← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · OlafLynckner
Thread ID: 11380 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2003-12-06
2003-12-06 06:55 | User Profile
Not sure who made this one but it was in my documents and pretty good. Naturally, what is said does not reflect my views but is very much worth reading for anyone even if you are not a Catholic.
CATHOLICISM v. CAPITALISM
This year marks the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, the Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum is one of the cornerstones of Catholic Social teaching, laying down a set of principles governing working rights. Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno appeared 40 years later and developed Leo's social principles emphasising the common good and state responsibility. At a time when the present Pope has warned Catholics against becoming complacent after the fall of Communism and has criticised Capitalism it is all the more timely to consider the teaching of Rerum Novarum which I should argue is in accord with the distributist principles of the Third Way. OF THINGS NEW At the heart of Rerum Novarum is a defence of the institution of private property. Pope Leo XII made the following telling criticism of Socialism:- In working for a wage he works also for a full and perfect right to use his earnings as seems good to him. If, therefore, a man spends less on consumption and uses what he saves to buy a farm, that farm is his wage in another form, as much at his disposal as was the wage itself. It is precisely in this power of disposal that ownership consists, whether the property be in real estate or in movable goods. It follows that when socialists endeavour to transfer privately owned goods into common ownership they worsen the condition of all wage earners. By taking away from them freedom to dispose of their wages they rob them of all hope and opportunity of increasing their possessions and bettering their condition. Pope Leo XII foresaw the effects of Socialism as witnessed in the former Eastern Bloc when he declared that socialism would lead to:- All incentive for individuals to exercise their ingenuity and skill would be removed and the very founts of wealth dry up. The dream of equality would become a reality of equal want and degradation for all. So far the reader might think that the Church was simply defending 'free enterprise' concepts. A thorough understanding of Catholic Social Teaching will, however, show that this is far from being the case. A JUST WAGE Some Capitalists justify low wages by saying that the worker is free not to make the contract if he feels that the money offered is insufficient. A cleaning supervisor of my acquaintance used this very argument to justify the payment of cleaners at a pitiful ã2 per hour. These exploiters see no connection between the work itself and the rate offered. Pope Leo XIII outlined an alternative concept - the principle of a 'just wage'. He stated:- Let workers and employer, therefore, make any bargains they like, and in particular agree freely about wages; nevertheless, there underlies a requirement of natural justice higher and older than any bargain voluntarily struck; the wage ought not to be in any way insufficient. Pope Leo XIII condemned those who "misuse men as instruments for gain and to value them only as so much energy and strength". He stated that, "To defraud a man of the wage which is his due is to commit a grievously sinful act which cries out to heaven for vengeance." USURY Another way in which Catholic Social Teaching stands in conflict with Capitalism is its forthright condemnation of Usury. The edition of Rerum Novarum that I would recommend is that published by the Catholic Truth Society with explanatory notes by Joseph Kirwan of Plater College, Oxford (ISBN 0-851835244). This centenary edition contains a very useful section outlining the traditional teaching on usury. This points out the definition of usury contained in the encyclical VIX pervenit sent by Pope Benedict XIV to the bishops of Italy in 1745:- The sin called usury is committed when a loan of money is made and on the sole ground of the loan the lender demands back from the borrower more than he has lent. In the nature of the case a man's duty is to give back only what he borrowed. It is unfortunate fact that the Catholic Church in recent times has not campaigned as vigorously as say some Islamic groups against usury. Usury is something which has corrupted relations between not only individuals but also nations (see our articles on Third World Debt). STATE INTERVENTION Rerum Novarum also sets out a philosophy which contradicts the 'Thatcherite' outlook. It contains a defence of the right of the State to intervene in economic matters:- The public authority must intervene whenever the public interest or that of a particular class is harmed or endangered, provided that this is the only way to prevent or remove evil. John Paul II, the present pope, has underlined this point in Centesimus Annus saying:- The State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking, or by supporting them in moments of crisis. It is clear, however, that the State is not expected to 'plan' the economy. Rather it is expected to intervene where consideration of Justice impels it to do so, Centesimus Annus supports the principle of subsidiarity - that higher level organisations, such as the state, should not take over any of the functions that lower level organisations such as businesses or the family are capable of performing. THE NATURE OF PROFIT Centesimus Annus also gives rather different definition of the role of profit to that which would be put forward by many capitalists:- The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication that a business is functioning well..... (however) the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is to be found in it's very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavouring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of society. Pope John Paul II has explicitly stated the objection of the Church to our present Capitalist system, warning that the consumer society has the same effect as discredited Marxism:- .....in the sense that it totally reduces man to the sphere of economics and the satisfaction of material needs. The free economy must not lead to an "idolatry of the market" or a culture in which 'having' is more important than 'being', says the Pope. CATHOLICISM V. CAPITALISM As we have seen Catholic Social Teaching condemns usury, calls for state intervention in economic matters to uphold justice, demands a just wage for workers and its highly critical of the materialist ethos of capitalism which reduces the dignity of men to abstract economic equations. At the same time it condemns socialism and defends the right to private property. These teachings are not contradictory, as some would have it, but find their political expression in the Distributist philosophy of Belloc and Chesterton. This is the philosophy which underlies the economic policies of the Third Way. Can any Catholic seriously believe that the Labour Party Tories or Liberal Democrats will challenge the fundamental nature of Capitalism - an unjust system which stands condemned by these neglected social teachings of the Church? Needless to say the Third Way, as a secular body, does not endorse the theology of the Catholic Church or any other religious denomination. Yet those of the Catholic faith should consider carefully how social teaching can be expressed in the political arena...
The Centenary Study Edition of Rerum Novarum with notes and introduction by Joseph Kirwan is available for 3.50 UK pounds from the Catholic Truth Society, 30-40 Eccleston Square, London, SW1V 1PD, ISBN 0 851835
2003-12-08 17:55 | User Profile
A year or so ago I wrote this letter to Latin Mass magazine in response to an article defending capitalism and criticizing distributist Hilaire Belloc (d. 1953). Might as well share it with you all (it was never published).
There is right now also a recent exchange over usury and it's meaning in the culture war section of O.D.
Editor:
I was appalled by John Clarkââ¬â¢s caricature of Hilaire Bellocââ¬â¢s economic ideas and especially his contention that they were un-Catholic. While Clark accused Belloc of ââ¬Åignoring the mind of the Church,ââ¬Â it was Clark himself who completely ignored the series of major socio-economic encyclicals produced during Bellocââ¬â¢s own lifetime, particularly those of Leo XIII and Pius XI. The omission is hardly surprising. Clarkââ¬â¢s paean to capitalism (along with its cherry-picked theological quotes) suggests a mind guided more by Rush Limbaugh than Rerum Novarum.
In fact, Belloc (who by the way was not a convert) was writing in close harmony with much contemporaneous papal teaching. Like the Church, Belloc criticized both socialism and capitalism on the grounds that neither of them could endure in their pure form. Just as socialism was excessively collectivist, capitalism was excessively individualist, and both systems were explicitly secular.
In addition, however, Belloc also warned prophetically of the rise of the modern totalitarian welfare state, or as he titled his book, the ââ¬ÅServile State.ââ¬Â He argued that the great, misunderstood anomaly of capitalism was that rather than being an alternative to the welfare state, capitalism was actually the driving force behind it. Capitalism, he thought, was merely a stage through which we would pass on the road to our ultimate authoritarian destiny. Our real choice, Belloc said, was not between capitalism and socialism, but between some form of bureaucratized welfarism on the one hand, and the alternative which he termed ââ¬Ådistributism.ââ¬Â
Distributists sought what the economist Wilhelm Roepke would later call a ââ¬ÅHumane Economy,ââ¬Â which emphasized the virtues of self-sufficiency, freedom, independence, localism, and security. They did not advocate redistribution of income, but instead sought redistribution of power--away from unions, corporations and the super-state, downward toward guilds, private collectives, and other ââ¬Åintermediate institutions.ââ¬Â Distributists called for those at the middle and bottom of the economic pyramid to essentially reorganize--to empower themselves to act and work collectively for their common protection and welfare. The goal would be a society in which the great bulk of working men could cooperate rather than always compete. By that means they would gain the tools and power necessary to own homes, support a spouse with an ample family, and live in decent comfort unencumbered by excessive debt or uncertainty.
After reorganization of labor, therefore, a second pillar of distributism was the ââ¬Årestoration of propertyââ¬Â such that property ownership would be wide and deep, not exceptional and debt-laden. This included not only ownership of homes but also land and small businesses. By this means, not only would men regain the dignity of ownership, but there would be less dependency on a tenuous paycheck and less vulnerability to the vagaries of employers or the business cycle. In particular, distributists supported the preservation of family farms. They promoted what Europeans called ââ¬Åpeasantââ¬Â farming, or what Jeffersonians would call ââ¬Åyeomanââ¬Â farms. This was both because farms were a source of political and economic power, and also because farmers as a class tended to be pious people (ââ¬Åcloseness to the land is closeness to God,ââ¬Â as the Benedictines say). Today, as we know, such farms are rapidly becoming extinct, replaced by modern ââ¬Åagribusiness.ââ¬Â
Contrast the distributist vision with our present situation. Young people today euphemistically proclaim themselves ââ¬Åhomeownersââ¬Â as they enslave themselves to banks for 30 years for the privilege of owning shelter, and then only for the modern ramshackle cracker boxes we call homes. This will most likely require two incomes and fewer than two children. Stay-at-home parents are becoming a luxury of the affluent. We see the constantly shrinking real income of the ordinary laborer, while our surplus unemployed are absorbed by a belligerent military establishment, a bloated civil service, government welfare, and prisons. At the same time our bankruptcy courts continue humming along steadily, as crippling debt, suffocating regulation and onerous taxation have become part of the normal fabric of everyday life.
It may be said that a restoration of Catholicism is a pre-condition for the widespread application of many distributist principles, but Belloc should be credited for confronting the issues of his day more realistically (and prophetically) than most of his contemporaries. His predictions of the future bear striking resemblance to many of todayââ¬â¢s disheartening facts of life.
2003-12-08 19:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]It may be said that a restoration of Catholicism is a pre-condition for the widespread application of many distributist principles, [/QUOTE]
"Remember, that time is money. He that can earn ten shillings a day by his labour, and goes abroad, or sits idle, one half of that day, though he spends but sixpence during his diversion or idleness, ought not to reckon that the only expense; he has really spent, or rather thrown away, five shillings besides.
"Remember, that credit is money. If a man lets his money lie in my hands after it is due, he gives me the interest, or so much as I can make of it during that time. This amounts to a considerable sum where a man has good and large credit, and makes good use of it.
"Remember, that money is of the prolific, generating nature. Money can beget money, and its offspring can beget more, and so on. Five shillings turned is six, turned again it is seven and threepence, and so on, till it becomes a hundred pounds. The more there is of it, the more it produces every turning, so that the profits rise quicker and quicker. He that kills a breeding-sow, destroys all her offspring to the thousandth generation. He that murders a crown, destroys all that it might have produced, even scores of pounds."
"Remember this saying, The good paymaster is lord of another man's purse. He that is known to pay punctually and exactly to the time he promises, may at any time, and on any occasion, raise all the money his friends can spare. This is sometimes of great use. After industry and frugality, nothing contributes more to the raising of a young man in the world than punctuality and justice in all his dealings; therefore never keep borrowed money an hour beyond the time you promised, lest a disappointment shut up your friend's purse for ever.
"The most trifling actions that affect a man's credit are to be regarded. The sound of your hammer at five in the morning, or eight at night, heard by a creditor, makes him easy six months longer; but if he sees you at a billiard-table, or hears your voice at a tavern, when you should be at work, he sends for his money the next day; demands it, before he can receive it, in a lump.
"It shows, besides, that you are mindful of what you owe; it makes you appear a careful as well as an honest man, and that still increases your credit.
"Beware of thinking all your own that you possess, and of living accordingly. It is a mistake that many people who have credit fall into. To prevent this, keep an exact account for some time both of your expenses and your income. If you take the pains at first to mention particulars, it will have this good effect: you will discover how wonderfully small, trifling expenses mount up to large sums, and will discern what might have been, and may for the future be saved, without occasioning any great inconvenience."
"For six pounds a year you may have the use of one hundred pounds, provided you are a man of known prudence and honesty.
"He that spends a groat a day idly, spends idly above six pounds a year, which is the price for the use of one hundred pounds.
"He that wastes idly a groat's worth of his time per day, one day with another, wastes the privilege of using one hundred pounds each day.
"He that idly loses five shillings' worth of time, loses five shillings, and might as prudently throw five shillings into the sea.
"He that loses five shillings, not only loses that sum, but all the advantage that might be made by turning it in dealing, which by the time that a young man becomes old, will amount to a considerable sum of money."
2003-12-09 18:01 | User Profile
Good that almost all here understand what Calvinist protestant ethic in USreal means. Weber is a must read for all gentiles which still doesnt understand how North America could have turned into USreal.
2003-12-09 18:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]Good that almost all here understand what Calvinist protestant ethic in USreal means.[/QUOTE]
Yes, at one time it produced the most industrious, independent and free white society known to history. In hindsight one can criticize it for not forming a capable defense against subversion and now it is mostly a matter of inconsequence since there is really no Calvinist, Protestant ethic left here in these United States to speak of.
2003-12-09 19:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Yes, at one time it produced the most industrious, independent and free white society known to history. In hindsight one can criticize it for not forming a capable defense against subversion and now it is mostly a matter of inconsequence since there is really no Calvinist, Protestant ethic left here in these United States to speak of.[/QUOTE]
Thats not true! You are right that all what the liberals would call "ballast" or "injustice for a true liberal society" was destructed, but this destruction of values wouldnt have been possible without the forwork of Calvinism and the American Revolution.
The path was almost clear from the beginning, the system was not traditional, not European and not very stable, it didnt need to much to collapse, to degenerate to a pure liberal capitalism.
To know this weakness means to know the weakness of white Protestants in the US. You can blame others like the Jews for giving you the rest, but not for leading you to such an catastrophy for the white races and mankind.
2003-12-09 19:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]...but this destruction of values wouldnt have been possible without the forwork of Calvinism and the American Revolution.[/QUOTE]
Your looking at the glass as half full, Agrippa. We also wouldn't have what little we have left of the Bill of Rights, Freedom of Speech, etc. to mount a campaign of opposition to that destruction we agree on.
To know this weakness means to know the weakness of white Protestants in the US. You can blame others like the Jews for giving you the rest, but not for leading you to such an catastrophy for the white races and mankind.[/QUOTE]
For me this begs the question: if white Calvinist Protestantism was so flawed from the get-go, how did we ever get in the position to be a catastrophe for the entire white race and mankind?
2003-12-09 20:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]Thats not true! You are right that all what the liberals would call "ballast" or "injustice for a true liberal society" was destructed, but this destruction of values wouldnt have been possible without the forwork of Calvinism and the American Revolution.
To know this weakness means to know the weakness of white Protestants in the US. You can blame others like the Jews for giving you the rest, but not for leading you to such an catastrophy for the white races and mankind.[/QUOTE]
Would you say that the Afrikander Boers had the same flaws as the Americans as they believed in predestination theory, too?
2003-12-09 21:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]For me this begs the question: if white Calvinist Protestantism was so flawed from the get-go, how did we ever get in the position to be a catastrophe for the entire white race and mankind?[/QUOTE]
Well, I dont say the "American way of life" doesnt work economically or it has no attraction for humans, I just say its the wrong way.
If a country with a system like Germany had 1914 or 1933 would have had the same ressources it would have been much more powerful than the USA could have ever been.
So the US-system WAS economic effectiv and had a good start point, it is just not good on the long run! Because all the European traditions, the European roots were long alive even after the revolution BUT the destruction began even before the revolution! The revolution was the first sign of the destruction.
So in the US one part of the useful traditon after the other was destructed for a wrong ideal of egalitarism in confuse combination with liberal-individualistic social darwinism/calvinistic work ethos/predestatination.
This must lead to Egoism, community destruction especially in the cities. Such a system can just work in small groups which help each other and dont care too much about concurrence and more about their small group and religious ideals. Thats not modern and in a way primitive, but the only way in which this individualistic calvinism can work. In an industrialized society this individualism MUST lead to egoism ==> community destruction --> plantage of the plutocracy in the new Neoliberalism.
The problem is that the simple minded Amercans DID NOT adapt their individual primitive Calvinistic ethic to the modern society. In the end other people, the Calvinist industrials/moguls and Jews did it for (against) them.
Do this masters need the primitive Calvinists which build up the country any more? Do they? Or are the just ballast for them? They are only useful as cheap workers and easy-to-manipulate soldiers for them. They need a society with not to much common sence, especially not one which stands above the small group. Such a common sence never really existed in the US on a broad and stabile base but nowadays the establishment is busy to kill the rest of it.
That was the weakness of the primitive or palaeo-conservatives. Their ideals are not mine, but they worked in small farmer societies and small cities, they dont work in bigger towns. The Calvinist work ethic just helps the Plutocrazzzy and nobody else today in USrael.
[QUOTE]Would you say that the Afrikander Boers had the same flaws as the Americans as they believed in predestination theory, too?[/QUOTE]
Well, sure Calvinism was not the only reason for the mental degeneration which occured in America, but it was the main one until Jews get into power. And when the Jews came the most things were made ready by Calvinists.
I think you see the difference between the Pilgrim fathers and the Boers dont you? Calvinism is a problem in its diversity. Just look how many sects exists which are more or less Calvinistic.
For the Boers the special situation and national identity was stronger than the individualism.
2003-12-10 00:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]If a country with a system like Germany had 1914 or 1933 would have had the same ressources it would have been much more powerful than the USA could have ever been.
If wishes and buts were candy and nuts....
The rest of your post I can't really understand what you're saying. My apologies.
2003-12-10 00:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]If wishes and buts were candy and nuts....
The rest of your post I can't really understand what you're saying. My apologies.[/QUOTE]
Ok in a short form: Calvinism is not too problematic in small pre-industrial communities but in industrialized modern societies the primitive form of Calvinism was substituted with the pure liberal-individualistic-capitalistic logic.
For the Calvinism this was a very small step, so it was for the Jewry, but for the other major European groups f.e. Lutherans it was a much bigger step.
Almost impossible that this could have happened in a Luthern or orthodox society the same way.