Union Solidarista Guatemalteca y Costa Rica

It’s not so much a buzzword nowadays, but “solidarity” is still an important concept, and one that often doesn’t mean what people think it does.  To define what we mean by solidarity, we begin with the thought of Pope Saint John Paul II (Karol Józef Wojtyła, 1920-2005, elected 1978).

The Role of the State

Recently we saw a tweet or twit or whatever-you-call-’em stating that the terms “student debt” and “medical debt” should be eliminated, as no one should have to go into debt in order to get an education or be healthy.  We couldn’t figure out, however, whether the poster meant that people should pay only what they can for schooling and healthcare, or it should all be free, i.e., paid for by somebody else, usually the State meaning everybody else.

A New Age Economic Program

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, one of the biggest shifts in thinking that has caused massive amounts of trouble over the past couple of centuries is the shift from reason, to faith in matters pertaining to the natural order.  This sounds bad to atheists and agnostics, and good to (some) theists, but the simple fact is that it’s bad for everyone.

The Rise and Development of Solidarism

A short time ago we looked over the website of an organization ostensibly dedicated to promoting solidarity and solidarism as the solution to the ills of the world.  Intrigued, we looked the website over carefully.  After a bit, we noticed something distinctly odd.  The organization talked a lot about solidarity . . . but didn’t define it anywhere!  We won't embarrass them by posting a link or revealing their Secret Identity.

Personalism and Solidarism

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, we saw how the “personalism” of Pope John Paul II fit into the broader framework of social virtue, particularly social justice . . . which is not socialism, however much some confused people insist that it is.

The Rights of Man

We’re tempted to begin this posting with our usual, “As we said in the previous posting on this subject”  . . . so we will yield to temptation and begin by saying that in the previous posting on this subject, we asked the question whether material wellbeing is the sole end of existence, such as the Fabians and other socialists claimed, or if there was something more.

Sabotaging Solidarism

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, Fulton J. Sheen in the United States, and G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc in the United Kingdom locked horns early on with the forces of socialism and moral relativism, and were in many respects neutralized.  If you asked most people what it was that the American Chesterton and the English Sheen were most concerned with, you would very likely get quite a number of answers, few of which would mention socialism or moral relativism.

Defending Natural Law

 

In the previous posting on this subject, we looked at how Msgr. John A. Ryan, the Fabians, and other heirs to the mantle of Henry George worked to extend George’s thought from land to all forms of capital, and from George’s focus on the United States and Ireland to the world.  In addition, Émile Durkheim captured sociology and invented solidarism to oppose Although the victory of socialism seemed inevitable, however, it did not go unchallenged.

10. A Living Wage?

One thing that a number of Pope John Paul I’s biographers have struggled with is the puzzle of his working-class background and the fact that his father was a socialist, combined with his obvious distrust of socialism of any kind.  They see a contradiction in his open sympathy for workers versus his theological “conservatism” (actually orthodoxy).  As a result, chroniclers tend to gloss over or downplay his comments about socialism by asserting — without proof — that he was only opposed to certain kinds of socialism, notably Marxist communism.

Project Economic Justice: Origins

Hurricane Maria wreaked what the news services are calling unprecedented devastation on Puerto Rico and other islands in the Caribbean, and for once it is not the usual media hype and hyperbole.  Agriculture, infrastructure, and anything else you care to name is in ruins.  Added to what happened already in the Virgin Islands, the situation in Cuba, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc., and a virtually endless catalogue of catastrophe, as soon as the politicians stop wringing their hands and trying to find someone to blame, there is going to be the need for a comprehensive plan to rebuild not just Puerto Rico, but the entire region.

Solidarism and the Just Third Way, IV: Expanded Capital Ownership

Today we look at the fourth pillar of a just market economy, expanded capital ownership.  Father Pesch did not specifically list widespread ownership as a pillar in his system of solidarity, but — as we will demonstrate — it is necessarily implied in his third pillar, “private property.”

Solidarism and the Just Third Way, III: Restoration of Private Property

Yesterday we looked at the role of free and open markets in solidarism and the Just Third Way.  We found that Father Pesch and CESJ are in substantial agreement that the free market and fair competition are fully compatible with the demand for justice and morality in daily life.

Solidarism and the Just Third Way, III: Free and Open Markets

Last Thursday we looked at the role of the State in solidarism as understood by the “redeemer” of solidarism, Father Heinrich Pesch, S.J.  We discovered that a limited economic role for the social tool of the State is a pillar of both solidarism and the Just Third Way.  Yes, we think Father Pesch could have been a little more explicit, but by and large CESJ and Father Pesch come to the same conclusion: the economic role of the State should be limited as much as possible.

Solidarism and the Just Third Way, II: Limited Economic Role for the State

Especially these days, people seem confused about the proper role of the State.  Many, if not most people haven’t bothered to find out what the State is supposed to be doing or even what the State really is — a social tool, not the “Mortall God” of totalitarian philosopher Thomas Hobbes.  That is why we usually list the pillar having to do with the social tool of the State before the others — as did Father Heinrich Pesch.

Solidarism and the Just Third Way, I: Three or Four Pillars?

Today we start to look at how well solidarism as understood by Father Heinrich Pesch, S.J. (not Émile Durkheim) and CESJ’s Just Third Way fit together.  Both claim to be based on an Aristotelian-Thomist interpretation of Catholic social teaching — and thus of the natural law — and therefore should come to the same conclusion(s), even if by (slightly) different routes.

Solidarism, IV: True Solidarity

We had one more posting in last year’s series on solidarism that we interrupted in order to present the series on Thomas à Becket.  It’s a bit of a tag-end, but here it is:

Solidarism, III: Pesch’s Correction

Credit for founding solidarism is sometimes given to Father Heinrich Pesch, S.J. (1854-1926).  In light of the work of Émile Durkheim, however, it is evident that Pesch should, instead, be regarded as its redeemer.  His thought was directly opposed to that embodied in Das Katholisch-Soziale Manifest, which (according to Alfred Diamant, 1917-2012) was intended primarily to reconcile socialism with Catholic social teaching. (Ibid.)

Solidarism, II: Durkheim’s Prescription

Durkheim’s solution to what he called anomie was to claim that it is a moral obligation for people to organize to restructure society into monopolistic vocational groups, (Ibid., 226, 228) achieving “functional representation” (Ibid., 226.) to alter the division of labor by shifting from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity. (Ibid.) The act of organizing would subsume not merely individual rights, but individual personalities, into the group, thereby achieving, in Durkheim’s opinion, a natural society.  As Schumpeter commented,

Solidarism, I: Origin

A lot (okay, one or two) people talk a lot about solidarity these days, but how many of them really know what it means, or where it came from?  It sounds good, though, and the fact that so few people have a grasp on its implications makes it a useful tool for fast-talking commentators who need to cover up the fact that they have no idea what they’re talking about.