After several posts by Mark Shea on the subject of “conservatism”, I must admit I don’t like those conservative Catholics very much. Anyway, at least how Mark Shea describes them. Fortunately, I haven’t met very many who fit Mark’s description. And I think I would have run into them, for I am a conservative Catholic.
I won’t go point for point with Mark on this as he has so many points it would be rather pointless. A snippet then. Mark says things like:
But when alleged conservative Catholics tell me that they would rather get their social teaching from a talking hairdo on FOX than from the bishops, when they tell me that it is “moralistic” not to be willing to put your soul at risk of the fires of hell by committing what used to be called “war crimes”, when they make excuses for buffoons who think saluting the brave idealists of the Waffen SS with their sons is a sure fire indication of sound judgment—and that any criticism of this makes one vehemently suspect of heresy and a traitor to the Faith—I can only say that the Right is becoming as mindlessly ideological as the Left. And ideology is not the Faith.
So Catholics who also call themselves Catholic willingly admit that they would rather get their social teaching from “a talking hairdo on FOX.” Truth is, I don’t know these people. I know lots and lots of Catholics of a conservative political bent, and I don’t know anyone who puts Glenn Beck or any other host ahead of the Bishops. Not one.
Now obviously there are kooks out there I can’t speak for every person who call himself Catholic conservative (neither can Mark btw), but that is not any of the Catholic conservatives I know. Glenn Beck is an entertainer, not a …>>>>
October 20, 2010 at 8:22 pm
So how does distributivism get implemented without government fiat, without the government forcing a massive shift in capital? Who decides who gets to do what job? We now have millions trained to do work that functions in a large scale corporate climate – how do we all suddently become yeomen again, and who instigates and oversees that process? The only entity with the power and authority to make it happen is the government. Further, we have an entire world economy with massive scale built to a current day system, the dislocation that would occur with a change of this sort would likely cause suffering on a scale that is unprecedented – at least, every time some genius decides to force some brilliant economic system on the masses, extreme suffering tends to result. Unless someone can come up with something other than century old pie in the sky arguments, I'll be having none, thanks. AFAIK, accepting distributivism is not an article of Faith.
One more thought – while our current huge corporations may or may not be entirely natural (would they have occurred to the extent they have without a massive federal government?), capitalism is just about the default setting for human commerce. That 'democratic capitalism' (a term very close to Marxist rhetoric) is today on a scale that makes many uncomfortable is due to many factors, among them a very large human population and the need to drive costs down to the lowest possible level, which in turn generally raises everyone's standards of living. I don't think the small scale distributivist system can possible provide enough goods for today's population at anything like the level of comfort we've become accustomed to. Note, Adam Smith didn't set forth a bold new economic system like Marx (and distributivists) did – he merely described reality. But everyone is right, capitalism is by far the worst economic system ever tried, except for every other system.
I think most of the problem people have with capitalism is that it's unfair. I don't recall the Lord saying life was fair. I do recall him saying the poor would always be with us, and that we should give alms as generously as possible. I think if we do that, no matter the economic system, I don't think God will be too offended.
October 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
October 20, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Have you looked into WinCo? I know their hiring stuff says something about being owned by the workers.
October 20, 2010 at 9:22 pm
veneremurcernui,
I think your comments reveal one of the problems with discussing Distributivism. Distributivism does not mean everyone is a yoeman. That might have been the form it would have taken at one time, but it is not an inherent feature. The fact that this constantly comes up as a criticism shows how the critics have not taken a hard look at the theory.
Distributivism just means that the means of production should be as widely distributed *as possible*. The realities of modern life may require a certain amount of centralization, but not nearly as much as we currently see.
I think another mistake is this notion that a government should be actually taking from one and giving to another in order to implement a system. That was the mistake of many of the Communist and Socialist revolutions. And it is the problem with our current capitalist system that often uses the government and taxation to subsidize the business models of large corporations (or bail them out), thereby further centralizing capital into fewer hands.
How is Distributivism implemented? I'm not an economist, so I can't say for all the particulars. But it would not require a revolution to shift policy to favor the wider distribution of the means of production. A move away from an anonymizing corporate structure and more to direct ownership .. especially by the employees. A move away from corporate campaign financing. Tax structures that favor smaller organizations. Stronger anti-trust laws. Tax structures that do more to favor individual ownership. And this is a big one, a move away from business regulations that require the resources of large business entities to comply with.
Revolution always produces suffering. This is one of the benefits of Distributivism. By holding that the means of production should be as widely distributed *as possible*, it recognizes the limitations of present circumstances. We can work to constantly widen what is possible without an outright revolution.
October 20, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I think the ideas Tolkien, Belloc, and Chesterton had were largely influenced by the rapid industrialization of the UK at the expense of rural Britain. Many people either do not remember or do not realize, but the first Liberals today would be considered quite conservative (some would say reactionary). And the Conservatives of the same era were monarchists, aristocratic, and had quite a low opinion of the Masses. The Conservatives were able to prepetuate a rural way of life that lasted over a 1000 years. It was the loss of this rural way of life that caused so much grief and sorrow for people like Tolkien (his rural ideal is captured perfectly in his creation of the Shire).Elizabeth Gaskell does something similar in her famous novel Cranford. Nineteenth and 20th Century writers and novelists in Prussia and France did the same. Tolstoy as probably one of the finest examples of a writer who saw the passing of the Old Guard as a human catastrophe.
The main point is that Classical Liberalism was for equality of oppurtunity (as opposed to inherited rights), equality before the law, freedom, property rights, and represenative democracy. All things near and dear to today's Teapartiers. Conservatives on the other hand wished to conserve ancient hereditary rights, privleges, and customs. The clash between rural aristocrats and urban liberal industrialists (ie Free Market Capitalists) plagued European politics (esp in the UK) all through the 19th Century.
Today things are quite different. The Left today in many ways moved beyond Left and Right, and evolved into Progressives (100 years ago they called themselves the 3rd Way. A kind of Post Modern Aristocracy where a highly technical and credentialed aristocracy rules the Masses). Classical Liberals became conservatives, and the old Conservatives simply died off (however, I do know a few Catholics who call themselves Monarchists).
The old Catholic moral order went the way of the Whigs. But what has taken its place? Pope JPII and BXVI appear to operate beyond politics as we know it. Occaisonally a cleric writes a tract or two extolling the virtues of socialsim (or social justice as they like to call it); but, they just don't inspire anymore. Many of the more orthodox Catholics naturally gravitate towards the GOP. The more hetrodox Catholics go towards to Democrats. But, in both cases thier decisions are based more on political than religious reasons. Shea is no exception. Like many Catholics he attempts to gussy up his personal opinions in the drab of Catholic moral teaching. But there no longer exists a universal moral order. Heck, it is impossible to get even Bishops to agree. In the end, we Catholics are no different than anyone else. We are pretty much on are own. Personally I am a conservative-libertarian. I have a very low opinion of my fellow Man. I do not trust the Masses, nor do I trust elected officials. A village, city, or state does best when it is left alone. A loose framework of laws known as our Constitution appears to have been the summit of human political yearning. And despite its manifest faults, it is the best we can hope for. And while I can easily affiliate myself with the sentiments of Chesterton, Belloc, and Tolkien, I certainly do not want a government legislating that ideal down out collective throats. And I am sure what I believe isn't Biblical, and has no basis in classical Catholic Thought. But niether do the opinions of my fellow Catholic misfits.
October 21, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Oh, Button old boy, if yo still don't think Mark Shea is anti-military, type in thrown from the plane into the search engine on this blog. You'll get an eyefull!
October 21, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Button, I made a mistake. The right blog to see what Mark thinks of the military isw Against The Grain. Put "thrown from a plane' into their search engine, and you'll see Mark's attitude toward the military.
October 28, 2010 at 12:52 am
juscot: I tried to find it to no avail. Could you post a link? I do think that Shea has been overly critical of the military but from what I've seen he does respect our troops.