Farm Ownership Linked With Trades Unions

by Reverend John LaFarge, S.J.

Consistently has America probed the causes which keep the labor situation in the United States in perpetual turmoil. It has insisted, in season and out of season, that the internal difficulties which the unions experience are not to be blamed upon the principle of trades-unionism in either form that it may take, whether of the industrial or of the crafts union. It believes that these difficulties are due to personal factors which can be remedied by a change of heart in certain leaders and by the education in the true concept of Christian trades-unionism of the great body of American labor. But another element in the trades-union situation must be reckoned with if trades-unionism is to be saved.

Speaking over the National Farm and Home Hour, William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, declared that “the farmer’s welfare is labor’s welfare. The two are inseparable.” Mr. Green gave as the reason for his statement the “close and direct relationship” that exists between labor’s economy and the farmer’s economy. “This means that the buying power of the farmer depends directly upon the buying power of labor.” Large-scale agriculture, too, has produced a corresponding body of farm laborers, so that agricultural workers’ unions are now forming in fruit and vegetable farming, in beet growing, in onion growing, in large-scale dairies and in fruit and vegetable packing and canning.

It is not the alleged identity of interests between labor and agriculture which is our concern. Indeed, such an identity is vigorously denied by many prominent farm leaders who look upon such identification as mere propaganda for the proposed Farmer-Labor party. We are concerned with the danger to trades-unionism that was pointed out by Dr. Goetz Briefs of Georgetown University at the recent convention in Richmond, of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference: the formation of an ever-increasing wage-earning proletariat due to the vanishing ownership of the land.

The effect of this vanishing ownership, said Dr. Briefs, is to intensify to the point of madness the rivalries among wage-earners, and between wage-earners and their employers. It makes no difference whether it is an industrial or an agricultural wage-earner that is concerned. The bitterness and rivalry, with corresponding difficulty of reaching a solution increase as a greater and greater percentage of our citizens move into the purely wage-earning class, and thus swell the ranks of an eventual proletariat. The terrific pressure upon trades-unionism created by such a situation adds fuel to the flames of internecine labor disputes. A wider and wider area is opened up for the ambitions of organizers and organizations, and, worst of all, youth grows up conceiving of life only in terms of labor with no other idea of man’s temporal existence.

The Catholic Church appeals to charity and justice as the remedy for these disputes. But charity and justice belong to the supernatural order. They are gifts of Divine Grace, and Divine Grace builds upon nature. If that nature is to be restored, there must be a much greater equalization than now prevails between the two main types of wage-earning and the agrarian; and that can only be accomplished by the restoration of private property to the landless proletariat.

Growing tenantry is a sign of the proletarianizing process. In the rural districts, tenantry has increased from thirty-five per cent of the number of farms in 1900 to forty-five percent in 1935. As was shown by Dr. Edgar B. Schmiedeler, O.S.B., Director of the Catholic Rural Life Bureau of the N.C.W.C., this increased tenantry brings with it physical “erosion” of the farms, which are not cared for by those who do not own them; and social “erosion,” in the shape of irresponsible drifters; “vanishing liberty, since renters, like wage-earners, are not the free people that owners are.” But more threatening than that, it means the continuing of the ranks of competing industrial job seekers in the cities.

The Most Rev. Edwin V. O’Hara, Bishop of Great Falls, father of the Catholic Rural Life Conference, resumed recent Papal teaching as: “First, wide diffusion of privately owned property in land; secondly, the ownership of the land by those who operate it; and, thirdly, the desirability of the family-sized farms as opposed to the larger holdings on which farm laborers were little better than serfs.”

How can all this be brought about? The yearly discussions of the Catholic Rural Life Conference have crystallized certain ideas. The opinion has been very positively formed that no amount of mere economic allurement will attach people to the land who are at present disaffected from it. Farming may be made an attractive business for some of the higher-ups in the cotton or the wheat or the dairying oligarchy, or in the large-scale trucking enterprises, but though some way may be devised to make it yield a good living for the little farmers, the multitudes will not be attracted to farming merely because of its paying facilities. Nor will the multitudes be won by any back to the land mysticism, however it may appeal to individuals. Land as a mere money-making agent, or land as an end in itself, does not offer a sufficiently powerful and reliable incentive. People will only learn to appreciate the land and to value land ownership when they look upon it as an instrument; an instrument given to man by the Creator Himself, but an instrument primarily for a spiritual purpose, and only secondarily for the purpose of commercial or monetary profit.

This spiritual purpose is the sustenance and the physical permanence of the farm home, as the seat of the Christian family. This was put very plainly by the Most Rev. Aloysius J. Muench, Bishop of Fargo, as the fifth of six points with which he summed up the topic of religion and rural welfare: “The principles of social justice, effective tenancy legislation, etc., must have their first point in the farm home. The farmstead as a homestead must be cherished as the priceless social institute in the land.”

In a public address a few days before the Richmond meeting, the Soviet Ambassador to the United States, Alexander Troyanovsky, flung down a challenge to the principle of widely distributed, family-sized land ownership as the foundation for a healthy economic life in the nation. It is impossible, said Mr. Troyanovsky, to apply modern technique to the small-sized or family farm. Modern agricultural technique requires large-scale farming, and this means that the only course for American farming is to become collective. That Soviet statement is simply contrary to fact. Where the local community is organized on a cooperative basis, small farms can enjoy every bit of the modern technical facilities—mechanical, electric, biological, etc.,—as are enjoyed in any collective or large-scale enterprise. As was stated by the Conference in a resolution that drew general applause: “We must retain fee-simple ownership of land in small parcels and make technology and scientific research serve this type of land tenure.” A pioneer spirit can use twentieth-century methods.

Behind the Soviet challenge, however, lay a threat of a much deeper nature, a threat that hangs like a cloud over our congressional deliberations at the present time, to the effect that only rigid governmental control can restrain the domination of large-scale farming, curb wasteful competition and greed, and afford sufficient protection to the small farmer. Hence the farmer is confronted with only two entrees on his menu: virtual dictatorship or ruinous laissez-faire. To this challenge we reply:

First, that an immense amount can (and must) be done by the Government, State as well as Federal, to encourage distributed land-ownership and the useful organization of rural economy which does not fall into the class of rigid control or virtual dictatorship. As Bishop Muench noted in the third of his six points, the state can “safeguard the farmers’ interests in the sale of property so that that acquisition of private property is possible.” Taxes can favor small-scale ownership without invading the rights of individuals or destroying all private initiative. Taxation, said Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas at the recent opening of Congress, should favor the family-size farm. Governmental credit can be organized to help the small owner quite as much as the large.

Second, the amount that can be accomplished in this direction by voluntary effort is woefully underestimated. An experiment like that of Father Ligutti in Granger, Iowa, would have been thought utterly impracticable a few years ago. Yet Father Ligutti’s Slavs and Italians have demonstrated a high degree of self-subsistence and skillful utilization of modern technical resources within a framework provided for them through Federal aid. Other experiments spring up daily, all of them in one form or another teaching that no limit has yet been found to the efficacy of cooperation on Christian—not on merely materialistic—lines. The surface of cooperation between city and country groups, between producer and consumer, on a voluntary and regional basis, has hardly been scratched. How many charitable individuals, for instance, in our large cities, have experimented in a most eminently practical form of cooperation, that of making loans, on long-term payments, to young families starting life in the country? Incredibly little has been done in the field of voluntary international cooperation. We talk of export and surpluses as if these things were decreed by the gods on Olympus. Yet they are amenable to voluntary understandings which transcend governmental lines.

At the present time I know of at least one Catholic rural community which is trying to organize itself upon a cooperative basis. Pastor and Sisters are leading in the work. The community is in the East, and is fairly accessible to large centres. Let us suppose that a city Catholic, with some means and some leisure, were to interest himself in the affairs of such a community, were to spend a certain part of his time therein, study on the spot its possibilities for the exemplification of the Christian cooperative, confer with the local men and women who are trying to put the program across, and extend a certain amount of practical aid to the initial ventures—what an immense amount of good could be accomplished for the Catholic social program! Why should a community of decent, self-respecting people, of our own Faith, be obliged always to choose between the dismal alternatives of starting from absolute scratch, or else applying for Federal bounties which are granted only upon rigidly specified lines, entail heavy obligations and dependencies, and, anyhow, do not touch this sort of effort.

While I was writing this paragraph, Father McGoey, of Toronto, dropped in, who has accomplished such wonders in establishing his forty practically self-sustaining families, with their 241 souls, upon the land. He sees a plenty of ways which an intelligent, city Catholic can aid such a rural community. He can help the cooperatives to finance their project. He can help provide outlets in the city, such as a consumer’s organization, for the community’s produce. He can assist the rural community in getting books and furniture for a rural library. But the useful task of all, in Father McGoey’s opinion, for the city person, is to bring the rural dweller to a better appreciation of his own opportunities. This he can do best if he is himself a man who has made a successful career of city life, and so can add realism to his own comparisons.

Finally, it seems to me that we vastly underestimate, in this, as in other matters pertaining to social justice, the immense efficacy of a widespread popular education in the principles of a right order. Were our Catholic periodicals—speaking of Catholics alone—and our Catholic lecturers and preachers and professors of sociology and economics throughout the country to unite upon a wide and general program of educating the American as to the evils of proletarianism, the necessity of distributed private ownership and the family social unit, the nature and efficacy of Christian cooperation and Christian cooperatives, the possibilities, spiritual cultural of Catholic parish life, a definite brake would be put upon the centralizing and depersonalizing theories of agrarian economy which are now invading political circles. The majority of thinking farm leaders welcome these basic truths when they are explained to them. “We simply must accept your Catholic family-economics program,” said the non-Catholic President of a secular college in conversation with a delegate to the Richmond convention. We have had, I believe, altogether too much agrarian defeatism. Let us begin to market the harvest of knowledge which alone can stop the Bolshevist weed from springing up and choking industry and agriculture to death.

From America Magazine (1937)
Farm Ownership Linked With Trades Unions: The Catholic plan replies to a Soviet challenge

Read more...

The Ruin of the Small Storekeeper

by Hilaire Belloc

The phrase “small distributor” is a pompous but accurate way of saying “small storekeeper.” He also was an economically free man as was the unencumbered farmer of his own land. The small storekeeper was an independent citizen under no master. He is threatened with disappearance like his brother the small owner: the craftsman, the farmer. He is more menaced than the small owner and is in danger of disappearing altogether sooner even than the small owner will.

There are two sets of causes for his misfortune. A moral set and a material set.

On the moral side, there is the lack of natural excuse for, and natural sympathy with, the small distributor as compared with the small craftsman or farmer. The craftsman or farmer produces directly things which are necessary to our lives: food and clothing and furniture and the rest. When we think of him, we think of work necessary and useful for everybody. But the storekeeper is only a middleman. He passes on what the small owner has made or, nowadays, what the big manufactory has made, to the consumer; and there is no apparent natural argument for this function of “passing the goods” being in the hands of small business more than big business. Indeed, if we could get the necessaries of life direct, without having recourse to middlemen at all, we should think it a good thing.

Then there is the fact that the wage-earners have no special sympathy with the small storekeeper. Some few of them may have the sense to feel rather vaguely that they are all in the same boat together against the big capitalists. But the wage earning masses will buy what they need wherever they can get it cheapest and do not trouble particularly about supporting the small dealer.

As for the wealthier people, they find the small storekeeper inconvenient, compared with the large store. It seems to them squalid, compared with the comfort and luxury to which they are accustomed, and it is necessarily less able to provide at a moment’s notice what they happen to want.

Now this last point: the opinion of the wealthier people is very important, for they have a great deal to do with the making of general opinion.

So much for the moral forces working against small business. The material forces are even stronger. You have among these material forces some that are working against small business for the same reason that they are working against small ownership. Small business has less information than big business. It has less variety or perhaps none, selling only one thing, where the big store sells a number of different things, therefore it cannot make up for loss on one kind of sales by profits on another. It has no “spread over.” Then again, like small ownership, small business has less command of credit than large business. Very often the bank will not listen to it at all and when it does it changes more in proportion for a small loan than it does for a large one.

In all these ways small business is handicapped in its struggle to live, precisely as small ownership is handicapped.

But there are also special enemies to small distributors which attack them as distributors and from which the small owner is free.

Big business has proportionately smaller “overhead” than small business, even the rent it pays is often heavier in proportion to the turn-over than the rent paid by the big stores; while the clerical expenses and pretty well all the running expenses are proportionately heavier.

Then there is the cost of advertisement, which has become so enormously important in modern capitalist distribution. A hundred thousand dollars spent in a given time on large advertisements has far more than a hundred times the effect of a thousand spent on petty advertisement. In practice, small business hardly advertises at all, while big business shouts at us everywhere.

Then there is the giving of contracts. For instance, in the catering trade. A big catering firm will get the order for banquets for the feeding of great numbers of men in institutions, or the armed forces; a small catering firm will not, and a little store can never find anything of the sort coming its way.

Then there is the extra cost of supply; small business has to pay far more in proportion for getting its petty stock delivered to it than has big business.

Meanwhile, every added facility for rapid transport and rapid communication of orders, increases the power of the chain stores. So all along the line. Under free competition small business goes to the wall. The small distributor is sinking fast. The human instinct for independence desperately maintains his hopeless struggle, but hopeless it is as things are, and he is going under.

All the observers in his own line of life, especially the big distributors, see this clearly. It is more instructive to listen to the conversation of big business men on the shortcomings and misfortunes of the old fashioned single storekeeper. The newspaper (with whom the small man cannot advertise) are equally certain of his doom.

Now, as in the case of the small owner, the loss of economic independence means that the man and his family become proletarian.

A friend in the trade assures me that within his own lifetime some forty thousand independent grocers in one European country are now replaced by four thousand salaried managers living on a wage, the servants of one big company and at its mercy. This flood of proletarianism grows and grows, and with it there comes to clog the whole community what may be called, “the proletarian mind.” This proletarian mind is, as I have said, the real danger of our time. Capitalism is but a product thereof.

Taken from The Way Out by Hilaire Belloc
Catholic Authors Press

Read more...

Social Credit and the Teachings of the Popes

by Alain Pilote

Applied Christianity

Clifford Hugh Douglas, the Scottish engineer who founded Social Credit, once said that Social Credit could be defined in two words: applied Christianity. A comparative study of Social Credit and the social doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church shows indeed how wonderfully the Social Credit financial proposals would apply the Church's teachings on social justice.

Primacy of the human person

The social doctrine of the Church can be summarized in this basic principle: the primacy of the human person:

“The Church's teaching on social matters has truth as its guide, justice as its end, and love as its driving force... The cardinal point of this teaching is that individual men are necessarily the foundation, cause, and end of all social institutions.”(John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, nn. 219 and 226.)

Systems at the service of man

Social Credit shares the same philosophy. Clifford Hugh Douglas wrote in the first chapter of his first book, Economic Democracy:

“Systems are made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man, which is self-development, is above all systems.”

And Pope John Paul II wrote in his first Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (The Redeemer of Man, March 4, 1979, n. 16):

“Man cannot relinquish himself or the place in the visible world that belongs to him; he cannot become the slave of things, the slave of economic systems, the slave of production, the slave of his own products.”

All systems must be at the service of man, including the financial and economic systems:

“As a democratic society, see carefully to all that is happening in this powerful world of money! The world of finance is also a human world, our world, submitted to the conscience of all of us; for it too exist ethical principles. So see especially to it that you may bring a contribution to world peace with your economy and your banks and not a contribution — perhaps in an indirect way — to war and injustice!” (John Paul II, homily at Flueli, Switzerland, June 14, 1984.)

The bankers control money

Money should be an instrument of service, but the bankers, in appropriating the control over its creation, have made it an instrument of domination:

“This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the lifeblood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will.”(Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)

The creation of money as a debt by the bankers is the means of imposing their will upon individuals and of controlling the world:

“Among the actions and attitudes opposed to the will of God, the good of neighbour and the «structures» created by them, two are very typical: on the one hand, the all-consuming desire for profit, and on the other, the thirst for power, with the intention of imposing one's will upon others.”John Paul II, Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Dec. 30, 1987, n. 37.)

Since money is an instrument that is basically social, the Social Credit doctrine proposes that money be issued by society, and not by private bankers for their own profit:

"There are certain categories of goods for which one can maintain with reason that they must be reserved to the collectivity when they come to confer such an economic power that it cannot, without danger to the common good, be left to the care of private individuals.”(Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.)

Unrepayable debts

The obligation of paying back to the banker money which he did not create, brings about unrepayable debts:

“Debtor countries, in fact, find themselves caught in a vicious circle. In order to pay back their debts, they are obliged to transfer ever greater amounts of money outside the country. These are resources which should have been available for internal purposes and investment and therefore for their own development.

“Debt servicing cannot be met at the price of the asphyxiation of a country's economy, and no government can morally demand of its people privations incompatible with human dignity... With the Gospel as the source of inspiration, other types of action could also be contemplated such as granting extensions, partial or even total remission of debts... In certain cases, the creditor States could convert the loans into grants.

“The Church restates the priority to be granted to people and their needs, above and beyond the constraints and financial mechanisms often advanced as the only imperatives.”(An Ethical Approach to the International Debt Question, Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission, Dec. 27, 1986.)

“It is not right to demand or expect payment when the effect would be the imposition of political choices leading to hunger and despair for entire peoples. It cannot be expected that the debts which have been contracted should be paid at the price of unbearable sacrifices. In such cases it is necessary to find — as in fact is partly happening — ways to lighten, defer or even cancel the debt, compatible with the fundamental right of peoples to subsistence and progress.”(John Paul II, Encyclical Centesimus Annus, May 1, 1991, n. 35.)

The imperialism of money

The Church condemns both liberal capitalism and Marxist communism. Note that it is not capitalism in itself that the Church condemns, but “liberal capitalism”, “a type of capitalism”. For the Church makes a distinction, in capitalism, between the producing system and “the calamitous system that accompanies it,” the financial system:

“This unchecked liberalism led to dictatorship rightly denounced by Pope Pius XI as producing `the international imperialism of money'. One cannot condemn such abuses too strongly, because — let us again recall solemnly — the economy should be at the service of man. But if it is true that a type of capitalism has been the source of excessive suffering, injustices and fratricidal conflicts whose effects still persist, it would be wrong to attribute to industrialization itself evils that belong to the calamitous system that accompanied it. On the contrary, one must recognize in all justice the irreplaceable contribution made by the organization and the growth of industry to the task of development.”(Paul VI, Encyclical Populorum Progressio on the development of peoples, March 26, 1967, n. 26.)

Private property

The faults the Popes find in present capitalism do not derive from its nature (private property, free enterprise), but from the financial system it uses, a financial system that dominates instead of serving, a financial system that vitiates capitalism. Far from wishing the disappearance of private property, the Popes rather wish its widespread diffusion to all:

“The dignity of the human person necessarily requires the right of using external goods in order to live according to the right norm of nature. And to this corresponds a most serious obligation, which requires that, so far as possible, there be given to all an opportunity of possessing private property... Therefore it is necessary to modify economic and social life so that the way is made easier for widespread private possession of such things as durable goods, homes, gardens, tools requisite for artisan enterprises and family-type farms, investments in enterprises of medium or large size.”(John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, nn.114-115.)

Everyone a capitalist

It would be possible for everyone to be a real “capitalist” and to have access to earthly goods with the Social Credit dividend, which would apply in concrete terms this other basic principle of the Church's social doctrine: the goods of this world are intended for all men:

“God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis.”(Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Church Gaudium et Spes, n. 69.)

The Social Credit dividend is based on two things: the inheritance of natural resources, and the inventions from past generations:

“Through his work man enters into two inheritances: the inheritance of what is given to the whole of humanity in the resources of nature, and the inheritance of what others have already developed on the basis of those resources, primarily by developing technology, that is to say, by producing a whole collection of increasingly perfect instruments for work. In working, man also “enters into the labor of others”.(John Paul II, Encyclical Laborem Exercens on human work, Sept. 15, 1981, n. 13.)

The machine: an ally or enemy of man?

In the present system, only those who are employed in production can get an income, which is distributed in the form of wages and salaries. The income is tied to employment. But this is contrary to the facts, since, thanks to new inventions, technology, progress, there is less and less need for human labour, workers, to produce goods: it is computers, robots, that do the job in our place.

Is technology an evil? Should we rise up and destroy the machines because they take our jobs? No, if the work can be done by the machine, that is just great; it will allow man to give his free time over to other activities, free activities, activities of his own choosing. But all of this, provided he is given an income to replace the salary he lost with the installation of the machine, of the robot; otherwise, the machine, which should be the ally of man, will become his enemy, since it deprives him of his income, and prevents him from living:

“Technology has contributed so much to the well-being of humanity; it has done so much to uplift the human condition, to serve humanity, and to facilitate and perfect its work. And yet at times technology cannot decide the full measure of its own allegiance: whether it is for humanity or against it... For this reason my appeal goes to all concerned... to everyone who can make a contribution toward ensuring that the technology which has done so much to build Toronto and all Canada will truly serve every man, woman and child throughout this land and the whole world.” (John Paul II, homily in Toronto, Canada, September 15, 1984.)

Full employment is materialistic

But if one wants to persist in keeping everyone, men and women alike, employed in production, even though the production to meet basic needs is already made with less and less human labour on top of that, then new jobs, which are completely useless, must be created. And in order to justify these useless jobs, new artificial needs must be created, through an avalanche of advertisements, so that people will buy products they do not really need. This is what is called “consumerism”.

Likewise, products will be manufactured to last as short a time as possible, in the aim of selling more of them and making more money, which brings about an unnecessary waste of natural resources, and also the destruction of the environment. Also, one will persist in maintaining jobs that require no creative efforts whatever, jobs that require only mechanical efforts, jobs that could well be done by machines, jobs where the employee has no chance of developing his personality. But, however mind-destroying this job is, it is the condition for the worker to obtain money, the licence to live.

Thus, for him and a multitude of wage-earners, the meaning of their jobs comes down to this: they go to work to get the cash to buy the food to get the strength to go to work to get the cash to buy the food to get the strength to go to work... and so on, until retiring age, if they do not die before. Here is a meaningless life, where nothing differentiates man from an animal.

Free activities

What differentiates man from an animal is precisely that man has not only material needs, but also cultural and spiritual needs. As Jesus said in the Gospel: “Not on bread alone does man live, but in every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Deuteronomy 8:3.) So to force man to spend all his time in providing for his material needs is a materialistic philosophy, since it denies that man has also a spiritual dimension and spiritual needs.

But, then, if man is not employed in a paid job, what will he do with his spare time? He will spend it on free activities, activities of his own choosing. It is precisely in his leisure time that man can really develop his personality, develop the talents that God gave him, and use them advisedly.

Moreover, it is during their leisure time that a man and a woman can take care of their religious, social, and family duties: raising their family, practising their Faith (to know, love, and serve God), and help their brethren. Raising children is the most important job in the world. Yet because the mother, who stays at home to raise her children, receives no salary, many will say that she does nothing, that she does not work!

To be freed from the necessity of working to produce the necessities of life does not presume growing idleness. It simply means that the individual would be placed in the position where he could participate in the type of activity which appeals to him. Under a Social Credit system, there would be a flowering of creative activity. For example, the greatest inventions, the best works of art, have been made during leisure time. As C. H. Douglas said:

“Most people prefer to be employed, but on things they like rather than on the things they don't like to be employed upon. The proposals of Social Credit are in no sense intended to produce a nation of idlers... Social Credit would allow people to allocate themselves to those jobs to which they are suited. A job you do well is a job you like, and a job you like is a job you do well.”

Poverty amidst plenty

God put on earth all that is needed to feed everyone. But because of the lack of money, goods cannot meet the hungry; mountains of goods pile up in front of millions of starving people. It is the paradox of poverty amidst plenty:

“It is a cruel paradox that many of you who could be engaged in the production of food are in financial distress here, while at the same time hunger, chronic malnutrition and the threat of starvation afflict millions of people elsewhere in the world.”(John Paul II to the fishermen of St. John's, Newfoundland, Sept. 12, 1984.)

“No more hunger, hunger never again! Ladies and gentlemen, this objective can be achieved. The threat of starvation and the weight of malnutrition are not an inescapable fate. Nature is not, in this crisis, unfaithful to man. According to a generally accepted opinion, while 50% of cultivable land is not yet developed, a great scandal catches the eye from the huge amount of surplus food that certain countries periodically destroy for lack of a sound economy which could have ensured a useful consumption of this food.

“Here we are broaching the paradox of the present situation: Mankind has an incomparable control over the universe; it possesses instruments capable of exploiting its natural resources at full capacity. Will the owners of these instruments stay paralyzed in front of the absurdity of a situation where the wealth of a few would tolerate the persistent extreme poverty of many?... One cannot reach such a situation without having committed serious errors of orientation, be it sometimes through negligence or omission; it is high time one discovered how the mechanisms are defective, so as to correct, put the whole situation right.”(Paul VI at the World Conference of Food, Rome, Nov. 9, 1974.)

“It is obvious that a fundamental defect, or rather a series of defects, indeed a defective machinery is at the root of contemporary economics and materialistic civilization, which does not allow the human family to break free from such radically unjust situations.”(John Paul II, Encyclical Dives in Misericordia on Divine Mercy, November 30, 1980, n. 11.)

“So widespread is this phenomenon (poverty amidst plenty) that it brings into question the financial, monetary, production and commercial mechanisms that, resting on various political pressures, support the world economy. These are proving incapable either of remedying the unjust social conditions inherited from the past or of dealing with the urgent challenges and ethical demands of the present... We have before us here a great drama that can leave nobody indifferent.”(John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, n. 16.)

Reforming the financial system

The Pope denounces the tight-money dictatorship, and calls for a reform of the financial and economic systems, the establishment of an economic system at the service of man:

“Again, I want to tackle a very delicate and painful issue. I mean the anguish of the authorities of several countries, who do not know how to cope with the fearful problem of indebtedness... A structural reform of the world financial system is, without doubt, one of the most urgent and necessary initiatives.”(John Paul II, Message to the 6th United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, September 26, 1985.)

“One must denounce the existence of economic, financial and social mechanisms which, although they are manipulated by people, often function almost automatically, thus accentuating the situation of wealth for some and poverty for the rest.”(John Paul II, Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 16.)

“I appeal to those in positions of responsibility, and to all involved, to work together to find appropriate solutions to the problems at hand, including a restructuring of the economy, so that human needs be put before mere financial gain.”(John Paul II to the fishermen of St. John's, Newfoundland, Sept. 12, 1984.)

“An essential condition is to provide the economy with a human meaning and logic. It is necessary to free the various fields of existence from the dominion of subjugating economism. Economic requirements must be put in their right place and a multiform social fabric must be created, which will prevent standardization. No one is dispensed from collaborating in this task... Christians, wherever you are, assume your share of responsibility in this immense effort for the human restructuring of the city. Faith makes it a duty for you.”(John Paul II to the workers of Sao Paulo, Brazil, June 3, 1980.)

The duty of every Christian

It is indeed a duty and an obligation for every Christian to work for the establishment of justice and of a better economic system:

“Anyone wishing to renounce the difficult yet noble task of improving the lot of man in his totality, and of all people, with the excuse that the struggle is difficult and that constant effort is required, or simply because of the experience of defeat and the need to begin again, that person would be betraying the will of God the Creator.”(John Paul II, Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 30.)

“Such a task is not an impossible one. The principle of solidarity, in a wide sense, must inspire the effective search for appropriate institutions and mechanisms... This difficult road of the indispensable transformations of the structures of economic life is one on which it will not be easy to go forward without the intervention of a true conversion of mind, will and heart. The task requires resolute commitments by individuals and peoples that are free and linked in solidarity.”(John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, n. 16.)

“These attitudes and «structures of sin» are only conquered — presupposing the help of divine grace — by a diametrically opposed attitude: a commitment to the good of one's neighbour...”(John Paul II, Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 38.)

Apostles

“All of you who have heard the appeal of suffering peoples, all of you who are working to answer their cries, you are the apostles of a development which is good and genuine, which is not wealth that is self-centered and sought for its own sake, but rather an economy which is put at the service of man, the bread which is daily distributed to all, as a source of brotherhood and a sign of providence.”(Paul VI, Encyclical Populorum Progressio, n. 86.)

Principles and implementation

Some will say that the Popes never publicly approved Social Credit. In fact, the Popes will never approve officially any economic system, since it is not part of their mission: they do not give technical solutions, but only set up the principles upon which any economic system that is truly at the service of the human person must be based. The Popes leave the faithful free to apply the system that would implement these principles in the best way.

To our knowledge, no other solution than Social Credit would apply the social doctrine of the Church so perfectly. That is why Louis Even, a great Catholic gifted with an extraordinary logical mind, did not hesitate to bring out the links between Social Credit and the Church's social doctrine.

Another one who was convinced that Social Credit is applied Christianity, that it would apply wonderfully the Church's teachings on social justice, is Father Peter Coffey, a Doctor in Philosophy and a professor at Maynooth College, Ireland. He wrote the following to a Canadian Jesuit, Father Richard, in March, 1932:

“The difficulties raised by your questions can be met only by the reform of the financial system of capitalism along the lines suggested by Major Douglas and the Social Credit school of credit reform. It is the accepted financing system that is at the root of the evils of capitalism. The accuracy of the analysis carried out by Douglas has never been refuted. I believe that, with their famous price-regulation formula, the Douglas reform proposals are the only reform that will go to the root of the evil...”

In 1939, the Bishops of the Province of Quebec, in Canada, had entrusted a commission of nine theologians to examine the Social Credit doctrine in the eyes of the Church's social doctrine, to determine if Social Credit was tainted with socialism or communism. The theologians concluded that there was nothing in the Social Credit doctrine contrary to the teachings of the Church, and that any Catholic was free to support it without danger. (See Appendix A for the full text of this study of the nine theologians.)

The Financiers were not pleased with this report of the theologians, and in 1950, a group of businessmen asked a Bishop of Quebec (out of respect for his memory, we won't mention his name) to go to Rome and get from Pope Pius XII a condemnation of Social Credit. Back to Quebec, this Bishop said to the businessmen: “If you want to get a condemnation of Social Credit, it is not to Rome that you must go. Pius XII said to me:`Social Credit would create, in the world, a climate that would allow the blossoming of family and Christianity'.”

All those who thirst for justice should therefore start to study and spread Social Credit, by soliciting subscriptions to the Michael Journal!

Read more...

Two Excerpts from Distributism: A Catholic System of Economics

by Donald Goodman III

The Scientific Status of Economics

Many, particularly those who hold opinions contrary to those expressed in the papal encyclicals, hold that the Church has no authority in economic matters. Economics, they claim, is advanced and practiced as a science, on the model of physics and mathematics. The Church cannot make authoritative pronouncements about science; she cannot, for example, decree that the freezing temperature of water will be anything other than 32. Similarly, the Church cannot declare that when supply rises demand will also rise. Such things are simply true or not, and it is beyond the Church's competency to speak on them. This view, however, must be rejected on careful consideration. In the first place, it is a matter of open debate whether economics is truly a science in the same sense as physics and chemistry. This debate largely centers around the unpredictability of human action and the predictive power of science. Success in the empirical sciences is generally gauged by how well that science can predict the actions of its objects. Physicists, for example, formulate theories to predict the actions of light waves, and the truth of those theories (that is, the degree to which those theories accurately describe light waves) is proportional to the accuracy of those predictions. Economists can do no such thing; it seems unlikely, then, that it is truly a science in the sense described above.

Economists' definition of their purported science further prove that economics cannot be considered the same way as physics or chemistry. According to Christian economist Ronald Nash,7 economics is the study of "the choices human beings make with regard to scarce resources. "

As Aristotle teaches, the definition of a thing is its genus specified by its specific difference; that is, the type of thing that it is specified by whatever of its features makes it different from the other things of its type.9 In this case, the genus of "economics" is the "choice human beings make" and the specific difference is with regard to scarce resources. We know, then, that economics is a study of human choices, like ethics or politics, but that it studies those choices specifically as regards scarce resources, which makes it something other than the other sciences which study human choices. Nash has given us a very compact and specific definition, one which he believes describes a very scientific type of inquiry.

However, this definition does not describe a science because the study of human choices is never an exact science. The human will is, as good philosophy and revealed faith teach us, free, and therefore not subject to the operations of economic laws. The economist, then, cannot make accurate predictions about the choices that human beings will make with regard to scarce resources. He can certainly make generalizations: if you glut the wheat market, the price of wheat will go downand that is certainly a very useful and valuable ability; it is not, however, truly an empirical science, in the sense of physics or chemistry.

Other, more learned arguments have been made against the status of economics as a science, particularly by MacIntyre10; the end result is that economics, if it is to be regarded as a science in the sense of physics and chemistry, must be regarded as a singularly bad one. But within its own sphere, that of predictive generalizations, it is, of course, useful and honorable, and my argument should not be construed as advocating its abandonment.

Even if these cogent arguments against the status of economics as a science are rejected, however, one still cannot claim the immunity of economics from the moral authority of the Church. First, of course, conomics is the study of human choices, and human choices are always moral and therefore subject to the decrees of Holy Mother Church. But second, and more significantly, what we call economics, as a study of human action, is simply a branch of political knowledge, and as such is a subset of ethical science, the authority of the Church over which no Catholic can deny.

The Profit Motive

It is axiomatic among capitalists that riches are not sinful. This is, of course, true; riches are not per se sinful. However, it is indisputable that riches are proximate causes of sin. Wealth is a dangerous thing, which Our Lord and His Church have been teaching throughout the ages. But still many of the rich insist that their possession of wealth represents no hindrance to their virtue or the obtaining of eternal happiness. Our Lord, however, thought otherwise, and not infrequently took the opportunity to say so. For Christ tells us that "[i]t is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."61 The wealthy, however, often seem to think that the camel can navigate the eye of the needle without difficulty, thus putting the words of Our Lord to naught. Again, the rich young man approached Our Lord and asked what he must do to gain the kingdom of heaven. As happens so often, Our Lord responded, "Go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."62 The young man's wealth was a hindrance to his salvation; Our Lord therefore, in His infinite goodness, instructed him to give it up, for "if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell."63 Can we, in the face of Our Lord's clear words, claim that riches are neutral in our pursuit of eternal salvation?

The Church, indeed, supports the teaching of the Gospel. Even in Rerum Novarum, concerned principally with the poor and not the rich, we and a warning about the dangers of wealth.

Therefore, the well-to-do are admonished that wealth does not give surcease of sorrow, and that wealth is of no avail unto the happiness of eternal life but is rather a hindrance; that the threats pronounced by Jesus Christ, so unusual coming from Him, ought to cause the rich to fear; and that on one day the strictest account for the use of wealth must be rendered to God as Judge.64

The Church is not condemning the rich to Hell, any more than Christ Himself is; she merely, following her divine Founder, seeks to warn those of her children with wealth of the dangers they are facing. It is maternal care, not socialistic vindictiveness, which motivates her cautions.

This is certainly not to say that riches render virtue impossible. Indeed, riches can be the source of great virtue; witness King St. Louis, for example, or any other of many wealthy saints. But their sanctity was due to their resposible use of their wealth for the benefit of others; had they used it for their own benefit, they could never have become the saints they did. As Leo XIII says, "No one, certainly, is obliged to assist others out of what is required for his own necessary use or for that of his family, or even to give to others what he himself needs to maintain his station in life becomingly and decently."65 Indeed, thepontiff even quotes St. Thomas Aquinas to this effect. However, he does not hesitate to insist that "when the demands of necessity and propriety have been su-ciently met, it is a duty to give to the poor out of that which remains."66 In so saying Leo is echoing the words of Our Lord, Who teaches that with "that which remaineth, give alms; and behold, all things are clean unto you."67 The holy pontiff teaches unequivocally that:

[t]he substance of all this is the following: whoever has received from the bounty of God a greater share of goods, whether corporeal and external, or of the soul, has received them for this purpose, namely, that he employ them for his own perfection and, likewise, as a servant of Divine Providence, for the benefit of others.68

So we see that riches are not unalloyed good; they impart grave responsibility on their holders, and we must always recall that great axiom of the moral life: "from those to whom much is given, much is expected."

(For the full text go to Goretti Publications)

Read more...

On Peasant Proprietorship

I have not dealt with any details touching distributed ownership, or its possibility in England, for the reason stated in the text. This book deals with what is wrong, wrong in our root of argument and effort. This wrong is, I say, that we will go forward because we dare not go back. Thus the Socialist says that property is already concentrated into Trusts and Stores: the only hope is to concentrate it further in the State. I say the only hope is to unconcentrate it; that is, to repent and return; the only step forward is the step backward.

But in connection with this distribution I have laid myself open to another potential mistake. In speaking of a sweeping redistribution, I speak of decision in the aim, not necessarily of abruptness in the means. It is not at all too late to restore an approximately rational state of English possessions without any mere confiscation. A policy of buying out landlordism, steadily adopted in England as it has already been adopted in Ireland (notably in Mr. Wyndham's wise and fruitful Act), would in a very short time release the lower end of the see-saw and make the whole plank swing more level. The objection to this course is not at all that it would not do, only that it will not be done. If we leave things as they are, there will almost certainly be a crash of confiscation. If we hesitate, we shall soon have to hurry. But if we start doing it quickly we have still time to do it slowly.

This point, however, is not essential to my book. All I have to urge between these two boards is that I dislike the big Whiteley shop, and that I dislike Socialism because it will (according to Socialists) be so like that shop. It is its fulfilment, not its reversal. I do not object to Socialism because it will revolutionize our commerce, but because it will leave it so horribly the same.

Read more...

Neither Statism nor Individualism

by Thomas Storck

Among more than one set of Christians today, the government, particularly the U.S. federal government, is considered an enemy. I understand and sympathize with that judgment. The government protects abortionists and puts defenders of unborn life in prison; spends large sums abroad to corrupt other countries with birth control and sex education; funds agencies such as the National Endowment for the Arts, which gives money to blasphemers; frequently usurps the rights of parents; in short, today the actions of the federal government, and of many state governments, often seem designed to denigrate and destroy Christian life and exalt evil.

It is no wonder, then, that many Christians regard the state as an enemy and are ready converts to a libertarian philosophy that sees government as a barely necessary evil and seeks to minimize its functions almost to the vanishing point. Is not this the most effective way of protecting ourselves against state encroachment?

Attractive as this might be, I do not think we can accept a point of view that sees the state as an evil, even a necessary evil. In fact, no Catholic can, hold a true libertarian point of view and remain orthodox. There are a good many distinctions which must be drawn in this matter, but as a beginning we might look at quotations from two popes that indicate an attitude of great respect toward the institution of civil authority. First from Leo XIII's encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (1890): "Hallowed therefore in the minds of Christians is the very idea of public authority, in which they recognize some likeness and symbol as it were of the divine Majesty, even when it is exercised by one unworthy." Then from Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931): "The State ... should be the supreme arbiter, ruling in queenly fashion far above all party contention, intent only upon justice and the common good...."

These words should give us pause, for they embody an attitude toward public authority quite different from that held by the many Catholic critics of government. But, on the other hand, it would be too simplistic and equally false to embrace an expansionist view of the government, one that sees a new government program as the solution to every ill of mankind or that naively trusts the government never to do wrong. The modem state does overstep its bounds and does so quite often. But in considering government, we must be like St. Peter, who, though he was put to death by the Roman government for preaching the Gospel, had written, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right" (1 Pet. 2:13-14); or like St. Paul, likewise put to death for the Gospel, yet who wrote even more strongly, "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:3-4).

We must, then, begin with the conviction that for Christians "the very idea of public authority" is "hallowed" and is one "in which they recognize some likeness and symbol as it were of the divine Majesty." This is strong stuff, but it is traditional Catholic doctrine and a matter of public knowledge. What is necessary is that we understand the meaning of this teaching and see what its implications are in the real world of today.

God rules His created universe. He did not simply create a world, establish certain self-executing laws, and then step back to watch what would happen. And this mode of ruling is the "likeness and symbol" which human rulers ought to emulate. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that even if mankind had never fallen, some sort of government would have been necessary. And, of course, since we did fall from our state of primitive happiness, government must not only co-ordinate diverse human actions but must also restrain and even punish human actions. Holy Scripture and sacred tradition, ratified by the Magisterium, make it clear that the authority to co-ordinate, restrain, and punish comes from God Himself. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with the leaders of nations being designated by popular vote. But however they may be chosen, whatever authority they have comes from God. Anyone may have power; only God has and can give authority.

This necessity for government is shown by our reactions to the daily difficulties of life. When we see disturbances of the peace and order of the community we expect government to do something about it. It is true that we can be unreasonable in expecting government to solve every one of our problems, but still our instinct is correct. The human community does need a directing faculty. We do need government. Just as a group of people with no structure is a mob, similarly a nation without a government would be an unstable mass, unable to establish the necessary organs and means to take care of the many matters that necessarily arise in human social existence.

Unfortunately, only sinful men are available to govern and punish the rest of us sinful men. And that is why governments have often overstepped their bounds. This is not anything new; King Henry VIII of England is as good an example of the public authority gone astray as anything in our century. But though there has always been this tendency on the part of the state to violate others' rights, there is a particular reason why the modem state seems to do this as a matter of course. The modem state has grown large and burdensome in part because the powerful mediating institutions which once existed have been destroyed. These mediating institutions once did much of the work that today we assign to the state. This is well described by Pius XI:

On account of the evil of "individualism," as We called it, things have come to such a pass that the highly developed social life which once flourished in a variety of prosperous and interdependent institutions, has been damaged and all but ruined, leaving virtually only individuals and the State.... But the State, deprived of a supporting social structure, and now encumbered with all the burdens once borne by the disbanded associations, is in consequence overwhelmed and submerged by endless affairs and responsibilities (Quadragesimo Anno).

What is the Pontiff talking about? The "variety of prosperous and interdependent institutions" included, for example, the craft guilds, which had as one of their most important tasks the regulating of economic activity for the public good, as well as for their own material prosperity. After these were finally destroyed, by the early 19th century, powerful and rich men began to amass economic power that enabled them to exploit both their employees and the consumer. As a result of the activities of these huge corporations and trusts, at about the same time throughout Europe and North America, there were demands for something to be done. And by this time, the only entity that could possibly do something was the government. Thus, in the vacuum that was left after the destruction of the guilds, state power seemed the only thing able to resist and control the powerful economic forces that threatened to dominate the citizenry. This was unfortunate, because many of these functions were not the state's direct business, and because they gave the state a taste for power and for extending its influence wherever there was any sort of a need.

Thereafter, politics in many countries became a constant struggle over the size of the state. One side saw clearly the dangers of big government; the other side saw equally clearly the dangers of domination by private groups and looked to the government to protect the common good. As long as we think of state power as the only legitimate way of dealing with these things, we will continue to have this sterile conflict over how large the government ought to be. But both sides in this debate are wrong: One side defends what has been called the philosophy of a cancer, the bigger the better. The other side is busy outbidding itself to see how much of the government it can eliminate. But whichever of these sides triumphs, its triumph will always be temporary. For if the first side wins, the excesses committed by the state will bring about a reaction, while if the second group wins, the outrages committed by big business will create demands for new laws and regulations. As the French poet Paul Valdry is said to have remarked, "If the state is strong, it will crush us; if it is weak, we will perish."

The notion that the state is our enemy, then, is in large part a reaction to the state's overreaching itself, to the attempt on the part of the state to regulate every aspect of life and society. The state as described in papal social thought is clearly important, even majestic, but it is not competent to deal directly with everything. It has limited but real functions. And I should note that these functions are larger than those of the "law-and-order state," the state that does nothing else but guard the borders and suppress crime. Pius XI praises Leo XIII because that pontiff had "fearlessly proclaimed the doctrine that the civil power is more than the mere guardian of law and order" (Quadragesimo Anno). The whole of Catholic social thought presupposes and teaches that the proper concerns of the state go far beyond preserving law and order. As Leo XIII taught "rulers should anxiously safeguard the community and all its parts" (Rerum Novarum). Nor does John Paul II's Centesimus Annus teach otherwise, for in that encyclical there are many passages that speak of the same kind of role for the state. The law-and-order or libertarian state is concerned with only a small number of things. The liberal state is concerned with everything and seeks to regulate everything directly. The Catholic state is likewise concerned with "the community and all its parts, " but it does not seek directly to regulate and control everything. Very often, as we will see below, it simply fosters and watches over the efforts of intermediary bodies.

We have seen, then, that the tendency to regard the state as one of our chief enemies is not consonant with authoritative Catholic thought and further, that this tendency is chiefly caused by the state's overstepping its proper bounds, especially by the modem state's congenital propensity to try to control everything directly, because no other sufficiently powerful bodies exist that can share in the necessary regulation of society for the common good. And we have also seen that the impasse this has created is the cause of the endless squabbling about the proper size of the state - big, little, or in-between. But all these attempts to find exactly the right size are foolish, because they assume that the state and only the state has any important function in shaping society. If the state does not do it, then turn it over to the vagaries of the free market. This is the modern notion, but it is wrong.

Let me give some examples of how the Catholic theory of the state could be implemented and what this would mean for society. I will give examples of how the central government could be relieved of some of its burdensome duties - duties whose performance often provokes resentment because it is charged that the state is sticking its nose into matters that are none of its business and about which it knows nothing. The solution suggested by Catholic social thought does recognize that there are real evils that need eliminating or regulating, but approaches these things in a manner different from that of both liberals and conservatives in America.

My first example will be OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the federal government, created by Congress in 1970. The purpose of OSHA is to make and enforce rules for safety in the workplace. And there is no doubt that OSHA was created to address a real need. Workers are injured on the job, and business often has little economic incentive or ethical desire to make the workplace safe. In fact, there can be a temptation to regard workers as expendable parts of the production process.

But OSHA has also been criticized for imposing needless and silly rules and requirements that are difficult and expensive to implement. Bureaucrats in their Washington offices cannot regulate, it is said, work processes and workplaces of which they have no direct experience. Since they know little about the realities of the work environment they are supposed to regulate, they are apt to issue rules applicable to every workplace without taking account of differences, or to make rules that are so vague that no one can know whether or not he has satisfied them short of having an inspector come and look for violations. And it is charged that the cost of complying with OSHA rules and of the accompanying recordkeeping, particularly for small businesses, is prohibitive.

I expect that there is something to these criticisms. Some of OSHA's regulations doubtless are ridiculous and burdensome. But the inference that is intended to be drawn from this, namely, that OSHA should be abolished and things returned to the status quo ante, I reject. In ordinary circumstances the state should not be burdened with inspecting workplaces and writing detailed rules. This is an instance of its being "overwhelmed and submerged by endless affairs and responsibilities" as Pius XI said. And this is also an excellent opportunity to revive, in some measure, some of those "prosperous and interdependent institutions" the Pontiff spoke of. Specifically, joint unionand-management committees, with the right, if necessary, of appeal to the state, and of enforcement by state authority, ought to be entrusted with setting the rules for workplace safety currently done by OSHA. The members of such committees not only would be familiar with the actual work processes and environment, but would also have a direct interest in the prosperity of their industry. The equal presence of the union representatives would ensure that management's interest in profits could not overrule sensible safety requirements.

Whenever the parties directly involved with a process can assume more responsibility for making their own rules, then the government can be relieved of a burden it ought never to have had. The correct alternative to direct government regulation is not to do nothing and to give profit-making businesses a free rein. Very often there are alternatives that do not necessitate setting up a new government bureaucracy, but instead rely on those actually doing the work to take control of their own situation.

One of the federal agencies that has often been a target for elimination is the Department of Commerce. Now, Commerce does many and varied things, from forecasting the weather to taking the census to promoting American exports. To a great extent it was established to aid business. But if business truly finds these services important, then there is no reason why some of them could not be taken over by industry groups, preferably representing both organized labor and employer organizations. For example, such industry councils could promote U.S. exports by advertising abroad, by establishing funds to make start-up loans to firms wishing to export and by sponsoring trade shows and the like. Even much of the information-gathering and data-publishing work of Commerce could be done by such industry councils. Even now, private industry and trade associations collect and publish much reliable statistical data that is used even by the federal government.

One part of the Commerce Department is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly the National Bureau of Standards). This agency "assists industry in developing technology to improve product quality, modernize manufacturing processes, ensure product reliability, and facilitate rapid commercialization of products based on new scientific discoveries" (U.S. Government Manual). Some people might call this corporate welfare, but aside from that, there is no reason why industry could not work to sponsor its own research programs and improve its processes and products. This is not an activity that needs to burden the central government and be supported by taxation. It is surely proper for government to encourage such activities, but they are primarily the responsibility of the companies involved and of the industry councils I mentioned above, which could be formed to deal with matters pertaining to a particular economic sector.

There have been a few attempts in this country to decentralize the institutions that regulate and promote our economic activity. In 1933 the Franklin Roosevelt administration attempted a system of self-regulation by industries called the National Recovery Administration. Although not perfect, the NRA could well have been a means of instituting a system of industrial self-government by owners and workers, very much like what Pius XI had called for in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno just two years earlier. President Roosevelt even called the industrial entities created by the NRA "modem guilds" (a phrase often used by Catholic writers of the period) and Msgr. John A. Ryan, the great Catholic writer on social justice, was actually a member of the NRA's Industrial Appeals Board, established to rule on complaints brought by businessmen. During its brief life the NRA showed promise, but the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935 ruled the NRA unconstitutional on the grounds that governmental power had been delegated to non-governmental bodies. Thus Roosevelt was forced to create more agencies and bigger bureaucracies to regulate the economy directly. Had the NRA been allowed to work, it is possible that some of the vast expansion of the federal government would never have taken place.

The fact that so thoroughly practical a politician as Franklin Roosevelt was able to get the NRA approved by Congress shows that such an approach is not alien to American traditions. But the current hostility to the federal government's regulating effort is not based on an appreciation of the proper role of government so much as on a desire to allow private business free play. But Catholic thought, from the New Testament forward, has always been deeply aware that the economic appetite, the "love of money" as St. Paul calls it (1 Tim. 6:10), is responsible for a host of evils. And this is true not only for an individual but for a society also. There is no magic law of economics that allows individuals to indulge an unlimited desire for gain and that somehow channels all this activity toward the common good of society. I am aware', of course, that the tradition of economics descending from Adam Smith teaches otherwise. One should note, though, that Smith's view was framed in an age of Deism and presupposes a self-regulating sort of cosmos, with a God who stands back and watches and a government that does likewise. But such a view of things is deeply hostile to Catholic social thought, which has always held men responsible for the evils caused by their choices and actions, both when acting alone and in concert with others.

Another promising kind of economic entity whose role could be expanded in the United States is the cooperative. Co-operatives deserve an article to themselves, so here I will confine myself to speaking of only a small part of their possible functions. In the provision of basic services, such as water and power, co-operatives could well supplement or even replace utilities directly owned by local governments or those organized as private businesses. It is true that co-operatives do supply such services, especially electricity, but there are other areas in which government may be relieved of directly providing a service and allowing those directly concerned to make provision for their own needs.

In much of what I have written here I have been critical of the unfettered market. But to be cautious about capitalism is not to embrace socialism. It is only to recognize that the Fall of Man encompassed also his economic appetites. A realization that the government has grown too large should not be an occasion to embrace economic Deism. As I have suggested, there are many other ways of approaching economic regulation that do not rely on direct governmental intervention. The state can be our friend in helping to establish such forms of regulatory bodies and in seeing that, once established, they do not abuse their trust.

But a thoroughgoing rejection of economic Deism must come first. And for Catholics this can probably best be obtained by a deepening of our understanding of the Catholic vision of man. For just as socialism's fundamental error is anthropological in nature, so too is libertarianism's. Likewise, "from the Christian vision of the human person there necessarily follows a correct picture of society" (Centesimus Annus). The errors of socialism and the errors of Deistic economics rest on false images of man. We will probably make more progress toward accepting the Catholic conception of the economic order if we first accept its image of man.

If we are to subject all our being, our thinking, and our living to Christ and His Church, we cannot ignore the existence of Catholic social teaching. Whether we like it or not, it is part of our patrimony, and until we embrace it as unreservedly as we embrace the rest of Catholic teaching, we will hardly be able to call ourselves orthodox or faithful Catholics, and we will never be free of the tug-of-war between statism and individualism.

Thomas Storck, who writes from Greenbelt, Maryland, is a contributing Editor of The New Oxford Review and the author of The Catholic Milieu and Foundations of a Catholic Political Order.

Read more...