Distributism, the State...

... and a long awaited for announcement!

... and a long awaited for opportunity!

Anarchism is a fools errand. It is all too unfortunate, then, that there happen to be so many fools running errands. One may understand (albeit with a smirk) how the unbeliever or Protestant could believe in a stateless society. But I find it rather strange when running across distributists who would envision a stateless society, or even the "night watchman" notion reminiscent to the likes of Utopians who apparently can't distinguish between liberty and license. How a distributist, advocating a political economy that best reflects the entirety of Catholic Social Teaching, can advocate such notion of the central government is truly remarkable. So remarkable, in fact, that I believe it to be an impossibility, or at least a most horrific inconsistency.

As I stated earlier, the anti-State mentality may very well fit into the non-Christian or even Protestant scheme of things. In fact, it would be quite natural for them to maintain such a position concerning the State. I say as much because it would be in no way inconsistent with their concepts of autonomy, be it radical individualism or ecclesiological relativism. 

Take the Protestant. He maintains both the notion of radical individualism (we see this most clearly in regards to hermeneutics) and ecclesiological autonomy. Left to himself and contractual religious bodies that have no hermeneutical authority or ecclesiastical jurisdiction over him without his consent, he is an island of sorts. The religious assembly he chooses to attend holds very little sway over his faith and practice, unless he willingly gives is assent. Otherwise, to the religious assembly next door we go! One sect's heresy is another sect's orthodoxy, and the origin of ecclesial (as well as civil) authority comes from the individual's personal consent. 

In much the same way, Distributists who ignore the Church's teaching concerning the origin of civil authority and proper role and functions of the State are playing pick-and-choose with the Magisterium. These folks have assumed the kind of autonomy that causes them to believe that they have the right to overlook or under-emphasize portions of Catholic Social Teaching that either bumps heads with Chesterbelloc and Co. or goes beyond select portions of encyclicals that cover details already dealt with, explicitly or implicitly, in Rerum Novarum. I mean, it is a given that distributists have a special love for the Magna Carta of Catholic Social Teaching. But what about Diuturnum, Graves de Communi Re, Immortale Dei, or even Sapientiae Christianae? Well, unfortunately, these are tough sells. 

Why not stick with Diuturnum, as this was the encyclical first mentioned in the above list. Not so ironically it deals with the origin of civil power. Pope Leo XIII lays out here a number of functions the state is responsible for, or at least has a hand in. Among these are public safety (1); to reign, to rule, and to decree justice (9); to govern the wills of individuals so as to make one will out of many and to impel them rightly and orderly to the common good (11); and to study the welfare of the people (26). To say that this description of the state, as taken from bits and pieces of Diuturnum, is a far cry from the kind of stateless society advocated by certain distributists would be as daring as declaring that Thomas Woods doesn't believe the Church has jurisdiction or competence in the realm of economics.

One could very well delve into other encyclicals which lay out still more functions and responsibilities of the state, but the list is rather extensive. This is especially true once we get to Blessed Pope John XXIII. A cursory glance of Mater et Magistra or Pacem in Terris would leave the reader curious as to whether the Church has more in common with culturally conservative, populist democrats than their culturally conservative republican counterparts. 

When push comes to shove, distributist are not bound in time to the writings of the early distributists or confined to the text of Rerum Novarum. It is their duty, as faithful Catholics wishing to embrace and live out the entirety of Catholic Social Teaching, to toss aside such anti-Catholic concepts as a stateless society or "night watchman" state, refusing to run errands for the fools any longer.

Read more...

Distributism in the Populist Moment

Life is full of pleasant things, regularly coming at times when they are least expected. Today just so happened to be one of those days. As I went out to check the mail, I noticed that my edition of The Week magazine had arrived. And there, on the cover, was a splendid picture of people rioting around the idol (i.e. the statue of the bull) in front of the New York Stock Exchange. The people with their fists in the air, shouting at the symbol of swinishness, pulling it down from its pedestal in a way reminiscent of the famous topple of Saddam’s statue, and the words “Populist Uprising” gracing the bottom of the page. The image beautifully captured the sentiment, and the words accurately reflected the image. It was spectacular in the truest sense of the word

Unfortunately, as with many articles of this nature, my joy was quickly and significantly diminished. The story was on page 18 in the Talking Points section and it only consumed the larger part of the upper-half of the page. That aside, the article was concerning to the $500,000 salary cap Obama has issued for all bank CEOs to receive per-annum. While I should have paid more attention to the cover of the magazine (which has the words “the new, $500,000 limit on CEO salaries” as the tag line), I figured that the story would deal with… well, the overall uprising of populism.

It was the earlier portion of January, 2008, when I began speaking more about populism, and in particular what I saw as the rise of populism in America. The populism I predicted was relatively moderate. I insisted that it would be a hodgepodge of ideas derived from what is typically referred to as the “right” and the “left.” People would be generally conservative on abortion, homosexual marriage, and a host of other “culture war” issues. On the other hand, people would still support public schooling. Very few would want to rid the system of Medicaid. Unemployment and welfare benefits would remain. They’d stand by the notion of Social Security. If trends continue to go in the direction they appear to be going, people maybe even endorse some form of universal health care. Furthermore, I believed that we would see an outcry against Wall Street, CEO salaries, and mega-monsters like Wal-Mart.

I still stand by my predictions, and I believe most of the indicators are pointing in that direction. Sadly, I don’t see this rising tide lasting too long before it breaches.

People are angry, this much is sure. But they either don’t really know why they are angry or they are taking it out on the wrong things. A casual conversation with Johnny Q. Public will get you an earful of emotionally charged tirades concerning the salaries of CEOs, how Scooter’s Hardware is going out of business because they can’t compete with Wal-Mart, and how the average Joe just can’t make the kind of living he used to with a hard day’s work. In all likelihood, you’ll even hear them talk about the hucksters and swindlers in Washington and Wall Street.

None of this is necessarily problematic. What is problematic is how this tirade is followed up with the same old song and dance that got us here in the first place. The very same person will go to the grave defending state capitalism, quoting “the ole Gipper” by saying “Government is the problem.” This person may be on their way in (or even out!) of Wal-Mart, while Scooter’s is just one mile up the road. He’ll stand by the wage-slave concept, decrying a Living, Family, Just Wage or vocational organizations as socialism. And he’ll probably tell you (depending on how the next few years go) that all we need to do is get more “conservative” Republicans like Sarah Palin in office to begin “taking care of business.”

If you haven’t been formally introduced to this person, or the mass of individuals he happens to represent, you haven’t been in the US very long. Or maybe you just haven’t been paying attention. At any rate, intellectual schizophrenia is the way of the day, and apathy runs thick through Main Street.

This isn’t to deny the ray of light peaking through the clouds. Not at all! It is simply admitting that, as of yet, it is little more than a sunbeam piercing through the clouds of convention tomfoolery. It’s a mere acknowledgment that the masses aren’t as angry with the socio-political apparatus as they are with who may be in control at the time. It’s a blame game, with all their bets being on top-down measures to make all the difference.

Yet even here it is not entirely doom and gloom. This underlying sentiment is real, it is emotional, and it is angry. What is required is good old distributist education. While a large portion of the populace may be experiencing frustration with the status quo, they need to realize that the answer is not found in merely tweaking the status quo, or even crossing their fingers in hope that those on Capitol Hill who just so happened to micromanage the status quo will make all the difference.

Distributists, then, are living in a time of great opportunity. People are dissatisfied, and they are willing to listen to “new” ideas. Better yet, most do not realizing that those “new” ideas are far from being “new.” Capitalists have had their chance. Socialists have had their chance. Now it is time for distributists to have their day in the sunbeam.

How long this uprising lasts is unknown. But it would be foolish not to take advantage of a brilliant opportunity to direct this populist moment towards a more humane political economy.

Read more...

Distributism is Dying...

... or so I've been told.

It wasn't but four years ago that I stumbled upon Distributist Perspectives Vol. 1. It was a Christmas gift from my parents. Along with it came two other books. The first was "I'll Take My Stand" by the Twelve Southerners. The second was "Who Owns America?" edited by Agar and Tate. Unbeknownst to me, the writers and content of both "I'll Take My Stand" and "Who Owns America" were in some way or another linked to those persons and ideas contained in Distributist Perspectives Vol. 1. Chalk it up as a strike of providence. 

Upon reading these books, it didn't take me long to see the similarities. All three were traditionalist, skeptical of all things big, and agrarian to the core. Furthermore, the writers all appeared to see a connection between the political economy and culture. They talked of art, literature, and architecture. In brief, there was a consensus amongst the contributors that the debates surrounding the political economy were not merely academic. Rather, these debates hit to the very center of who we are as individuals, as a city, and as a nation.

Some may insist that the ideas advanced within these books fall within the losing column of history. I would beg to differ, though only with the luxury of hindsight. While one should readily admit that there was relatively little progress made during the lifetimes of these particular men, it would be foolish to confine the win and lose columns of history to the lifespan of a group of writers. 

At any rate, there are those who point to the burgeoning of Big Business, Wall Street, and the service economy as proof that the American people have no interest in the ideas typically associated with distributism. Some may even note the fact that a large portion of Americans claim to love Capitalism, while very few have ever heard the word distributism, and even less of its substance. These facts, at least for the anti-distributist, serve as evidence that distributism is on its deathbed waiting to be put out of its misery. Or, if they are generous enough to grant that there will always be a remnant of those willing to identify themselves as distributists, they will ridicule the school of thought as a fringe movement made up of discontents and those overly infatuated with all things nostalgic. 

But are these so-called evidences proof, as the antagonist would insist, that distributism is dying? As I said earlier, I would answer this in the negative. For these so-called evidences can be seen and interpreted in many other ways. 

Take for instance Big Business. It certainly appears to be thriving. On the other hand, even giants like Wal-Mart are having to rally the troops in hope of figuring out ways to bypass what has recently become a storm of opposition.  One need only watch the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" to see just how strong, and coordinated, the opposition has become. 

But this, in and of itself, does not answer the question as to why so many people continue to frequent these behemoths. Truth be told, the answers are as simple as they are complex. We know that there many shoppers that have been pigeonholed into believing that they cannot afford to shop anywhere else. There are others who could shop elsewhere, and who decry the loss of small business, but who would prefer watching the local hardware dealer go out of business than to pay what could only be described as a reasonable price for goods  and services of better quality. Sadly, there are also those who simply don't care what happens to their neighbor, so long as they save a few pennies here and there. Of course, they shun from their conscience all guilt for having fed companies that rely for their existence on what amounts to nothing less than slave labor in foreign countries. For these particular shoppers, it is a matter of "out of sight, out of mind." To make matters worse is that the vast majority of these people don't realize that their low prices are also tied to government subsibies. These come from local, state, and federal dollars, and they come in frequency and figures that would be the envy of any local business owner. So while the answer to this question may seem easy to the antagonist, the truth of the matter is that the issue is much more complicated than it may first appear.

Wall Street is an entirely different story. The average Johnny Q and Sally Sue have little care for what goes on there. As The Nation pointed out so accurately in 2002, people don't typically go to work in order to purchase stocks. Where the common folk of yesteryear may have been somewhat indifferent to Wall Street, this can no longer be said. Instead, indifference has turned into outrage. Faulty prices, rabid speculation, credit swaps, and the stock market's subtle, but now apparent, interconnectivity with even those who know little about the numbers and letters flashing across the bottom of the television screen, has resulted in a collective man-hunt, with Wall Street as its target. Add to the flames the "revelation" concerning the government's obvious preference for the well-being of Wall Street insiders over against the common good, and you have a sure recipe for populist outcry. 

People are outraged. This much is certain. But what is more telling than their outrage is their not wishing to better familiarize themselves with the beast. Rather, many prefer to see it go the way of the dinosaur, or at least to be treated like a plague that needs isolation and strict supervision. Regardless of how the hucksters on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue wish to spin this, the American people have quickly grown a healthy distaste (and distrust) for Capitalism's casino and the gamblers who frequent its halls.

As for capitalism, while the word is commonplace amongst the citizenry, very few know what it really entails. Most tend to boil it down to a free market where people can compete with others and earn money along the way. This is typically dovetailed with the notion that less government intervention is good. 

While all this sounds well and good, it fails to take into account the fact that, as Chesterton put it, one of capitalism's greatest inadequacies is that it creates too few capitalists.  To add insult to injury, the average citizens knows as little about little of the current status of wealth in the United States as they do about the meaning of capitalism. I'm willing to bet the farm that were the citizenry to be fully aware of the figures concerning the distribution of wealth and land in this so-called capitalist society, they would, unlike Chesterton, be astounded. 

Let's take the 2006 Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury survey as a practical example. We begin with $100. Then we add 100 people. Now,  a perfectly equal distribution of wealth (which is not the goal of distributism) would be $1 per person. As it stands right now, the 50 individuals at the bottom of the stack have $0.05. Collectively, they make up $2.50, leaving $97.50 to be divided between the remaining 50. The next 40 have $0.70 of wealth, or $28 collectively. The next nine have $4 of wealth, or $36 collectively. Now this leaves one person remaining. This single individual would, per $100 mentioned earlier, have in his or her sole possession $33.50. 

To say that this is horrifying would be to trivialize the meaning of horror.

One may rest assured that when these figures come to light, as they are with the passing of every day, people will begin to see the forest for the trees. They'll begin to connect the dots, finding a line between Big Business, Wall Street, and what parades around as capitalism. It is here, at this moment and at this time that distributists can smile and wink at the antagonist, knowing full well that the confidence of the naysayer was built on what was little more than a phantasm waiting for the right moment to disappear.

Distributism isn't dead. It isn't even dying. No, distributism is coming to light. It is, as John Medaille would say, "the wave of the future."

The road is destined to be hard, as money and power never fail to put up a good fight. But those rumbling underfoot, fueled by ideas penned by those of old, may be too much for even the giants of today to withstand. In the end, being perceived as finding a home in history's losing column may have turned out to be a boon rather than a bust. 

Read more...

Dr. Thomas Woods Jr. in the Dock

While engaged in a discussion over Catholic Social Doctrine with a certain Protestant author, I was directed to the works of a certain Catholic libertarian by the name of Thomas Woods, Jr. The issue under contention was whether or classical liberalism is compatible with the declarations of the Church. It was the position of my acquaintance that Dr. Woods had demonstrated with great clarity that classical liberalism was in fact compatible with Catholicism. Apparently, Woods even went so far as to publish a book where he argued this at great length.

Upon investigating the daring doctor I found a handful of oddities. On the one hand, Woods is the associate editor for Latin Mass Magazine. Well, bravo! On the other hand, he is a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Now, Catholics advocating classical liberalism has become all too common, but a Traditional Catholic? That is an oddity ranking somewhere between a three-legged ballerina and a quadriplegic valet driver.

While rummaging through Woods' online material, I stumbled upon a document entitled Catholic Social Theory and Economic Law: An Unresolved Tension. Jackpot! If there was anything written by Woods that would clear up the matter, this appeared to be it. 

Much to my dismay, I didn’t get through the first paragraph before realizing that I was in for a rather uncomfortable ride. The preface began by assuring the reader that he has the most profound respect for the popes of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Now, for those who are unfamiliar with this tactic, authors resort to these “assurances” when they are about to embark upon a crusade against those they claim to so profoundly respect. This trend turned out to hold no less true here than elsewhere.

From the get-go he displays nothing but hostility towards the declarations made by the popes he claims to profoundly respect. 

Woods accuses the popes of advocating “fateful” ideas and goes so far as to arrogantly insist that “if the Church is going to presume to establish moral principles on the basis of the consequences that follow from this assumption, then some demonstration of its truth must be attempted.” To make matters worse – if this is at all possible – he sides time and again with a cherry-picked number of scholastics, all of whom the Editors at IHS Press have insist are taken out horribly of context. 

In short, Woods makes abundantly clear to the readers that he prefers the company and wisdom of atheist/agnostic economists over against the declarations of the Magisterium in matters pertaining to all things economic.

If I may be so frank, the tone of the entire piece echoed the kind of anti-Catholic drivel that one may expect to hear from frightful figures such as Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. It most certainly lacked the kind of prudence that would be expected in what was peddled as a humble criticism from a faithful son of Mother Church. The reason being, of course, that Woods had no intention of reconciling CSD with classical liberalism. Quite the contrary! He was hoping that his denunciations of the popes, the encyclicals, and many of her faithful sons would in some way justify his adherence to a philosophy that is inherently at odds with the teaching of the Church.

My primary concern, though, is with a number of assertions he made much later in the paper. In fact, they came just prior to his conclusion. The header of this particular section read: The Magisterium Has No Competence Here. Just reading it gave me the impression that this mad has no fear trampling where archangels fear to tip-toe. Here is what he wrote:

“... by any definition, it lay well beyond the competence of the Magisterium to presume to describe the workings of economic relationships.” He goes on to say that while one “hesitates to describe Catholic social teaching as an abuse of papal and ecclesial power,” it “seems dubious” that popes would“attempt to impose, as moral doctrine binding on the entire Catholic world, principles that derive” from their“intrinsically fallible reasoning within a secular discipline like economics.” To add insult to injury, he thunders, “at the very least, it appears to constitute an indefensible extension of the prerogatives of the Church’s legitimate teaching office into areas which it possesses no inherent competence or divine protection from error.”

But do his claims hold true? One need look no further than the encycicals or popes he referenced throughout the paper in order to conclude with full certainty that Woods assertions are worse then wrong, they were dead on arrival. 

Woods references four encyclicals written by four different popes: Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII; Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI; Pacem In Terris, John XXIII; and Laborem Exercens, John Paul II. The question, then, is what authority these documents, and the popes who wrote them, claimed to possess in the field under consideration.

Rerum Novarum, the Magna Carta of CSD, is not so outspoken in regards to the authority of the Church in matters of economic affairs as are later encyclicals, but it is certainly not left without a witness. In section 16 we read: “We approach the subject [economic and social theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” While Pope Leo XIII wouldn’t presume a monopoly on the putting together of a comprehensive program applicable to any and all people in any and all places, he would certainly declare that the Church is at the forefront among various authorities concerned with the putting together remedies for various economic ills and shortcomings.

Pope Pius XI was far more outspoken. In Quadragesimo Anno he wrote that Rerum Novarum was written in the “virtue of the Divine Teaching office entrusted to him [Leo XIII].” The pontiff goes on to write in section 11 that “the Pope clearly exercised his right” and that he declared “confidently and as one having authority” those things that “the Church, heads of States and the people themselves directly concerned ought to do.” He reiterates this in section 31 when saying that “the rules” which Leo XIII issues were “in virtue of his [papal] authority.”

It is in sections 39 and 41 of the same encyclical, though, that Woods will find himself in a great deal of trouble. A passing glance of these two sections ought to have caused him an extraordinary level of discomfort.

Section 39 declares that “those who would seem to hold in little esteem this Papal Encyclical [Rerum Novarum] and its commemoration either blaspheme what they know not, or understand nothing of what they are only superficially acquainted with, or if they do understand convict themselves formally of injustice and ingratitude.”

In like manner, section 41 says that “principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.” The pope continues by saying that this would “bring under the subject of Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.”

Conveniently, Woods was not inclined to deal with, much less reference, passages of this nature in his diatribe.

Pacem In Terris, written by Blessed Pope John XXIII, followed on the heels of another encyclical by the same pontiff entitled Mater et Magistra. The claims of authority and jurisdiction in Mater Et Magistra were foundational for any and all declarations that would follow, whether in that encyclical or in any other.

John XXIII says in section 16 of Mater et Magistra that “We approach the subject [social and economic theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” The pope goes on to say in section 218 that“the permanent validity of the Catholic Church’s social teaching admits of no doubt.” From here he spends the larger portion of the end declaring directives that he considers to be binding on all, especially the faithful children of the Church. He insists that CSD “is an integral part of the Christian conception of life” (222); that it should be taught in all seminaries, schools, religious instruction programs, and spread through all mass media (223); that beloved sons should put it into practice and strive to have others understand it (224); that they should be “convinced that the best way of demonstrating the truth and efficacy of this teaching is to show that it can provide the solution to present-day difficulties” (225); and that these principles must be put into effect (240).

Here, too, we see strong warnings for those, like Dr. Woods, who would fail to embrace papal instruction on social and economic matters. Section 241 requires that the faithful Catholic's "attitude must be one of loyal trust and filial obedience to ecclesial authority.” For the pope was concerned that “if in the transactions of their temporal affairs they take no account of those social principles which the Church teaches… then they fail in their obligations… [and] may even go so far as to bring discredit on the Church’s teaching, lending substance to the opinion that, in spite of its intrinsic value, it is in fact powerless to direct men’s lives.” 

These words, possibly above all others, force men like Woods to their knees in fear and trembling. Instead, as with similar warnings in other encyclicals of this nature, Woods allowed them to hit the cutting-room floor.

As for the final encyclical referenced by Woods, it had little to say of its own authority. Pope John Paul II, in Laborem Exercens, had no reason to reiterate what had been said so many times over concerning the authority of the Magisterium in regards to social and economic matters. Still, in article III section 14, the pope states that “the many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church” are of “special significance.” While "special significance" may not bear the same kind of gavel pounding found in Mater et Magistra, I see nowhere within the enclyclical that the nature of things had in any way changed from the time of Blessed John XXIII and the writing of Labor Exercens.

It should be obvious, then, that Woods is in grave error concerning the issue of the Magisterium’s jurisdiction over both social and economic concerns. Consequently, he has chosen to side with a mongrel horde of atheists, agnostics, and a cherry-picked remnant of scholastics (taken out of context) over against the Bishops of Rome and the overwhelming majority of the Church’s faithful sons who worked long and hard towards the reconstructing of a Catholic social order. He gives aid and comfort to those enemies of the faith by boldly criticizing the Church and calling into question the very right to jurisdiction the pontiffs claimed for themselves and their decrees. Furthermore, he advocates those very social and economic dogmas that the sovereign pontiffs condemn. But, worst of all, his actions place him in the frightening position of an obstinate son as described, particularly, in Quadragesimo Anno and Mater Et Magistra.

It is my hope that Woods would reconsider his position, and that he would do so with a sense of great urgency. With this being done, I pray that he would put as much effort into educating others about the majesty and wisdom of CSD as he has into deconstructing it in hope of salvaging his commitment to theories the Church has steadfastly denounced.

Read more...