Distributism: a Twelve-Step Program
Adapted from an editorial that ran in our December, 2009 issue:
Gilbert Magazine is inspired to give its readers a gift: a way to detoxify from Capitalism. In favor of what? Distributism, of course. Like that other “concept” found difficult and thus left untried, Distributism is often grossly misunderstood. Over the years, we have received letters claiming it is “foolish,” “impractical,” “backward,” and “unlikely”—strange words to describe the only economic scheme that functions for everyone and that can be sustained over time. Nothing but Distributism, we retort, is more likely to survive the current financial mess we find ourselves in—will enough of us realize it in time, and return to sanity? Toward this end we present the Twelve-Step Program for Distributism, a primer for the reluctant and a refresher course to help our readers kick the Capitalism habit.
Step One. Begin by thinking like a Distributist. A little-known but powerful idea called subsidiarity states that larger entities like states and federal authorities should not assume rights and responsibilities proper to smaller entities, especially the family. The principle works both ways, of course—a thirteen-year-old boy must not presume to switch around signs for the local county roads; neither should the county be permitted to determine whether the boy goes to bed without his supper for the prank. What are the undue influences in your own home? Act to remove these, and fight to keep them out.
Step Two. Look at your possessions. Which do you own and which own you? Possessions that give nothing and drain your checkbook are worse than worthless; get rid of them. Consider possessions as resources, and you will see them in a new light. One person stopped tossing cardboard, kitchen scraps, and old potting soil; he now mixes these with composting worms and grows vegetables and fruits no money can buy. All on his apartment balcony.
Step Three. A billboard appearing nationally displays several small infants with the caption: “Children, our greatest resource.” We cannot say it better. Married? Have a child. Have one? Have another. Find your joy in love of God and family. You’ll never regret it.
Step Four. Stop working for your boss. No, we’re not suggesting you quit your job—ready cash is a resource, after all. Rather, put your job and your boss in their proper place, after the family. Many people work long years for perks that, if they ever come, fail to satisfy. Awards won’t console you on your deathbed.
Step Five. Married? Get your wife fired. Many couples have no idea what a working wife and mother costs the family. Never mind the childcare; how many times a week do you eat out or buy take-home, not because you want to (or even have the money), but simply because mom and dad are exhausted and the kids are screaming? Is your freezer stuffed with “convenience foods”? Did you buy a boat that sits in the backyard ten months out of the year because “Suzy’s working and we can afford it”?
Step Six. Are you thriving, or just surviving? Ever run to the store for something only to discover its twin on the shelf when you got home? Can’t find clean socks? You’ve got a management problem. See Steps Two and Five.
Step Seven. Still working on Sunday when you don’t have to? Even God knew when to quit. Genuine recreation fixes friendships, saves marriages, and restores the soul—play is a serious matter; we can’t live without it.
Step Eight. Resurrect the fine old art of bartering. Yes, the government hates anything that can’t be taxed. But most barters have to do with the rare odd jobs we can’t do ourselves, like fixing a broken eave board on a second-story roof; your neighbor has the equipment; why should you buy them for a one-time job? Especially when he needs a new rotor cap for his old Ford and you have the part.
Step Nine. Learn to feed yourself. The price of food at the grocer’s is increasing out of all proportion to what it’s worth—shipping and packaging costs are responsible. Fresh vegetables are easy to grow in a small garden space or even under fluorescent shop lights. Take up hunting and fishing; study the art of foraging. And when you buy, make it local.
Step Ten. Children learn more by osmosis and less by lecture. Help them do the work proper to them by not stooping to do it yourself. Triumph through struggle is the mother of self-esteem.
Step Eleven. Do you home school or send your children to private school? Attend a local school board meeting anyway, and learn how your tax money is spent. Find out what’s happening at city hall, and hold elected officials accountable. You needn’t run for office—a boar in the ointment is worth at least one in the mayor’s chair.
Step Twelve. Tell a neighbor about Distributism. Tell another one. And another. Once upon a time we were all Distributists, for Distributism is nothing more than the economy of the family. It is, we must repeat, the only system that works. Sustainable business practices and agriculture, holistic management, the return of stay-at-home mothering: these are not mere escapism from a world that is falling down around us. They are attempts to restore something we had and must have again if we are to survive. Best of all, Distributism is free.
Awesome! Thank-you for posting this.
At your service!
Sean,
I love this!
BTW, I bought some extra issues of the Distributist edition to…ummm…err…distribute.
Cheers, brother.
Stu
Thanks very much, Stu! We very much appreciate you getting the word out.
Glad you like the editorial. Our entire editorial board worked on it, and I think it does a great job of breaking Distributism down to easily understandable things that just about anyone can do. Distributism can be a very difficult concept to understand, but applying it to your life is as easy as the steps outlined here.
>Get your wife fired. Many couples have no idea what >a working wife and mother costs the family. Never >mind the childcare; how many times a week do you eat >out or buy take-home, not because you want to (or >even have the money), but simply because mom and dad >are exhausted and the kids are screaming?
Would it work to get the husband fired instead ? Particularly if Mom can’t cook worth a darn ?
And, of course, this is all assuming that whichever spouse stays working outside the home doesn’t skip town and leave the other ‘holding the babies’ , as it were. With no-fault divorce in the picture, stay-at-home parenting looks like financial Russian roulette – particularly to those who had a parent, usually a mother, who did it and ended up barely scraping by when Daddy called it quits.
It seems to me that many of these propositions are not limited to a distributist economic model. In fact, it appears that you can incorporate these into a free market economic model as well. Having kids, not working on Sunday, focusing on the family and limiting unnecessary possessions are models of living a virtuous Catholic life. These virtues can be carried out in various economic settings.
Matthew, Distributism *is* free market economics.
And yes, the steps can be implemented in various economic settings because Distributism begins at home. It is the economics of the family.
Mary wisely. You get only one chance to do it right.
Tell that to the woman who seems to have done everything ‘right’, only to have her seemingly solid husband fake out on her.
Also, there are those women who have personalities which simply work better in business than in domestic life. I’m thinking of a now deceased relative who was stuck as a housewife when she should have been a coporate raider. Since she couldn’t do hostile takeovers of companies, she tried to do hostile takeovers of her kids’ marriages. Messy. Very, very messy.
The consensus among British royal biographers is that, from the time she succeeded to the throne, Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain chose to devote herself entirely to the monarchy. Throughout their infancy and childhood, and well into the adulthood of her offspring, the queen, her husband, and their four children lived together at Buckingham Palace (or one of their other royal palaces) where the queen also maintains suite upon suite of offices and meeting rooms for herself and her staff, and where she does most of her work as Head of State. One of the world’s wealthiest families, the British royals have always employed the most top-notch household and child-care staff. Only nannies, governesses, tutors, and nursery staff of the finest caliber and with the most impeccable references are selected to work for the queen’s family; once hired, most stay on for many, many years, and become, as it were, virtually a part of “the family”, (to the extent that any commoner who works for a living can).
When they were young, the queen, whose days were rigorously scheduled from morning until late at night, saw her children only during visits of approximately one-half hour in the morning and another in the evening. During the rest of their day, the children lived under the same (300+ room) roof as their parents, but away from their parents, in their own quarters, and under the care and supervision of royal staff. Paid staff.
Royal biographers of the queen and her children agree that, in hindsight, this arrangement was an unfortunate one. The consensus is that the royal princes and princess grew up emotionally stunted, unable to form healthy, close personal connections, or to relate more than superficially to anyone not of their own rarified social background. Most of the marriages of the queen’s children have proved disastrously unhappy; even their second marriages have not proven unqualified successes.
In interviews, the queen herself has hinted that in retrospect she regrets not having spent more time with her children when they were young, and wishes that she had devoted less time to her work as Head of State, and more time to her family.
To grow up into happy, healthy, normal adults, children and young people need a great deal of personal time, care, devoted love and attention from both parents . . . not just from day-care providers, or nannies, or au pairs. From their parents, who for children, represent their whole world, in a way that paid care-givers cannot. Children need to know that they, too, are “whole worlds” to both of their parents. There is one, and only one to communicate this love and devotion – with T-I-M-E, undivided time and attention. If they do not receive enough of this, many children will manage to come out all right, just the same, but they will never become what they could have been had their mother and dad truly devoted themselves to them.
Women (and men) who find the idea of home, and kids, and domesticity boring and oppressive would be wise to give their attention to that perception, and to treat it as a cue that perhaps it would be in order to examine whether they, in fact, have a true vocation to the holy state of marriage. Maybe they are called to life in the world as single persons, devoted to serving God through their professional careers. Many very holy persons live in that way. Maybe they are called to serve God in consecrated religious life, either as cloistered contemplatives, or in the active apostolate. Religious sisters, brothers, and priests not only teach and work with the poor, but also head up entire universities, chains of hospitals, and charitable organizations. Diocesan priests may become bishops and cardinals – great statesmen.
Babies, once they begin to arrive, grow up very quickly. A woman who marries at 30 and has babies until she is 45, can expect that her oldest to be entering high school at around the time her youngest is born. If she is a stay-at-home Mom and their primary caregiver, she is very much tethered to the “young ‘uns,” at least, until the youngest enters the upper primary grades and becomes an “independent kid” with friends, interests, and activities of their own to occupy most of their time. So, by the time she is 55, she might feel ready to return to a part-time or a full-time position.
These are all very momentous decisions, not to be taken lightly or without serious reflection, prayer, self-awareness, and a very frank examination of one’s own emotional resources, as well as financial outlook. I wonder whether many persons – even Catholics –don’t simply “fall into” marriage and family because it’s what their friends are doing, because it’s part of “the American Dream,” because “I should be able to Have It All.” The vocation to marriage and raising children is something people need to think much more carefully about.
Okay. Marry wisely. You only get one chance to do it right.
On Step Five: Why do you assume that women are uniquely suited to drudgery? Housekeeping tasks are almost entirely mindless brain-killing crap work suited only for highly trained monkeys. That doesn’t make them unnecessary if we are to eat good food and live in something other than diseased squalor, but there’s no good reason to assign the crap work of the world to only half the human race. Your penis won’t fall off if you get laundry soap on your hands, and men can wash dishes, fold towels and handle mops quite well thank you. The most basic unit of society is the individual person. If you want jobs taken care of at the lowest level, I suggest you instruct men to do their own chores and precisely one-half of the child care. Then, wives who like their jobs and their autonomy can keep them.
Thank you for sharing, Karen. To begin with, I know quite a large number of stay-at-home moms who would find your remarks — that the work they do every day is more suited for highly trained monkeys — highly insulting.
Thanks also for the good news about penises. I’ll be sure to pass it along. Men everywhere (and their wives) will be grateful.
But to believe that the most basic unit of society is the individual — this is rank idiocy. It is the foul lie on which feminists and capitalists collaborated to divide women from their children and from their husbands. When governments and corporations want to rob us of our liberties, the first institution they attack is not religion or schools. It is the family. If we want to preserve liberty — the ordinary, human liberties that we love so much — then we must preserve our family life.
Finally, on the drudgery of domestic life, why do you assume that being a housewife is drudgery, but being shackled to a desk in a cubicle isn’t? How many wage slaves out there, answering all day to an indifferent supervisor, dream of having the “drudgery” of a housewife?
Or, as Chesterton put much better than I can, “But when people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”
No one has to do office drudgery 24/ 7. I can go home and be away from my boss. Housewives have NO time away from their bosses and no ability leave if their boss is cruel or lazy or stupid. Also, employees get paid. My money is my own; no one can take it from me or tell me how to spend it. Housewives only have the allowances their husband give them, and a disturbing number of husbands insist on seeing an accounting of every dime she spends, without a corresponding duty to provide her with his spending. So much for “queen of her sphere,” since she can’t even buy a cup of coffee on her own.
The family in your construction provides men a huge amount of autonomy at the expense of women and children. HE gets to run things like an absolute monarch with a guaranteed group of victims; she gets nothing.
“HE gets to run things like an absolute monarch with a guaranteed group of victims; she gets nothing.”
Ha ha, you can’t know much about marriage if this is what you think. Husbands can only dream of having that kind of power.
Karen,
I applaud your insulting tone to the many women who take pride in lovingly running a household for their family. You are truly concerned with your fellow woman.
As to your observation that one’s “penis won’t fall off if you get laundry soap on your hands, and men can wash dishes, fold towels and handle mops quite well thank you,” I would like to point out that I generally don’t employ my penis when conducting work around the home whether it be helping my wife with her chores or the never-ending yard work, gardening, cutting firewood, conducting maintenance on the autos, etc so there is no real fear of it falling off. However, I do appreciate your concern.
I have to agree, Karen doesn’t seem to know much about marriage given both her idea of how a husband should act as well as a wife. But admittedly most Americans (men and women both) get it wrong in this day and age.
I am most certainly the head of my family, but to think that translates in some sort of desire to be a dictator or simply dismiss the concerns of my wife is simply shortsighted.
Sean and Stu,
although I would be one to say that husbands could be the ones who stay-at-home, I understood your comment as to the fact that a growing number of women (who are married and mothers) desiring to stay home and raise their children. It is also a fact that women like Karen despises that women are the ONLY gender that can bear a child…and since maternity leaves usually mean a smaller paycheck (if any at all), it makes more sense for the man to be the primary breadwinner.
In Proverbs 31, however, it is clear that “stay-at-home” moms can also be self-employed businesswomen. It is a hard thing for us to understand this due to our “industrial society” which sees work as only that which is done at an office or in a factory (or some other “place of employment”) as opposed to the free market small businessperson running a business out of their homes…
oh well, as I said, I understood what you were talking about…and my wife makes more than me…I’m unemployed currently.
Another commenter wrote, “HE gets to run things like an absolute monarch with a guaranteed group of victims; she gets nothing . . .”
The commenter is describing a sick and dysfunctional relationship, one in which the woman is a doormat, and the man a tyrant. Such marriages do exist, and both parties are behaving in unhealthy and irresponsible ways. Equally sick and dysfunctional are relationships in which the man is henpecked (or “p___whipped”) and the woman is a castrating b*tch. Sick and dysfunctional either way.
In *healthy* traditional relationships, there is a division of labor by sex, and the husband is the head of the family, and each spouse treats the other with consideration, collegiality, and respect.
The man who is a head of the family, may either treat his wife like a queen and a princess – his consort and his trusted companion – or he may treat her like a wretched little guttersnipe.
The sick model is that of a Captain Queeg or Captain Bligh, the cruel and inhumane commander whose sadistic mistreatment of his men leads them to mutiny. There are husbands like that. And wives, too.
The healthy model is that of a captain and his highly trusted and respected senior Executive Officer. The exec is not dirt beneath the captain’s feet, to be ordered around like a galley slave. No self-respecting officer would serve under a captain who habitually treats him disrespectfully, and no captain who would treat a brother officer disrespectfully deserves a really competent and trustworthy exec.
Husbands and wives in healthy relationships discuss family finances as equals, and consulting together, decide on priorities and a budget they both agree will work for them. Should a wife be free to grab her husband’s entire paycheck and go spend it on whatever she wants? No. Should a husband withhold a reasonable amount of personal and household spending money from his wife? Absolutely not. And no wife worth her salt would tolerate her husband behaving in that way.
“It is also a fact that women like Karen…”
Good post, Ed, except that while you may make a guess as to what “women like Karen” despise, you may not state it as a fact, unless you are a mind reader.
Cheers,
Sean Dailey
Dear Karen,
There are a few things I would like to point out for consideration. We must first note that marriage is not about “getting,” rather, marriage is about giving. I think we would agree that a loving relationship implies mutual giving, and at times, due to our fallen nature, one or both of the spouses may violate the integrity of their relationship. But it is also true that, when speaking about “wages,” both sexes have failed to grasp what was once “household” income, income derived from income-producing productive property, which is — in some cases — monopolized by one of the spouses. This is not (per se) indicative of any specific economy. Instead, it is a “sign of the times,” as some men (and women) have not been properly grounded in the moral, economic, and social foundations of the Church. Whether they’re under a capitalist, socialist or distributist system, spouses do not have the right to treat their significant others unjustly. That said, I do believe gender wars perpetuated by feminism and chauvinism have seen the greatest ubiquity in societies promoting the separation of ownership and work.
Karen, I would also ask you to consider this: many wives manage household finances. Some wives even limit their spouses’ expenses providing them with a strict allowance. Women do tend to have more control over the home than you give them credit for. As Chesterton pointed out, men may think they are the kings of their castles, but every honest man knows it is the queen who rules. That virtue or vice may result from these roles or activities isn’t news. Some men harm their wives. Some women manipulate their husbands. But neither of these invalidate the integrity of the sacrament nor do these facts paralyze us and bind us to search for modern and novel approaches to family life. Indeed, exceptions do not make the rule. When these exceptions become the norm, is the answer to dissolve or distort the roles of the household? Have our modern approaches to gender roles improved family life or have they contributed to the overall decadence of our culture?
I’d like to clarify a point, if I may. Distributism isn’t only about the wife returning to the home. As Sean’s post implies, it is about husband and wife returning to the home. Although all of us cannot immediately do so, the new Distributist movement attempts to begin planting the seeds of the future by promoting the return of economics grounded on the needs of the family, and the restoration of this last. It isn’t about locking up our wives, but about resurrecting the household and making the means of production as widely available as possible. Through the acquisition of income-producing property, the family is brought together in daily life in a way which the separation of ownership and work can rarely duplicate. Again, can a Distributive State correct our fallen nature? Of course not. I can no more say, with a sane mind, that men or women will never be in conflict again. Indeed, this would run contrary to our human nature or what Belloc called “the realities of man.”
Any good man will recognize that women truly rule the household. Just ask any man raised by an Irish mother.
+AMDG
Once again I find myself on a thread where it needs to be stated that the way to prevent no-fault divorce is to abolish the evil no-fault divorce laws.
Great article, Sean
For some reason, the part about the wife staying at home reflects Chesterton and his view of feminism.
It is because of modern feminists and chauvinists that the gender wars are here. When I first started reading this article, I had first thought of the wife’s place in the home. As I read it more thoroughly, it made me realize that the modern feminists are dead wrong about marriage and the wife’s role in it.
I do have a question though born out of curiosity. How about the husband whose wife is a teacher/game designer/artist? How does she fit in the distributist mold? I am a bit confused.
Great article Sean.
Thank you, sir, for defining Distributism so succinctly. I always wondered why I had problems with Capitalism and Communism – I was a Distributist and did not know it! I am even more thankful for the commentary about marriage. I have two failed marriages which were doomed before I proposed. Both relationships were closed to life and indifferent to each others feelings. May God have mercy on my stupidity. The marriage I have now is open to life, love, and respect which was made possible by the teachings of the Catholic Church. I try to spend as much time with my daughter as possible – I pray I am a good influence. My wife has helped save my soul – a debt which I can never repay. It is my sincere wish that hope enters all our hearts in this time of economic turmoil and political divisiveness. Perhaps if more people are introduced to the charitable values within Distributism, they will understand the valuelessnes of materialism and the value of their neighbors.
When I was a very young girl I wanted to be an actress (on the Bdwy stage). When I was 17 and graduated H.S. I left home and went to NY. I met my husband to be and after a few years of some success on the stage, I decided to marry the man who had persistently pursued me and settle down. Being able to only concentrate on one thing at a time, I gladly gave up my career for raising children and we had eight of them to raise. One day a few years later (about 40) it occurred to me that I was no longer inundated with baby diapers and with my husbands enthusiastic support I returned to my vacated career. We no longer lived in NYC, but in Wash.D.C. which has a very thriving theater community. So although I could no longer do ingenues, I contented my self with playing “character” parts, which were more interesting anyway. With the death of my husband last May I have ceased my 2nd career, at least temporarily, because it is no longer “fun” without my husband. Were there times of boredom at the never ending diapers and beds to be made and meals to be cooked? Not really…because they were being done for people I love. Were there times of sacrifice and hardship? Of course there were…54 years together is never all wine and roses…but would I trade one single second of that 54 years for anything in the world (including success in show biz)? Not on your sweet tintype!
I hear and understand where Karen is coming from. Women can be severely victimized by controlling, manipulative, or abusive men more so than how a man can victimized by a woman, especially when children are involved. I’ve been cleaning-up the messes created by scumbag men (wife’s X and stepson) who treat women (people and selves for that matter) poorly and abandon their children. This model works for good people and good relationships. What do we do with all the dysfunctional relationships and their damaged children? When I first saw this concept “Distributism” I presumed that I was about to read another naive, liberal, collectivist doctrine of how we care for everyone by having those who work hard must share their fruits for those that can’t, don’t, and/or won’t. I can appreciate the concept and, in fact, this is what I idealize as a quality life-style. The problem is that it is just that, a style, and the question is, does Distributism work when so few practice it?
Chris, Distributism does indeed work when few practice it, and the benefits of living in a way that encourages the restoration of the family are immediate even when not apparent.
I do sympathize with your situation, as my own family circumstances resemble those you’ve mentioned. No doubt you’re discouraged by the abusive “taking” attitude so prevalent today. But we must persevere in building as normal a family life as possible–that is what Distributism is, the life of the family–to set a good example to others who may be wondering where they went wrong, and to strengthen children to withstand our deeply flawed society. If you are raising young children under these conditions, there are years of grueling work ahead of you, and I won’t try to tell you otherwise.
But to try to live in any other way is insane, and I think you know this already. In our situation, my husband and I raised children to adulthood, only to have another relative sell them on his own easy ‘philosophy of life’. We’ve endured ten tough years; now the fallout is undeniable, and these kids are re-thinking their poor choices–you see, they know what a good life is supposed to look like because we gave one to them. Meanwhile, we’re hanging on with prayer. My advice to you is, get up every morning with a smile on your face (a healthy sense of humor) and your sword in your hand (an unfailing defense of the truth). May God bless you.
“How about the husband whose wife is a teacher/game designer/artist? How does she fit in the distributist mold?”
Having stepped into this thread earlier, I might as well get out the hip waders…
Women with a particular vocation and/or special aptitudes fit in just fine. The point we’re getting at here is that the responsibilities of a husband and a wife to each other and their children come first–a wife and mother’s “career” is always secondary, and no doubt this rankles a few ears. I offer no apologies. It is a sad fact that a great many women who have given their all to “the office” are fired at the pinnacle of their accomplishments to make way for a younger, more attractive installment.
I also understand the bitterness of being dumped. It’s a tragedy. But the pain and suffering double (at the very least) if you give in to despair–beat bitterness at its game by refusing to play along. (Or as a friend put it: “Be the kind of woman who when her feet hit the floor in the morning makes the devil say, “Oh crap, she’s up!”)
Boy, Karen would just hate Part Three (Feminism, Or the Mistake About Women) in WWWW. Well, she’d probably hate the whole book, but imagine how she’d react to the author’s opposition to women’s suffrage! Karen, the sexual revolution is over. The men won — and the world is suffering for it.
Actually, Mark T., in feminism and the sexual revolution, there were no winners. Everyone lost. But the biggest losers were women.
Sean, I agree with what you told Matthew…This worldview is Free Market, which is Capitalism. So I’m wondering why in the first sentence you say this is a way to detoxify from “Capitalism”?
Capitalism is not the source of the problem, but the vices of human nature that are found rampant everywhere in all economic systems (and in fact worse in systems other than free market/capitalism). The US is not really a capitalistic (free market) economy due to the nanny state created by the intrusion of all levels of government, and the best way to achieve the goals you said above are for it to become a truly free market.
As an orthodox Catholic, the only system that allows for Distributism in the correct sense is through the true free market made available by Capitalism.
Sean, the short answer to your comment is that if you want a truly free market, then you must detoxify yourself from Capitalism.
Capitalism is antithetical to the free market. In the US, we do have a capitalistic economy. The level of government intrusion you describe is not despite capitalism, but because of it. Under capitalism, Big Business and Big Government are willing partners in the oppression of the Common Man. Free markets are not “made available” by capitalism.
Sean, I appreciate what you are saying. In fact, I agree with all of the 12 steps mentioned above and encourage all people to follow those steps. However, I do see flaws with saying true free market capitalism is antithetical to “free markets.” We must agree on the necessity of private property (and its protection) as well as the rights to the fruits of his work as long as he doesn’t violate the rights of others (Centesimus Annus: “It is through work that man, using his intelligence and exercising his freedom, succeeds in dominating the earth and making it a fitting home…he also has a the responsibility not to hinder others from having their own part of God’s gift” 31). True free market capitalism actually requires that no man or business use the coersive power of the state for his/its benefit (as we see with today in banking & so many other industries), as you suggest always happens with capitalism. This, I agree, is antithetical to free markets and only happens when government oversteps its proper role. In a true free market, all transactions occur between two willing participants (buyer/seller). The entrepreneur who assumes risk & satisfies the needs/wants of consumers may very well grow a large and successful enterprise, and not because he cheated people by use of government intervention (like we see in the US with subsidies, tariffs, entitlements, “green” economy, corporate welfare, etc which violate true free market capitalism). If that entrepreneur does so without cheating, manipulating, or violating others rights, who is to say that there is too much concentration of property/wealth that is against the “common good”? Unfortunately the implementation of distributism would require the coersive power of the state, even if that individual provided great value for the “common good”. He has in fact added to the fabric of civilization by creating what others want and by providing employment to others. Keeping this to economic analysis, I’m assuming one is truly seeking & serving the Kingdom of Heaven and not mammon. (I apologize this got longer than I wanted)
Sean, before I reply, what is “&”?
Thanks,
Sean
Sean,
Sorry I don’t see what you’re referring to. I used & for “and” though sorry if it didn’t come through.
Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
“The most basic unit of society is the individual person”. [Karen]
Not according to the great social scientist Claude Levi Strauss, who says we are identified by a kinship system of four family relationships: brother/sister, husband/wife, father/son and mother’s brother/ sister’s son (i.e.uncle). This “avunculate”, with its link to the larger family of humanity, is the logical product of a defined relations involving four terms. “[It] is, in our view, the true ATOM OF KINSHIP. Nothing can be conceived or given beyond the fundamental requirements of its structure, and in addition, it is the sole building bolock of more complex systems”.
” Distributism *is* free market economics”? [Sean P.] Not while the understanding of ‘market’ remains undefined, more or less vague!
The original idea of a market was a place where two parties could see for themselves what they were trading, whereas now we have wholesale markets in future crops, the businesses which produce them, and the money (i.e. credit) which finances the business: each level less tangible the the previous. I suggest a “free market” is only possible at the first level, where both parties can see what they are getting.
Since the discussion here has largely been about family, let me suggest that an economy based on Levi-Strauss’s “atomic” family (in which individuls are sub-atomic particles) would start with the needs of the children, have the mothers organising consumption, fathers the reproduction of what had used and the unmarried aunts and uncles, with more time on their hands, investing thought in how to make life easier for them.
In a sane Distributist society the Government would lead, not force. It wouldn’t be telling us what WE have to do, it would be telling us what had to be done and organising the means for us to do it. That is more likely to come about by conversion than by revolution.
Dave,
To say “In a sane Distributist society the Government would lead, not force. It wouldn’t be telling us what WE have to do, it would be telling us what had to be done and organising the means for us to do it…” is contrary to all human experience and presupposes that the “all-knowing government” and bureaucrats know what has to be done and organizes it better than individuals and their families and their churches, etc.
Our rights and freedoms (and those of others) are God given and not granted by a government that leads and organizes for us…
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Sean Dailey said he was going to respond to the issues “Sean” posted on March 16, 2011 at 6:27 pm. However, I’ve seen no response. I’d really appreciate one. To me, distributism appears to be a particular implementation of capitalism. Capitalism can be implemented at various gradations of the question of “How big is too big?” Monopolies can be the result of an extreme implementation of capitalism where no corporation can be too big. Distributism appeals to me because it implies that there is a point where business is too big. Where that point is, I don’t know. Who should enforce it, I don’t know. (I certainly don’t like the idea of too much government enforcement.) Finally, at what point do we discourage risk taking for potential future rewards by limiting the size of businesses.
I’m sorry, Laura. The short answer to why I have not yet responded is, I have a magazine to put out also, and have not been able to devote the time to this that I would like. Maybe this weekend, I can post a few thoughts.
Sean
I just joined tonight,and I read this article first.
I feel thankful for finding this site, and I will ponder this article more.
Thank you.
Thank you for joining, Susan!
Distributism was an expression of Chesterton’s idea that the solution to capitalism is more capitalists.
When every man sees the rewards of his labour, he is inspired to work harder. When the profits of his labour simply go to line the pockets of others, he has no such incentive. He can see that his work directly benefits his family too.
I think E.E Smith employed asimilar idea in some of his books, the principle of enlightened self interest. Don’t be a hog, you make more in the long run by not trying to keep everything for yourself (a lesson China really needs to learn).
I just found this conversation, and it has really given me food for thought. Like Laura, I wish Sean Dailey had time to respond to the “other Sean’s” post of March 16, 2011 at 6:27 pm, although it probably wouldn’t be worthwhile at this late date.
Laura’s comment was really interesting to me, though, and I just wanted to share my thoughts for anyone else who runs across this conversation. First Laura’s comment:
“Distributism appeals to me because it implies that there is a point where business is too big. Where that point is, I don’t know. Who should enforce it, I don’t know. (I certainly don’t like the idea of too much government enforcement.)”
I wonder if the only way to “enforce” distributism is through a conversion of hearts and a transformation of culture from within. Legally-enforced distributism would be no better than the current situation if the society remained grasping and profit-centered. On the other hand, if businessmen limited *themselves* with the moral law, generosity, neighborliness, and family-centered values, distributism would come into being automatically. Businesses naturally stay small if they are centered around a family (or if they expand, it is in order to include another family).
Of course, to attempt to change the hearts of an entire nation can seem like an impossible task, and it can seem much simpler to enforce distributism legally. I wonder if this is a temptation, though, which could lead to worse situations than we already suffer from. Patient, loving example in living out the twelve steps Sean outlines in the above article may really be the only effective method.
And after all, there is no such thing as fighting on the winning (or the losing) side. We fight to find out which is the winning side.