as stated above, but also considering the fact that Paul Ryan endorsed Mitt Romney, who is running on a solely economic platform, over his fellow Catholic Rick Santorum in Wisconsin. This action effectively knocked Rick Santorum out of the GOP presidential primary for good and certainly indicates strongly that the two are not at all on the same page economically. At the very least, it’s clear that Paul Ryan prefers Romney economics to Santorum economics. Mitt Romney believes those who work are “due” what they work for. Fine, fine, but Rick Santorum believes, in addition to that, that the poor are “due” assistance in some form. It’s a philosophy that is consistent with our Catholic Faith, whereas Ryan’s philosophy is not.

There was no “assertion without evidence.” To the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence, and we ignore it at our peril.

On Endorsements, Subsidiarity, and Prudential Questions

Published Thursday, September 30, 2010 A.D. | By The TAC Editors

I would like to join Michael Denton in his critique of Catholic Vote’s endorsements (here and here). For the record, I am still technically a guest blogger for Catholic Vote, although I rarely find the time to blog there these days (the life of a Theology grad student isn’t always conducive to the 24-hour news cycle). I also would like to state that I very much support the work of Catholic Vote and I have the utmost respect for Thomas Peters and Josh Mercer (CV’s Communications Director). I have not had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Burch, but I am sure we would get along quite well.

First, I agree with Mr. Denton’s critique of Catholic Vote’s endorsement criteria, but I also think their very practice of making endorsements hurts their overall credibility. By engaging in elections they sully the wonderfully non-partisan creditability they gained via their Life: Imagine the Potential Campaign. What attracted me to their mission initially is their advancement of Catholic beliefs in the public square in a way that was educational rather than political. Perhaps, my fears will be proven wrong (I hope they are). Kudos to CV though for endorsing a Democrat, at a time when endorsing Democrats is almost an anathema in the social conservative world this is downright courageous.

Secondly, as a theologian-in-training, I feel I need to speak out against two common misunderstandings of Catholic Social Teaching, which Catholic Vote and countless others seem to be making. Before I go into this, I would like to say that I am trying to “think with the Church” on this. I ask that anyone responding to this post, likewise, try to think with the Church and not impose your political biases onto our attempt to better understand the teachings of the Church.

Continue reading →

Just How Much Is a Just Wage?

Published Monday, July 12, 2010 A.D. | By Black Adder

Catholic Social Thought has long recognized the right to a “just wage” (sometimes called a “living wage”), which is defined as a wage “sufficient to enable [a man] to support himself, his wife and his children.” CA 8. One common objection to the idea of the just wage is what might be called the calculation problem. Sure, the criticism goes, everyone would agree in the abstract that wages should be sufficient to support oneself and one’s family, but how are we to decide what is sufficient? What, specifically, is the minimum wage that a man may be paid without violating his right to a just wage?

For answers, I went to Father John Ryan’s A Living Wage, which is the classic American text in defense of the right to a just wage. Chapter five of the book, A Concrete Estimate of A Living Wage, tackles the calculation problem head on, and Father Ryan offers a specific estimate of the amount of wages a man must be paid as his due in justice (in what follows all figures appear to assume a five person family of husband, wife, and three children).

In the first edition of A Living Wage (published in 1906), Father Ryan gave $600 a year (or $14,143.39 in 2009 dollars*) as the minimum wage necessary to qualify as a just wage in the United States. Father Ryan opined that this wage was “probably” sufficient in certain parts of the country (such as the South) where the cost of living was lower, and was possibly sufficient elsewhere, though he noted that there were “certainly” parts of the country where it was insufficient.

Continue reading →

Beyond Capitalism and Socialism

Published Thursday, October 22, 2009 A.D. | By The TAC Editors

I tend to think I am doing something right if people from both ends of the political spectrum are rabidly attacking me. The notion that one ideological camp has a monopoly on truth and justice is repugnant to me, even if I lean one way or another at times. At the same time, I never enjoy seeing civil discussion degenerate into uncharitable attacks.

Attachment to labels is part of the problem I encounter when putting forth alternative economic ideas. People on the political right are as agitated by the mere word “socialism” as people on the left are by the word “capitalism”. It doesn’t help that both sides hold radically different definitions of each word.

I’ll start with the right. On the right, “socialism” (or these days, “fascism” as well) is what happens whenever government gets involved in the economy in almost any way, shape or form. But how it is applied is usually very selective – I doubt the average “tea party” protester would call Benjamin Franklin a “socialist” for establishing the post office. Meanwhile, “capitalism” is merely the freedom to own private property, start a business and participate in the free market.

Next, on the left, “capitalism” is the root of all evil, and is what happens whenever a person makes money for themselves somehow. It is by definition exploitative and must be either violently overthrown or withered away through government intervention. How it is applied is again very selective; if a business is “green” or “socially conscious”, enough leftists may look the other way for it to be acceptable among their numbers. Meanwhile “socialism” is what happens when ordinary people, instead of fat cats and tycoons, have control of the economic system.

I realize of course that I simplify positions here a great deal, and that not everyone identifying themselves as left or right would necessarily agree – my apologies, but not every possible permutation can be explored in a small blog post. There are people on both sides who understand that political realities, not to mention political history and political theory, are far more complex than the rhetoric that emerges from popular movements, magazines, news shows, etc.

The point here is that the two sides have more in common than they realize. How the right typically understands capitalism, and how the left typically understands socialism, consist of two ideas that are not that radically opposed to one another. So it may be time to take a cue from my favorite political theorist, Aristotle. In the Politics, Aristotle presents us with the “true” forms and the false forms of each system of government. For Aristotle the possibilities are rule by a single man, rule by the few, or rule by the many (self-government). Each of these types has a true form and a false form (which today, I suppose, we would substitute for a good form and a bad form): the true form of rule by a single man is monarchy, while the false is tyranny; the true form of rule by the few is aristocracy while the false is oligarchy; the true form of rule by the people is constitutional government, while the false is democracy. How Aristotle used these words and how we use them might vary to some degree.

Might I suggest, in keeping with Aristotle’s approach, that there are true forms and false forms of both capitalism and socialism? I think most of us already understand what they would be, but here is how I would set them forth: the true form of capitalism is “free enterprise”, defined by the freedom to own private property, start one’s own business, and engage in trade, while the false form is “plutocracy”, defined by rigid economic stratification, the subordination of all social interests to the profit motive, and the disproportionate power of wealthy corporations. On the other hand, the true form of socialism is “economic democracy”, whereby the people have varying yet substantial degrees of ownership and control of economic processes, while the false form is “command economy”, whereby the state has the lion’s share of ownership and control.

If we can at least temporarily agree to this understanding of terms, we might then take our next cues from a group of political theorists that looked to classical theorists such as Aristotle, among others, as they set out to apply their ideas to the real world: the American founding fathers. As students of their political thought may already know, the founders were interested in combining each of the true forms of government into a single system in order to get the best of each – monarchy, aristocracy, and what we would today call democracy each had a representative in the structure of the new American government. A system of checks and balances were to hold each element in its proper place, and prevent them from degenerating into their false forms.

Can the same be done with economic ideas? I believe it can, and I believe we find the answers in Catholic social thought, and particularly Distributist thought. Here the true forms of both capitalism and socialism are combined in a way originally envisioned by Aristotle himself, while the false forms are rejected and held in check. What I defined as “free enterprise” and “economic democracy” above are entirely compatible, provided only that society – be it through a national or, better yet, local government – have as its practical aim the gradual elimination of the unskilled or semi-skilled labor market by providing as many positive incentives as possible for the establishment of Employee Owned and Controlled Companies (EOCCs).

Why the labor market? Because it is here that human beings are ultimately reduced to the amount of profit they can provide an employer. Within Catholic social thought, labor always has primacy over capital – the human rights and dignity of the worker always take a great moral precedence over profit. When a worker is reduced to a cog in a profit-making machine, to be granted the necessities of life while it is convenient and yet denied them when it is not, it is a violation of human rights. And yet the elimination of the market in unskilled labor would not deny anyone’s right to private property, their own business, or trade in material goods. It simply means that a person who wishes to profit for himself by such means must now be a person in search of partners instead of a buyer in search of a “means of production” in human beings.

To those who might complain that this would result in less effective or efficient businesses, I would point to research that clearly shows that there is a positive relationship between ownership and productivity. When people are treated like people with dignity – even if not as equals in every respect – they do their jobs better, and everyone benefits. The reason for this should not be surprising to Christians; it is God who made it such that we should live in society with one another, and God who commands us to love our neighbor as ourself. God would not command that which was detrimental to ourselves. The moral law is not only good, but results in good.

To achieve these ends it is absolutely necessary that we change the way we think and speak. We must begin to agree upon the meaning of words and phrases so that petty disputes are finally put to rest. Leftists and rightists alike must embrace the true forms of the economic systems they criticize, and more loudly condemn the false forms. They must seek points of contact and agreement, and I think this can be done by finding ways to marry free enterprise to economic democracy while holding plutocracy and command economy at bay. In spite of our differences on other moral issues, particularly sexual ethics, modern technology offers us ways in which both freedom and equality, the rallying points of right and left respectively, can be effectively and efficiently combined. Overarching both of these important conceptions must be the Christian conception of the human person, for in the final instance, and in spite of the pretensions of secularism, Pope Benedict is right: the only foundation for human rights is Christian humanism.

This essay is also on my blog, and I hope it will spark some constructive and respectful discussion.

Continue reading →