In the
previous posting on this subject, we closed by noting that a realistic
vision of a just society should present a viable alternative to capitalism,
characterized by concentration of capital ownership in the hands of a
relatively small private sector élite,
and socialism, characterized by concentration of capital ownership in the hands
of a public bureaucracy. Distributism, a
policy of widely distributed private property with a preference for small,
family owned farms and artisan businesses, appeared to be one possibility.
 |
| Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson |
Distributism is
not, of course, an ideal — the
concept of a perfect society would have appalled Chesterton with his knowledge
of human faults and frailties, especially his own — but an idea. It is, in a very real
sense, the non-fictional counterpart of Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson’s utopian
satire, The Dawn of All (1911).* Motivated by the social conditions they all
observed, Benson’s novel was published at about the same time Chesterton and
Belloc were giving form to what was later misleadingly labeled “distributism” —
misleading because it suggested to some people (such as Shaw) re-distribution.
* For a more in-depth analysis of
Benson’s The Dawn of All, see Michael D. Greaney, So Much Generosity: An Appreciation of the Fiction of Nicholas Cardinal
Wiseman, John Henry Cardinal Newman, and Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson. Falls Church, Virginia: Universal Values
Media, Inc., 2013, 151-158.
Surprising many,
distributism is not a program for establishing an ideal society, any more than The Dawn of All is a blueprint for the
same. Chesterton, in fact, very
carefully refrained from presenting a program.
He was wise enough to know that he lacked the wisdom as well as the
expertise to do so. For his part, Benson
knew the “science” he used to help carry his plot — as well as the mystical
time travel by means of which he inserted his protagonist into it! — was pure
fantasy and meant to be so.
 |
| G.K. Chesterton |
Distributism was
formulated and The Dawn of All was
written as “counterblasts” to an increasingly soulless and materialistic
Edwardian society. Neither one was
favored as a personal lifestyle by its originator. Chesterton’s life and livelihood depended
completely on a modern civilization with advanced communications, production,
and distribution; Benson shuddered at the thought of living in the world of the
future he imagined from the vantage point of 1911.
Benson’s and
Chesterton’s accomplishments were therefore not designs for ideal
societies. Instead, they were the
presentation of ideas that if taken in the spirit in which they were given
would start the wheels of thought and innovation turning. Benson’s and Chesterton’s common goal was to
get people to realize that the world did not have to be locked into capitalism
or, worse, socialism.
Benson knew that
his science in The Dawn of All was
far-fetched (to say the least!), but that was not the point. Through satirical exaggeration, he showed
that a world in which Catholicism was universal (or nearly so), and which
embodied everything the Edwardians believed wrong with organized religion,
could be far more human, and certainly more humane than the impersonal and
alienating State- or collective-worshipping society of Edwardian England that
was heading into socialism.
Nor was
Chesterton completely blind to the drawbacks of an entire society characterized
by small, family-owned farms and artisan businesses — possibly the greatest of
which being that he and his fellow journalists would have had to do physical
work instead of telling other people how to live their lives. That, too, was not the point, which was to
get people to realize ownership of capital did not have to be concentrated,
either in private hands or in the State.
 |
| Hilaire Belloc |
Mere income, as
Chesterton tried to make clear to Shaw, is not sufficient; simply meeting
people’s material needs is not enough: man does not live by bread alone. That, not the involved technical reasons why
the proposal could not work, is the reason Belloc rejected “social credit” when
discussing the problem of making it possible for ordinary people to own
capital:
Another point in which the reader
may think me guilty of omission is the absence of any full discussion upon the
new schemes of Social Credit. I have
just touched on them in the last section of the essay, but only very
briefly. My reason is this: That such
schemes (notably the chief one, the Douglas Scheme) do not directly advance,
nor are directly connected with the idea of property. They are only concerned with the idea of income.
They propose, especially the Douglas Scheme of credit, to restore purchasing
power to the destitute masses of society ruined by industrial capitalism. . . .
The object of those who think as
I do in this matter is not to restore purchasing power but to restore economic
freedom. It is true that there cannot be
economic freedom without purchasing power and it is true that economic freedom
varies in some degree directly with purchasing power; but it is not true that
purchasing power is equivalent to economic freedom. (Hilaire Belloc, An Essay on the Restoration of Property. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1936, 9-10.)
Distributism had
an obstacle, however, that the imaginary world of The Dawn of All did not have.
Depending on one’s belief system, Benson’s fictional global triumph of
the Catholic Church is either inevitable or impossible; his science was
fantastic, but just because science cannot solve a particular problem one way
does not preclude other ways.
In either event,
the question was out of the hands of ordinary people. Effectiveness of evangelization and invention
of scientific wonders are not the matter of everyday life.
 |
| Aristotle |
Chesterton’s and
Belloc’s society characterized by widespread capital ownership, however, is
definitely relevant both to individual life and what Aristotle called the bios politikos, “the life of the citizen in the state.” How each human person engages in the
production of marketable goods and services involves both individual life and
social life, individual good and the common good — and a modern economy in
which production is largely the result of capital absolutely requires
widespread ownership of that capital if ordinary people are to be full members
of society.
And the
problem? How widespread capital
ownership can be accomplished without violating the natural law that underpins
Catholic social teaching and that of all other natural religions and
philosophies. And that means no
redistribution, except as a temporary expedient in an emergency under the
strict requirements of the principle of double effect.
Two assumptions
therefore stood in the way of Chesterton and Belloc developing a viable means
of implementing the Distributist State in a just, equitable, and financially
feasible manner. These were, one, the
belief that the only way to finance new capital formation is to cut consumption
and accumulate the excess of income over consumption in the form of money
savings.
Given the cost of
even simple technology and small plots of arable land, this meant that even
after a lifetime of austerity and saving very few people would be able to
purchase capital, whether land, simple technology, or a small business. Nor would most people have the strength and
energy left after a lifetime of toil and saving to make the endeavor
financially viable.
Two, limiting the
pool of capital available for widespread ownership to what is already owned by
others means that, unless private property is abolished or redefined (and
coercive redistribution abolishes private property), capital ownership will
remain concentrated. Only an exceptional
individual will voluntarily divest himself of wealth in any way that diminishes
his own power. That is why the rich
typically leave vast wealth to foundations that are then dependent on them
instead of giving significant amounts directly to the poor.
As a result, both
Chesterton and Belloc avoided giving any specific means by which the
Distributist State could be implemented and maintained. As Belloc explained in An Essay on the Restoration of Property (1936), published the month
following Chesterton’s death,
All reform depends upon some clear
doctrine postulated and developed. No
reform (it would seem) can hope to prosper which does not advance a programme
covering all the field. I have not
attempted to do so. . . . Now my reason for such slight dealing with such a
major problem is that I believe it, to-day, insoluble by general means. The evil has gone so far that, though the
preaching of a new doctrine is invaluable, the creation of new and effective
immediate machinery is impossible. The
restoration of Property must essentially be the product of a new mood, not of a
new scheme. It must grow from seed
planted in the breast. It is too late to
reinfuse it by design. (Ibid.,
10-11.)
#30#
