BOOK REVIEWS: Distributist Perspectives
TITLE: Distributist Perspectives, Vol.1, 96 pp. (Price: $8.95)
Publisher: IHS Press
Reviewer: Dr. Peter Chojnowski
It was Edmund Burke who expressed the modern orientation of the Anglo-American mind, when he stated that he “hated abstractions. I even hate the sound of the word.” This empiricist attitude, which desires a policy built upon “facts” and not on a preconceived system of rationally coherent ideas, has led, not only to tragic errors in judgment in the practical order of world affairs (I think of the “friendly” belief, on the part of American presidents FDR and Harry Truman, that “Uncle Joe” Stalin could be “charmed” into “sensibly” participating in the construction of a “progressive” world order), but has left us English-speakers with a famished imagination; one unable to conceive of an order of things starkly different from the one we currently occupy. Ultimately, this will mean that we are perpetually on the defensive or awkwardly unprepared, when we must meet idea with idea in order to meet act with act. If a people are to preserve themselves, they must know why they must preserve themselves.
This instinctive, really post-Anglican, fear of ideology (which can be defined as a coherent set of ideas concerning all aspects of human existence), or what the Germans would call Weltanschauung (i.e., World-View), was put aside by the Distributists in the 1920’s and 1930’s, when they laid out a systematic program for the reform of English society and economic life, which combined both rational and relevant ideas, with practical programs to bring about the realization of those ideas.
It is not surprising, then, that IHS Press has included the “Distributist Manifesto,” authored by Arthur Penty for the Distributist League in 1937, in the first volume of this compendium of Distributist authors, entitled Distributist Perspectives. In this theoretical foundation for all the other articles in this volume, Penty presents a comprehensive critique of modern Capitalism, along with articulating a vision of an alternative future for mankind. Even though the fundamental focus of the Distributist Manifesto was economics (understood in the sense of oeconomia–the Greek word for “household management”), issues of art, architecture, and family life were treated in an attempt to indicate some very practical reasons as to why the Distributists kept insisting that the very well-being of man was dependent on envisioning a system distinct from the one Adam Smith, of Wealth of Nations fame, and Karl Marx left to us.
Contrary to the skewed propaganda of their Capitalist opponents, the Manifesto is clear in its insistence that its fundamental purpose is to oppose the Socialist and Communist proposal to abolish private property, in reaction to the abuse of private property by the wealthy Capitalists. While affirming that private property “is organically a part of the Old World,” the Distributists also insisted upon the role of the State in rectifying the maldistribution of property; not so that the State could permanently hold all such to itself, in a bureaucratic “lock box,” but rather, in order that those who held more property could never use their advantage to progressively expropriate the small holder. The anti-Liberal agenda and ideology of the Distributists had as its objective the desire to so control property and money ownership that those who possessed much would have no ability to manipulate money, property, and manchinery for their own exclusive benefit. Who but the most crass self-seeker or fantasy-ridden determinist would affirm the goodness of any contrary purpose?
Of course any ideology, good or bad, is based upon abstract (i.e., universally applicable) ideas. These ideas are, normally, dependent on philosophical thought. Such was certainly the case with the ideas of the Distributists, as the article included in this volume by George Maxwell proves. The article, entitled “The Truth About Work,” was originally published in 1948 in The Cross and the Plough. In this, we find that the balanced Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding of Man as an embodied spirit, neither merely body nor spirit solely, is the ultimate idea beneath all of the economic discussion. The integral wholeness of man ensures that his physical work will be a reflection of the state of his spiritual soul. If a man’s physical work is not his own (i.e., capable of being disposed of as he wills for his own and his family’s long term gain), it will necessarily affect his spiritual and psychological life.
Just as this Aristotelian balance is achieved by a man when his physical work satisfies his spiritual desire for real human achievement, so too man cannot be what he is, due to his nature, unless his efforts are fixed within a system of mutual dependency, both economic and social, which we call community. Man, as such, is a “political animal” (in the Greek sense of politeia–civic society). He, therefore, forms part of a “society,” which can be defined as “the living together of intelligent beings who cooperate to establish those material and spiritual conditions which will best promote the development and perfection of all who belong to society.”[1] Moreover, rather than having as his temporal goal his own self-aggrandizement (the Liberal thesis), he has, as a determining psychological and moral factor, a conception of the Common Good, as distinct from the Public or Private Good. “In the concrete the Common Good is the sum total of advantages which by reason of co-operation concerns all who belong to society.”[2] Even though such ideas as “communal” and “common good” may cut across our own Liberal grain, without an awareness of such ancient concepts, man will never regain the psychological and political composure that he needs to overcome a System built upon their rejection.
1 George Maxwell, “The Truth About Work,” in Distributist Perspectives, Vol. 1 (Norfolk, VA: IHS Press, 2004).
2 Ibid.
TITLE: The Economic Effects of the Reformation, 160 pp. (Price: $14.95)
Author: Dr. George O’Brien
Publisher: IHS Press
Reviewer: Alun Rowland
In William Cobbett’s History of the Protestant Reformation we see something of the effects of the Reformation and its consequences on the lives of the average working man. An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation by George O’Brien, however, provides us with the whys and wherefores and demonstrates how the theological heresies propounded by the reformers led to the current day economic situation and the rise of the twin evils, devastating our society, of Capitalism and Socialism.
George O’Brien (1892-1973) was well qualified to discuss economics as he was for over 30 years Professor of National Economy and Professor of Economics at the Catholic University College in Dublin. Before this he practised law and in the political sphere, he represented the college in the Irish Senate for 16 years. His other works include Economic History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century (1918), followed the year after by The Economic History of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century (1919), followed soon by The Economic History of Ireland from the Union to the Famine (1921), and An Essay on Medieval Economic Teaching (1920), an unrelated work.
The perceptive introduction by Dr. Edward McPhail clearly sets out the whole idea inspiring the book:
Economic Effects makes us see the ideological foundations of capitalism, socialism and modernity in a fresh way. Remarkably, this freshness relies on ideas that date back to the early 16th century. Indeed, for O’Brien the Reformation was not merely a religious event. It was an epoch-making social and economic convulsion that in fact gave rise to both capitalism and socialism. The Reformation was much more than a religious dispute. It was an overturning of society as it was then known.
He clearly brings out the fact that the sense of morality that governed economic life before the Reformation withdraws afterwards in the wake of the new heresies, and disaster ensues in the economic field. This sets the tone of the book.
In the first chapter we are presented with a thorough survey of the economic effects in general of the Reformation with the opening line:
The more study of economic history is pursued, the more clearly emerges the connection between religious and economic ideas.
The study of economics was not a branch of learning on its own. St. Thomas Aquinas would not have known anything of it as such, but would have simply understood it as a branch of ethics which was dealt with by ecclesiastics, and so all moral life was governed by ecclesiastical legislation enforced by spiritual sanctions. Religious and economic life was thus entwined. A prime example of this may be the medieval law of the Just Price that clearly shows the altruistic spirit that permeated the economic and social life of the time. The principle of the Just Price, that no one can arbitrarily raise the prices of a commodity, had to be observed in wages, buying and selling, and every contract of exchange. If this was not followed the contract was adjudged to be unjust and invalid in conscience, and the aggrieved party had a claim to restitution. Thus was medieval society governed by this and many other laws. O’Brien states that:
It follows that a society penetrated throughout, as medieval society was, by the ideas and teaching of dogmatic religion will continue essentially unchanged so long as no change occurs in the religion on which it is based. In order, therefore, to effect any far-reaching social change in such a society, it is necessary to attack the religion in which it is rooted....When in the extreme case the attack on the old religion is directed against its very foundations, and when the old faith is shaken from top to bottom, the social and economic consequences are bound to be correspondingly deep and revolutionary.
In order to look at these revolutionary changes we have to look at the reformers/revolutionaries themselves. Luther had a natural preference for the countryside over the city. In the furtherance of his aims, his portrayed a totally false picture of later medieval society in his attempt to undermine the Church. Calvin tended more towards life in the city and displayed a greater comprehension of economic matters. He justified usury, which came to have profound consequences.
As with most heresies, those arising at the Reformation subsequently subdivided and splits occurred amongst themselves. However, one doctrine united them–justification by faith. This led to a new conception of the Church within society–that it was concerned solely with the religious domain, which consequently led to a separation of the spiritual and temporal. O’Brien sums it up well:
The older Church sought to permeate political and social institutions with the religious spirit, but the trend of Luther’s teaching was in the direction of the complete independence of the secular state.
This was also reflected in the sphere of the individual for whom private judgment became a dogma. Thus Man became his own master and a self-centered approach to society was adopted. After all, one only needed a simple act of faith to save one’s soul, and good works were no longer required for salvation, and the great charitable institutions of the Church were gone in many countries. Poverty became a disgrace rather than a mark of holiness as it had been previously.
Most people are clear as to what constitutes Protestantism, but the term Capitalism requires definition because it is a much misunderstood term, especially among many Catholics with little knowledge of the Church’s social teaching and who are often too hasty in defending their economic way of life. O’Brien presents us with the following definition:
Probably the most characteristic feature of this new point of view, which we may call the capitalistic spirit, is that accumulation of wealth is looked on as a good in itself....In other words, business for business’ sake has become the watchword for the modern capitalist. His wealth is not designed for himself or for his enjoyment; it has ceased to be a means and has become an end.
Like the recent changes in the Church, these novel ideas did not have an effect straightaway but gradually seeped in to the mind set of the population. This developed further with the Calvinistic idea of predestination. A successful business would be a clear sign of a predestined soul truly living out his “vocation.” When this rupture from the old order and the idea of making money for its own sake was established, the inevitable consequence was an increasingly large gap between the rich and poor. This was echoed by the words of great Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum when he said that the workers “bore a yoke little better than that of slavery.”
This capitalistic type of economy must also be able to operate unfettered by any restraint. These restraints that were considered bounden duties in the Middle Ages have disappeared in the pursuit of money-making. O’Brien continues:
The aim of the modern capitalist may be summed up in one word–exploitation; to exploit the necessities of the hungry and the defenceless, to exploit the fruits of other people’s labour–these are the aims of the business man of the capitalistic era.
Later we read of one of the many consequences:
Gain being admittedly the only aim of the capitalist, profit becomes the sole standard of measurement of success or failure in life. In the Middle Ages, a transaction would have been judged on the basis of its moral worth and public service, but at the present day, the only standard of judgement is the profit which it promises.
The modern economists developed these views pushing forth such ideas as the advantage of unrestricted competition, all of which encouraged an essentially materialistic view of life. These ideas stem from the Protestant revolt:
The idea which we have indicated as characteristic of the capitalist stand point are characteristically Protestant ideas–some of them characteristic of Protestantism in general, and some of them peculiar to certain Protestant creeds. The insistence of the capitalist on the removal of all restraints by the State is strictly analogous to the insistence of the Protestant on the removal of all restraints by the Church. It is private judgement translated in to the realm of Industry.
The individualistic nature of the Protestants is indubitable, so why not apply the same principle to economic social life. This is seen especially in the countries that wholeheartedly embraced Protestantism. Although Luther’s preference for the rural life led to a more conservative and reactionary view, it was nevertheless a break with the past, but not as profound as Calvin’s. His ideas were a clear, unremitting rupture with the economic life of the Middle Ages, and very much geared towards town and city life. Life in Geneva was initially based on a steady social order but inevitably the Calvinists there did not see the consequences of their errant doctrines.
The supernatural gradually disappeared from economic and social life. Increasingly, the concept that a person “saved” would be seen to be blessed in his business life and this would then be seen as a sign of his “state of grace” to those around him. This reached such a point in some places that it would be seen as most imprudent economically not to be one of those who had been “saved.” O’Brien shows us the conclusion of such thinking when he draws on the writing of Max Weber, the economic historian:
Weber draws attention to the practice in some Baptist communities in the United States, in which businessmen desire to be admitted to baptism, because they know that the fact that they get through the moral examination which is held before baptism is administered will act as a kind of guarantee of their business credit; and further calls attention to the indisputable fact that, when the religious life disappears from capitalist communities, recourse is had to all sorts of clubs, conferences, fellowships and other organisations to take the place of the old organised religious opinions as the test of public respectability.
In the English world, the Calvinist doctrine went a long way to the formation of the Puritan sect. This body had a huge influence on the English world, even leading to the only English republic in over 1000 years of monarchy. A form of spirituality was developed by them whereby one must follow one’s “vocation” and do good work, not the Catholic idea of “works.” Idleness and laziness would have been seen as the most grievous faults. Clearly, trade and production would flourish in such circumstances, and the wish for ever increasing production–a clear indicator of the capitalist spirit–aided by the well-known Puritan austerity. The concentration on the economic life led to a neglect and even a positive distaste for any form of levity or recreation. Gone was the medieval idea of magnificentia seen in art, architecture and the general Catholic sense of “sweet reasonableness” in all things, and this heralded the advent of the drab and coldness of the Puritan world. Consequently, these “saved” souls turned even more to their almost “divinised” businesses in that their success would have shown to all that they were predestined by God, who used their business to mark them out. These concerns would go on to flourish and the profits reinvested to realize the greatest gain—both a capitalistic and Puritan character.
In these circumstances, the Puritan businessman would have had to employ increasing numbers of workers in his expanding business. These workers who would have also been imbibed with the Puritan spirit would have worked long and hard to fulfill their vocation, thus increasing their master’s profit. Any form of economic restraint would not be desired as this might hinder the business man from satisfying his calling from God. In this way:
the individual may render the best service to the community, all artificial restraints on private enterprise must be abolished.
It will be seen that the economic ideals of the Puritan spirit of manufacture and exploitation were very close to those of Judaism, which directed its attention to trade and money. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the Protestants relied very much on the Old Testament. Thus O’Brien concludes:
Judaism has undoubtedly played a very large part in the development of modern capitalism, but it has played that part, not directly, through the residence of Jews in Christian communities, but indirectly, through its impressing itself upon the Calvinist mind.
All those who have seriously studied the matter have concluded that Calvinism and so Puritanism have spawned the modern-day capitalistic spirit. The asceticism of these reformers was not aimed heavenwards but on the striving in this life to fulfil one’s calling in a spirit of self-denial and frugality aimed at greater economic success.
Socialism does cover a wider meaning, and many different forms of economic organization. Some misinformed people consider that Europeans all have exclusively socialist governments. It is often said that the excesses of Capitalism have provoked the Socialist reaction and these people can see the injustice of this system but fail to look heavenwards for the solution. It was defined by Rae in 1884:
Socialism is a theory of the State’s action, founded on a theory of the labourer’s right—at bottom a demand for social justice—that every man shall possess the whole produce of his labour.
This social justice will be achieved by “the state’s action,” but this action will subjugate the role of man over that of the state. Gone was the view of the Middle Ages that the state was made for man to be replaced by the Socialist view that the man was made for the state. This in its turn has consequences to the effect that the distribution of the economic products should become a public matter and so governed by the state. Accordingly, private property rights are affected negatively. Depending on the strain of Socialism, every socialistic system has insisted upon an abolition of property rights to some extent.
Socialism has always been said to have arisen because of the excesses of Capitalism. It may be concluded therefore by some, that it is not directly related back to the Reformation. However, as the Reformation was by its very nature a protest, of itself, it bred the notion of protest. Many of the subsequent sects that broke away did so as a protest. O’Brien explains it this way:
The later sects which arose among Protestants frequently arose as a protest against the errors of the previous ones, and they almost invariably erred in the opposite direction; but nobody would suggest that the original heresy was not responsible for all its children, however little they resembled each other; and so, similarly, the Reformation must be held responsible for all the social errors as well as for the religious errors to which it gave birth.
The excesses of Capitalism are well documented and also brought to our attention by the great Pope Leo XIII in his renowned encyclical Rerum Novarum on the condition of the working classes. The excessive individualism and private judgment of the heretical sects, which led to Capitalism, undermined the cohesiveness of society. This left it open to attack by the Socialists. They shared a materialistic vision with the Capitalists but simply varied in method in achieving this. Additionally, the very radical nature of the Reformation produced very radical economic fruits such as was seen in various communistic movements. Gone were the Religious who held land in common and lived their holy rule in the name of God. The new radicals with their private interpretation of Scripture attempted to create a godly society on earth in “a confiscatory and compulsory” manner. The confiscation of the monastic lands gave a great boost to the early communistic movements. It also fundamentally undermined property rights in general. The Church was usually the greatest landowner in the nation after the Crown, and the fact that its land was taken from under it made all private property rights unsafe.
All these ideas would obviously flourish in a society with a religion that encourages private judgment. The only force which had the might to counter this would be the Catholic Church. Hence the Reformation not only helped generate these ideas, but, by its nature, did not have sufficient force to stop them when they got out of control.
O’Brien concludes his essay by stating that he has attempted to show the common origin of the two prevailing schools of modern economic thought. The stable society of medieval times was decimated by the Reformation and a monster was unleashed that split and subdivided. The guiding force behind all economic activity was removed by the reformers. God and morality was displaced from overseeing economic and business activity. The worker was left bare and defenseless with no protection. The Socialists believed that they would be able to offer this protection but their materialistic notion offered no assistance. There is only one institution that offers the remedies for all the social and economic ills of our day: the Catholic Church.
This book is a must for any Catholic who wishes to be informed of the why and wherefores of how modern society has reached the current dismal state of affairs under the double-headed beast—Capitalism and Socialism. On reading this book, one can no longer simply accept the status quo of living in a capitalistic or socialist system because of the comfortable materialistic existence that they provide. These systems are truly the descendants of the Reformation and should be recognized as such, with no Catholic ever attempting to defend them. Rather, they should be struggling and fighting to restore the rights of Our Lord as King over society.
Do not be put off by the textbookish title. It is extremely well written with all the concepts clearly set out for us. It is a masterful feat to be able to lead the reader from the serenity of economic life in the Middle Ages through the revolutionary Reformation and subsequent upheaval in society to the present terminal malaise in economic matters. Both the theological and economic notions are very well detailed and explained. Professor O’Brien’s teaching experience clearly shines through here.
Current Issue
