In his 2015 book,
God or Nothing, Robert Cardinal Sarah
made an interesting distinction between poverty and destitution. We’re not sure we agree, but it may be
something to think about. According to
Sarah, most people through history have been “poor,” which he defined as
producing enough to provide decently for one’s self and one’s dependents, but
nothing more.
 |
| Well, it does. |
Today we think of
this as “living paycheck to paycheck,” except that “the poor” in former times
were somewhat better off. Many other
needs that are non-economic were typically met by “the poor” in ways closed off
to the rich, e.g., casual socializing
throughout the day, temporary difficulties relieved and repaid without even
thinking about it (or charging for it), taking care of the neighbor’s kids while
the parents are gone for a few hours or even days, and so on — all the sort of
things that the rich typically hired people to do and that now the poor must do
as well.
Part of what
Sarah highlighted as a problem in the modern world is that “the poor” are not
able to rely on friends and neighbors to relieve difficulties and solve small
problems as they once did. Life is just
too complicated for that. “The poor”
have become even more isolated than the rich when it comes to social
interaction and assistance in small difficulties. As for the big problems of life, where once
they caused major difficulties for the poor, they now cause major disasters.
And that’s the
smaller part of the problem. The large
part is that the definition of poverty has changed.
 |
| Early British socialism |
The fact is that
as human labor has decreased in value relative to technology in the production
process, many of those who in former days would have been regarded as poor are
now destitute, utterly dependent on government for everything they have. As a result, the concepts of destitution and
poverty have merged.
People who would
have been regarded in former days as “poor” are now considered “middle class.” Yes, they live far better than the richest
person in former days, and they have unheard of luxuries (that have turned into
necessities as life has become more complex), but they still face disaster if
the immediate income source is cut off.
Looking into the
history of early British socialism, we find the same distinction made by late
eighteenth and early nineteenth century philanthropists. Both Sarah and the philanthropists claimed
that there has been a confusion between the two.
 |
| Poverty and destitution are not necessarily synonyms |
Destitution or
pauperism they defined as being without means to sustain life of one’s self and
one’s dependents in a manner befitting the demands of human dignity. Poverty they defined as making enough from
your labor or land to maintain one’s self and one’s dependents adequately, but
with no significant surplus; saving for retirement, but not to purchase
luxuries.
This is why the
philanthropists and Sarah believed that Jesus’s statement in the Bible that the
poor will always be with us makes perfect sense and is not hardhearted. Sarah added that the poor cannot ordinarily
remove themselves from society as can the rich, and rely on their friends, neighbors,
and the community to live as befits human beings, and that this is among the
“virtues of poverty” that the Catholic Church teaches.
A problem
developed with the Industrial Revolution, however. As technology replaced land and labor as the
predominant input to production, people could no longer maintain themselves
through their ownership of land and labor, and poverty became equated with
destitution.
 |
| According to this, philanthropy turns people into permanent dependents. |
Philanthropists
were faced with a difficult choice: whom do you help among the vast new hordes
of destitute? Previously the choice was
easy. There were three types of
destitution:
1) The helpless, e.g., the elderly, infirm, widowed,
orphaned, etc.
2) People
temporarily out of work. The former had
a permanent claim on assistance, while the latter had a claim to a temporary
helping hand.
3) The lazy and
shiftless who refuse to work or work only when forced to do so. These had no claim to assistance, although in
charity they should be given enough to keep them alive, but nothing more. (The reasoning, of course, was that if they
wanted more, they could work for it.)
 |
| Kelso: why not make people economically independent? |
As labor was
displaced from production, distinguishing between 2 and 3 became virtually
impossible. The capitalist solution was
to relegate everyone to category 3, and to provide the absolute minimum when
absolutely necessary and it could be afforded.
The socialist
solution was to put everyone in category 1, and make adequate, even comfortable
provision for everyone whether or not the surplus exists.
The Just Third
Way solution, as Louis Kelso pointed out, is to make it possible to produce
with both labor and capital, putting everyone in category 2: entitled to
assistance when one’s labor or capital is not sufficient to provide an adequate
and secure income.
Thus, instead of
a world in which most people are considered incompetent (socialism) or lazy
(capitalism), there would be a world in which most people would meet the late
eighteenth century definition of poverty: enough income to meet reasonable
expenses of life and some of the comforts, with the difference being that the predominant
source of that income is capital instead of labor.
#30#