Better Red than Roman

by Emanuel Valenza

"The history of all hitherto existing society," opine Marx and Engels in the most quoted line from The Communist Manifesto, "is the history of class struggles," In the past antagonism existed between "freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, (and) guild-master and journeyman." Now the fundamental conflict is between the "bourgeoisie and proletariat." They conclude that "oppressor and oppressed (stand) in constant opposition to one another."1

Hostility between the bourgeoisie (capitalists who own the means of production) and the proletariat (laborers) is, according to Marx, inevitable because their goals are incompatible: owners seek profits and laborers desire higher wages. Because Marx believed that in any economic transaction there is a winner and loser—in other words, both parties cannot benefit from an exchange—profits are for the most part at the expense of wages, and vice versa. As Marx expresses it, "in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the laborer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse."2

The "class struggle" therefore is intrinsic to capitalism. Revolution is unavoidable as the proletariat eventually unites to overthrow their exploiters, the capitalists. Capitalism, the ineluctable successor to Feudalism, gives way, through revolutionary or dialectical change, to Socialism, which in turn inexorably leads to Communism. Lenin writes in State and Revolution: "Only the proletariat—by virtue of the economic role it plays in large-scale production—is capable of being the leader of all the laboring and exploited masses, whom the bourgeoisie exploits ... (and) who are incapable of waging an independent struggle for their emanicipation."3

He adds: "The transition from capitalism to communism certainly cannot but yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat."4

In theory, therefore, wherever Communists come to power rule is exercised by the dictatorship of the proletariat. But we know from experience the Communist Party governs. Stalin explains in The Foundations of Leninism "No army at war can dispense with an experienced General Staff if it does not want to be doomed to defeat. Is it not clear the proletariat can still less dispense with such a General Staff if it does not want to allow itself to be devoured by its mortal enemies? But where is this General Staff? Only the revolutionary party of the proletariat can serve as this General Staff. The working class without a revolutionary party is an army without a General Staff.

The Party is the General Staff of the proletariat."5

The dictatorship of the proletariat, with the Communist Party at the helm, will transform the world into Utopia. Lin Shoo-Chi in his book, "How to be a Good Communist," describes this earthly paradise:

"In such a world there will be no exploiters, oppressors ... darkness, ignorance, backwardness, etc. (A)All human beings will become unselfish and intelligent Communists with a high level of culture and technique. The spirit of mutual assistance and mutual love will prevail among mankind.... Such a society will, of course, be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in the history of mankind."6

According to Marxist-Leninist doctrine, the end—World Communism—justifies the means. A statement is true and an act is good if they promote the proletarian revolution. Conversely, a statement is false and an act is evil if the revolution is not benefited. Lenin writes:

"In what sense do we repudiate ethics and morality? In the sense that they were preached by the bourgeoisie, who declared that ethics were God's commandments. We, of course, say that we do not believe in God....We repudiate all morality that is taken outside of human, class concepts.... We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat."7

As the General Staff of the proletariat, the Party determines what is true and good, or what is good for the revolution. This entails nothing less than interpreting each and every event in conformity with Marxist-Leninist categories. History is used, in the words of Herbert Schlossberg, as a "polemical devise."8 Or, as Frank S. Meyer puts it, the Communist intellect "is totally at the service of a single and compelling idea, made incarnate in the Communist Party: the concept of History as an inexorable god whose ways are revealed 'scientifically' through the doctrine and method of Marxism-Leninism. "9

History as a Polemical Device: The Spanish Civil War

Even though any number of examples could be cited to prove that history is used as a polemical device by Communists, the Spanish Civil War is especially worthy of study for several reasons: 1) The propaganda campaign of Communists has been so successful that scholars continue to write books and articles whitewashing the Socialist-Communist tyranny while comparing Franco to Hitler. "No episode of the '30's," writes Paul Johnson, "has been more lied about than this one."10 2) A strong anti-Catholic bias is one reason why Franco has been lambasted by historians. His crime? He was a Catholic who defended Catholic Spain from, in his words, "Socialism, Communism and other formulae which attack civilization to replace it with barbarism."11 3) The Spanish Civil War is representative of how Communists view the Church, namely as their "chief object of hatred."12

Typical of the books on the War is Paul Preston's "The Spanish Civil War" (N.Y. Grove Press, Inc., 1986). It is pure Communist propaganda. The Loyalists (the Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists) are portrayed as the embodiment of everything that is true and good.

On the other hand, Franco and his supporters, the Nationalists—so-called because "they stressed national values, and ... the cry 'Viva Espana!' was used among them"13—are considered the most vile of people.

In the Introduction Preston writes that his book is "interpretative rather than descriptive."14 He is correct: description is shunned because it precludes a favorable Communist interpretation. Some examples:

"It is a central theme of this book," writes Preston, "that the Civil War was the culmination of uneven struggles between the forces of reform and reaction...."15 of course, the "reformers" are the Communist and pro-Communist forces who "represent" the Spanish workers ("the oppressed"). The "reactionaries" are the "reactionary landholders, industrialists, and bankers"16 who used the Army "above all to defend their social and economic interests."17 They are "the oppressors."

The Real Cause: Leftist Despotism

Agitprop aside, the War was the culmination of a Catholic country's outrage against Leftist-Socialist policies and actions; and a split within the Socialist Party itself.

Consider:

After King Alfonso XIII was forced to leave Spain in 1931, an election held in June was won by the Left. The so-called "Second Republic" proceeded to disestablish Catholicism as the official religion of Spain. Moreover: 1) No State payments to the clergy and religious orders were permitted; 2) religious orders requiring a vow of obedience to an authority other than the State were evaporated; 3) Church property and education were nationalized; and 4) members of religious orders could not hold jobs in industry, commerce, and education.18

In addition, the pernicious Law for the Defense of the Republic was used by the Socialists the same way the Soviets employ the label "Anti-Soviet activity". Constitutional guarantees are on paper only.19

Legislative Tyranny translated into anarchy. "The birth of the Republic," observes Erik von Kuehnett-Leddihn, "was marred by endless acts of mob violence, by the burning of churches and monasteries, by endless strikes, by outbreaks of brigandage and a rapid decline of general security."20

Spain decided it is better to be dead than Red. The Spanish Civil War—"The Crusade"—began July 18, 1936.

Manuel Azana, Republican Minister of War and author of the Law for the Defense of the Republic, enjoyed all this violence. He declared, "all the convents in Madrid are not worth the life of one Republican."21

When the "Popular Front" won a narrow electoral victory in 1936, Azana was again the leader of the Socialist Party. Because the Party couldn't (wouldn't ?) control barbarous acts of the militant Left-republicans, socialists, anarchists, and Communists—the story was much the same as in 1931. During the first four months of Popular Front rule, the following atrocities occurred: 160 churches burned (arsonists attempted to burn another 284 buildings, 251 of them churches); 269 (mainly) political murders; 1,287 instances of assault; 113 "general strikes"; 228 partial strikes; and 10 newspaper offices plundered.22

With the Socialist Party leaning closer and closer to Communism, and anarchy in the streets, Catholic Spain decided it is better to be dead than Red. The Spanish Civil War—"The Crusade"—began July 18, 1936.

"Mistakes Were Made"

None of the Socialist-Communist savagery, whether done before or during the War, is mentioned by Preston. The Nationalists, in his eyes, had a monopoly on tragedy. Consider: a caption on the top of page 3 reads: "Death and destruction were the inevitable companions of (Franco's) military conquest." "Guernica," (a town in Northern Spain destroyed by the Luftwaffe fighting for Franco), "was the first total destruction of an undefended target by aerial bombardment."23 And we read much about the "Falangist terror squads."

What about Leftist barbarism? Preston's "harshest" statement is, " While mistakes were made, the Spanish Republic was an attempt to provide a better way of life for the humble members of a repressive society."24 Mistakes? Why is it that anti-Communist forces are called "terror squads", but the most vile of acts, if done in the name of a "better society," are "mistakes"? Ponder some of the "errors" Republicans were guilty of during the War:

20% of the bishops were murdered (11 out of 55) 12% of the monks were slaughtered (2,400 out of 20,000) 13% of the priests slain (4,550 out of 35,000).

Some 283 nuns murdered.25 The defilement of cemeteries," writes Erik von Kuehnett-Leddihn, "was practiced as an exquisite act."26

"(A) favorite sport in Barcelona during the Civil War," observes Frederick Wilhelmsen, "consisted in mounting machine-guns in the portals of churches and spraying the Tabernacle of the Altar. Disinterring dead nuns and violating them publicly ran a close second." 27

Erik von Kuehnett-Leddihn quotes Salvador de Madareaga: "(T)he mere fact of being a priest was tantamount to a capital sentence, and the fact that no Catholic worship was allowed at all till the end of the War or very nearly, and that churches and cathedrals were used as markets and thoroughfares for animal-driven vehicles cannot be disputed."28

In short, the Socialist-Communist faction "persecuted the Church with far greater savagery than even the Russian Communists (of 1917) did," to quote Erik von Kuehnett-Leddihn.29 As long as Communism exists, it will persecute the Church. "There can be nothing more abominable," wrote Lenin, "than religion." 30

Means To An End

Preston not only fails to mention these tragic states of affairs, he contends that they existed only in the minds of right-wing reporters. Catholics and members of the middle class supported Franco, he writes, because they "were appalled by the view of Republican disorder and anti-clericalism generated by the rightest press."31 (My emphasis).

But even if he were to acknowledge these atrocities, Preston would no doubt affirm they are necessary in order to build a Communist Utopia. He quotes with approval Buenaventura Durniti, the anarchist leader of the Republicans: "We are not afraid of ruins, we are going to inherit the earth. The bourgeoisie may blast and ruin their world before they leave the stage of history. But we carry a new world in our hearts."32 Preston himself writes, "During the Spanish Civil War...the struggle...was still seen as merely the first step to building a new egalitarian world out of the depression."33

Franco: Another Hitler!

Franco is hated because he spoiled the party. Preston goes as far as to compare him to Hitler: "(Republican) Spain was the last bulwark against the horrors of Hitlerism."34 (Preston does not give the "horrors of Stalinism" a second thought). Because Hitler supported Franco, Preston apparently thinks it is a case of "birds of a feather flock together". How absurd. Franco was a God-fearing man, not a son of Satan, as the following indicates: Nationalist troops dipped regimental banners into the sea, then had them blessed by a priest.35

At St. Barbara's Church, on Palm Sunday, the day after the Madrid Victory Parade, Franco and his family assisted at a Mass in which he dedicated the Nationalist Victory to God. The celebrant was Cardinal Goma, Primate of Spain.36

Franco reestablished the Church and returned property to the religious orders. Religious education was reintroduced, and the cemeteries were returned to ecclesiastical jurisdiction.37

Franco was buried behind the main altar of the basilica of the Valley of the Fallen, under a huge cross which is three times the size of the Statue of Liberty.38

Preston's Goal: Objectivity

Because he follows the Party line, and the Party line is the truth, Preston insists that The Spanish Civil War is a model of sound scholarship. His purpose was to "find a perfect balance between both sides."39 Topping his book off with a dedication to the International Brigades (Communist armies which infiltrated Spain to fight for the Loyalists), Preston is quite pleased with the result: "With such a team of friends to help, it seems astonishing that any book could still have shortcomings."40

Conclusion

Preston avers that the Republicans were "trying to drag Spain into the 20th century."41 This is another way of saying the Republicans wanted a Communisit Spain. For the 20th century is the century of Communism: half the globe is enslaved by it. In a war which lasted nearly three years, and cost one million lives, Catholic Spain said, "We rather be Roman than Red." She was practically alone in this assertion. As Frederick Wilhelmsen has written, "Franco won and then he held the line against the whole world."42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

1. Essential Works of Marxism, ed. Arthur P. Mendel (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1961(1963), pp.13-14.

2. Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1919), pp.708-709. Cited in Thomas Sowell, Marxism: Philosophy and Economics (New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc., 1985), p.140.

3. Mendel, op.cit, p.119.

4. Ibid, p.127.

5. Ibid, pp.283-284.

6. Cited in Fred Schwarz, You Can Trust the Communists to be Communists (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960), p.30.

7. Lenin, "The Tasks of the Youth League," (Speech delivered at the Third All-Russian Congress of the Russian Youth Communist League, Oct. 2, 1920), in Selected Works (New York: International Publishers), 1943), Vol.IX, pp.474, 475, 477. Cited in Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., The Gods of Atheism (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1971(1975), p.109.

8. Herbert Schlossberg, Idols For Destruction (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), pp.19-20.

9. Frank S. Meyer, The Moulding of Communists (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961) p.16.

10. Paul Johnson, Modern Times (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1983), p.326.

11. Ibid, p.323.

12. Ibid, p.326.

13. Erik von Kuehnett-Leddihn, Leftism (N.Y.: Arlington House, 1974), p.265.

14. Preston, p.VII

15. Preston, p.9.

16. Preston, p.19.

17. Preston, p.24.

18. Article "Spain," Encyclopedia Brittannica, Inc., Vol.21, 1963, p.136.

19. Ibid, p.137.

20. Erik von Kuehnett-Leddihn, p.264.

21. Preston, p.23.

22. Paul Johnson, p.326. cf also Encyclopedia Brittannica, p.138.

23. Preston, p.4.

24. Ibid, p.VII.

25. Modern Times, p.327.

26. Leftism, p.260.

27. Frederick Wilhelmsen, "Adios: Francisco Franco", reprinted in his Citizen of Rome (La Salle, Ill.: Sherwood Sugden & Company, 1979) p.231.

28. Leftism, p.547 & 78.

29. Ibid, p.269.

30. Quoted in Modem Times, p.50.

31. Preston, p.2.

32. Ibid, p.4.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Preston, p.153.

36. Ibid, p.174.

37. Encyclopedia Brittannica, op.cit, p.140.

38. Wilhelmsen, op.cit., pp.222, 233.

39. Preston, p.VII

40. Ibid.

41. Preston, p.4.

42. Wilhelmsen, p.223.


The Angelus

Read more...

Catholic Whiggery: The Neo-Conservative Betrayal Of Church Social Teaching

by Dr. Peter Chojnowski

In the past 20 years or so, we have witnessed, especially here in the United States, the emergence of what some authors have termed, "Catholic Whiggery." This movement, best exemplified by such authors as Michael Novak and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, is but an attempt at a Catholic version of the more encompassing "Neo-Conservative" movement, which has its origins with anti-Stalinist Trotskyites, who came to be considered "conservatives" during their years of opposition to Soviet Communism during the Cold War.

Led by such intellectuals as Irving Kristol, the "Neo-Cons," as they are called, embraced the "Whig Tradition," which found its modern-day expression in the social and economic writings of Friedrich von Hayek. Hayek, a Libertarian and northern European secularist, attempted to revive and promote the Whig tradition, which advances laissez-faire economics, secular democracy, and religious and cultural pluralism. This Whig tradition could be said to have its ideological origin in the writings of the defender of the English Revolution of 1688, John Locke. (This so-called "Glorious Revolution" was the which overthrew the legitimate Catholic Stuart monarch James II and placed James's Protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange jointly on the British throne.)

To understand the "world vision" of these contemporary Liberals (i.e., Libertarians), we must first remember that they themselves trace their ideological origins to the 18th- century Enlightenment. Michael Novak has described the scheme of these Enlightenment theorists and political leaders as follows:

One of the great achievements of the Whig tradition was its new world experiment, the Novus Ordo Seclorum (the New Order of the Ages). Its American progenitors called that experiment the commercial republic. The Whigs were the first philosophers in history to grasp the importance of basing government of the people upon the foundation of commerce. They underpinned democracy with a capitalist, growing economy.1

That such a Liberal ideology could prevail amongst secularists and non-Catholics groping for an alternative to post-World War II Soviet Communism and Fabian Socialism is not terribly surprising. What is surprising is that such an ideological view could be defended by Catholic thinkers who, subsequently, attempt to "discover" a "Catholic Whig tradition" running back in time to St. Thomas Aquinas. That such Catholic Whigs are claiming to base their circumvention of the entire Catholic Social Teaching on the "Whiggery" of certain "late Spanish Scholastics" is well known. Novak himself attempts to make the Angelic Doctor a precursor of this "tradition" by claiming that St. Thomas's belief in "ordered liberty," mixed government (i.e., several different bodies of the State exercising the various powers of Sovereignty and serving as a hindrance to the emergence of tyranny), and his belief in man's powers of "reflection and choice," puts him firmly in the camp of Democratic Capitalism. The untenable nature of this claim, especially in light of St. Thomas's condemnation of usury, his understanding of the common good, and his unequivocal position that monarchy is the best form of human government, causes Novak, in various places in his writings, to rely on the more standard Whig philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith to ground his ideological defense of democratic capitalism, American-style. His laudatory rhetoric in praise of these thinkers and the System they spawned often descends to the level of the blasphemous and the absurd. In an article entitled, "A Theology of the Corporation," Novak cites the memorable and moving last words of the young Abbe d'Ambricourt, "Grace is everywhere," to offer "signs of grace in the [multinational] corporation." In this regard, Novak finds seven such "signs," which he states is a "suitably sacramental number."2

In an appendix to this same article, Novak acknowledges that the Capitalist Idea, which is part and parcel of the Whig ideology, owes its origins to the Enlightenment thinkers Locke, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith, and the "economic development," which they uniquely initiated, was brought about first with the "white race and the Anglo-Saxon peoples, and, indeed, of a few philosophers."3

We can fully understand the inflated claims of this advocate of the enlightened Liberal New Age, when we read that, "The notion that poverty could be diminished was born with John Locke and Adam Smith."4

Those who were against these "few" enlightened, poverty-hating thinkers were "many Continental philosophers and theologians-Latins, Germans, Slavs-[who] opposed 'Manchester liberalism' all through the 19th century, disliking it intensely."5

What is heartening for those who seek to uphold the Catholic Church's Social Teachings against this new Capitalist Messianism of the Catholic Whig is Novak's dismissal of those social teachings with his statement that, "The papal encyclicals treat it [meaning Liberal Capitalist theory] as a Protestant heresy."6

What is at the core of this Liberal ideological view, shared in full by the "Catholic Whigs" of our own time, are the ideas of social, political, religious, and economic individualism and the subsequent non-interventionism of the State. It was the task of John Locke to philosophically ground this Whiggish Liberal world-view, while it fell to Montesquieu to formulate the exact nature of the Liberal Commercial Republic of the post-Enlightenment period. The descriptive part was easy. Montesquieu understood the Liberal regime to be a union of fellow citizens, bound together, not so much by ties of friendship, as by contract. This alliance of contracting parties was intent upon maximizing their freedom of choice through a confederation of convenience. In such a socio-political order, men found themselves cut off from one another or, at best, linked through a market mechanism. What would happen if this Liberal Republic was realized, would be a world in which everything had its price and, accordingly, its sellers and buyers. A marketplace of arms' length transactions would replace political community.

As we can surmise, religion is of no importance in such a commercial republic. This is why Locke restricts religion to the private sphere. Couldn't we say that it is exactly this restriction that distinguishes the Liberal regime from the regimes of Old Europe? This Whig view, which understands government to be constituted by contracting individuals and whose sole purpose is to insure the execution of the contracts made between individuals, cannot but alter Christendom's understanding of what the purpose of civil society is. In his first Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke argues for the civic toleration of all religions (except the intolerable anti-liberal Catholic one) by making the following claim about the nature of civil society itself:

The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing of their own civil interests. Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.

Locke is even more explicit as regards his understanding of a Liberal political order when he states, in his Second Treatise on Government, that,

The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting.

Any idea of a common end of all the members of society and of society as a whole is completely lacking in this political view. The religion of the people, along with their growth in the virtues of faith, hope, and charity are certainly not the concern of the rulers of such a Liberal State. As Locke states in the same text,

If a heathen doubt of both Testaments, he is not therefore to be punished as a pernicious citizen. The power of the magistrate and the estates of the people may be equally secure whether any man believe these things or no. I readily grant that these opinions are false and absurd. But the business of the laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the commonwealth and of every particular man's goods and person.

According to this analysis, then, government is only delegated the task of guaranteeing the private relationships and agreements initiated by the individual citizens themselves. Society does not have a corporate task, responsibility, or goal. Any goal which transcends the one of material acquisition and psychophysical contentment is considered beyond the legitimate realm of State interest and concern. "Providing the conditions necessary for the advancement in virtue and the ultimate attainment of Heaven" is out. Christendom is nullified. The past, made up of completely non-Liberal societies, is to be initially vilified and then forgotten. All the Whig theorists advance this same goal, whether Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Lord Acton, or Michael Novak. Indeed, this rejection of the idea of socially and economically significant State intervention in the affairs of the commonweal is the very essence of the ideology of the Whigs, whether neo-Catholic or non-Catholic. Novak himself states this when he writes,

The foundational concept of democratic capitalism, then, is not, as Marx thought, private property [which it would be, of course, for Distributism]. It is limited government. Private property, of course, is one limitation on government. What is interesting about private property is not that I own something, that I possess; its heart is not 'possessive individualism'....Quite the opposite. The key is that the state is limited by being forbidden to control all rights and all goods.7

What is little realized by those who attempt to stand up to the steam roller of Whiggery, whether in its Catholic or non-Catholic versions, is the fact that Locke constructed an entire theory of human knowledge for the express purpose of bolstering the Whig theory of government and society. This theory is called "empiricism" and has shaped the minds of most men in the Anglo-American world since that time. It can be understood as the theoretical foundation of all the Liberal claims about man and the world of men. Fundamentally, this theory claims that human knowledge is limited to the external appearances of things in the world. The very "substantial being" of things, the essence of created things and structures in the natural world, cannot be known by the human mind. Substance, according to Locke, is "I know not what." The importance of this basic philosophical stand cannot be overerestimated. If man, and, more importantly, the embodiment of the society of men, the State, cannot know the "what" of things, he certainly cannot know the "why" of things. Locke allowed that individual men could know the "why" of things by blind faith alone. The State, however, has not the authorization or the competence to speculate as to the "why" of things. Therefore, any theological or philosophical teachings that answer the question "why" are strictly beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse. The State is simply relegated to keeping the individual citizens, who come up with their own private "whys," off each other's back and, most importantly, out of each others wallets!


Dr. Peter E. Chojnowski has an undergraduate degree in Political Science and another in Philosophy from Christendom College. He also received his master's degree and doctorate in Philosophy from Fordham University. He and his wife, Kathleen are the parents of five children. He teaches for the Society of Saint Pius X at Immaculate Conception Academy, Post Falls, ID.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Taken from Thomas Storck, "The Social Order as Community" in Caelum et Terra, Fall 1996.

2. Michael Novak, "A Theology of the Corporation," in The Corporation: A Theological Inquiry (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Reseach, 1981), pp.206-207.

3. Ibid.,p.225.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., p. 209. Cf. For a complementary view, see Paul Johnson, "Is There a Moral Basis for Capitalism?" in Democracy and Mediating Structures: A Theological Inquiry, ed. Michael Novak (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1980), pp.49-58.

©Dr. Peter Chojnowski

Read more...

Distributism: Economics as if People Mattered

by Dr. Peter Chojnowski

In truly "prophetic" utterances, the analysis of present circumstances, along with a consideration of the laws written into human nature which manifest themselves in history, can yield a prediction concerning the general outline of things to come. This judgment of the well-informed and perceptive mind, is somewhat undermined by only one factor. The universe and the "universe" of human society in which the inherent laws written into human nature by its Creator reveal themselves in historical events, is also a universe which contains free creatures who are undetermined as regards the means they can employ to achieve their specifically human end. Human freedom inserts a variable in the material necessity of the universe. This contingency and variability has its ultimate source in the spirituality of the human soul. It is precisely on account of his materialistic rejection of the human soul, that Karl Marx, for instance, could make such ridiculously precise predictions as to the "necessary" movement of economic, political, and social history. This does not mean, however, that there is not an inherent natural law which determine which human endeavors will "work" and which will lead to catastrophe. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, there were a group of scholars, theologians, philosopher, social critics, and poets, who predicted the inevitable demise of the capitalist economic system which was just developing in Continental Europe, but had been operative for 100 years in England. When you read their works, especially the British authors of the early 20th century, here we include Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Arthur Penty, one is struck by the fact that their analyzes are more valid today than they were 70 or 80 years ago, their predictions more likely to be imminently fulfilled. What they predicted was nothing less than the collapse of the capitalist system. In the case of Belloc, in his book The Servile State, it was predicted that capitalism would soon transform itself into an economic and social system which resembled the slave economies of the pre-Christian and early Christian eras. Why did they predict such a collapse or inevitable transformation? In their writings, many reasons are given, however, we can narrow them down to three. The first, they referred to as the "capitalist paradox." The paradox is a consequence of capitalism being an economic system which, in the long run, "prevents people from obtaining the wealth produced and prevents the owner of the wealth from finding a market." Since the capitalist strives both for ever greater levels of production and lower wages, eventually "the laborer who actually produces say, boots cannot afford to buy a sufficient amount of the boots which he himself has made." This leads to the "absurd position of men making more goods than they need, and yet having less of those goods available for themselves than they need."1

The second reason is now more pertinent than when it was first given. The capitalist system, by its very nature, places the preponderance of wealth in the hands of a small minority. This monopoly on the money supply by banking and financial concerns, becomes more absolute as the capital-needing consumer must go to the banks to borrow money. Usury, now called "interest," insures that those who first possesses the money for loan, will end up with a greater portion of the money supply than they possessed before the loan was issued. As wages stagnate and interest payments become increasingly impossible to make, massive numbers of defaults will inevitably produce a crisis for the entire financial system.2 When entire nations default on loans, there will be a crisis throughout the entire international financial system. Demise is, therefore, built into the very structure of the capitalistic system in which capital (i.e., all kinds of wealth whatsoever which man uses with the object of producing further wealth, and without which the further wealth could not be produced. It is a reserve without which the process of production is impossible)3 is primarily in the hands of the few. As G.K. Chesterton rightly stated, the problem with capitalism is that it produces too few capitalists! The third fact concerning capitalism which the Distributists thought would inevitably bring down the system or lead to its fundamental transformation, was the general instability and personal insecurity which marks a full-blown capitalist economy. What accounts for this general feeling of insecurity and instability, which characterizes both the individual "wage-earner" and the society living under capitalism, is the always present fear of unemployment and, hence, of destitution and the fact that a laborer's real wages leave him with only enough money to cover the expenses of the day. Saving, so as to provide an economic hedge against the misfortune of unemployment or personal crisis, becomes almost impossible.4

The above were only some of the reasons why the Distributists, who formed the Distributist League in 1926, thought that the capitalist economy would eventually collapse. These were not, however, the only problems which they found with the system.

The social consequences of the majority being unable to afford real property, the decline and, eventual, disappearance of the trade guilds and vocational corporations, the "necessity" of wives and mothers entering the "work force," the end of small-scale family -owned businesses and farms, the decline of the apprentice system were all indictments of capitalism in the mind of those who sought to chart out a "third way" between capitalism, which is simply liberalism in the economic sphere, and socialism.

There is little doubt that the problems with capitalism which were cited by the Distributists have only grown in their proportion in our own time. The concentration of wealth, exemplified by the recent merger of Citicorp and Travelers which produced the largest banking institution in the United States with assets of $700 billion, simply boggles the mind. The institution of usury, always an necessary adjunct of economic liberalism, has caused in recent years more bankruptcies and personal debt than ever before in history. Nations, such as Indonesia, are tottering on the brink of social, economic, and political chaos because of their inability to pay the interest on their hundreds of billions of dollars in bank debt. If such a nation should go into default, it could threaten to throw a whole variety of nations into recession, depression, or worse.

It is not proper to say that the predictions of the imminent demise of capitalism were totally without fulfillment. The 1920s, 30s, and 40s witnessed reaction after reaction to the radical individualism which is the fundamental idea of liberal capitalism. Truly, the market is the institutionalization of individualism and non-responsibility. Neither buyer nor seller is responsible for anything but himself.5 The idea that if every man simply seeks after his own economic interest, all will be provided for and prosper, was almost universally rejected during these decades. We see strong reactions to economic liberalism in Russian Communism, German National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Austrian, Portuguese, and Spanish Corporatism, British Fabian Socialism, along with the American "New Deal" leftism. Thus, in the 1930s and 1940s, most of the world was ordered by ideologies which explicitly rejected the premises of economic liberalism. We must, also, not forget the international economic crash of the late 20s and early 30s, which produced economic depression, totalitarian regimes, and, finally, world war.

There is one fact which separates our day from the days of the 30s and 40s, however. The concentration of wealth and capital, the inadequacy of a man's pay to provide the basics of life and to provide for savings for the future, the lack of real property generously and broadly distributed, is masked by the reality of easy credit. Easy credit, which is not ultimately "easy" at all on the borrower, anesthetizes the populace to the grim facts of capitalist monopoly. Since we seem to be able to get all the things that we want, the reality of real money being increasingly unavailable to the average man is lost in the delusionary state of the consumerist utopia. Only when the "benefit" of usurious credit is cut off, do we realize the full extent of the problem. The greatest problem with liberal capitalism, however, is not the concentration of wealth or real property, the greatest "existential" problem created by capitalism is the problem of the very meaning and reality of work. To work is essential to what it means to be a human being. Next to the family, it is work and the relationships established by work that are the true foundations of society.6 In modern capitalism, however, it is productivity and profit which are the basic aims, not the providing of satisfying work. Moreover, since "labor saving" devices are the proudest accomplishments of industrial capitalism, labor itself is stamped with the mark of undesirability. But what is undesirable cannot confer dignity.7

It is not merely that industrial capitalism has produced forms of work, both manual and white-collared, which are "utterly uninteresting and meaningless. Mechanical, artificial, divorced from nature, utilizing only the smallest part of man's potential capacities, [sentencing] the great majority of workers to spending their working lives in a way which contains no worthy challenge, no stimulus to self-perfection, no chance of development, no element of Beauty, Truth, Goodness."8 Rather, capitalism has so fundamentally alienated man from his own work, that he no longer considers it his own. It is those with the financial monopoly who determine what forms of work are to exist and which are "valuable" (i.e., useful for rendering profits to the owners of money).9 Since man spends most of his days working, his entire existence becomes hollowed out, serving a purpose which is not of his own choosing nor in accord with his final end.

In regard to the entire question of a "final end," if we are to consider capitalism from a truly philosophical perspective, we must ask of it the most philosophical of questions, why? What is the purpose for which all else is sacrificed, what is the purpose of continuous growth? Is it growth for growth's sake? With capitalism, there is no "saturation point," no condition in which the masters of the system say that the continuous growth of corporate profits and the development of technological devices has ceased to serve the ultimate, or even the proximate, ends of mankind. Perhaps, the most damning indictment of economic liberalism, indeed, of any form of liberalism, is its inability to answer the question "why."

A) Corporatism: The Catholic Response

1) The History of the "Third Way"

To understand the history of the "Third Way," a name given to an economic system which is neither Marxist nor Capitalist by French corporatist thinker Auguste Murat (1944), we must consider the social, political, and economic realities which originally motivated its main advocates. Originally, "Corporatism," later to be termed "Distributism" by its British advocates Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, was a response on the part of German traditionalists and Catholics to the inroads which the ideology of the French Revolution had made into their country in the early and middle years of the 19th century. The institutions which were being defended in Corporatist thought were the ancient "estates" or "guilds" which had been the pillars of Christian Germany for centuries. These corporate bodies, grouping together all the men of a particular occupation or social function, were an institutional opposition to the revolutionary doctrines of individualism and human equality. One early rightist thinker, Adam Muller, upheld the traditional idea of social stratification based upon an organic hierarchy of estates or guilds (Berufstandische). Such a system was necessary on account of the essential dissimilarity of men. Moreover, such a system would prevent the "atomization" of society so much desired by the revolutionaries who wished to remake in a new form that which had been pulverized by liberalism.10

2) Von Ketteler and the Guild System

It was, however, a German nobleman and prelate, Wilhelm Emmanuel, Baron von Ketteler (1811-1877), Bishop of Mainz, who directed Corporatism into new avenues and forced it to address new concerns. The realities which Bishop von Ketteler knew the Catholic mind had to address was the new reality of industrialism and economic liberalism. As Pope Leo XIII himself admitted on several occasions, it was the thought of Bishop von Ketteler which helped shape his own encyclical letter on Catholic economic teaching Rerum Novarum (1891).11 The "new things" His Holiness was addressing were capitalism and socialism. Both meet with his condemnation, although capitalism is condemned with strong language as an abuse of property, a deprivation of the many by the few, while socialism is dismissed outright as being contrary to man's inherent right to own property.12

Von Ketteler, also, in his book Die Arbeiterfrage und das Christenthum (Christianity and the Labor Problem), attacks the supremacy of capital and the reign of economic liberalism as the two main roots of the evils of modern society. Both represented the growing ascendancy of individualism and materialism, twin forces that were operating to "bring about the dissolution of all that unites men organically, spiritually, intellectually, morally, and socially." Economic liberalism was nothing but an application of materialism to society." The working class are to be reduced to atoms and then mechanically reassembled. This is the fundamental generative principle of modern political economy."13 What Ketteler sought to remedy was "This pulverization method, this chemical solution of humanity into individuals, into grains of dust equal in value, into particles which a puff of wind may scatter in all directions."14 Bishop von Ketteler's solution to this problem of the pulverization of the work force and the ensuing injustice which this would inevitably breed, was to propose an idea which was the central concept of medieval and post-medieval economic life, the guild system. When responding to a letter from a group of Catholic workers who had submitted the question "Can a Catholic Workingman be a member of the Socialist Worker's Party?," Bishop von Ketteler outlined the basic structure of these vocational guilds or Berufstandische: First, "The desired organizations must be of natural growth; that is, they must grow out of the nature of things, out of the character of the people and its faith, as did the guilds of the Middle Ages." Second, "They must have an economic purpose and must not be subservient to the intrigues and idle dreams of politicians nor to the fanaticism of the enemies of religion." Third, "They must have a moral basis, that is, a consciousness of corporative honor, corporative responsibility, etc. Fourth, "They must include all the individuals of the same vocational estates." Fifth, "Self-government and control must be combined in due proportion."

The guilds which von Ketteler was advocating were to be true social corporations, true vocational "bodies" which were to have a primarily economic end, and yet, be animated by the "soul" of a common faith. These "bodies," just like all organic entities, would be made up of distinct parts all exercising a unique role in their particular trade. In the days of corporate giants and trade unions, it is, perhaps, impossible to imagine vocational organizations which include both owners and workers, along with technicians of all types. These organizations would regulate all aspects of their particular trade, including wages, prices for products, quality control, along with certifying that all apprentices has the requisite skills to adequately perform the guild's particular art.

3) The Guild System and Social Solidarity

Following the intellectual path charted by von Ketteler, another German Catholic, Franz Hitze (1851-1921), wrote of the social, psychological, and, even, spiritual purposes which would be served by the vocational corporations or guilds. Claiming that "economic freedom" was only a myth serving to disguise the fact that capital actually ordered things completely with a single eye to its own advantage, Hitze saw no alternative to the economic and social control traditionally exercised by the guilds. It would be such organizations which overcame the antagonism between capital and labor which fed Marxist propaganda. In his book Kapital und Arbeit und die Reorganisation der Gesellschaft (Capital and Labor and the Reorganization of Society), Hitze states that such organizations would also end the fierce competition which is totally inconsistent with the idea of the Common Good and social solidarity. This idea that an economy can be ordered on the basis of "mutuality" and the identification of the interests of employer and employee, is difficult for those who assume that an economic system must be powered by competition and self-interest. It must be remembered, however, that such was the economic system of Christendom until the guilds were destroyed by the advent of the French Revolution.

What these traditional vocational groups were able to foster during the ages in which they ordered the life of the craftsman, was a decentralization both of property and of economic power. They, also, enabled the average craftsman to have a real say in the workings of his trade. Such economic "federalism" or decentralization prevented the development of financial monopolies. As Hilaire Belloc states, "Above all, most jealously did the guild safeguard the division of property, so that there should be formed within its ranks no proletariat upon the one side, and no monopolizing capitalist upon the other."15

B) Chesterbelloc and Distributism

It was in the early years of this century, that Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, joined by a former Socialist Arthur Penty, inspired by Rerum Novarum, attempted to articulate an economic system which stood on a totally different set of principles than did the "new things" of capitalism and socialism. The name they gave to this system, Distributism, awkward as they themselves realized, expressed not the socialist idea of the confiscation of all private property, but rather, the wide-spread distribution of land, real-property, the means of production, and of financial capital, amongst the greater part of the families of a nation. Such a concept, along with their encouragement of the guild system, of a return to the agrarian life, and of their condemnation of the taking of interest on non-productive loans, formed the core of this "new" economic model.

In his book Economics for Helen, Belloc identifies the nature of the Distributist State by distinguishing this type of state and social and economic system from that of the Servile State and the Capitalist State. The Servile State is the one of classical antiquity, in which vast masses of the people work as slaves for the small class of owners. In this way, the economic state of antiquity is very similar to the economic system of our own time, insofar as a very small minority possess real property, land, the means of production, and financial capital, while the great mass of the population does not possess these goods to any significant degree. How does Belloc distinguish the Servile State from that of the Capitalist State, in which he counts the Britain of his own time? The difference is that, whereas the Servile State is based on coercion to force the greater part of the population, which does not possess property, to work for those who do, the Capitalist State employs "free" laborers who can choose to sign a work contract with one employer or another. In the liberal Capitalist State, one is "free" to choose to apply for work or accept work from one of the various owners of the means of production. In return for this work, the laborer receives a wage which is a small portion of the wealth that he produces.16

What distinguishes the Distributist State from the two States mentioned above, is that instead of a small minority of men owning the means of production, there is a wide distribution of property. In this regard, Belloc defines property as "the control of wealth by someone."17 Property must, then, be controlled by someone, since wealth which is not kept or used up by someone would perish and cease to be wealth.

1) England's Journey for Distributism to Capitalism

It is Belloc's historical thesis, that it was not the industrialism of the late 18th and early 19th centuries which brought about the rise of capitalism, but rather, England was a capitalist state in the making long before the emergence of the railroad or the factory. The Servile State, the state in which a small number of owners controlled the land and the men who worked the land, was a mark of the Roman civilization which gradually transformed itself, under the influence of the Catholic Church, into the feudal system in which the servus went from being a "slave" who owned nothing, to being a "serf" who could retain [some] of what he produced in the fields. The serf had the right to pass the land down to his own kin and he could not be throw off his land. Thus, the personal security and economic and social stability which characterized the Roman estate system, was carried over into medieval times.18

This historical movement, under the aegis of the Church, towards a man working on the land which he himself owned, and working for his own benefit and for that of his family, came to an end in England in the 16th century during the reign of King Henry VIII. Since the Distributist State had grown up under the eye of Holy Mother Church, it should not be surprising that it would end when She was attacked and surpressed. According to Belloc, it was King Henry's confiscation of the monastery lands in England, and his action of parceling them out among his wealthy supporters, which marked the beginning of the transformation of England from a nation in which property, the land, and the means of production were widely distributed, to one in which a small number of families control increasingly greater shares of the land. The coming of protestantism marked the transformation of the average Englishman from independent yeoman to tenant farmer. The concentration of wealth would occur, then, long before England would become the industrial power of the world in the 19th century.19

2) Small is Beautiful

There can be no doubt as to the most general form of family ownership foreseen and advocated by Belloc and Chesterton. For them, the most humane and stable economic system was one in which a majority of families farmed land which they themselves owned, doing it with tools which were also their own.20 Here he was following the lead of Pope Leo XIII, who in Rerum Novarum, advocates a similar aim: "We have seen therefore that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership and its policy should be to induce as many as possible to obtain a share in the land, the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged... A further consequence will be the greater abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, and those that are dear to them. . . men would cling to the country of their birth, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life."21

Being Englishmen, the idea that the land meant wealth was inevitably ingrained in their conception of economics. Ownership of the land by the families who themselves worked the land would also mean financial stability, no fear of unemployment, a family enterprise which could engage, in some measure, all members, an ability to put aside food and supplies to create a hedge against destitution, a way of providing not only for one's children but for one's children's children, along with creating an economic structure which is not oriented towards corporate profits but towards providing for familial subsistence and a local market. Belloc speaks of this type of Distributist economy as the one most general throughout the history of mankind, with the possible exception of the slave economy. Capitalism and Socialism are certainly recent interlopers on the human economic scene.22

Next we must address the ways in which such a Distributist idea can be implemented on the personal and community level. In this regard, our next article will focus on the concept of a "parallel economy" formed by those who wish to begin to implement the economic teachings of Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, along with focusing on the agrarian idea both as Catholic thought and human good sense.

References
1 Hilaire Belloc, Economics for Helen (Hampshire, England: St. George Educational Trust, n.d.), p. 62. [Back]

2 Cf. Hilaire Belloc, Usury (Hampshire, England: Saint George Educational Trust, n.d.). [Back]

3 Belloc, Economics, p. 13. [Back]

4 Arthur Penty, The Guild Alternative (Hampshire, England: The Saint George Trust, n.d.), p. vi. [Back]

5 Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1975), p. 42. [Back]

6 E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful, p. 34. [Back]

7 E.F. Schumacher, Good Work (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), p. 27-28. [Back]

8 Ibid., p. 27. [Back]

9 Ibid., p. pp. 27-28. [Back]

10 Ralph Brown, German Theories of the Corporative State (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 18. [Back]

11 Ibid., p. 19 and p. 79. [Back]

12 Michael Oakeshott, The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1944), p. 66. Cf. A History of Distributism, adopted from an address to the Third Way International Conference, London 16 October 1994, by Anthony Cooney, editor of the Liverpool Newsletter. [Back]

13 Brown, p. 80-81. [Back]

14 Brown, p. 53-57. [Back]

15 Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Classics, 1977), pp. 78-79. [Back]

16 Ibid., p. 59. [Back]

17 Belloc, Economics for Helen, p. 50. [Back]

18 Cf. Belloc, The Servile State. [Back]

19 Ibid. [Back]

20 Belloc, Economics for Helen, p. 62. [Back]

21 Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, para. 35 cited in A History of Distributism by Anthony Cooney. [Back]

22 Belloc, Economics for Helen, p. 64. [Back]

www.pelicanproject.org

Read more...