Distributism: You name one of your cows Chesterton and one of them Belloc, and argue with them about what distributism means. Nothing much else ever gets done.
Donald R, McClarey
I have never written much about Distributism because, to quote Gertrude Stein, there is no there, there. Chesterton and Belloc I think used Distributism primarily as a springboard to attack the capitalism they both loathed. The details were kept vague because it was obvious that, unless humanity were suddenly to become exempt from sin, the implementation of such a system, if it could be implemented at all, would require a very powerful state indeed, something that Chesterton and Belloc both loathed just as much as they loathed capitalism. Thus Distributism was something to be trotted out in their writings periodically, but neither Chesterton or Belloc made any attempts to seriously implement it in the real world, and of course one would not expect a pair of writers to do so. That would be done, if at all, by those inspired by the concept. However, although the concept evokes a lot of sturm und drang on Catholic blogs, attempts to implement it in reality have been precious few and far between. It is therefore only appropriate that a science fiction novelist, John C. Wright, has examined a concept that I think will always remain firmly ensconced in the fictional realm:
A reader asked me my opinion of Distributionism, which is GK Chesterton’s tentative venture into economic philosophy.
For better or worse, my take on Distributism is uniformly and unabashedly negative. You see, I had studied economics for many a year before I stumbled across the writings of Mr Chesterton, and I found him wise and witty and much to be admired in all other areas but this one. Once he starts writing about rich folk, he speaks frothing nonsense, and there is a touch of hatred, of true malice, in his tone I do not detect anywhere else.
Chesterton holds that the concentration of wealth into a few hands was bad for all concerned, and looked favorably on the idea of each man owning his own means of production, and their incomes being more equal.
By what means this was to be accomplished is left vague in his writings. Whether this was to be by a medieval guild system, or some form of government-run syndicate, or an all-volunteer affair, is never mentioned one way or the other. He states clearly that he opposes the Enclosure Laws, by which common greens, formerly owned and used communally, were made private property; but he does not state clearly how, or even if, he would reverse this.
His position differs from Socialism mainly by being nondoctrinaire by being unclear.
Go here to read the rest. Distributism has as much chance of ever being a major economic system as does the economic system of Utopia (No Place) by Saint Thomas More, which is a very good thing. Attempts to implement economic systems in the real world that rely on reshaping how humans behave has a track record, one which no one sane should be eager to emulate.
Agree, Sounds like Chesterton was a closet Socialist.
However, Capitalism tends towards monopoly which must be controlled especially in our news and social media.
There was a real estate agent named (IIRC) John Medaille who had an online publication devoted to it. Among the contributors was Thomas Storck and an Austrailian economist named Race Matthews. Medaille I had some exchanges with and he struck me as rude and crankish.
I never got any sense of loathing from the writings of Chesterton and Belloc with which I’m familiar. Distributism struck me as an inchoate set of notions that they didn’t have the time or the skill set to develop further than they did. As of now, tt’s a hobby project of a coterie of Catholic intellectuals. I don’t see a problem with individual academics exploring ideas with a particular inspiration, but the boundary conditions of what’s distributism and what’s not aren’t going to be very clear since the original project was underdeveloped. Working off the social encylclicals is a challenge as well, since the earlier ones seem to assume a town economy of small businesses composed of masters, journeymen, and apprentices.
“Attempts to implement economic systems in the real world that rely on reshaping how humans behave has a track record, one which no one sane should be eager to emulate”
May I humbly suggest that all economic systems in the real world rely on reshaping how humans behave? The only alternative is to have no economic system. Whether that would be a good thing is another discussion, but, by definition, an economic system alters the way humans would behave in its absence. If it didn’t, how on earth would it be different from having no economic system?
Certainly, other criticisms can be made of Distributism (chiefly because, strictly speaking, it is not an economic system, but rather the pointing out of several important goods and values that had been neglected by capitalism), but attempting to reshape human behaviour is not one of them.
I trust that it is clear that I am not defending socialism.
Capitalism only trends towards monopoly whem government gets involved. Otherwise we no longer have Pepsi or RC or any other soda. A single trip through the grocery store shows how many “monopolies” exist in capitalism.
Media and tech are currently a problem because they rely on infrastructure which has some government involvement.
The only Christian organization that seems to get economics right is the Acton Institute (https://www.acton.org/). Its president is Father Robert A. Sirico. It even has its own NIV Stewardship Study Bible (which I have in my collection) – Protestant because much of the staff of Acton is Protestant (mostly Reformed and Evangelical Presbyterian):
https://www.christianbook.com/niv-stewardship-environment-generosity-special-edition/9780310442165/pd/23005EB
Not many Catholics like what the Acton Institute has to say because they are polluted with the putrid swill of Distributism, social justice, the common good and peace at any price. My Father, a devout Pentecostal to the day he died (from a heart attack at Sunday night service in church from where he had always wanted to depart in order to meet the Lord), said that Capitalism was the only economic system that allowed a vent for man’s natural greed while putting the governor (or brake) on its limits via competition with other greedy men. The system, Dad said, was self-correcting and government’s sole job in economics is ensuring a level playing field between all competitors while protecting public health and safety (e.g., safety regulations based on accepted industry standards for enterprises in petrochemical, nuclear, aerospace, medical, pharmaceutical, etc.).
I would go further. Genesis chapter 3 tells us that God ordained man to toil by the sweat of his brow for his sustenance, and socialism / distributism obviates that by giving to those who don’t earn what others do earn. And in the Decalogue the command is given, “Thou shalt not steal.” Enforced re-distribution of wealth from those who earn to those who don’t is theft, even when done by government. Giving must occur voluntarily out of the charity of one’s own heart. We read about that the other day in the daily Mass Gospel reading from Matthew 19:16-22 where the rich young man, having been told by Jesus that he still lacked one thing, went away sorrowful because he would not voluntarily sell his possessions, give to the poor and follow Christ. Never once in all His earthly ministry did Jesus say that Caesar must redistribute wealth from those who earn to those who don’t. Never did Jesus say that the Roman tax collectors must take the rich young man’s wealth and give it to the poor. How Chesterton could get this so wrong is frankly unfathomable unless he had been personally and adversely impacted by a wealthy man’s evil machinations, or unless he too was subject to the same defect of character which is the foundation of socialism: envy of another person’s wealth.
My favorite metaphor is: “Capitalism is to greed what marriage is to lust.”
This should hopefully suffice to answer Bruno’s question though I am confused as to what factor of human nature he believes an economy will violate. Unless we are reductionist to the point of assuming that human nature is to loot and pillage.
Which is… a point – I suppose – but it is also in human nature to be lazy and safety conscious – which economies play into better than looting.
Capitalism only trends towards monopoly whem government gets involved.
No, there are natural monopolies and the authorities need to guard against collusion among producers.
Not many Catholics like what the Acton Institute has to say because they are polluted with the putrid swill of Distributism, social justice, the common good and peace at any price.
I doubt one Mass-going Catholic in fifty has ever heard of the Acton Institute, much less read any of their publications. I have little doubt there are people in the church-o-cracy who fit your description, but among ordinary pew-sitters such people would be rare as hen’s teeth.
Nate:
I don’t know how that answers my suggestion. Economic systems, by definition, reshape human behaviour. We can discuss what kind of reshaping or how much reshaping should be done, but the reshaping is not in doubt. Capitalism reshapes human behaviour, socialism reshapes human behaviour, mercantilism reshapes human behaviour, cooperativism reshapes human behaviour and so on. Not reshaping human behaviour can only be done by an absence of economic system.
You introduce a new argument about “violating human nature”. As far as I can see, nobody had said anything about that and we weren’t talking about that, but it must be pointed out that, as Christians, we should be aware that greed violates human nature. It is, after all, a deadly sin. If capitalism is motivated by greed (which I don’t think it has to), then it violates human nature. Again, by definition.
No offense intended, but I am afraid your metaphor only sounds good until it is examined closely. Marriage is not regulated lust or a place where lust can safely or profitably be given free rein (in the sense many people think that capitalism is a profitable way to canalize greed), because, again, lust is a sin. Lust has no rightful place in marriage and greed has no rightful place in society. These are the basics of Christian morals.
Art Deco:
“No, there are natural monopolies and the authorities need to guard against collusion among producers.”
I agree. It is true that modern governments tend to create monopolies, as Nate points out, because modern governments are immensely powerful, but it is not true that they are the only source of monopolies. Monopolies are based on irresistible power, and that power can be governmental, economic, technical, military, paramilitary, ideological, religious, maffia-based, union-based, etc.
The merits of Distributism to the side, Belloc’s Servile State written in 1905, predicted the present economic-political system of huge government aligned with oligolopies that are currently stifling economic freedom in many industries and imposing an alien social and cultural agenda upon citizens. The current system is anti-worker as it seeks geographic localities to exploit cheap labor for manufacturing to the benefit of government and Wall Street. The answer is not socialism but a return to the anti-trust philosophy which wss discarded by corrupt politicians who became multi-millionaires leaving office. Trump is on the right track for at least insisting on Fair Trade but even he is a target of the global forces of government and oligopolies determined to stop any meaningful reform.
Bruno, you’re not saying anything definable. What’s your definition of “human behavior”? Actions taken by humans? Then EVERYTHING shapes it and you have made an utterly meaningless point, contributing nothing to the discussion.
And if lust has no place in marriage, then how are babies made? It is not a sin to lust after your wife or husband.
Nate:
“Then EVERYTHING shapes it and you have made an utterly meaningless point, contributing nothing to the discussion”
I made the point that accusing Distributism of trying to reshape human behaviour, as the original article did, made no sense, because, as you say, everything that exists reshapes human behaviour, and any economic system, by definition, is in place to reshape human behaviour in a certain way. I don’t know why you object to me pointing out an obvious mistake in the OP (which was probably just an unfortunate turn of phrase).
“And if lust has no place in marriage, then how are babies made? It is not a sin to lust after your wife or husband”
You don’t seem to know what lust is. If you are a Catholic (and even if you are not), I recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church nr. 2351: “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”.
Lust is a sin, and it can never be rightfully or morally pursued.
Nate (II):
Of course, I did not mean to imply that I know your language better that you, which I obviously don’t. Sorry if I came accross as rude or impertinent. Nuance and tone are difficult to get right in a foreign language.
Re lust, I was just talking about the theological/moral sense of the word, which should always be used in a discussion among Catholics that touches on moral matters to avoid misunderstandings.
Let’s reword the analogy so that Bruno can understand it:
Marriage is for the natural desire of sexual intercourse what capitalism is for the natural desire to acquire wealth.
There is NOTHING wrong with sexual intercourse per se. And there is nothing wrong with wealth per se.
Disordered desire – lust for sex from another human being and envy for another human being’s wealth (aka socialism / distributism) – is what’s wrong.
Indeed, distributism gives an air of sanctimonious piety to the disordered design for someone else’s wealth – “Hey, I don’t have wealth, so govt is supposed to re-distribute it to me.”
Perhaps then we can say that distributionism is to envy what marriage can sometimes be to lust –> people due to concupiscence from the Fall of Adam and Eve use both give an air of respectability to disordered desire.
Understand, Bruno?
Well, if Dustrubutism has failures they are not because it was never tried or because it planned private property to most people.
Since what is capitalism? Was it tried?
I think that, as Aquinas taught, we must first clarify the terms before any analysis.
China is a capitalist country? Is the US a socialist country ?
Do you… understand people? Like at all? I know quarantine has been hard but did you ever go outside and deal with people before that? Or is English a second language? Because you have misunderstood a common turn of english phrase so badly I honestly cannot figure out how to explain it to you in other terms that you would not likewise misunderstand. How would you describe a system which has, as step 1: “Assume all human participants will be perfectly selfless. That none of them will so preference for their desires or that of their family. That absolutely nobody will ever try cheating the system…”
If you don’t know people, let me explain that none of that is a reasonable assumption or very likely.
I’m not Catholic, I go by the dictionary.
noun-very strong sexual desire.
verb-have a very strong sexual desire for someone.
Ah ok, so English is a 2nd language. I withdraw some of my objections.
What is your native culture then? I’ll look for the more appropriate idiom for Don’s idea.
Lucius:
Thanks for your answer.
“Let’s reword the analogy so that Bruno can understand it: Marriage is for the natural desire of sexual intercourse what capitalism is for the natural desire to acquire wealth.”
You didn’t change the words so that I could “understand” it (a bit of gratuitous condescendence, don’t you think?), you completely changed the meaning. Don’t take me wrong, I’m all in favour of the change, but please don’t pretend that the problem was me pointing out that the sentence, as it stood, was false.
To tell you the truth, you identification of distributism and envy is not only unjustified, but totally surreal. It’s like arguing against Republicans saying “you are evil”. That’s not an argument, it’s an insult.
It’s easy to see, because you could say exactly the same thing about capitalism: capitalism is to greed what marriage can sometimes be to lust –> people due to concupiscence from the Fall of Adam and Eve use both give an air of respectability to disordered desire.
See? That means the argument proves too much, i.e. it doesn’t prove anything.
Nate:
“How would you describe a system which has, as step 1: “Assume all human participants will be perfectly selfless. That none of them will so preference for their desires or that of their family. That absolutely nobody will ever try cheating the system…””
Among other things, I would say that it is not Catholic, because it denies original sin. Something which really has nothing to do with Chesterton and Belloc, who tirelessly spoke about original sin and its implications.
“I’m not Catholic, I go by the dictionary.”
Well, we are discussing at The American Catholic, so I guess it is a reasonable assumption that the Catholic meaning of words will be used, unless something is said to the contrary.
“What is your native culture then? I’ll look for the more appropriate idiom for Don’s idea”
I’m a Spaniard.
I understand Don’s idea. He tried to conflate socialism and distributism. As Don know, socialism doesn’t work because it rejects original sin and the fallen nature of man. But Don couldn’t say that distributism does the same thing, because it’s obviously false, so he sort of vaguely implied that they were the same without saying so. I was just trying to point out that vagueness is not your friend in an argument, but rather a temptation.
I’ll say it another way, Bruno:
Capitalism is the worst economic system – except for all the rest.
Democracy is the worst political system – except for all the rest.
And I’ll repeat: distributism gives an air of sanctimonious piety to socialism – it’s just disguised envy – “I get to have my brother’s wealth that I did not earn for myself.”
Lucius:
Again, you are just giving opinions, not rational arguments. Repeating them doesn’t make them more convincing.
Re democracy, I recommend reading Saint Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. If you already have, we can discuss the subject, if you want.
Re distributism, I don’t think anybody really considers distributism to be a well-developed economic system. What distributism does is to point out several huge problems with capitalism and socialism (the main one of the former being that it pretends to be morally-neutral, something which is both inhuman, offensive to God and ultimately disastrous).
“Again, you are just giving opinions, not rational arguments.”
Irony alert!
“I understand Don’s idea. He tried to conflate socialism and distributism. As Don know, socialism doesn’t work because it rejects original sin and the fallen nature of man. But Don couldn’t say that distributism does the same thing, because it’s obviously false …”
How so? In the absence of tyrannical government control (which I’m sure neither Chersterton or Belloc advocated) the only force which could keep a distributist economy in equilibrium would be the members of society themselves deciding that they posses enough, don’t want their businesses to grow and/or don’t seek a nest egg for the future or hedge against unforeseen calamity. That’s nothing like the fallen human nature I’m acquainted with.
Distributism is best seen as a prophetic thundering against oligopoly and de-personalized economics. And it strikes a chord with me on that basis. Now, I concur that the implementation would require a centralized power structure that is unpleasant to contemplate. Then again, given how centralized our own politics have become, a leviathan state is virtually at hand. And it is increasingly allied with information-age corporate entities whose reach and resources are global.
But ultimately I agree with Patrick that the way out of our current morass is a tool that is already in our kit: anti-trust law. And it should be swung around like Carrie Nation’s hatchet in a party store.
Art:
Yes, John Medaille is a dogged proponent of distributism. And Facebook time has done him no favors as a standard bearer for it.
A shame: early on, he was sharp-elbowed but affable. The affability has eroded away.
To be fair, it wasn’t good for me, either.
CAG:
“Irony alert!”
Well, I did give reasoned arguments to underpin my opinions, as far as I can tell. You may not agree with those arguments, but they are rational arguments.
“How so?”
Because anyone that has read Belloc or Chesterton knows that they did not reject the existence of original sin.
“In the absence of tyrannical government control (which I’m sure neither Chersterton or Belloc advocated) the only force which could keep…”
Well, you are taking for granted that such a use of government power would be tyrannical, but that is what you are supposed to prove. That’s a petitio principii (unless you believe that any use of government power is tyrannical).
Why on earth would that be more tyrannical than, say, a law that prohibits usury, an anti-trust law or any modern tax law? It certainly is not Catholic teaching that property is an unrestricted right. Actually, the opposite is true.
CAG:
I can’t resist the temptation of quoting Chesterton on original sin:
“Modern masters of science are much mpressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin – a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”
(Chesterton, C.K., Orthodoxy)
Dale:
“Distributism is best seen as a prophetic thundering against oligopoly and de-personalized economics.”
Well said, Sir! The same could be said about the great Léon Bloy.
It is true that modern governments tend to create monopolies, as Nate points out, because modern governments are immensely powerful, but it is not true that they are the only source of monopolies.
I think public policy is commonly an impediment to competition and to the welfare of minor competitors. I’m not aware of any ‘government-created’ monopolies of recent vintage. The postal service is one such; it’s been around forever and it’s consequence in communications has been in decline for about four generations now. School systems are local monopolies appending one’s choice of educational services to one’s choice of real estate. They’re not as venerable as the postal service, but they’ve been knocking about since my great-great-great grandparents were in their prime. Airlines were run as a federally-supervised cartel from 1938 to 1978. The trade in particular agricultural crops was at one time as well.
The trouble I see is the construction and maintenance of patron-client relationships between politicians and business sectors which generate a great deal of corruption and rent-seeking. Or, I should say, employment sectors as it seems to me that occupational guilds in the government sector and nonprofit sector. are at the trough big time. Increasingly, we have a connections driven economy and our commercial and industrial enterprises are run by the compliance people.
And, of course, our political class is horrible. A minor example. We have unfunded pensions for our presidents because it was known in 1958 that Harry Truman was rather cash poor. This is a man who played piano for 20 years in the whorehouse of Kansas City politics, never saw anyone go up the stairs, and counted Boss Prendergast’s sons as his dearest friends. He thought it would be unseemly to cash in after leaving office. Nixon (who had overdue legal bills) was raked over the coals for accepting about $600,000 (a contextually similar sum today would be about $4,000,000) for 29 hours of unscripted interviews. The cupidity of some of our more recent Presidents just astounds. The willingness of people running higher education and trade associations to shovel cash at them also astounds.
Art Deco:
“I’m not aware of any ‘government-created’ monopolies of recent vintage”
Well, I am a Spaniard: when I talk about modern I’m referring to the modern era, i.e., everything after the fifteenth century. 😉
Anyway, I meant ‘created’ in the general sense of made possible, not necessarily managed directly by the government. And certainly not only in the USA, but throughout the world.
“I think public policy is commonly an impediment to competition and to the welfare of minor competitors”
I agree.
“And, of course, our political class is horrible”
That seems to be a universal plague these days. Politicians blatantly lie, steal, conspire, hate and despise the citizens, often violently hate their own country as a whole… and always seem to get away with it. It makes no sense.
As sympathetic to Distributism ([n.b.] q.v.) as I want to be, I suspect that it was a contingent solution to contingent circumstances prevelant in the late 19th/early 20th centuries long since overtaken by events.
That having been said, Google/Bing “neo-feudalism” sometime.
Anyway, I meant ‘created’ in the general sense of made possible, not necessarily managed directly by the government.
The dozing anti-trust authorities allowed Alphabet to buy up other tech companies. I’m not seeing it elsewhere.
I don’t know enough about the American market to discuss it (other than what everybody can see: that companies such as Facebook, Twitter or Amazon, among others, look very much like monopolies, and that Democrats seem to enjoy a virtual monopoly of the press, even if said press includes a group of notionally independent companies). But in the rest of the world, there are many monopolies or a few companies that collude to fix prices and markets, which in the end is the same thing. In many countries, including European ones, banks (thanks to their government-given license to create money out of thin air) own a great chunk of everything. They have most or all politicians in their pockets and, for example, you could point at specific paragraphs in Spanish laws and say: this one paragraph is exclusively for the benefit of this bank, this other one is for the benefit of that great company, and so on. Of course, in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and huge areas of Asia, the monopolies are even clearer.
Distributism, in practice, is the economic face of fascism. If he had thought it through, Chesterton would have recoiled from this result; Belloc would probably enthusiastically embrace it.
Bob:
“Distributism, in practice, is the economic face of fascism”
That literally makes no sense. It’s as if you said that Capitalism was the economic face of the USSR.
Distributism sounds a bit like the monks that make and sell the fruitcakes every year at Christmas time. There is a small number of people making a product that is a universal gift to most who did not want it and will never eat. The money goes bake to the monastery and the fruitcakes distributed by the purchasers to the unwilling. Sort of like the Trabbet automobile made in communist East Germany that no one wanted but had to take because it was available.
Distributism is more of a wish, than an actual economic system. As the author rightfully notes, it would require a government leviathan to put it into practice. Whether or not that prospect might be worth considering if living in a confessional Catholic state, it should be unthinkable to anyone living in a secular state which increasingly has no use for Christian principles generally and which often sees no ultimate higher good than the state itself, or the dominant political party and/or ideology.
Further, there seems to be little barrier to anyone who wishes to so from putting distributist principles into operation. All they would need are a few like minded individuals to form a partnership. Of course very few willingly choose such a route. Most businesses fail in short order. Business owners are guaranteed nothing, not even a modest return on their investment. No guaranteed paychecks, vacations, medical plans, IRA’s etc. Hence, most willingly opt to work for others who have taken the risks attendant in funding, establishing, and managing a business.
Distributism sounds a bit like the monks that make and sell the fruitcakes every year at Christmas time.
I’ve never heard of such a thing. I have heard of monks who sell cheese, but no complaints about the cheese. Bad fruit cakes I’ve had are gifts from commercial mail-order businesses. I assume the fruitcake recipe is one designed for preservation and not consumption. We have home made fruitcake in our house which is excellent.
Distributism, Georgism, and all other economic isms necessarily imposed, would most certainly require Leviathan to enforce. Capitalism, to the contrary, is organic and if it tends toward monopoly, as some here state, it is not the evil you’ve been taught to believe in any case. Prices were raised in every case when first, government merged multiple suppliers to create public utilities sector, and again later when government broke up their own Frankensteins. Oil and gas were cheaper before the breakup of Rockefeller’s empire. As to companies and corporations that produce nothing essential, such as Facebook and msnbc, capitalism is hardly the model to blame.