(For Part I, click here.)
The widespread distribution of productive property is the primary goal of Distributism; however, other principles also inform Distributism’s pursuit of this goal. The first of these is the principle of subsidiarity. Pope Leo XIII speaks little about it; however, Pope Pius XI, in a daughter encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, teaches it very clearly. The principle of subsidiarity is the simple notion that
[J]ust as it is a crime to take away and hand over to the community those things which can be done with proper struggle and industry by single men, so also it is an injury, a grave fault, and a disruption of right order to summon to the larger and higher society those things which can be done and excelled by smaller and lower communities.[35]
Put simply, subsidiarity dictates that whatever can be done by a smaller unit should not be done by a larger one. This principle clearly leads to the greater distribution of productive property. There is no reason for much of our production of wealth to be so concentrated; Distributism would encourage this overconcentration to be remedied, spreading ownership of productive property more broadly throughout the populace.
It’s important to remember that this principle works both ways. Pius XI notes that “it is rightly argued that certain types of goods must be reserved to the republic since they bear such great power with them, [power] so great that it cannot be permitted to private men by a sound republic.”[36] Nuclear power, an extensive train system, or communications systems might fall into this category. Subsidiarity does not exclude higher authorities from all functioning in society; it simply ensures that lower authorities are not deprived of their rightful role. Distributists respect both sides of the subsidiarity coin; they seek to trust to the state those industries which are so powerful that they carry the potential to dominate the state, while at the same time ensuring that productive property is kept in the smallest possible units, which means that it is as widely distributed among families as possible.
It is true that modern industries are often not amenable to wide scale distribution in the traditional sense; after all, an aircraft factory is not a shoemaker’s shop. But this does not mean that the workers in such factories cannot become owners. Despite our living in a capitalist society, many workers have managed to gain a share in the productive property which they work, and these workers have often been very successful. Spain’s Mondragon[37] and the many cooperatives in Italy’s Emilia Romagna region[38] have proven to the world that worker-owned cooperative production can be just as successful, or even more successful, than the highly centralized production that has unfortunately characterized the industrial age. These and other models of worker ownership can allow productive property to be widely distributed throughout the citizenry even in industries which necessarily require large and centralized works.
The other vital principle which forms Distributism’s pursuit of widely distributed productive property is solidarity. Solidarity is the recognition that a state is a single whole that is possessed not only of many individual goods, but also a single common good.[39] It recognizes the fundamental precept of traditional and Catholic social thinking that the man “who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is… either a beast or a god.”[40] Leo XIII taught that “[c]ivil society exists for the common good, and hence is concerned with the interests of all in general, albeit with individual interests also in their due place and degree.”[41] The organization entrusted with ensuring that particular goods are kept within proper limits and directed toward the common good is the state.[42] Therefore, keeping in mind the principle of subsidiarity, the state guides economic life, including its subsidiary corporations (such as workingmen’s associations[43]), toward the common good, while individual corporations pursue their own particular goods within that framework. This notion of many particular goods subordinated to and cooperating toward a single common good is what we mean by solidarity.
Solidarity has many repercussions in economic thought. It means, for example, that competition, though just within certain limits,[44] cannot serve as the basis for a just economic order[45]; in other words, whatever benefit that businesses seek to obtain by competition cannot come at the cost of the public good. Truly, this is anathema in an age when corporations routinely justify their butchering of the national and even international economies by their obligations to make profits for their shareholders, but it is nevertheless the case. When we remember the singular nature of the state, and the fact that we are all parts of a whole seeking our particular goods within a whole seeking its common good, the proposition that competition is a valid defining principle for economic interaction is clearly untenable.
Furthermore, what has traditionally been known as the preferential option for the poor follows directly from the notion of solidarity. Leo XIII stated that “when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration… wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.”[46] The Church has always taught that “in protecting these rights of private citizens, [the state] must have especially in mind those of the weak and the poor.”[47] The state is one, and all parts of the state are parts of a whole working toward the same common good; it only makes sense, then, that special care should be taken by the whole for those parts which are least able to help themselves.
So how is a Distributist society to be established? That question is impossible to answer generally. What works perfectly in Rochester may be a disaster in Rome, Italy; indeed, what works perfectly in Rochester may be a disaster in Rome, New York. Means for encouraging widespread ownership of productive property, always respectful of the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, will vary by place, condition, climate, economy, culture, government, and innumerable other variables. Catholics need to dedicate themselves to consideration of these measures in their own areas and situations, tailoring them to specific conditions. One condition, however, will be the same always and everywhere, a condition identified by Pope Leo well over a century ago:
[S]ince religion alone, as We said at the beginning, can avail to destroy the evil at its root, all men should rest persuaded that [the] main thing needful is to re-establish Christian morals, apart from which all the plans and devices of the wisest will prove of little avail.[48]
We cannot reclaim society for Christ unless we first reclaim ourselves. To that task, first and foremost, distributists, like all men, must devote all their strength.
Notes
[1] St. Luke 10:7.
[2] Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles(Peter Kirby, trans.; 2001), available at http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html.
[3] Id.
[4] A superb example of such thinking is St. Thomas Aquinas, De Regimine Principum; vel De Regno, available at http://gorpub.freeshell.org/books.html#deregno.
[5] See, e.g., Dr. William Luckey, The Intellectual Origins of Modern Catholic Social Teaching on Economics: An Extension of a Theme of Jesus Huerta de Soto 9 (speech given to the Austrian Scholars Conference at Auburn University, 23-25 March 2000) (arguing that given research “which ought to have been available to [the pope],” “it is hard to excuse Leo XIII”).
[6] See, e.g., id. at 1; see also Rev. Maciej Zieba, O. P., From Leo XIII’s Rerum novarum to John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus 5:1 Journal of Markets & Morality 159 (Spring 2002) (arguing that part of Rerum novarum‘s “tendency is brought to a halt and partly turned around in the first two social encyclicals of John Paul II”).
[7] Pope St. Pius X, Singulari quadam (24 September 1912) (“[i]taque primo loco edicimus catholicorum omnium ocium esse. . . tenere rmiter proterique non timide christian veritatis principia, Ecclesi catholic magisterio tradita, ea prsertim qu Decessor Noster sapientissime in Encyclicis Literris Rerum novarum exposuit”). All translations from the Latin in this work are the author’s, unless otherwise noted.
[8] Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, no. 47 (teaching that “[t]he right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man”). All citations from Rerum novarum are from the English translation available at http://www.vatican.va.
[9] Id. (teaching that “the State has the right to control its [private property's] use in the interests of the public good”).
[10] Id. at no. 45.
[11] Id. at no. 20 (teaching that “before deciding whether wages [are] fair… wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful… that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine”); see also nos. 43{45.
[12] Id. at no. 37.
[13] Id. (teaching that “[t]he richer class have many ways of shielding themselves,… whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own… for this reason [ ] wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government”).
[14] Id. at no. 39.
[15] Id. at no. 41.
[16] Id. at no. 3.
[17] Id. at no. 42.
[18] Id. at no. 45.
[19] Id. at no. 3.
[20] John Medaille, Neo-Feudalism and the Invisible Fist in The Distributist Review, available at http://www.distributistreview.com/mag.
[21 Duane D. Stanford, InBev to Buy Anheuser-Busch, Gains Top Market Share in Bloomberg (14 July 2008), available at http://\-www.\-bloomberg.\-com/\-apps/\-news?pid=newsarchive\&sid=aDm1PPbwrdHc.
[22] Tom Daykin, InBev looks at SABMiller in JSOnline (May 29, 2008), available at http://www.jsonline.com/business/29568214.html.
[23] Dmitry Krasny, And Then There were Eight: 25 Years of Media Mergers, from GE-NBC in Mother Jones (March/April 2007).
[24] James Niccolai, Intel grabs server market share from AMD, says IDC in Network World (19 August 2010), available at http://www.networkworld.com.
[25] Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, no. 3.
[26] Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (The Liberty Fund, 1977).
[27] Id. at no. 62.
[28] Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea in The Basic Works of Aristotle 1003 (Benjamin Jowett trans., Richard McKeon ed., Random House 1941).
[29] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia, Q. 21, Art. 1 (“secundum quam aliquis gubernator vel dispensator dat unicuique secundum suam dignitatem”).
[30] Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, no. 33.
[31] Id. at no. 46.
[32] Id. at no. 47.
[33] Id.
[34] Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (The Liberty Fund 1977).
[35] Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, no. 79 (“sicut qu a singularibus hominibus proprio marte et propria industria possunt perci, nefas est eisdem eripere et communitati demandare, ita qu a minoribus et inferioribus communitatibus eci prstarique possunt, ea ad maiorem et altiorem societatem avocare iniuria est simulque grave damnum ac recti ordinis perturbatio”.
[36] Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, no. 114 (“Etenim certa qudam bonorum genera rei public reservanda merito contenditur, cum tam magnum secum ferant potentatum, quantus pravatis hominibus, salva re publica, permitti non possit”)
[37] See, e.g., Dr. Race Matthews, Mondragon and the Global Economic Meltdown in The Distributist Review (6 June 2010), available at http://distributistreview.com/mag.
[38] See, e.g., John Restakis, The Lessons of Emilia Romagna (30 April 2005), available at http://www.geo.coop/les/BolognaVisits Lessons ER.pdf.
[39] For a lengthier discussion of this, see the author’s Individualism and the State (23 July 2010), available at http://distributistreview.com/mag.
[40] Aristotle, Politics 1131{32 (Benjamin Jowett trans.) in The Basic Works of
Aristotle (Richard McKeon ed., New York: 1941).
[41] Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, no. 51.
[42] Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, no. 49 (“[o]cia vero hc singillatim denire, ubi id necessitas postulaverit neque ipsa lex naturalis prstiterit, eorum est qui rei public prsunt”).
[43] Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, no. 49.
[44] Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, no. 88 (“[a]t liberum certamen, quamquam dum certisnibus contineatur, quum sit et sane utile”).
[45] Id. (“rei conomic rectus ordo non potest permitti libero virium certamini”).
[46] Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, no. 37.
[47] Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, no. 25 (“in ipsis protegendis privatorum iuribus, prcipue inrmorum atque inopum rationem esse habendam”).
Download to PDF










at 6:59 PM
I kind if wish that the Actin crowd would post comments here, using real names, that is.
I swear that the comment threads are as educational to me as the articles you folks post.
I thank you for this education, and all those who comment.
at 10:42 PM
I think the Acton crowd exhausted all their arguments, more or less, IMHO, and have nothing further to add, except they’re right and Distributists are wrong.
at 9:02 AM
Leo’s last observation is what makes distributism attractive in theory, but difficult in execution. That said, capitalism (or, concentrated capitalism) doesn’t do much better of a job, although it does seem to at least ward off some of the greater abuses present in socialist or communist systems. One way to make things work better, although the current climate is very much against it, is to strengthen common law legal remedies for the average man. Tort reform, but in the opposite direction. It is virtually impossible for the state to adequately police concentrated wealth, and in many instances, the state doesn’t want to (as it is beholden to it). But if enough power is given to the “little guy” through the common law system to keep the big boys in check, that would go a long way to keeping the powerful in line. Good luck getting that passed.
at 12:07 PM
Ok, so land and capital are the constituents of productive property. What about intellectual property? Is it productive property?
at 2:07 PM
Intellectual property is not productive property.
at 4:21 PM
Interesting, why?
at 4:22 PM
Interesting, why is that?
at 4:33 PM
Because intellectual property (music, books, etc.) is the result of productive property (press, factory, etc.).
at 6:25 PM
+AMDG
.
Eh. That’s a tricky question, and really beyond the scope of this article. (Too specific; this is a general introduction, after all.) I agree with Paul that intellectual property isn’t productive property, but not because it’s the result of productive property; it isn’t. I don’t think it’s property at all; though many distributists can and do differ with me on this point.
.
Intellectual property (“IP”) isn’t the result of productive property; only the media on which it is recorded is. Sure, letters on paper are the result of a printing press, and CDs with grooves on them are the result of CD presses. But that’s not IP; in fact, it’s normal property, just like shoes or apples, and can be bought and sold without restriction even today. (Though the big media companies wish that it couldn’t be, because they hate people sharing cultural items with one another if they don’t get paid for it.)
.
IP is the stuff that’s on it, and that’s not the result of productive property; it’s the result of intellectual vigor or creativity. (Inclusive disjunctive.) It’s not just letters on paper that’s valuable; it’s these particular letters in these particular combinations, and that’s the result purely of mind, not of productive property.
.
We call it property because we, as a society, assign rights to it in ways that are analogous to those we assign to real and personal property; but it’s still not the same thing. Take a pair of shoes, for example; this is unquestionably property. If I steal that pair of shoes, you can no longer use them. I have gained shoes, and you have lost them. IP isn’t anything like that. If I copy your book, you can still have the full enjoyment of that book, and so can I. I’ve gained something and you’ve lost nothing. (The IP people will claim that the author has lost something; namely, the cost of the book. This argument is fallacious because it assumes that I would’ve bought it if I hadn’t copied it, and because it assumes that the author is entitled to money for every copy of a book he wrote in justice, and because it assumes that the author is actually getting some significant part of that purchase price, which he often isn’t.) The paper and ink is certainly property; the text on it, the IP, arguably isn’t.
.
As a society, we have judged that granting temporary (theoretically temporary, at least; current copyright terms are essentially eternal and consequently pretty plainly unconstitutional, in my opinion) exclusive rights to certain ideas and creative items will encourage the creation of such; indeed, that’s the precise justification of granting patents and copyrights in the American Constitution of 1787. But that’s a policy judgment, not a statement of natural law. We could decide as a society to grant no such rights, or to much more extensively limit them, and commit no injustice. E.g., the original copyright period in America was fourteen years, with *one* optional extension for another fourteen years; this was a policy decision that may have been wise or unwise, but not just or unjust.
.
But again, distributists often disagree about IP, its nature, and its scope; these are only my opinions about it.
.
Praise be to Christ the King!
at 6:59 PM
Sorry, I meant only the media on which it is recorded, printed etc., is the productive property.
at 7:27 PM
BTW, I find myself in agreement with Donald here on IP.
at 7:50 PM
Well that seems like an important issue and probably something that Distributists should get figured out soon.
Its getting really tough to take this whole “capitalism is evil, we just need to promote distribution (whatever that means) productive property” thing if you don’t even have agreement as to whether a song, book, computer program or polio vaccine constitutes property. I’m getting the impression that Distributism is a fun diversion for altar boys (“Pope X said this,” and the “Summa Contra Gentiles” said that”), renaissance fair enthusiasts (“Medieval guilds were so awesome,” those “Hanseatic League jerks get all the best bar wenchs”), internet commandos (the shear meaness of this “Review’s” sycophants) and not a whole lot more. Distributists should consider dropping all the invective (I don’t even know what the Acten Institute is but I do feel bad for them) and seriously step their game up.
at 9:39 PM
Distributism simply means the means of production are in the hands of many people, NOT the few capitalists or the State. Hugh, you don’t seem to want to understand the whole upshot about Distributism. No Distributist would claim a book, computer program, or a song constitutes productive property, at least IMHO! Productive property is property that produces further wealth.
at 9:40 PM
And BTW, what invective? The Austrian capitalists and their allies are always accusing Distributists of being Socialists!
at 9:45 PM
Funny feeling sorry for people you don’t even know or the dispute occasioned for the so-called “invective”. By all accounts they admit that they believe Catholic Social Teaching to be wrong and supporting Socialism!
at 8:30 AM
Productive property is land and capital. “Intellectual property” is neither. Land is unique. Capital is exhausted by use. “Intellectual property” can be replicated and cannot be exhausted.
Does this mean all ideas should be in the public domain? Probably not. For example, the blueprints to construct certain weapons would be a bad thing to have in the public domain.
at 8:54 AM
@Hugh
According to capitalist doctrine the profit motive is regarded as being supreme. If we accept this doctrine as true, then rational people have no incentive to develop ideas if they don’t stand to make a profit. However, some of the greatest works of art were created before capitalist doctrine became hegemonous. I would, therefore, reject this doctrine. People actually are motivated to do things for the good of others and for the betterment of humanity. Why do people volunteer for things, for example? If we accept capitalist doctrine, volunteers shouldn’t exist, or, at least, they should all be crazy.
Catholic doctrine, by contrast, teaches us that people are ultimately motivated to seek God, even if they don’t know it. This is why people who aren’t even Christians do virtuous things without self-interest on a day to day basis. Capitalist doctrine can’t explain this phenomonem.
Therefore, the question we should be asking is not whether distributism is a better system than a capitalist system, but which system is based on a more accurate understanding of the human person. A system based on falsehood will undermine humanity itself. Capitalism, with its deification of the profit motive, corrupts humanity. Distributists often point to the rich-poor divide as an example of this, but it isn’t the only example. The crass materialism of the consumer culture, the meaninglessness that dominates the social psyche and that manifests as an epidemic of mental illness, the rampant individualism, the breakdown of marriage and family, etc. All these things find their roots in the doctrines promoted by capitalistic hegemony.
at 12:25 PM
Hugh, you said, “I’m getting the impression that Distributism is a fun diversion for altar boys (“Pope X said this,” and the “Summa Contra Gentiles” said that”), renaissance fair enthusiasts (“Medieval guilds were so awesome,” those “Hanseatic League jerks get all the best bar wenchs”), internet commandos (the shear meaness of this “Review’s” sycophants) and not a whole lot more.” Why? Because distributist’s don’t agree on whether IP is productive property or not? Do neo-liberals agree on every subject, e.g., taxes, trade, health care, defense, etc? Differences of opinion will always exist as to how a distributist economy functions. I even find myself asking specific questions about how a distributist economy would play out in many different areas. But that is not where the focus should be. The focus should be, as Stephen said above, defining which system more accurately understands the human person. In other words, define the macro and the micro will follow. Capitalism has the macro wrong so we are seeing the negative consequences on the micro side. In fact, we’ve seen 57 boom/bust business cycles since 1790. How can we continue to accept this system? Because of the booms? Distributists would argue a system w/o boom/busts is a better system.
at 8:59 PM
How do we get productive property back? Is Distributism purely agrarian?
at 9:35 PM
Hugh; Do you have a point? The particular tact that is appropriate to divserve discussions varies. Within reason a polemical tone, what you call ‘invective’, can be appropriate. The Church Fathers certainly used harsh wods and ‘invective’ at times, though your scorn for talk of Christian sources perhaps mean you care nothing for the Fathers. Obviously that means there is a massive gulf between you and us and it is a little disingenious for you to hide such differences under talk of meanness and minor internal disagreements amongst Distributists. Regardless I do not see that the Distributist Review is more polemical or ‘mean’ that most partisan political pressure groups.
-
When it comes to IP, it is hard to see that we could ever support the current system. We may disagree about the exact replacement, but we aren’t as divided as you suggest. Luke gives an excellent overview of how Distributists approach such questions.
-
Ann Asher; No Distributism is not purely Agrarian. It tends to support a better rural and urban balance and revival of balanced, small-scale agriculture. There are myriads of practical policies to encrouage a distributive state. These include a land value tax, removal of corporate personhood, privilege and welfare, progressive taxation, various monetary and land reforms and so on.
at 10:46 PM
Unfortunately, it hasn’t quite proved it, because that region of Spain has long experienced a beneficial trickle down spillover from neighbouring parts of France and Spain via smuggling, and because there may also be other factors (did the U.S.A. once prosper because of the character of its people, or because of the natural advantages of its territory and the calamities that befell others – and if the latter, are those themselves related to or derived from the character of the peoples involved, e.g. how the Panama Canal was “stolen fair and square”?). It is impossible to disentangle the gains from better approaches from the gains coming in from flight from burdens that – in practice – fall more heavily elsewhere. So, while it seems plausible that Mondragon in itself produced successful worker-owned cooperative production, “per se et in se”, the empirical evidence may also or instead come from the other factors at work, and claiming it as proof without first establishing further supporting links is “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.
at 12:13 PM
+AMDG
.
No, it’s not post hos ergo propter hoc; that would be an argument that increased economic well-being in the Mondragon region was due to Mondragon itself is proven by the fact that the one followed the other, which nobody has argued.
.
Also, what I said about Mondragon was about *Mondragon*, not about the region in which it is founded. You could say that some of the Basque country’s successes are due to smuggling, say; but if you’re going to say that Mondragon’s successes are due to smuggling, and not due to what it’s actually doing, then I believe the burden of proof falls on you, not on me, who am merely pointing out its remarkable success with a remarkably unusual organization.
.
Praise be to Christ the King!
at 2:21 PM
Doesn’t distributism appear in garage sales, the stores of the Salvation Army, and other similar outlets? If you were to wonder into one of those places, you will often end up owning and finding – not productive property – cups, plates, saucers, and other items. Productive property is often at a loss of ownership by the average man because he is often being encourage to buy and own non-productive property. Most interestingly the non-productive property is mainly at the dinner table of the aristocracy or as one of their old collector’s items.
What would happen if the average man had true ownership of productive property (rather than mere cups and saucers)? I think he may end up being persuaded to use his productive property at home and to produce for the market (no longer working at the office. But, rather, end up working from his own home.) The problem is the pressure upon the owner of being flattered or somehow persuaded (probably from some type of force) to use his property for whatever business manipulates production out of him. The point is productive property must be respected with regard to the owner. And, just laws must be made for the protection of property for the owner (truly ebing distributist.)
at 8:06 PM
Donald Goodman writes : “So how is a Distributist society to be established? That question is impossible to answer generally.
Then take just the US which is rather less general than the world. And then reduce it further to american cities which are similar enough because american cities are similar enough.
What should also be done is toss mondragon in the circular file where it belongs, (along with anyone who uses it), because as paradign it sucks because it’s totally irrelevant and impractical to american society. What you should be doing is looking to companies like New Belgium Brewing because it’s new, moderate in size, and very successful, and hip, and its very american.
Write them and get them to write on your blog because what you really need is practical experience, not more “impossible to answer” mondragon crap because finally the subject must be practical.
at 10:08 PM
To be honest we don’t really need these sorts of examples. We are not communists advocating something counterintuitive. It seems obvious that there is nothing in distributism that on the face of it is unlikely to ‘work’. We can argue about how well it would work according to all the various qualification we may value perhaps, but distributism is prima facie workable.
at 11:41 PM
Wessexman writes : “To be honest we don’t really need these sorts of examples.”
If this is directed to me :
Since examples and advise are given,
What is needed is practical advise that actually reflects reality down on the street. Because the advise that is given no one with practical experience can take seriously.
Distributist writers like big successful companies to the point where small businesses are relegated to non existence status, so at least New Belgium would meet their own corporate way of seeing the world.
at 9:53 AM
Talking about Intellectual property .. Isn’t the IP argument of Distributionism more on the lines of what someone like Richard Stallman of the free software foundation says?
I am just beginning to appreciate the distributivist stuff so i might have perhaps said something stupid .. pardon me :D