Chapter XIII: The Purpose of Government

I return to Equity and Equilibrium: The Political Economy of Distributism after a two-month hiatus.

What Should the Government be Doing?

Milton Friedman famously remarked that if the government were put in charge of the Sahara, there would soon be a shortage of sand. It is a remark that delighted both the libertarian and neoclassical economists. It is likely that Friedman repeated this remark at many a seminar. To do so, he had to leave his home, one built according to strict building codes and protected by the socialized services of the city police and fire departments, travel over socialized roads and freeways to a government-sponsored and -regulated airport, board an airplane after it had been thoroughly vetted by a government-supervised inspector, go to a college or university which was heavily supported by the government, and later that evening, no doubt, he discussed his witticism with friends and colleagues over dinner at a restaurant that had to meet strict government standards for cleanliness. And all of this took place under the protection of a military establishment which involves considerable expense to the government and its citizens.

It would seem, then, that the government does indeed do many things tolerably well. It may be, as Friedman claimed, that most of these services could be provided by the private market. And while that might be true, and in some cases must be true, it is equally true that while many egregious examples of inefficiency can be found, the government provides many services tolerably well and with as much efficiency as can be found in any large bureaucracy, public or private. Nevertheless, the point of Friedman's remark is still valid: What should government be doing, and at what level should it be doing it? Conservatives leave little room for government and socialists leave little room for anything else. Neither provides us with a set of principles by which we can evaluate the proper role of government.

Man is a social animal; he needs government. We are born into the little ready-made communities called “families” ruled in various ways by parents. We organize ourselves into social and political hierarchies as naturally as we breathe, and we need government to fulfill our natural ends and goals. But while government in theory may be natural, any actual government may not fulfill the natural ends and goals of man—and most don't. The modern nation-state becomes an end in itself, and the citizen a mere client. We need some set of principles by which to distinguish good government from bad, and the “all or nothing” arguments of socialists and conservatives are not really helpful Until we decide on the proper role of government, we cannot possibly talk about the proper level and kind of taxation that is required to support the government.

Associated with the question of what the government should be doing is the question of at what level the government should be doing it. During the last election campaign, Senator Joe Biden boasted that he had sponsored legislation which had placed 11,000 cops on the beat in our cities. But while his boast is likely true, it is somewhat frightening; a problem that we would normally take to our local mayor and city council is resolved at the highest level of government. Every local problem becomes a federal case, and the government farthest from the actual situation becomes the guarantor of the cop on the beat, the teacher in the classroom, and every other aspect of our social lives that is normally resolved by local action.

“Starving the Beast”

The question of the proper role and level of government has become a difficult one because each new government expenditure creates a constituency ready to fight for the expansion of the role of government and especially for the expansion of their particular subsidy. Thus addressing the question at a practical level involves battling a thousand constituencies each with a hundred lobbyists and millions in campaign contributions or promises of lucrative jobs when the legislator retires from public work. These special interests easily combine to defeat any serious attempt at budget and government reform.

Recognizing this problem, the Reagan administration abandoned the question of the proper role of government and opted for a strategy of “starving the beast,” that is, cutting taxes and thereby cutting off the air supply to big government. The resulting super-deficits would force a confrontation over the issue of government spending. Alas, the strategy did not work. The “beast's” diet was merely changed from cash to credit, and it turns out that credit is easier to spend than cash. The government did not shrink, but grew, and grew at an alarming rate. The budget deficit tripled under Reagan-Bush XLI (from $700 million to $2.1 trillion), more than doubled again under Clinton (to over $5 trillion), and more than doubled again under Bush (to nearly $11 trillion). What is really troublesome about the deficit, however, is not the absolute number itself, but the size of the interest payments, which now amount to about half-a-trillion dollars each year. This works out to about $1,500 per person, or $6,000 for a family of four. This means that the first $6,000 of each family's taxes goes to financing the past, with nothing for the present or the future. Sooner or later, the past must overwhelm the present and foreclose the future. Then the beast will indeed be starved, but so will the rest of us. Financing the present by mortgaging the future is not only bad economics, it is bad morals; we pay for our profligacy by burdening our children, thereby reversing the natural order of family and national life.

But the Reagan administration had another reason for their “starve the beast” strategy: they really had no philosophy of governance. They only knew that they wanted “less government,” but they were not quite clear on what that meant in practice. By and large, they were followers of Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian economist. The Austrians limit the role of government to “protecting property,” but they are vague as to what that actually means. Indeed, they are vague about what “property” means, since this is a term that has had many definitions over the course of the centuries. Nor could they give clear reasons why this should be the only function of government; after all, if everything is to be privatized, why not privatize this function as well, and leave property to those who can protect it from their own resources? Hayek himself equivocated on the issue of government, allowing that it could provide basic incomes and health care, handle externalities of the market, and other functions as well. In the end, Hayek ended up refusing the question of the proper role of government and hence could give no clear guidance to his acolytes in the Reagan administration. In practice, Austrian economics proved to be a faster road to socialism than the socialists themselves could build, but it was mainly a socialism for the rich. Since it is a woefully incomplete theory, its unintended consequences overwhelm its theoretical bases with the result that Austrian theory leads to socialist practice, which is exactly the result that Hilaire Belloc predicted for such theories in his book, The Servile State.

Until we answer the question about government, we cannot answer the question about taxes; unless we know what the government ought to do, we cannot know how much it ought to cost or how to fund it. And we cannot know what it ought to do without first knowing what purpose government has and upon what principles it rests.

The Purpose of Government

Human beings are not self-sufficient as individuals. We are born naked against the elements and helpless in ourselves; we are dependent from the beginning on others, and apart from them we would not last our first day on earth. This dependency continues throughout our lives, since none of us can or should acquire all the skills necessary to grow our own food, make our own shoes, provide our own education, etc. We are by nature social beings and thrive only in community. The purpose of government is to provide the conditions under which all the other communities that make up the social fabric can flourish. And first and foremost among these other communities is the primary community of the family, the one that first calls us into being through an act of love and gives us the gifts that will form us. Not only the material gifts of food, clothing and shelter, but the gifts of language, of culture, of our first experience of love and belonging and most importantly, the gift of a name, a name that ties us to family but is uniquely ours, the name that lets us know that we are both part of something and unique beings.

At once we note that we are at odds with the modern political and economic theories, which are built on the individual as the prime social and economic unit. But this is not correct because the individual, apart from the social order, is not capable of providing for himself. Indeed, the individual is not even capable of reproducing himself. The individual flourishes in and through the community. This is not to denigrate the value of the individual person, since the purpose of the family is to allow the person to flourish; it is to note that persons only exist in and through communities, first and foremost the community of the family.

Therefore, we can judge the success or failure of government by noting the strength of the family units that make up the society. If they are barely surviving and chronically in debt, if mothers are forced to work by economic conditions and unable to attend to the education of their children, if families seem to be temporary and chronically subject to dissolution, if the children have only limited educational opportunities, if they are more concerned with the getting (and destruction) of more things for their happiness, then we may say that the family is materially, morally, and spiritually weak. Alas, these are the conditions that describe too many American families today, and the failure of the family leads to failures in the economic, political, and social orders, failures which have no solution apart from repairing our damaged families.

Starting with the family, we can go on to assess the health of larger communities, not only governmental ones like cities and states, but those communities of work and social life in which we find ourselves and through which we contribute to the common good and to our own development.

In order to flourish, all of these communities require certain things. They require a material base by way of access to productive property which they can own or share; they require training and education; they require relatively free markets; they require a culture of liberty in which they can grow; they require a certain set of shared values if they are to share a common cultural space; they require certain infrastructures such as roads, a money system, courts, etc. Some of these things are or can be directly supplied by the government and others are merely influenced by its decisions. But all the decisions of government must be based on a recognition of their effect on these communities. Government is not, of course, solely responsible for the flourishing of these communities (that would be socialism or paternalism), but it is often responsible for their failure. In order to assure that the government is acting on behalf of these communities, there are certain bedrock principles that must be followed, no matter what the form of government.

The Principles of Government

It seems today as if government is no more than a competition among special interests each fighting for a share of the public purse and a list of privileges from public law. Along with this we note a centralizing tendency that transcends party rhetoric and leads to an ever-growing central government, which displaces all lower units of government and even private association. And, of course, such competition for power must favor the powerful. This self-aggrandizing tendency of government mirrors a similar cult of bigness in the commercial realm. Companies grow “too big to fail,” and hence can act with impunity, knowing that no matter how foolish their actions, they can always have recourse to the public purse; they can rely on economic blackmail: “If we fail, everything fails; bail us or be damned!” And they get their way with the public purse. As I write this, the government is committing trillions to private bailouts, a perfect socialism for the rich necessary to save everybody else. But this is not the first time this has happened; indeed, it is a chronic condition of corporate capitalism. There have been about 19 bailouts in the last 100 years, making them fairly predictable events. The bailouts get bigger as the corporations and the government grow in size.

Yet bailouts have never reached the size and scale of today's crises, and it is likely that the system will not work and must be reformed, probably after a complete collapse. A reform of the system will require an understanding of the proper principles of government. And these principles are the exact opposite of the practice of modern government. Against the the clash of special interests, we assert The Principle of The Common Good; against the centralizing tendency, we assert The Principle of Subsidiarity; against the tendency to favor the rich and powerful, we assert The Principle of Solidarity.

The Common Good

The idea of the common good would seem self-evident, but in fact most modern political and economic thought is based on the priority of private and personal goods. “Greed is good” has become an implicit assumption of our political and economic lives. This idea was first advanced in 1714 in Bernard de Mandeville's The Fable of the Bees, which was subtitled Private Vices, Publick Benefits. Mandeville offered us the paradox that private vice was the key to public virtue, that the water of private interest could be transformed into the wine of the common good. But this view is far too mystical. It is based on the view that the common good is no more than a summation of individual and particular goods, and that there is no transcendent good which unites us all.

But clearly, this is not true. The individual good of a father, for example, could run counter to the good of his family. The father who spends the bulk of his earnings on himself and his own pleasures and leaves little for the feeding of his family and nothing for the education of his children indulges a private good at the expense of the common good of the family. It is only by realizing himself in and through the family that his good and the good of the family can be united. And this is the key to realizing the common good: we must develop the sense that our particular goods are bound up with the common good. We cannot truly be successful at the expense of our neighbors; their success and ours are connected.

The great difficulty of recognizing the common good is that we are all members of the community mostly through participation in particular communities, each of which makes a partial contribution to the common good. That is, we participate in the over-all community in and through our participation in, say, the arts community, the business community, the educational community, etc. The end of each of these communities is partial and private, in the sense of the Latin term, privatus, which connotes a lack of something, a privation. The tendency of private communities is to let their partial and private ends dominate over the contribution they make to the public and general good. But the common good cannot flourish unless we recognize that our particular communities depend on, and are ultimately successful through, the success of the whole community. This takes a constant recognition of the wider community and a constant effort of the will to limit our demands on the community only to what is necessary for, and proportional to, our contributions to that wider community.

Subsidiarity

As members of vast, modern nation-states, especially those governed by the principles of pure individualism, we cannot help but see ourselves as mere infinitesimal cogs in a vast machine over which we have very little control, save for annual, semi-annual, or quadrennial plebiscites in which we get to choose “leaders” from a very limited list. Indeed, due to the miracle of national television, the government official most remote from us, the President, is a daily presence in our living room, while the person who might be our neighbor, the local mayor or city councilman, remains a stranger whose very name we cannot recall. In other words, we have stood the natural order of government and social life on its head, with the most remote becoming more important than the local.

In opposition to this centralizing tendency, solidarity implies a “bottom-up” view of society. It starts with the family as the basic unit of society. All economic, social, and political activity is built around the family and serves its needs. But because no family is self-sufficient, families in turn require economic and social contexts, including government. Higher social formations have a right to interfere in the affairs of lower organizations, including the family, but this is only a limited right; such interventions can only be used to correct egregious failures, and may last only for as long as necessary to correct the failure. Some problems, of course, don’t go away, such as unemployment: as long as the economic system is unable to offer all persons meaningful employment, then society must provide other means for their dignified subsistence. But this must be clearly seen as a defect of the system, in the same way that the need for a police force or an army is really a defect arising from original sin. From the viewpoint of subsidiarity, society is highly “textured”; instead of a simple system of an “individual/government” relationship, there should be a rich collection of levels within society, each with its own realm of competence and authority. At present, government has absorbed functions which used to belong to the Church or other authorities such as the guilds. Marriage, education, charity, and commercial regulations had been guided by other bodies, even if their decisions were enforced by the state. The all-powerful, centralized state has displaced all of these other and (I contend) more natural authorities. Other authorities, even the family itself, exist only by the sufferance of the central administration.

According to the principle of subsidiarity, the higher-level organization can only justify its existence by the necessary support it gives to lower-level one. Assuming that most functions of political, social, and economic life can be adequately handled at the local level, the higher levels are therefore the least important, and their importance diminishes the higher up they are. This does not mean that they they have no meaningful authority, nor any right to intervene. For example, we know that African-Americans would not enjoy full citizenship in America were it not for forceful interventions by the central government. But even this intervention is instructive, since it involves a community that extends beyond any local jurisdiction, and was clearly oppressed in many jurisdictions, indeed, perhaps in most or even in all, at least to some degree. And since the oppression was egregious, it was clearly the right and duty of the central government to act, even in disregard of local rights. Nevertheless, such interventions should be made only on clear necessity, only as much as necessary, and only for as long as necessary. In general, local organizations should be free to develop in their own way and with their own resources.

One important point that needs to be made about subsidiarity is that not only should control be as local as possible, but funding as well. If the funding for governmental programs comes from afar without directly impacting local resources, it appears to be “free” money, which always distorts the decision-making process. If someone else pays, we can never have enough; when the money comes from our own resources, we tend to spend it as conservatively as we can. This does not preclude higher authorities from making contributions to local programs, but such contributions must be related to the common good, and it does the local authority no good to become dependent on the remote power. This is, as we shall see, one of the most important principles in government funding and taxation.

Solidarity

Solidarity is complimentary with subsidiarity. Subsidiarity provides the vertical dimension of life, while solidarity provides the horizontal dimension; subsidiarity is a connection between elements of society viewed as a hierarchy, while solidarity provides the connections between the elements viewed as if they were on the same level. Solidarity connects us with the common good and impels us, in the name of Christian charity, to act for the good of all. There can be no vision of the common good unless there is solidarity between all the elements of society.

Of particular importance to solidarity is the preferential option for the poor. When we act in solidarity, we act for the good of all. The preferential option for the poor serves as a practical test of whether we are acting for all, or just for some. Under the preferential option, we always examine the effects of any action on the poorest of our neighbors; if it is not good for them, it breaks solidarity. Since we are all inclined to opportunism and rationalization, solidarity, particularly when it forces us to look at our actions from the standpoint of the poor, helps in ensure the common good.

If what we have said so far is correct, then we have provided a purpose for government and the principles of government, and with these tools we can examine our actually existing government to see how well it conforms to purpose and principle, and ask what can be done to change it.

Read more...

Common Sense Concessions

Live Bait & AMMO #114: Concessions we will gladly make

(by Gregg Shotwell, UAW Rank & Filer)

Our Republican friends on the Hill want to make us take concessions until we’re earning less than foreign auto plants in Alabama. A fine how do you do. Trouble is, as soon as we reach parity with the Work for Less states, the competition will lower the limbo stick. And they’ll keep lowering it until all workers are face down in the dirt.

But many of us agree that the Job Bank is a hoax. At the last GM plant where I worked, management put forty people in the Job Bank and assigned one person to watch them do nothing. The rest of us had to work mandatory overtime to make up for the lost production.

Why would a company pay people to sit down and do nothing and then pay other
employees time and half to make up for what the do-nothings weren’t doing? It doesn’t make sense unless you are keeping two sets of books. One for the company and another for the Center for Human Resources [CHR], a tax exempt non profit corporation that administers funds for Job Bank and reimburses salaries, benefits, and expenses for 30% of International UAW reps.

The purpose of the Job Bank was never to save jobs. The purpose was to silence protest. The Job Bank is in effect a hypnotic drug like Ambien. It puts workers to sleep while their jobs are outsourced. This isn’t an opinion, it’s a numerical fact. The Center for Human Resources with the cooperation of the International UAW has overseen the reduction of hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs.

It’s counterintuitive to pay workers for not working. It’s like paying farmers not to grow crops. Unemployment is a drain on the economy. It’s nonproductive. It keeps all boats from rising by depressing wages. But for trickle downers there’s an upside: degrading workers curbs inflation. Likewise, Job Bank has an upside for the companies. It mothballs workers, gets them off the books, and curbs demand for real job security—meaningful work.

There’s only one reasonable solution to the wastefulness of Job Bank and unemployment
compensation: work. We should jump on that concession with both feet. There is a lot of work to be done at GM since Hurricane Wagoner hit. The government could invest in rebuilding the manufacturing base just like the governments of Japan, Korea, China, and India have done. How long did it take the auto companies to retool at the onset of WW2? We’ve done it before and we can do it again. But this time let’s beat the fossil fuel burners into cutting edge transports.

Under the current proposals by the Detroit Three, government loans would be used to close plants and cut jobs. How does it help communities or the larger economy to reduce the workforce and undermine the tax base? Any government assistance should be tied to job creation which is why we would gladly concede the Job Bank, a proven job killer, and replace it with a plan to create meaningful work.

Another concession we could gladly make is in the area of UAW appointees who get paid
to keep the rabble unaroused. We could save a lot of money by kicking those slackers off the gravy train. For every UAW appointee carrying a clipboard GM has a white collar working hard to double the redundancy. We can afford to concede the UAW Appointees. Put them back on the line and reduce overtime in favor of full employment.

We can also concede the twelve hours of double time the Bargaining Chair gets to sit home on Sunday. Let’s concede that payoff. Instead of the company paying union offs to hide in their cubby holes, let’s put them back to work until they are called out and actively investigating a grievance. We don’t need union offs who are beholden to the boss.

While we’re at it, let’s give the anti union crowd one they really want: dues check off. Instead of having the company automatically deduct dues from our paychecks, make the union rep come around to each and every worker once a month and collect. Call it, the Accountability Check Off. Workers would pay their dues and the Union rep would hear what they thought of his or her job performance.

There are plenty of concessions UAW members are willing to make. We will give them
Ron Gettelfinger’s mustache. We will give them Bob King’s phony apprenticeship. We will give them Cal Rapson’s rap sheet. We will give them Jimmy Settles extra chin. We will give them General Holiefield’s bag of wind. We will give them Elizabeth Bunn’s deer in the headlight stare.

We will gladly give up the Center for Human Resources and the hundreds of millions of payola connected to joint funds. We’d be glad to flush the waste out of the system
But we won’t give up what we have earned. We won’t give up our pensions, benefits,
wages, or work rules. And we insist that the United States finally live up to world class standards and provide health care for the whole working class.
Jobs with Justice has issued a call for a National Week of Action, December 7-13
==================================================================
As many predicted, the Wall Street Bailout has proven to be the gross give-away to the same financial bigwigs that have been pocketing millions while wrecking the real economy. Little or no benefit has gone to the working people and the real economy, at a time that we face the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s. By the time Obama is sworn in, hundreds of thousands of additional people will lose their jobs, lose their homes and lose their health care. It's time for a "People's Bailout" that fixes the real economy, restores a voice for working people in challenging corporate greed, provides emergency help to the victims of the crisis and begins building a fair economy that works for all, addressing crises in housing, health care, jobs,
retirement security and the environment.

Jobs with Justice coalitions and ally organizations are calling for a Week of Actions around the country that educate and mobilize in support of a Peoples Bailout.
Immediately we call for:
- Pass an economic stimulus/recovery package, on the scale of the emergency we face, that addresses emergency needs and supports jobs in the real economy;
- Stop evictions due to foreclosures;
- Emergency action so people losing jobs don't lose health care.
Lay the groundwork for a long-term recovery program including:
- Green jobs and clean energy;
- Restore worker justice;
- Health care for all;
- Retirement security;
- Re-regulate the finance system and make the speculators pay to clean-up their mess
- Fair policies on Trade and Migration that honor workers here and abroad
Jobs with Justice is calling for this national week of action across the country, in coordination with groups such as Institute for Policy Studies, US Action, American Friends Service Committee, National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
Visit http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/ApqMkPp1SPDb/ for more information.
What you can do:
1) Contact your local JwJ coalition to get involved in activities in your area. We will post a list of
actions next week.
2) Organize your own event. Visit http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/ApqMkPp1SPDb/ to download an
organizing kit and let us know what you are planning.
==================================================================
The International UAW is notably AWOL from this call to action in defense of working
people. The UAW’s inaction is all the more reason for rank & file members to support Jobs with
Justice. This crisis isn’t about the privileges of the Detroit Three, it’s about all workers.
Stay Solid, Gregg Shotwell

Read more...

Distributist Home Ec - Distributist Soup

[Co-editor's note: We at The Review are happy to introduce "Distributist Home Ec" - a series of classes for Distributists (Kate made the wonderful suggestion) created by our readers and our contributors at The Review. Why not submit some tips for families on a budget, recipes, home solutions, or any other "how-to" benefiting families as they work towards the Distributist life? Send us your email today.]

Distributist Soup
by Kate

Start with the meat you're already eating and save the bones in a gallon-sized bag in the freezer. (I mix all my bones together—chicken, turkey, pork ribs, T-bones, what have you.) When the bag is full, dump the bones into a large pot, at least six quarts.

Add:

One onion, quartered.

Two stalks of celery.

Three or four carrots.

Six to eight cloves of garlic.

A quarter-cup of apple cider vinegar.

Fill the rest of the pot with water. If you're doing this on the stove top, turn the heat on to medium, bring the liquid to a simmer, then turn it down to low. Cover and simmer for at least twelve hours. If you're using a large Crock Pot, just turn it on low for at least twelve hours. Pour the stock out through a colander; discard the bones and vegetables. Store the stock in pint- or quart-sized containers (cottage cheese tubs work well) in the freezer. Use the stock in soups or any recipe calling for broth or stock, or cook rice in it for extra flavor—lots of extra flavor. One good use is as follows:

Instead of buying expensive, packaged soup mixes, buy one bag each of lentils, split peas, and pearled barley. Mix them together and store in an airtight container. For a quick soup, add one cup of this soup mix to five cups of liquid (any combination of stock and water). Bring to a boil, then reduce to a simmer.

While the above is simmering, chop and sauté in oil or butter (or saved bacon grease—delicious!) one onion, two carrots, and two cloves of garlic. When those are soft, add them to the simmering soup. Season with one tablespoon oregano, one teaspoon rosemary, basil, or herbes de provence, and two tablespoons soy sauce. Taste frequently and adjust seasoning to taste. Simmer until the dry beans and barley are soft. Very tasty with a squeeze of lemon juice or a dollop of sour cream. And delicious with homemade bread. Speaking of which:

Butter two loaf pans. In the microwave, warm two cups of milk and two tablespoons butter. Measure into a mixing bowl one-and-a-half tablespoons rapid-rise (or bread machine) yeast, two tablespoons sugar, and two teaspoons salt. Add the warmed milk and melted butter. Let stand five minutes. Stir in five cups of flour. Turn out onto a floured surface and knead in enough flour to make a non-sticky, springy dough. Shape into a ball. Cover and let rest twenty minutes. Cut in half and shape the halves into loaves; put them in the loaf pans to rise until doubled. To create a warm place to rise, put them in the oven with a bowl of hot water on the rack below them. Bake at 375 degrees for 50-60 minutes, until done. (I call this “napping bread,” because with the rapid rise yeast I can whip this up and clean up afterwards before the baby wakes up from his nap.)

Note: I found my rapid-rise yeast on sale at a holiday baking display, so now is a good time to look for it. I estimate that the cost of the bread is about a dollar per loaf. I bake two loves at a time and freeze one. I have not estimated the cost of the soup, but I know I save money having the stock on hand for all kinds of recipes, and the soup mix cooks up rather quickly. I pay about a dollar per bag for the dry ingredients, so that three dollars for three pounds of soup mix, instead of the four dollars I used to pay for one pound pre-packaged.

Read more...

AIBA

The Blog of the American Chesterton Society is always chock full of information. In a recent post, author Nancy Brown links to AIBA or American Independent Business Alliance.

Interested in starting your own local business but concerned you don't have the backing of a solid, informative, business network? AIBA is all about supporting local business, and providing tools for companies with "soup to nuts" start-up materials.

Stacy Mitchell, author of the book "Big Box Swindle" (published by The Institute for Self-Reliance) is one of the board members for AIBA.

One of the concerns our families have in regard to ownership, is the lack of support systems needed to jump from wage slavery to self-ownership. Local business networking is a good step towards acheiving this goal. Check AIBA's website for more details.

Read more...

Remembrance of Things Past

Conservatism is, in large part, about memory; you cannot conserve values if you do not remember them, if you do not remember the time when values where embedded into active and functioning social systems. There are powerful weapons turned against memory these days, including ideologies of “creative destruction” whose main function is to constantly destroy the past and the values associated with the past. But when we destroy the past, we also destroy the future, and that is a process that is becoming painfully apparent today. Politically, both the right and the left have become ideologies of destruction; the right for commercial reasons and the left for cultural (or “multi-cultural”) reasons.

But without remembering our past, we cannot rebuild our future. The memory of the past comes not so much from histories and essays; the main tools of memory were song and story. Today our stories are more likely to be about science fiction, about a future that never arrives, and our songs are not anything we actually sing. Indeed, we don't even share our songs, but listen to them plugged into a tiny box, where no one else can even here them.

R. R. Reno of First Things has brought to our attention some songs that do recover the past, that are worth singing and worth sharing. They are from the English group, Show of Hands. Writes Reno:

The background for the song is the post-Thatcher boom in England that has transformed social patterns. Whatever was left of nineteenth-century industrial society has been swept away. Global agricultural markets have changed farming. The explosive growth of wealth, almost entirely focused in London, has created a large class of the well-to-do. The end result for a great deal of southern England: failing village economies now sustained by money infused by London weekenders, many of whom have bought charming cottages as second homes.

Our free-market friends like to remind us that this is all part of the process of creative destruction. And anyway, aren’t those country folks making their own decisions to sell out and pocket the cash? All good and well, but Show of Hands sings of a different, existential truth: “Redbrick cottage where I was born / Is the empty shell of a holiday home. / Most of year there’s no one there. / The village is dead and they don’t care.” The kitchens have been redone tastefully, but the village empties during the week.

If “Country Life” gives you a Chestertonian tingle, then strap on your seat belt and click over to “Roots.” This song crashes onto the shore of contemporary multiculturalism like a Cornish storm surge.

The major premise of “Roots” is simple: “Without our stories or our songs / How will we know where we come from?” The minor premise is implied: England now encourages cultural forgetfulness rather than memory. The conclusion: an urgent imperative of cultural renewal that gives this song extraordinary emotional power.

Like last year's hit, Dégénération from the French Canadian group Mes Aïeux, these songs remind of us where we came from and what we have lost. And until we recover our past, we cannot rebuild our future.

Read more...

What We Want, and How: The First Phase

In 1927, K.L. Kenrick, Honorable Secretary for the Birmingham Branch of the Distributist League, wrote an article titled, “What We Want, And Why.” Kenrick carved out the early League’s aims for the restoration of property, the plight for man’s independence from wages through self-ownership, and an appeal for the small shop over the large. With each passing paragraph, Kenrick summarized why distributists held firm to these requisites for the betterment of society. In the spirit of his original essay, I will attempt to discuss how we may implement these prerogatives for the furthering of our movement.

The reinstatement of the Guild System for small-scale production, cooperatives for larger scale, creation of CLTs (Community Land Trusts), agricultural apprenticeship programs, Micro-credit loans and local currencies, are just a part of our intended goals. Perhaps some of these serve strictly as rebuilding tools or temporary measures used to educate our communities about local economics. Without a doubt however, their counter-revolutionary qualities serve to combat against the intellectual and material devastation wrought upon our present society. Some of these programs are permanent solutions we will use towards a parallel economy (see Dr. Chojnowski’s article A Distributism How-To), i.e. a stream of thought and action —made by us and for us— operating beside the existing structure and generating stability for the public.

The question most asked amongst newcomers is how, given the present circumstances, does one become a distributist?

The answer is that Kenrick, along with the early League, believed Distributism begins with the individual. One need not wait for a political party or organization to start living distributist ideals. What it does take is a drastic change in philosophy, replacing an economy of growth in favor of an economy of use. This would, as Fr. McNabb said, “put first things first.”

In today’s Western world, altering life and replacing it with distributist principles requires an incremental transition. Drastic ventures are often beyond the reach of most middle-class families who cannot simply dismiss their mortgages or wish their credit card debt away. The poor and homeless can’t pick up and purchase parcels of land or buy into an urban co-op either.

We should be clear that there are things the individual can do. First off, one should start by consuming what one needs instead of what one desires. He or she can decide to cease shopping at Costco or Sam’s Club, opting instead to purchase goods at the small shop. This may mean a higher price, but it also means greater value, quality, and investment in community. Due to this cost, the individual will practice thrift or what Solzhenitsyn called “self-restraint.” He or she will utilize discernment when expending earnings and limit resources rather than exhausting them, because judgment will be regulated and more acute.

The household may be fastened to the slavery of wages, restricted to their current occupations and incapable of starting their own businesses, but they can conserve energy, rely less on machinery, work with their hands, or they can study and incorporate distributism to their family’s educational curriculum. It may be difficult for some to live a full distributist ideal, but the efforts made today will benefit the next generation, who will lead this nation sooner than any of us realize.

Furthering distributist education demands self-examination. We have a divided audience separated into two categories: people familiar with the ethical/moral and historical challenges of economic philosophy, and those literate in the complexities of political economy and social development. In other words, we can fairly divide our audience into men of letters and of science. Generally speaking, the former is ill equipped in the latter and vice versa. We must therefore encourage the distributist to become proficient in both areas, mingling the two.

Tying in these two categories are two classifications: the novice and sophisticated distributist. For every apologist, there is a recruit coming in from the rain, carrying a heavy load of social conditioning. It is unrealistic to expect the novice to understand the difference between “mark to market” accounting and derivatives, if he can barely grasp why he shouldn’t be a capitalist or socialist and urgently needs conversion to distributism. The budding distributist also wishes to pursue further growth and may grow impatient with the repetitive nature of the basic information we provide. It is clear, and must remain so, that both sets of distributists require nurturing.

Of course, short and long term objectives are natural to any organization. All of these goals must be calculated and tested, evaluated and reformed. By necessity, our current aims are conceived according to a realistic picture of our limitations at this stage in the movement.

A consideration of the following may prove helpful:

A. Support our new non-profit The Society for Distributism. I recently wrote an article for Gilbert Magazine called “From a League to a Society” and we’ve received many email subscribers because of it. The featured website, http://www.distributist.org/, currently under construction, includes a sign-up form in order to keep abreast of our efforts (if you have given us this information in the past six months there is no need to send a fresh request, or email us). This site will also be the principle font for donations, literature on implementation programs, and information for the confirmed April 4th debate with capitalist Michael Novak. We are working on many projects, including free downloadable material, local lectures and events, and strategies for the creation of local chapters. Starting your own chapter or non-profit can be a successful way of making Distributism a household name. Catholics may be reminded of the successes of Una Voce or the 180 Catholic Worker houses worldwide, which have strewn a valuable print on Catholicism, thanks to their tenacity.

B. Educate yourself. Read our websites. We also suggest looking over the bookshelf right here on The Distributst Review. Time and time again when newcomers ask me what book to read first I insist they have to pick up a copy of John Médaille's The Vocation of Business. To purchase the work of the early distributists look no further then IHS Press. Their material includes work by Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, Amintore Fanfani, A.J. Penty, Fr. McNabb, and many others. Read Thomas Storck's The Catholic Milieu as a basis for understanding economics and its relationship to man.

C. Press. All press is good press. Thanks to the hard work of publishers like IHS, and no doubt our own efforts, we have managed to intimidate the leading Christian-capitalist think tank. The Acton Institute, which recently published “Beyond Distributism” wouldn’t waste their time on our movement if the laws of supply and demand didn’t warrant their response. This should tell us our numbers are growing at a formidable rate. Refer us to your friends, family, religious leaders, local politicians, and anyone else you can think of. Consider submitting an article for your local paper, or an essay to an online or print journal. People have a knack for truth and common sense. They will listen. Don’t be intimidated. The more the movement spreads, the harder it is for our opponents to ignore us.

D. The Internet is an instrument Howard Dean, Ron Paul, and Barack Obama have used effectively to benefit their candidacies. If you have a blog or website, talk about Distributism, start a chat board, comment on other sites, etc. Don’t underestimate the potential success of your efforts. It may “just be the net” but the Internet has grown the movement exponentially. Several years ago one could barely find the word “distributism” online. Today, one search results in pages talking about it. Remember, many people are sympathetic to distributist ideals. They just don’t envision it. That is a world away from being against it. Be the catalyst or plant seeds that will open up minds.

E. Networking. Those interested in the pursuit of Distributist ideals should join the Distributist Yahoo Group. Distributists need to get in touch with one another. Yahoo Groups, forums, and chat boards are good tools to find other distributists in your area. Meet with them, start study groups, and collaborate on future projects.

F. Start your own lectures. Ask your local Parish priest if you can use a recreational area or cafeteria, or book your community center to host a talk. In most cases, a box of two-dozen doughnuts and fresh coffee will suffice to draw in a crowd. Get together with local distributists or invite famed distributists to speak in your area. There are plenty of lecturers eager and ready to give a talk. They are passionate, dedicated, and interested in the growth of this movement.

G. Activism. Have your co-workers ever heard of the E.F. Schumacher Society? Probably not. Academia might have, but not the man on the street. We certainly need to work with the intellectual establishment, but if we don’t talk to the common man, distributism will stay in academia. This means talking to our neighbors, our coworkers, or just borrowing a table from your Aunt Phyllis and standing on a street corner or (with permission) outside our churches. You can also contact sympathetic groups in your area. Check and see if they will allow you to hand out flyers or information packets at their next meeting. Remember, faith without works is dead (James 2:20). Volunteering to educate pedestrians is a greater investment to our movement than handing out money.

H. Foreign languages. Have you noticed a new international section on my site, The ChesterBelloc Mandate? Interest in Distributism has grown beyond the English language. There is a craving for alternatives to socialism and capitalism worldwide, and whether we call it distributisme, distributismo, or dystrybutyzm, our French, Spanish-speaking, Polish, Czech, and Philippine readers are growing. They are our allies, just as thirsty as we are, gathering information about the economic model and philosophy which once originated in their lands. We tip our hats to them and offer our support. If you can write in another language fluently, why not translate our articles or create your own essays from scratch?

I. YouTube videos and podcasting. Do you post your own videos on YouTube? Why not join radio personality “Paleocrat” Jeremiah Bannister, and post videos of your own on YouTube, Google, Metacafe, or any other video-based website? If you podcast, consider talking about distributism from time to time. Interested in interviewing an expert on distributism? We will assist anyone who needs to get in touch with them, and make sure to advertise your work on The Distributist Review and The ChesterBelloc Mandate.

One need not have three acres and a cow to be a distributist, although we pray God may bless us with both.

Always remember, there are those who argue Distributism cannot happen. They believe people will refuse to return to the small shop. They claim families will never want to work for themselves. But, if this economic crisis is any indicator, a transition in the world is already taking place. The question is whether this catastrophe will delve us into further capitalist-socialist collaboration, or if informed people will restore us to a Distributive State.

There is ample evidence to suggest more citizens sympathetic to our cause exist, who simply need exposure to some of these avenues, which can set us in motion. Until they see the diligent work ahead of us, they will remain on the fence.

Kenrick told us why, and I examined the “baby steps” needed straight away in pursuit of our objectives. The rest is up to all of us. Distributism begins with me.

Read more...

The Distributist Difficulties III

by G.K. Chesterton

I am very strongly in sympathy with Father McNabb and Mr. Kenrick, and all those who may be called the more drastic and dogmatic members of our group, in this fundamental matter; that we must never forget that our counsels and considerations all rest on the basis of a broad, a solid and an enduring indignation. That indignation may be patient in the sense of persistent; it may be strategic in the sense of militant; but it must be indignant. For instance, I am heart and soul with Mr. Kenrick in his direct indignation about the modern mechanical disruption of the Christian family. There is an attack on the family; and the only thing to do with an attack is to attack it. It is a fallacy to talk about impartial criticism of repulsive things; for our very repulsion is a part of the criticism. If somebody tells me to consider calmly a cannibal cooking and eating children, I answer that I have already considered it, in the very act of refusing to consider it calmly. If somebody tells me to consider equally calmly a Dean who patronizes the prospective extinction of children, I answer that I do consider it, when I consider it disgusting. The measure of the moral shock immediately given to the normal conscience, by certain things, is itself one of the arguments for intellectually condemning them. Similarly, we are in a state of restrained and rational indignation with a whole tendency which we think evil; a tendency to materialism and mechanism and the denial of human dignity. I agree that, in our necessary talk of complexity and compromise, there is some danger of this direct indignation being diverted.

But I also desire to insist on indignation, in order to avoid irritation. The two are almost contraries; but especially in this respect; that indignation unites us and irritation might divide us. There have been one or two touches of what might turn into irritation, and I hope everyone will prevent them from doing so. There is one great difference between a debate with friends and a debate with foes. In the latter we may be excused for dealing only with what they say. In the former we are bound to deal with what they mean. In mere public polemics we seize this point or that, even if it be a verbal point; but among ourselves we only ask if we are really of one mind. I should not trouble to say that I am sure Father McNabb never meant to misreport anything; I should prefer to say that I am sure Mr. Heseltine never meant to charge him with doing so. Similarly I should not bother to enquire whether Mr. Heseltine's original words could grammatically be taken as a Distributist's approval of proletarianism. It is quite enough for me that he distinctly says that he does not in fact think so; that he is as doctrinaire as any other Distributist about the Distributist doctrine; and that he meant no more than that the scheme he approved was really in many ways worthy of approval. And this, it seems to me, he has a perfect right both to think and to say.

One inevitable result of being a member of a small minority is that a man cannot all the time be acting as a reformer. He must for considerable parts of the time act as a spectator. But even as a spectator he must act; at least he must think actively. A man may disapprove of the whole system of the society in which he lives; and yet he may disapprove specially of some things and approve relatively of others. He cannot be entirely indifferent to everything in a large, living and complex society of human beings; he must consider some acts wise and some foolish, if only from the standpoint of the society itself. All their proceedings are wrong from his point of view; but he also perceives that some of them are wrong from their own point of view. He may disapprove of slavery, and still think the selling of slaves from a good master to a bad master is bad; and especially bad for the prestige of slavery. I do not see how such a man can help finding himself sometimes in the position of a spectator rather than a speculator or a seer. Now to my mind the real test of the approval given by some of our supporters, like Mr. Heseltine, to some contemporary proposals, such as one connected with agriculture, is whether he approved thus in the capacity of a spectator. I should quite possibly agree with him if he spoke as a spectator. I should disagree with him if he spoke as a Distributist; that is, as a man defining the Distributist creed. But our most militant Distributists will be the first to agree that we cannot fill the whole paper with definitions of the Distributist creed. The paper must comment on the concrete things done and said by millions of people who have never heard of that creed. The paper must to that extent be a newspaper. It must deal with the news; only the news of the sort that Mr. Heseltine mentioned is important; and the news in the newspapers is not important. If a man in a society like ours proposes a radical change based on the principle of the primary importance of the land, we can to that extent not only comment on it but commend it. It is in that sense a step in the right direction. It is in that sense a step in our direction. But it is not a step to our position. Our position remains something positive and special; and I have not the smallest intention of abandoning that position.

It would be easy to give parallels from politics all over the world. The proposal that one State in the American Union should brew all the liquor officially is not Distributism; it is almost the reverse of Distributism; it is rather more like Socialism. But it is the reverse and the reversal of Prohibition. And I would quote it as a case of a healthy revolt against Prohibition. Nationalization of mines is not Distributism; but it is a sign of the collapse of Capitalism; and in that sense of the need for Distributism. And I should quote any agitation for it as a case of revolt against Capitalism, as I should the other case of revolt against Prohibition. And the fact that somebody has seen the urgent need of putting people back on the land is a reaction against mere urban mechanism and mass production; even if it is not a reaction in favour of small property and several ownership. In short, the doctrinaire has here a position similar to that which exists touching much more important doctrine. There are, even on this lower plane, things corresponding both to natural religion and to invincible ignorance; and we will give the heathen credit for healthy heathenism. We will do everything except alter the creed.

Read more...

Emilia-Romagna Cooperatives

Here is an interesting PDF on the cooperative businesses in Emilia Romagna, Italy. There are nearly 3,000 employee-owned cooperatives in the region, with the Communist Legacoop and the Catholic Confcooperative among the leading organizations.

Emilia Romagna

Read more...

Why Obama Won

In 2009, Barack Obama will be at the helm of this nation. For better or for worse, the votes are in. Some Americans see the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the White House as a road to tyranny. Others are enthusiastic about the next four years.

But why did Obama win this election?

Let me come clean and say I did not support Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency. I didn’t support John McCain, either. I just want to take a step back and review what led this country to elect him and not his opponent.

McCain’s Downfall
It was not impossible for a Republican candidate to win the 2008 election. Perhaps it was improbable, but not impossible. While the Bush legacy divided this country, and created a wedge within the Republican Party, the reasons John McCain failed in his bid for the presidency lie less in the murky waters of George W. Bush, but instead at the feet of only one person: John McCain himself.

John McCain has been out of touch with the Republican base for a number of years, often compromising with rivals across the aisle, even at the expense of his own Party. His centrist views have not endeared him with Republicans. Miraculously, McCain acquired his Party’s nomination for President, a fact still mystifying to some of those to the political right.

McCain’s “straight talk” resembled John Kerry’s flip-flopping. When confronted with the possibility of an economic recession, he insisted the economic fundamentals of this country were strong. When proven wrong, McCain switched his story and claimed he was one of the few who “saw it coming”. At another time, he assured us an engagement in Iraq would be a piece of cake only to later say he was an early critic of that school of thought. The list goes on and on.

His lack of confidence didn’t help him either. Whether in front of the press or an audience, McCain failed to emerge knowledgeable or reassuring on the issues. When speaking his deliveries appeared clumsy, and while answering questions his policies seemed weak. For example, during the debates Barack Obama tore apart McCain’s healthcare plan not once, but twice. McCain should have responded with beefier defenses, but instead one was left to conclude his healthcare plan just didn’t add up.

McCain wanted to have his cake and eat it too. While admittedly in-between a rock and a hard place, his crowning of Obama as a socialist didn’t fly without a denunciation of the recent eight year expansion of government, which he chose to purposely avoid critiquing. This was typical McCain. He didn’t wish to appear in bed with Bush, but neither did he want to distance himself. A clear example is the Wall Street bailout, which he supported, turning off a strong Republican base by siding with the President and Barack Obama. This was the wrong move at a time when the Republican Party wished to shift right, while McCain firmly stood for the neo-conservative policies of the current administration.

On the topic of abortion, as John Médaille said recently, McCain wasn’t pro-life but rather “anti-abortion”("Pro-Life or Just Anti-Abortion?"). Supportive of embryonic stem cell research, disinterested in overturning Roe v. Wade or banning contraceptives, the relationship between the pro-life movement and McCain was an uneasy one at best. For some pro-lifers, McCain was the compromise necessary in order to “stop Obama.” But a vote against someone doesn’t radiate loyalty for the person one is voting for. So, while Republicans were treated to the typical “better than…” in the 2004 presidential election, and “a vote for ______ is a vote for Obama” in 2008, both tactics failed this time around.

According to statistics, during the 2000 presidential election, 50% of Catholic voters supported Gore to Bush’s 47%. The 2004 campaign targeting Catholics for the Republican vote successfully brought in a majority percentage for George W. Bush, with a 5% lead. During this last election, the trend shifted to the Democrats with a nine percent increase. (Source: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367)

In the final analysis, Republicans just didn’t have a good candidate here. If Dole, Bush, and McCain are the best and brightest the Republican Party can come up with, maybe they should pack it in and step aside for another Party to replace them.

Obama Rising
We haven't experienced an articulate, energetic, and charismatic candidate in years. Dole, Gore, Bush, and Kerry have been as interesting as watching the paint dry. Obama displayed tact, eloquence, and reminded some of Reagan or Kennedy, both phenomenal orators. Barack Obama spoke directly to his followers and addressed their concerns as no other candidate in recent memory. He did so with poise, exuberant speeches, and a mobile, dynamic network.

For his opponents, Obama supporters were a mindless mob mystically following the Pied Piper. But did they throw away their reason or is it possible Obama won this election because he connected with the common man?

From the beginning, the Presidential candidate ran an inclusive campaign and outreach program aimed at swing voters exhausted with sixteen years of Clintons and Bushes. America was ready to unite and move forward, and Obama wouldn’t lower himself to the "us vs. them" mentality between the common man and the establishment. Instead, he appealed to Americans willing to change this country for themselves, as admittedly the tough challenges ahead could not be solved by government, but only by the people of this nation, from community to community. By acknowledging the bureaucracy of the State could not solve everything, but required the work of the “average joe,” Obama reiterated the famous speech given by J.F.K. that we should not ask what our country could do for us, but what we could do for our country. This passionate plea for recruitment to his cause by the common man came at a time when individuality and community struck citizens as a natural alliance, lost after decades of self-interest.

Remarkably, Obama also spoke candidly about the concerns of African-Americans, yet he didn't fail to fairly portray those of whites in the United States. In an age of “hate whitey” and labeling the genuine concerns of whites as “racist,” the President-elect spent a good 45 minutes talking about the stalemate of racial discussion in our nation. He pointed to disenfranchised African-Americans, and in a surprise move, acknowledged the concerns white Americans have with respect to immigration, job-loss, and a fractured welfare program in need of a serious overhaul. He did it, and did so without the media “moderating” the discussion, which in this writer’s opinion has been the problem all along with the racial divide in this country.

Obama even managed to launch a coup by acquiring the support of many prominent and noteworthy figures within the Republican Party. A number of these, concerned with the neo-conservative takeover of the Party by the Religious Right (who I call the Nationalist Right, because of their supreme love for the American Mythos), switched sides because they believed Obama’s plan was a better alternative to the policies of the previous two terms.

This was an exercise to briefly analyze why Barack Obama won. Will his election prove to be a substantial help towards a distributist society? Some of my fellow distributists will disagree with me, but my answer is no, he will not. I do believe we can learn something from this election, especially in regard to presentation. But in the final analysis, neither Obama nor John McCain is right for the future of this nation. We can only quarrel amongst ourselves about who is better than the other, as we have done throughout the campaign. Instead, our urgent cause needs us to work towards more important objectives, and one of them is recognizing the opportunity in our midst to transform the priorities of a nation, by understanding how this election was won.

The work ahead will not come from above (except by God’s Grace) but from the bottom up.

Read more...

Should government close the money hole?

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

Read more...

Don't Bail It--Rebuild It!

There is certainly a great deal of anger over the bailouts, and particularly over the proposed bailout of the Big 3 automakers. Of course, the major problem is that they are no longer the “Big 3” worldwide, and even domestically. The public, or a large portion of it, perceives the management as arrogant and unresponsive, and the unions as lazy and overpaid. A bailout seems to violate the basic principle of capitalism. Further, it is felt that a chapter 11 bankruptcy is not the end of the company, it is merely a reorganization which will allow the company to abrogate its labor contracts and drive down the labor costs to be more competitive with third world competition (where many of the parts are made). Many feel that even if the auto companies disappear, foreign auto plants in America would simply pick of the slack and there would be as many jobs as before.

There is a partial truth in all of this, but as with all partial truths, they hide more than they reveal. Japan's American plants would probably not expand their production, they would simply import more cars. Honda and Toyota have assembly plants in America mainly for political purposes. And these plants help to keep factories in Japan open because they mainly assemble Japanese parts. There would be no need to expand their American production, since there would be no domestic competition to exert a political threat. Further, the profits from these plants are repatriated to Japan to help their economy, not outs. And it is somewhat odd to see people urging that the union contracts be violated, since this call generally comes from that political quarter which professes to believe in the sanctity of contract. And in any case, the situations between American producers and the Japanese are not comparable. The so-called “legacy” costs for health-care and retirement are socialized costs in Japan; they do not appear on the company's books, but are paid for by taxation. And despite the claims of a lazy workforce, the opposite is the truth; the American workers in general and the auto workers in particular are the most productive in the world.

Finally, there is a great deal of doubt that people would buy a car from a company in Chapter 11, which means that an “11” would go quickly to a “7”; that is, into liquidation. Cars are not a momentary purchase, but involve a “life-of-the-car” relationship for parts, service, warranties, etc. So long as there are doubts about the future, there will be few sales in the present. This means that a large part of the already-shrinking industrial base of America would simply vanish.

Policy makers are thus faced with an almost impossible choice: they must either bail out “private” business, or they must witness the significant and near-fatal contraction of America's ability to make things. The problem is that only by making things can a country hope to be prosperous, and no reasonable person believes that there is any industry capable of replacing the auto industry. Of these two choices, no principled policy maker will want to do the first, and no responsible policy maker can afford to do the second. So what are they to do?

Let me suggest that this presents a great opportunity for a new model of industrial organization in America. A radical model, to be sure, but nevertheless a working model, and one that has shown itself to be highly successful over a long period of time. I am speaking of the model used by Europe's largest supplier of automotive parts, the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation. We would thus replicate a tested model and bring new opportunities to rebuild America's industries.

The biggest liability the automakers have is likely to their own employees in terms of pension obligations. Employees should be able to exchange these debts for ownership of the companies. They would become employee owned and operated, a model that has proven to have both social and competitive advantages. Competitively, employee-owned companies often prove to be more productive, more agile, more creative than their corporate competitors. Socially, the Mondragón corporation has been able to run its own social safety-net programs, its own banks, its own school system, its own R&D, training institutes, retirement programs, and even its own university all without government support. If one is looking for a true libertarian model, one that actually works, and has worked for 50 years, than look to the Basques of Spain for your model.

The devil, of course, is in the details. I think it would be a mistake simply to continue the current organization and merely replace the owners. One of the problems is that the industry, with only three companies, is “too big to fail,” and can thus hold the economy hostage, as they are doing. And bigness works against the cooperative spirit. In Mondragón, they get around this by organizing the corporation as 250+ individual cooperatives, each with its own product line, management, books, etc. The individual worker does not get swamped by the sheer size of the overall corporation (close to 90,000 worker-owners). Scale is as important a factor in industrial organization as anything else. The vertically integrated car companies are in fact dinosaurs. The new companies could be organized as final assembly and distribution companies, engine companies, transmission companies, finance agencies, etc., each with their own products and research.

A reorganization along these lines would allow a rethinking of American industrial practice. For example, companies could be encouraged to use standard parts, thereby lowering the cost of maintenance. No longer would you pay an exorbitant amount for a bolt that is only used by one company and carries a monopoly price. Assembly plants could be dispersed throughout the country, placing them closer to the end markets and lowering costs.

This plan would not reward current management for their mistakes, and would make America more competitive both domestically and globally. However, there is one group more than any other that is likely to oppose such a plan, and that is the UAW. When workers become owners, the need for a union evaporates, and they are left without a function. Union officials then have to go back on the line to make a living, one with far fewer perks than they now enjoy. This is not to disparage the idea of unions; workers need to be represented in bargaining. However, unions, whatever other virtues they may have, institutionalize an opposition between capital and labor. But as John Paul II noted, a labor system is just precisely to the degree it overcomes this opposition.

Sometimes a disaster is also an opportunity, and this is one of those times. We can bail out failure, or we can watch the nation's industrial capacity shrink to third-world levels, or we can use this as an opportunity to build a new American model of industrialization. True, it will be a model we borrowed from the Basques and from Emilia-Romagna (where 40% of GDP is from cooperatives, and enjoys one of the highest standards of living in Europe), but this only shows that we start with a working model, and adapt it to American needs. It would be a great shame if we let this opportunity pass.

Read more...

Auto Bailout

If there is going to be an auto bailout, and there should be, this is the time to bargain with the Big 3 to improve domestic auto production and save the Janesville Assembly jobs.



Freeing up auto workers from the scientists to the lineworkers will have us making the world's best cars and trucks and that should be the fundamental bailout order. The problem has never been a lack of talent and skill in the American auto industry. The problem is the restriction and minimization of this talent by the auto bigshots and their diversion of billions to Madison Avenue rather than honest product innovation and quality. Unfortunately, U.S. auto's demise is constantly blamed on the auto workers.

American autoworkers are among the world's hardest workers and most have the work injuries to prove it. But rather than appreciation for their labor, human spirit and virtue, all they get is disparagement from the elite.

And that is the real basis not only the auto problem but for the American poverty problem as well. The richer-than-sin elites have nearly succeeded in destroying the goodness of most working people. They have attacked workers - from engineers to lineworkers - everywhere; attacked production talent & quality, cheapened production and betrayed our communities.

They have practically obliterated the truth that an economy is not for making a few people filthy rich. They deny the very purpose of an economy: Economies are to put food on everyone's table, to provide good work for everyone, happy futures for all our children and to elevate the human condition.

Because of the immense influence and power of these greedy elites - and we can count the anti-worker, modern and thoughtless UAW as no longer part of us but them - we are now in a crisis of epic proportions. The cheerleaders of the elite are going to use this crisis to punish the folks who do the work while protecting and extending the crooks who disabled American quality production and shifted it to slave states for dog-eat-dog profit maximization.

We need to stand up and fight these people.

There is the need for a bailout but the bailout must redress the faulty auto production systems.

As bailout conditions, we should demand the government:

1. Give Equity Shares to the folks who do the work in auto.

2. Return production to the folks who own the tools.

3. Revolutionize the unions to Auto Guilds to free and enhance engineering so that the people who do the work, truly work together in inspirational settings and make the calls in product conception, production design and quality of worklife.

4. Insure that all the workers in the industry are paid comfortable wages and benefits as well as profit sharing.

5. Return to the eight-hour day, 40-hour week with the 4-day, 32-hour week a close objective so as to raise employment.

6. Return to the truth that commerce exists to serve the community.

A look at the production philosophy and operations of Mondragon Corporation proves such a production system is not only successful but far superior to anything the Big 3 has done.



Tom Laney

Retired TC Ford Worker

E6305 866th Ave.

Colfax, WI 54730

715-962-4365

Read more...

Capitalism and Socialism: Two wrong approaches to economic morality

There are two strains which are not merely frequent but rather ubiquitous in society and business today. Both are largely similar in their effects, and fit neatly into right wing and left wing ideologies.

In the first place, it is incumbent to focus on the faults of business, since leftist views are in reaction to it, while right wing views are in spite of it. The first is the immoral practices of businesses which are technically "legal". They hit a wide variety of issues, from advertising to payment. Advertising is perhaps the most immoral and the greatest corrupter of social morals and practices. An example which sticks out in my mind clearly is that of Axe body spray. I doubt I have ever met a woman who liked the smell, yet every adolescent of today's generation wears it, because several years ago they came out with a commercial where a man wearing that spray is riding in the elevator and has women jumping all over him. The message is clear. The use of sex in general, and the pornographic nature of advertising in particular has done more to promote promiscuity amongst the youth than Kinsey could have hoped to do with the publication of his two books on sexuality. This is an example of where "market forces" promote immorality for the sake of selling a product. This is an area where the market has failed morally while succeeding materially. It sold the product, but to do it engendered sins against the 6th and 9th commandments.

Another area where advertising promotes immorality is a lack of thrift through social obsolescence. Peer pressure is a powerful tool, created by advertising, that forces people through fear of being blackballed to buy a given product, even though they don't need it, even though their money could be used for the benefit of their families elsewhere, or for suffering members of society. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseam, but to stray too deep into an analysis of advertising will take us away from our overall point.

Businesses also use a tactic which is called planned obsolescence, by which products are made either defective or poorly so that they will break down within a short time in order that you will need to buy another one. They might also be made so that successive upgrades will require you to replace entirely an otherwise usable product. The immorality here is both a lack of thrift (as with social obsolescence) and also a devaluation of human work and of wealth. The things we have no longer have value in as much as they are made by ourselves, our neighbor, they are not heirlooms to be passed to the next generation but rather to the landfill or the ocean.

Another area is the concentration of the majority of wealth into a limited number of hands. This has been decried since Capitalism's inception, and is usually countered with the rhetoric that the wealthy pay most of the taxes. Yet, if more people produced their own wealth not only would there be less need for burdensome and expensive government social structures, but the populace as a whole would have the ability to shoulder a just tax that could cover the legitimate expenses of government. What occurs as a consequence is the wealthy wield an inordinate amount of power within a polity, and create laws to their own benefit. So much of environmental and social regulation for example is sponsored by big business because while they can shoulder the costs of higher inspection fees, the smaller entity, the family owned business can not and that form of government regulation allows the capitalist to eliminate competition he doesn't want to deal with.

Another area where the inordinate power of wealth creates unjust competition is in underselling and unlimited advertising. Through this vehicle the family owned entity doesn't stand a chance, even though it can provide in most cases better services or produce better products. Lastly, since wages are the most controllable expense in business, the push is always for minimizing wages not increasing them, and as such the wages of the average worker do not rise at a rate consummate with inflation, while wages of CEO's and those who don't create the wealth rise to a level 30 times that of those who do create the wealth.

The reaction of the left on the other hand, doesn't seek in the slightest to amend these evils. Instead, it seeks to assuage the symptoms of the problem. So when the worker is paid badly, the left proposes continuing to pay the worker badly, but give him money to go on vacation, or to give the worker so much paid sick time. The left says we will make the employer pay for your health care. All of these things would be anathema in an ownership society, because they represent payment for work not rendered.

The left promotes unions as the answer to big business, but these unions impart no skills to the workers to increase either their abilities, or to advance them in any means of ownership. Rather, unions are a vehicle for social discord, advocating strikes and lawsuits to pursue what are ultimately its own interests, while workers' money taken for dues is sent to their favorite political guru. At the end of the day big business remains big business, while the plight of the worker might improve marginally, after attorney's fees and political contributions have been paid out.

The left also promotes programs which pay the worker (again for work he did not do) as a means of helping the little guy. The right does the same thing but does so as a boost to big business. The left suggest taxing the public to give to the less well off, the right proposes it to build a stadium, or a Home Depot, in order to bring tax revenue into the city's coffers.

While the right promotes a social Darwinist model for business, the left promotes what amounts to a promotion of theft by another name. In both cases, work in and of itself is devalued, and what fails to impart value avails little for man's ultimate end, which is not a 401k retirement plan but the heavenly 401k promised in the Bible: salvation.

Thus helping people stay in their houses, or redistributing the wealth, is not sufficient to create morality in the business world. Increased stock options and dental plans impart no more value to the goods proposed for our consumption or the work we do marketing them. Rather, the vehicle to promote increased morality in society is increased ownership of the means of production.

This should be a common sense approach. People take better care of their homes than rented ones, they take better care of their gardens than they do the gardens in a public park, and for good reason. They do not own them. People look after their own. Thus, if a man's livelihood was dependent upon a certain trade, he is going to do more to satisfy his customer than the large corporation whose bosses are more interested in their time share sin Tahiti than helping those who buy from them.

However creating an ownership society is more difficult than merely establishing new government policy, or expanding co-ownership model cooperatives. It is establishing a conversion of society back to the idea of work, of true work and its benefits, as well as its worth. Secondly, people need to recognize the freedom which comes from owning their own work and their own production. Then with those factors in place can a situation where conditions favorable to Distributist ideals can take root. Principally, we need to convert people away from the idea that our Economy needs to double and triple in order to be prosperous. Our opponents are replete with charts and mathematical concepts showing how many "results" (hoarded up in New York and LA) result from Capitalism, in an effort to strong arm the critic into submission. However, it is shifting the burden of proof. Capitalism's claims to success are based on mere production and wealth. The results have no relation to people, to society, to cultural morals or revealed religion. The economy does not need to grow significantly every year and hit targets pre-set by market gurus (all of whom have been wrong recently) in order for wealth to be created. A sufficient amount of wealth can be created to support the needs of society if it were marked by the characteristic of ownership of private productive property.

The goal of any healthy society should be faith, family and the common good, not net worth points or the extreme individualism promoted by the market. This is why I consider the activism and energy spent by pro-family advocates in National elections to be rather vain and worthless. At the end of the day anti-family initiatives live on stronger than ever and will continue to do so until the social roots by which moral evils are fought have been replanted, and a healthy society of family life through ownership and private production of wealth by small units comes again to predominate the scene. Social conservatives who embrace libertarianism are kidding themselves just as much as left wing activists for the poor or the worker are kidding themselves if they think socialism will protect the worker.

Read more...

An After-Mass Treat

For those of you coming home from Mass today, we have a special treat.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was not only a great Catholic, but a compassionate and thought-provoking orator.

Here is a short audio clip of Sheen talking about cooperative ownership.




And...

Distributism 3

Read more...

Alcohol Can Be A Gas

In his latest book, "Alcohol Can Be A Gas," author and activist David Blume makes a compelling argument for the substitution of oil dependency with ethanol, using not only corn but other crops as well. Using decades of research on renewable fuels, this book is a 640 page "soup to nuts" on ethanol as a practical alternative. From building an ethanol plant to modifying your vehicle's fueling system, this "How-To" is lush with hundreds of graphs, charts, and photos as exhibits to accompany his defence of ethanol production.



For more information go to his website, Alcohol Can Be A Gas.

Read more...

An Announcement

To our readers:

We are pleased to announce a debate which will take place in early Spring. The Society for Distributism will participate in this debate, hosted and sponsored by the Catholic Studies Department of Nassau Community College, in New York.*

The conference will be free for all attendees.

We urge distributists to come and support us at such an important event.

You may feel free to make hard copies, email, or include the file below in your blog and website postings. Remember that regardless of where you live, spreading the news about this event will encourage and motivate other distributists, so send this announcement to friends, families, and co-workers today.

While you are at it, tell your readers and friends about The Distributist Review.

A Press release will follow in the upcoming months, and we will post a reminder as we approach the month of April.

Distributism will start from the bottom up. This means all of us will have to make sacrifices and work hard to undo the damage done. Thank you all in advance for your support and commitment.

Pax Tecum,

Richard Aleman

*The time schedule has not been confirmed, so check back with us for that information in the upcoming months.



Debate

Read more...