Update - The Distributist Review

Dear Friends of The Distributist Review,

For some time our readers have asked us when we would leave the shadows of Google Blogger and move on to greener pastures. What you are looking at is an image file of the site currently in development. Promising to pack a punch, the new Review will offer commentary on economics, politics, history, philosophy, and even book/movie reviews. A launch date will be announced soon and we hope all of you will continue to follow us and spread the word.

Read more...

The Economic Stork

The answers we get are dictated by the questions we ask, but there was one question which always grated on my wife's nerves, no matter who frequently she was asked. That was the question, “Do you work?” As she had five small children and a husband (or, as some would reckon it, six children), she did quite a bit of work. But what the questioner really meant was, “Do you work for a wage?” Being a “housewife” (a term which seems to designate someone wedded to a house) carried no status at all; only work in exchange for wages could have any value, precisely the value of the wage. Work that has no wage has no value.

But we cannot blame the average person for asking this question when the economists have no better understanding of the family and no better questions to ask. Modern economics is a theory about how individuals exchange goods and services, but it has no explanation of how these goods come into being in the first place; that is, it has no coherent production function. Exchange theories deal merely with the change of ownership of already existing goods among freely contracting individuals; it can never explain the appearance of new goods. In these theories, everything is treated as a commodity (even the human person gets commodified as “labor”) but the actual existence of these commodities cannot be explained. But of all the “commodities” whose existence economics cannot explain, the first is the existence of the individual. And without such a explanation, how can economics understand the growth of the economy?

John Mueller of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has characterized these shortcomings as “The Economic Stork Theory” (EST). Mueller explains this theory in Redeeming Economics: Rediscovering the Missing Element, which will be published this Spring by ISI Books. In the Economic Stork Theory, workers arrive in the economy fully grown, fully trained, and fully socialized. These stork-borne workers are a “given”; that is, there is no way to explain the growth in workers or their level of training and socialization, and hence little reason to support them with political or fiscal policies. Mueller describes the theory as follows:

I call this the Stork Assumption, since it literally means that adult workers spring from nowhere, as if brought by a large Economic Stork. Under the Stork Assumption, the accumulation of workers’ tools—buildings and machines—is the only possible source of economic growth that can be affected by policymakers. Moreover, under these assumptions the total tax burden not only should, but inevitably must, fall entirely upon the incomes of workers (who by assumption cannot avoid such taxes by having fewer or less-educated children, though property owners are assumed able to avoid taxes on property income by investing less in property). The Stork Assumption, not economic theory, underlies the perennial proposals to abolish taxes on property income, which are advocated by a cottage industry of (mostly my fellow Republican) economists centered in Washington, D.C.

As a corollary to the Economic Stork Theory, the only “useful” work done in the economy is work done for wages or other economic rewards, and hence there are only two kinds of human activity, work and leisure. Hence, there are only two kinds of Individuals in this theory: Partially Useful Individuals (PUIs) and Totally Useless Individuals (TUIs). The PUIs are partially useful because they spend a part of their time at “work” producing things in the money economy. The TUIs, however, don’t “work” at all because they earn no wage. Rather, some of the TUIs, otherwise known as “mothers,” spend their time in such leisure activities as taking care of the household pets; some of these pets are called “cats” or “dogs,” and others are called “children,” another form of TUIs.

Since the standard of living in the EST is the result of a positive capital-to-labor ratio, increasing the number of PUIs does not increase the standard of living unless the amount of capital is increased by at least an equal amount. In other words, you can increase the standard of living by decreasing the number of people, or at least slowing the growth of the population. Therefore the crucial element in growth is capital, and people are problematic. The policy implications are that capital should not be taxed, only people, in the form of labor or consumption taxes. This will help to discourage the formation of new PUI/TUIs, while raising the capital-to-labor ratio.

Mueller points out that the EST’s most glaring error is the failure to recognize that the family is the basic economic unit. And within the family, the choice is not so much between work and leisure as it is between production for exchange and production for use. Of course, economic theory simply has no way to account for production for use, even though it is actually the whole point of production for exchange; we work to provide money to buy meat and potatoes which we then use to produce dinner. Production for use does not show up in the GDP, but in fact the GDP presupposes such production; indeed, it is the whole point of the exchange economy.

What the TUIs known as “mothers” are doing is crucial not just to the continuation of the economic system, but to the continuation of civilization itself. There is no economic growth without mothers and the job they do. Moreover, the social shifts of the last 50 years have moved us away from production for use to more production for exchange. Now, one may debate as long as one likes the soundness of this move into the workplace in terms of, say, women’s liberation. But as the feminists point out (quite rightly), if mothers were paid a salary for everything they do, they would earn a hefty salary indeed. But the attempt to monetize the work of mothers, to convert it from production for use to production for exchange, is futile and leads to endless debates that have no possible resolution. There simply isn’t enough money on the planet to replace what mothers do everyday. The transfer of work from use to exchange does indeed show up as an “increase” in the GDP, but not as an increase in any actual output of goods and services, and likely involves an actual decrease in such services and in their quality. When mom cooks you a dinner, the GDP does not record the fact; but when she takes the family to MacDonald's, the GDP rises. But do fast-food stands really substitute for family meals? Do day care centers really provide the same level of “care” as does a family?

The Economic Stork Theory isn't even compatible with the commodification of labor. After all, economic theory recognizes that the price of any commodity must cover all of its costs, not only its production costs, but its maintenance and depreciation costs as well. But labor also has a “production cost” (the family, the school, etc.) maintenance costs (subsistence and health care) and depreciation costs (old age). If the price of labor does not cover these costs, then the economic system does not meet its own basic requirements. An economic system that doesn't understand the basic economics of the family will gradually erode the family, which is precisely what has been happening in the last 30 or 40 years.

Read more...

Is Economics a Science?

One salient fact about this recession is that 90% of the working economists missed the warning signs, and those who predicted a disaster were marginalized and ridiculed. This, however, is not surprising; 90% missed the last disaster, and the one before that, and the one before that, etc. With that in mind, do we not have warrant for suspecting that economics is not a complete science and is unable to give us real information about the economy?

The Roman pontiffs have long insisted that something was missing. They have insisted on the role of distributive justice in economics. Beginning in 1891, with Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, they have insisted on the just wage as the basis of economic science, a position that has been repeated by every pope since Leo. The economists, on the other hand, have always found this problematic. A just wage can make no sense, since the wage is just the price of that particular “commodity” known as “labor.” Clearly, there is a dispute here about the nature of economic science. Given that the economists are presumed to be the experts in their own field, is there any reason for them to take the claims of the Roman Church seriously? In other words, can they subject their science to the moral claims of the Church and still be scientists, or would they be like Galileo, forced to recant what they know to be the truth?

Benedict XVI, in his latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, locates precisely the source of the disagreement.

The market is subject to the principles of so-called commutative justice, which regulates the relations of giving and receiving between parties to a transaction. But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy, not only because it belongs within a broader social and political context, but also because of the wider network of relations within which it operates. In fact, if the market is governed solely by the principle of the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot produce the social cohesion that it requires in order to function well. (35)

By insisting on the priority of distributive justice, the Pope poses a special problem for the economists, a problem that goes back to the late 19^th century. At that time, the study was known as political economy, a discipline firmly located within political and social structures. However, many practitioners of the discipline felt that this was far too “philosophical” and hence insufficiently scientific. In order to become a true science, they would have to reduce economics to strict calculations. In order to do this, they reduced all economics to a science of exchanges, that is, to commutative or corrective justice alone. The economy was to be modeled as a series of exchanges governed only by free contract and beginning with “an exchange with nature.” The absurdity of originating production with such an exchange is made clear when we ask, “Who negotiates in nature's behalf, and what, precisely, does nature get in return? “Dear mountain, please give us your coal, and we will give you this nice slag heap in return.”

But leaving aside the question of the exchange with nature, the new economists claimed that exchanges under free contract would result in workers getting a fair wage and capital getting a fair return. There would be no reason to bring up the messy questions of distributive justice; commutative justice, the justice that regulates exchanges between individuals and firms is sufficient to guarantee fair returns to labor and capital. “Fairness” was built in to the system, because free contracts are always fair, or so the theory has it.

All this seems very reasonable, but it is not. There are at least two problems. The first problem is that commutations deal only with change in ownership of already existing commodities, such as when we exchange money for bread or labor for money. But the first problem for any economics is not exchange, but production. Before the bread comes into existence, it must be produced by human labor. When we take a tree and produce a set a chairs, we call the chairs into being; we are dealing with something that did not exist before. The great question of economics is how to divide this new thing among those who had a hand in creating it. Production produces values that did not exist before, hence commutations cannot answer the question, “How many of the new chairs should be given to the labor that produced them or to the owners of the tools by which they were produced?”

This is a matter for distributive justice. The problem that the new economists had with distributive justice is that it can never be (as Aristotle pointed out) a matter of calculation, but a matter of judgment, and different social arrangements would produce different answers. This reliance on reasonable judgments struck the new scientists as unreasonable, and certainly as unscientific. Without being subject to a strict mathematics, economics could never be “scientific.”

The problem of trying to describe production as a series of exchanges came to a head in the 50's with the so-called “capital controversies.” Simplifying a very complex argument, the debate dealt with the adequacy of the standard production function, with purported to describe the appearance of new things by the function P=∫(K,L), where K aggregates all the different exchanges of capital and L of labor. However, K cannot be used directly in the formula, since capital comes in various shapes and sizes (trucks and tools and raw materials, etc.) without any common denominator. So in aggregating capital into the formula they used the price of the various capital goods. However, this turns out to be circular: The price of capital depends on the return to capital, but the formula is supposed to determine that return. In other words, in order to use the formula, you would first have to know the results of the formula. In trying to deny the role of reasonable judgments, they had to sneak a judgment into the formula. The whole thing is self-contradictory.

The interesting thing about the capital controversies is that the defenders of the commutative production function admitted defeat. In fact, Paul Samuelson, the leading economist of his day and chief defender of the function, not only admitted defeat, he actually refined the mathematics to show how the formula was internally self-contradictory. Samuelson did make some corrections to his textbook, but nevertheless the formula is still taught as if the controversies had never taken place. Why? Because there are no other alternatives available within a pure theory of exchanges.

This leads to a startling conclusion: Modern economic science—the science of production and exchange—lacks a coherent production function! And lacking such a function, it can never be a complete description of any economy. Hence, it can never accurately predict the course of any economy nor make any rational policy recommendations. Now we can understand how 90% of the economists fail to see its most obvious failures: they simply lack the tools with which to do a complete analysis of the economy.

The irony of this is that political economy become economics in the name of scientific computation, only to end up with a formula that can't be computed. In attempting to explain everything in terms of numbers, they explain nothing at all. But they needn't have worried for computation's sake. Although distributions depend on judgments, or on power, the results can be computed and compared. For example, if it is determined that labor ought to receive no more than bare subsistence, then economists can accurately compute the results, most likely in terms of over-supplied capital markets and under-supplied consumer markets. And if it is decided that the capitalist shall live in rags and the worker as a king, then the under-supply in capital markets will reduce everyone to rags.

If the positive claims of economics break down, so do the normative ones. Fair contract, the argument goes, is supposed to ensure fair wages, but Adam Smith destroyed this argument. In any dispute over wages,

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms....A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.

In other words, wages depend not on productivity, but on power, and the more powerful party will prevail. Contract alone cannot insure fair wages. And without fair wages, there will be an oversupply of capital and a shortage of demand, and a recession is the result. Recessions can be delayed by using government spending to prop up demand, or by usury, that is, by supporting demand by consumer borrowing. But both of these methods have their limits, and we are smack up against the limits of both remedies in the current crises. It is precisely this double failure which makes this recession so persistent.

With all this as background, we can ask, “Is economics a science?” The answer is, I think, “not in its present form.” The present form takes its cues from physical science, a science that rarely ventures into questions of justice. But economics, if it is to be a science, must obviously be a humane science, and such sciences cannot avoid questions of justice. This is to say, economics ought to be a science; it ought to be the science of political economy. In pointing to the importance of social and distributive justice, the Church is speaking only as a moral authority; but in doing so, she turns out to be a pretty shrewd economist. The moral requirement is not, as Benedict points out, something that is added to an otherwise complete science, but something that lies at its very core, and without which it cannot be a science at all.

Read more...

To Twitter or Not to Twitter

This post will most certainly be an odd-ball as it has nothing to do with the political economy, at least not directly. Instead, I wish here to make a suggestion to the contributors of the Review. While it may seem small, and some may deem it unworthy of posting here, I would beg to differ. I believe what I am about to suggest to be of relatively significant importance, especially as we are seeing the distributist movement expand by leaps and bound.

My suggestion, dear friends, is that the contributors consider creating an official Distributist Review Twitter account. Alongside this project would be the creation of personal accounts, both for the contributors and followers who may happen to be interested.

I bring this up for a number of reasons.

First, I am seeing many other think-tanks, online forums, and pundits use this network to their advantage. They are able to update their followers with links to articles, blogs, videos, and tidbits of personal or professional information. The updates are limited in character, so it forces the writer to get straight to the point. It also allows those with short attention spans to get nuggets of info without having to peruse a 10 paragraph blog entry.

Second, Twitter is just another extension of the alternative media envisioned and praised by Belloc. While it may be fragmented and peice-meal, two weaknesses to the Free Press that Belloc was more than willing to grant, it provides people with quick and easy to follow information. And it is formatted in a way that takes into account the fact that most people are selective when it comes to reading material on the internet. Sadly, it also accepts the hard-to-swallow truth that people tend to treat the written word like they do television, expecting fast-paced information at the their fingertips.

Speaking of fingertips, this brings me to my third point: cell phones. People who subscribe to an account may wish to have updates sent to them via text message. This enables electronic written word to be treated much like 24-hour news (of which I am not a fan), but without the advertisements.

Fourth, there may be some of us who are rather busy and find posting medium or lengthy blog entries rather hard. This is especially true for those who are forced to live a life characterized by multitasking. Short updates or posting links to things of interest may actually enable some members to become more active, as restraints of time and space are no longer an issue.

Lastly, while we work collectively on this site, we live relatively separate lives. We read different books, magazines, and blogs. We listen to different music, watch different programs, and work in a rather diverse array of fields. Furthermore, we are all at different places in our lives, be it personal, familial, vocational, social, or religious. Having individual Twitter accounts would allow our followers to see us in a way that Blogger cannot.

None of this is to say, or even imply, that we decrease our activities on this particular site. Rather, it would be adding a new dimension to our current activities. These should compliment one another rather than replace one another.

As I stated in the beginning, I admit that this post may seem rather odd. It certainly doesn't fit the mold. But if we wish to see this movement continue to spread like wildfire, then we should have no reservations of embracing an information-sharing trend that has taken the world by storm. But in the end, it is just an idea I figured to be worthy of consideration, both by contributors and followers. Your input, then, is greatly appreciated.

Paleocrat's Twitter (Click Here)

Create a Twitter (Click Here)

Read more...

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...

Capitalism Hits the Fan

One striking feature of a profound crises is that it is often the catalyst for the convergence of what would otherwise be contending lines of thought. In more tranquil times, the Georgist, the distributist, the mutualist, the “libertarian socialist” and so forth all have leisure to pick holes in each other's coats. But when things seem to be falling apart, the opponents of the system may find that they have more in common with each other than would otherwise be apparent.

Those trapped in the system remain clueless. The stock market, that bastion of cluelessness, rises three percent on a day that job losses of 600,000 are announced (really, more than 700,000, when “seasonal adjustments”—political manipulations of the numbers—are taken out.) The grounds for the market's optimism are unclear, but seem to be related, so the pundits assure us, to hopes for a general Bailout of Everything and Everybody by the state. Politicians debate endlessly the “stimulus” of the economy without ever asking whether there still exists an economy to stimulate. Indeed, the oft-heard statement that “70% of the economy is in consumption” doesn't strike our chattering classes as the absurdity it patently is. The only things that such a statement can mean is that we consume far more than we produce, and will soon end up producing and consuming very little. Why anybody would want to “stimulate” such an economy is beyond me. The major reason they think this way, I suppose, is that for the last 30 years they have been able to stimulate it, but only at the cost of unrepayable debts and an ever-weakening productive sector. Further, each round of “stimulus” has been both more expensive and less effective than the last; even small achievements cost more dollars. Eventually, we must come to a point—and we seem to have already come to that point—were we will spend everything to achieve nothing.

Clearly, the economy doesn't need stimulus, it needs to be restructured. The distributists and their allies already know how to do this: a great number of small owners of capital are better a few owners of large capitals; small scale better than the gargantuan; cooperatives better than anonymously-owned corporations (see Buy it Out! Break it Up! Fund it Right!)

However, there is one group that has been slow to join any real movement for reform. This is the group which many call “socialist,” but in fact are really “liberals” or “progressives,” or whatever name is now fashionable. This kind of liberalism has become, if anything, more wedded to the current system than even the hardened capitalist. After all, the capitalist wants socialist access to the public purse whenever he finds himself in need, which he usually does. The Liberal wants a “reform” of the system, which usually means no more than more regulation and higher taxes. This has to do with the history of English and American socialism, which become “Fabian” at the beginning of the 20^th century. The Fabians sought merely gradual changes without fundamental reform. As Belloc predicted, this would lead to a merging of the capitalist and socialist ideals into The Servile State: the corporate and state bureaucracies would become responsible to the welfare of the people, who would increasingly lose any real economic freedom.

The capitalist has always been comfortable with this arrangement. The regulations had the effect of keeping down competition, since they were a mere annoyance to a large corporation, but a crippling barrier to a small start-up. Hence, they get security of profit along with power and influence; their position becomes more entrenched, not less so. And if they get into trouble, as they frequently do, they can themselves become the objects of public charity and welfare, but at a much higher level than the average welfare mom.

Another group that has been AWOL in this struggle is the Marxists. The Marxists do want fundamental change. However, it is a change in the direction of even fewer owners, not greater. Indeed, there will be only one owner, the state; it is really just capitalism on steroids. Marx, for all his blather about the proletariat, never really trusted the working man to run his own affairs; he would always need a dictatorship to direct even the minutest of his actions. Further, Marx was a great admirer of capitalism; he loved its gargantuan scale and its terrifying power, and especially its power to replace religion as the focal point of men's lives. So we wouldn't expect much help from that quarter.

However, some Marxists take the theory in a different direction. These are the “Marxians,” which seems to refer to a Marxism stripped of its revolutionary and political ideology and its statist assumptions. The odd thing about this “Marxianism” is that it more resembles pre-Marxist socialism than Marxism, a “socialism” that was also anti-statist. The pre-Marxist socialists blamed the state for the vast accumulations of property that made the corporation the dominant economic and political institution; only the police power of the state could guarantee such an unnatural accumulation. Pre-Marxist socialists like Proudhon wanted to see an end to the state as a means to ensure a more equitable division of ownership, an ownership based on actual use of the land rather than legal convention. Indeed, Marx's “withering away of the state” is really just a sop to the non-Marxist socialists of his day.

An excellent example of the “Marxian analysis” comes from Richard Wolff, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts. Professor Wolff has an excellent lecture, Capitalism Hits the Fan, which offers an analysis of “the root causes of today's economic crisis, showing how it was decades in the making and in fact reflects seismic failures within the structures of American-style capitalism itself. Wolff traces the source of the economic crisis to the 1970s, when wages began to stagnate and American workers were forced into a dysfunctional spiral of borrowing and debt that ultimately exploded in the mortgage meltdown. By placing the crisis within this larger historical and systemic frame, Wolff argues convincingly that the proposed government “bailouts,” stimulus packages, and calls for increased market regulation will not be enough to address the real causes of the crisis - in the end suggesting that far more fundamental change will be necessary to avoid future catastrophes.”

What are these "fundamental changes" that Wolff calls for? It is nothing less than the belief that the worker rather than the capitalist ought to own the means of production, and own it directly, unmediated by the state. But at this point, the difference between the “Marxian” and the Distributist becomes a matter of the means rather than the ends.

.

Market Meltdown 101: Richard Wolff on Economic History from Amherst Wire on Vimeo.



Market Meltdown 101: Richard Wolff's Alternative Proposal from Amherst Wire on Vimeo.

We can note how Wolff's conculsions track with John Paul II's in Laborem Exercans:

But this socialization of property cannot be achieved by merely eliminating private property, which would simply take the means of production out of the hands of one group of people and put them in the hands of another group (68). We can say that property is properly socialized only “when on the basis of his work each person is fully entitled to consider himself part owner of the great workbench at which he is working with everyone else” (69).

We can also consider Pope Bendict's rather surprising praise for the Post-modernist and Marxist Frankfort School in Spe Salvi (See Post-Modernist Pope).

The days ahead will be difficult, no matter what happens. Almost anything is possible, and most of the possibilities are unpleasant. Those who wish to see a rational and peaceful restructuring of the economy must be constantly on the lookout for allies. The powers that be will not give up power easily, and in their unease there is no telling what they may do.

Incidentally, some of the more vociferous critics of the film are old-line socialists, who see in Wolff's work a mere call for syndacalism, which is also an ally of Distributism.

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...

The Liturgical Nature of Distributism

When discussing distributism with a friend of mine, it led to a rather interesting discussion concerning liturgy. He was curious as to whether I saw a connection between liturgy and political science. The answer, at least for me, was quite simple. Yes! Liturgy is at the heart of it all, and for a number of reasons. 

As a safeguard of tradition, liturgy preserves those elements of life deemed to be of permanent value. These elements, while increasing in number over time, serve to expand our understanding of both the scope and breadth of its majesty and wisdom. It forms within the minds of men the concept of mystery, of awe, and of wonder. Liturgy teaches the faithful the value of nature, of the arts, and of the senses. Furthermore, it develops within us a sense of place and of purpose. There is hierarchy, their is the individualism of private meditations, and there is the communal dynamic of postures, common prayers, and the Eucharist. Most importantly, it is Christocentric. It places the Trinitarian God and his Church at the center of our individual, family, and social lives. 

This list, while far from exhaustive, is all well and good, but it hasn't explained why you contend that liturgy is at the heart of distributism. 

Distributism not only embraces each of these characteristics connected with liturgy, it is formed by them. It is formed by those things, both old and new, which are of permanent value. As Penty would say:

"Distributists work for a return to the past. But they do not wish to revive every in the past, for bad things as well as good things existed in the past.; nor yet to they reject everything that is new; they see to revive the things which are eternal in the past, the things of permanent value."

This philosophy, unlike the myriad of others, embraces the mysteries of life, the awe of the liturgical nature of days and seasons, as well as the wonder that accompanies the realization that he has placed man here for the purpose of dominion and reconciling all things in King Christ. Distributism embraces nature and its limitations as both inevitable and good. It wishes to preserve the beauty of the arts and crafts, imploring men and women to utilize their gifts and talents for the common good of both those present and those yet to come. The senses are relished amongst distributists, emphasizing on traditional architecture, dance, and song. Distributism places society in an organic context, finding that golden mean between atomism and collectivism. Each person has a gift and talent, and they were strategically placed by God in various communities to better both themselves and their neighbor. It gives men a sense of social placement, to honor both those under them and over them, and to treat their neighbors with charity, striving to ensure that their families and communities have a political economy that benefits both the individual and the common good. Lastly, distributism places King Christ and his Church at the center of social life. This is something that used to be reflected in the parish system and the construction of houses and businesses around the local church. While this may be diminished, or to have disappeared from our visual landscape, it remains vibrant in the hearts and minds of the distributist.

Repeating what I said in the beginning, liturgy is at the heart of distributism. Its incarnationalism results in a view of life that sees mankind as it really is and the destiny of mankind how it ought to be. This is not Utopian. This is accepting mystery, embracing limitations, making use of our God-given gifts and talents, and striving to bring all things under the dominion of King Christ. 

This is liturgical. This is distributism. And while helping Catholics and liturgical Protestants to see this correlation between our worship and our views of the political economy wouldn't fully resolve the difficulties that accompany attempting to persuade one of the wisdom, prudence, and justice of distributism, it would certainly set the ball in motion towards a place where people may be willing to abandon their inconsistencies for a more harmonious understanding of who we are, what we are destined to do, and the best means by which social reconstruction under King Christ may be accomplished.

Read more...

Why Distributism Can Work (For Us, Right Now) Part I

John F. Triolo, Editor for The Contrarian’s Review, recently invited me to respond to his article, “Why Distributism Can’t Work (For Us, Right Now)” (click here for part 2). I want to thank him for the opportunity to respond to this very important topic and share it with our readers at The Review.

Before I begin, I wish to offer a word regarding Mr. Triolo’s perspective on Distributism. Mr. Triolo is sympathetic to Distributism and he understands it well enough to avoid the pitfalls of unmerited debate. From his perspective, Distributism may be implemented and work well. His opposition is limited to a distributist solution for our current turmoil, and his concerns over an immediate implementation of Distributism given particular complications at present.

If Mr. Triolo is so kind to indulge me, I would like to begin where Mr. Triolo ends. The second half of his article tackles the spiritual difficulties of our present societies and Mr. Triolo’s pessimism about building a new structure demanding self-restraint.

In his essay, Mr. Triolo states what I believe is the centerpiece of his argument.

He says,

“It is even true that an economic system can help to impress upon a people the special dignity enjoyed by every man as the child of a loving God. This can only be done however to a willing populace.” (Emphasis mine)

Mr. Triolo and I both agree that an abrupt and radical adoption of Distributism would harm rather than cure, and, if I understand Mr. Triolo correctly, would result in a centralized governing body forcing Distributism on the uninitiated and unconvinced. It is easy for me to concede this particular point as neither the early distributists, nor we at present, believe Distributism could be implemented through force, but instead should begin as a popular movement.

Distributism is only radical to the extent that it is fundamentally opposed to Capitalism and Socialism. We do not advocate an overnight transformation of society, as attempts to drastically remodel by any socio-economic ideal leads to tyranny. Instead our approach is one of urgency, as Distributism is a scheme we believe to be significant towards economic equilibrium and the common good. Belief in this proposition led the Distributist League to make haste during what they considered an opportune era for civilization to change course and avoid catastrophe. We too face a transitional period today as the populace hesitantly sways in the direction of globalization while attempting to make sense of bailouts for millionaires, over consumption, under production, waste, and other matters. Although there exists a growing intuition that both Capitalism and Socialism have died a natural death, we refuse to simply skate onto the scene, and instead choose to discuss what society ought to do and lead by example.

Mr. Triolo acutely recognizes the “limits of any economic system to make men better.” Once again, to his credit he avoids the Utopian accusation against Distributism often used by opponents who uncritically accept our present circumstances. The distributist’s teleological approach to economics is underlined by the belief that man, by reintegrating justice into the marketplace, will progressively improve his spiritual life and conduct within the realities and confines of his fallen nature.

During my time in the Marine Corps, I recall the saying, “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.” Of course, this is repugnant. It is also shocking. Yet, today we endure decadent systems rewarding the gradual abandonment of virtue, applauding self-indulgence with a prevalent attitude that denies our purpose in the temporal order. In other respects, this shedding of our moral and ethical responsibilities rejects human cooperation in God’s work, and dismisses as irrelevant the supplication for graces instrumental in the alteration of civilization. Distributists recognize the limits of any material benefits to mankind because we contemplate the ends beyond this life, while the capitalist and socialist substitute the pursuit of goodness with the pursuit of happiness, whether in the form of a worker’s paradise or the acquisition of goods.

With this in mind, Mr. Triolo rightly points out the world’s obsession with unrestrained freedom and license. As if drawn from a Chestertonian paradox, man has experienced so much freedom that he has shackled himself into slavery. Distributists do not believe liberty commands the greatest distinction in society, but rather virtue does, and justice in particular. So, when a distributist speaks of liberty he means independence for the family from the concentration of power, whether bureaucratic or commercial interest. He means an interdependent community accountable to a system of law as well as individual self-limitations. We encourage this approach for the future direction of our nation, recognizing society’s present conflict and its capability to undergo cultural conversion.

Cultures have historically adapted to various modes of government and economic shifts. Indeed, as cultures have changed over the course of their histories, the Church wisely avoids embracing particular forms of government and opts instead to champion universal principles, which nations and their citizens should follow to carry out a just and ordered society. It is true that today’s Christian is typically ignorant of these teachings due to several factors. One of them is their infatuation with wealth expansion, and another is the disappointing socially minded counterrevolution, which has largely remained absent outside of the Academy for the better part of the 20th century.

Our recent cultural shift tends to obscure our memory of this nation, which was built on the small farmer and small business. People frequented mom and pop stores and carefully spent their pennies on reliable, repairable goods, which were manufactured and sold within the local community. Parents sacrificed for a stable life not so their children could have more, but so their children could be more. I’m not suggesting this nation ever was truly distributist, but it was closer in many regards than it is today. I believe distributists have successfully tapped into these recollections not only in the United States but abroad as well, especially in nations where our ideals have deep roots.

Mr. Triolo ponders the obstacles facing such a movement in a nation accustomed to instant gratification. To this I can only respond that our primary concern does not rest with those who are predictable enough to join us once the groundwork has been strewn. I say they are predictable because hindsight has shown us that progress in any movement persuades the skeptic. We are very much aware that the work ahead will be paved by the devoted and the diligent.

Consider the work of Una Voce, a lay organization whose mission, according to their website, “…has been since its founding in 1964, the promotion and support of the traditional Latin Mass within the Church, in union with Rome,” and how it played a considerable role in the liberation of the Tridentine liturgy. Una Voce succeeded because it was a populist movement. It spread across the world by recruiting, educating, and proselytizing their position among the Catholic faithful. Ordinary laypeople founded local chapters supported by the Una Voce Federation, uniting for the common good (in this case due to the perception that the older liturgy was good for the souls of Catholics). Regardless of where our readers stand regarding the Tridentine Mass, it is clear the determination and long-term vision of Una Voce paid off. It is also noticeable that what began with a pocket of members grew into a worldwide organization.

Thus far, Part II of Mr. Triolo’s article, “Why Distributism Can’t Work (For Us, Right Now) leads us both to be wrong and to be right. Mr. Triolo is correct that we won’t necessarily see, save for God’s grace, a Distributive State by the end of the fiscal year. I have no doubt Distributism will require hard work and God’s grace. My argument is that Distributism can work for us right now, because by starting our movement today we lay the building blocks for tomorrow.

In Part II of my response to him, I will discuss the particular problems he raises with the viability of a distributist economy. In the meantime, all of us should pray for the future of our society by taking the advice of an Irish priest who said, “I don’t get up in the morning, I get down...on my knees.”

Read more...

Oh Yes, Economic Insanity! That'll do!

“It was the mystical dogma of Bentham and Adam Smith and the rest, that some of the worst of human passions would turn out to be all for the best. It was the mysterious doctrine that selfishness would do the work of unselfishness.” GK Chesterton

The day and age of prudence and sanity is long gone, if in fact it ever did exist. We live in a time where money gurus babble on about how the most radical deregulation will mysteriously perform the functions of regulation, how an absolutely unfettered economy will bring about order, and how “the virtue of selfishness” (as Madame Rand was fond of calling it) would result in nothing short of the economic Utopia finding its home in the wildest fantasies of men like Mises and Bastiat. To be quite frank, the entire ordeal is a tad bit overwhelming for those who, like me, have a sensitive gag reflex.

I wish these were the musings of a madman who hasn’t the slightest clue of things as they really are, the ravings of things far-fetched. Unfortunately, one has only to fetch the remote. Market mystics are commonplace, and like a bad case of herpes they show up in predictable places at just the worst times. Hucksters in tight suits and cheap cologne spouting off what Betty Crocker would consider a sure recipe for economic disaster.

The problem isn’t so much their being large in number as it is that they are professional ear-tickerls! They know the game, and they play it like champs. The masses are assured that if they just allow their cookies to crumble, then even bigger, better tasting cookie will appear from the heaped remains they let tumble to the floor.

It all sounds so simple! It sounds almost too good to be true. Like a good, old fashion pyramid scheme or bottle of snake oil. If only its this bit of irony was any bit ironic.

To imagine that we haven’t overcome our susceptibility to the charlatans of old. We should know better by now. Then again, there must be a reason why the adage “we never learn from history” has stood the test of time. If only there were a generation that had the kind of moral resolve and intellectual fortitude to put that precedent to rest. If only…

Read more...

A For-Profit Organization That Embodies Catholic Social Thought

Here is a comprehensive review of the mechanics of the Spanish Mondragón Cooperative, and how their system relates to Catholic Social Doctrine.

Two years ago, San Sebastián's Bishop Juan María Uriarte opened the cause for canonization of the founder of Mondragón, Fr. José María Arizmendiarrieta.

Mondragon Cooperative

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...

How to go Broke...

...just take advice from the experts! Here is a collection of discussions on Fox News from August of 2006 through December of 2007 in which noted economic "experts" talk about the economy and make their predictions for 2008. All of the experts, save one (Peter Schiff) are wildly optomistic, and they spend their time making absurd predictions, recommending disastrous stocks, and riduculing Schiff, the only speaker who comes within haling distance of reality.

The ignorance about both basic economics and the reality of the economy is frightening; these are supposed to be the people "in the know," the counselors of candidates and kingmakers, the shapers of public opinion. Their disconnect from reality could not be more complete. And yet, one still has to have some sympathy for them. Modern economic education bears so little relation to real-world economies that the "educated" are usually the last to know what the man on the street has long since learned.

Thanks to Richard Spencer of TakiMag for finding this gem.

Read more...

Comrade Buchanan

Pat Buchanan has an article in TakiMag today entitled Comrade Barack. Mr. Buchanan opines:

If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I’ve ever seen.
Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks.
If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

This is certainly a fair question. There can be no doubt that taking money from some and giving it to others constitutes redistribution of incomes, which many consider to be the essence of socialism. One problem, however, is that the program already exists. It is called the “Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC),” or “Negative Income Tax.” And if it is socialist, it has a rather strange pedigree. It was proposed by Milton Friedman, supported by President Nixon, signed into law by President Ford, and vastly expanded by President Reagan. This is certainly the oddest collection of socialists I have even encountered.

Comrade Pat has been a life-long Republican partisan and a former speech-writer for Ronald Reagan, whom, I suppose, we will now have to refer to as Comrade Ron. But the obvious question is why did Comrade Pat all of a sudden discover the latent socialism in the Democratic candidate, while missing it, for so many years, in his Republican heroes? Okay. Maybe that's not even an interesting question; maybe it is self-evident that a partisan would apply different standards to members of his own party. Nevertheless, Comrade Pat is an intelligent man, and there is a question that an intelligent man, as opposed to a mere partisan, ought to have asked. And the question is this: “Why, in this day of pervasive income taxes, do 40% of all wage-earners earn so little that not only do they pay no tax, but need a supplement from the government?” The answer is a bit more interesting than mere charges of socialism.

The first answer is that they do pay taxes, and at a high rate. They pay the payroll taxes, which amount to more than 15% of their income. Indeed, without the EITC, these workers would pay a larger proportionate share of their income in taxes than does Warren Buffet, as Mr. Buffet himself acknowledges. In truth, we have two systems of income tax, one for the rich and one for everybody else. The rich, whose incomes often derive mainly from capital gains, are taxed at a preferential rates. Long-term capital gains are taxed at 15%, or less than payroll taxes that the poorest workers pay. McCain thinks that even this is too much of a burden for the rich, and wants to cut the rate in half. Of course, both McCain and Buchanan are victims of a flawed economic theory which believes that only capital creates wealth, while labor is, at best, a mere nuisance that should be gotten rid of whenever possible by outsourcing. I won't here go into the flaws in this theory; those who want to examine it more critically can buy my book, The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace. Here we can merely note that if one adds up the costs of tax preferences, the advantage goes to the rich, not the poor.

But there is another reason for the negative income tax, a reason that impressed the Nobel economist and the Republican presidents alike: It helps to stave off economic collapse. The hard, economic truth is that when incomes accumulate at the top to an unreasonable degree, there is a failure of demand. A CEO may make 500 times what the line worker makes, but he cannot eat 500 times the amount of food, wear 500 times the shirts, shoes, and socks, live in a home 500 times larger, etc. This means that purchasing power is lost to the economy, and must be restored. Nor can the rich man find profitable investments for his excess wealth, since the mere excess itself causes the market to be restricted. Instead, he ends up “investing” it in speculative instruments like CDS's, which add nothing to the productive capacity of the economy. They are mere bets, where one man's winnings are measured precisely by another man's losses.

Now, I don't think Reagan was a socialist; we don't have to call him Comrade Ronnie. And one can make a judgment about whether he really cared one way or another about the poor. But he certainly did care about keeping the economy together through the next election. And if that involved running up huge deficits, or transferring a bit of wealth to the poor, then so be it. As Belloc pointed out, capitalism will always result in collectivism and statism, because it has no other way of stabilizing itself.

In truth, the federal budget is mainly about transferring wealth. However, it is largely a transfer of wealth from the bottom and the middle to the top. Farm subsidies penalize the city at the expense of the country, the military budget is less about defense and more about enriching people like Cheney, the road subsidies give an advantage to suburban homeowners over city dwellers, etc. So if in all of these upward redistributions of income, we find a small space for movements in the opposite direction, than people like Comrade Pat should not be scandalized.

Or at least, that's what Reagan thought.

Read more...