Catholic Social Teaching and Conventional Economics

by Thomas Storck

Anyone who has spent much time trying to promote Catholic social teaching has probably met with a response something like this. "What you say is very fine and certainly evidence of good will.  But, you see, most of what you are asking for is simply impossible. Society would break down.  For there are economic laws which it is as foolish to try to circumvent as those of gravity.  We certainly ought to try to eliminate poverty and all that.  But this can only be done if we obey the laws of economics.  If you study economics a bit, you'll soon see why you're barking up the wrong tree."

The bogus, self-serving notion that poverty is simple

In a recent article for The Week, Jeff Spross makes a fair claim against the standard "conservative" rhetoric that the real solution to the problem of poverty is for those in poverty to start working. He also addresses the position of some conservatives who say that we can never truly address the issue of poverty because it is such a complicated human problem. Mr. Spross points out fatal flaws with this claim, but fails to see the fatal flaw in what he presents as the solution.

Where's our economic recovery?

We've been told that the economic recession of 2008 ended around June of 2009. For the last six years, the US economy has supposedly been recovering. Banking leaders are claiming that the economy is now doing well. If this is true, why is it that so many Americans haven't seen it? Banking leaders and other experts seem to only be looking at Wall Street even though it only provides half of the jobs in the US. The economic market that provides the other half of the jobs, "Main Street," is still asking when they will see any real benefits of this six year recovery.

Practical Distributism and The Distributist Review

We give thanks!

We are happy to announce that The Distributist Review has relaunched its site. For any of you who were not previous readers of the DR, I encourage you to head over and check it out. For those of you who were, I'm sure you share our enthusiasm that the wait for its return is over.





Logo for The Distributist Review © The Distributist Review. Used with permission.

House Rulez

by David W. Cooney

What limits are there to what people will do for money or some other form of success? This question is the basis of what is called, “reality television.” While some people point out that the situations of these shows are unreal, the “realities” that are being presented to us are the decisions of the people in these situations. What alliances will they make and break? What lies will they tell? What are they willing to do to each other? To what will they subject themselves in order to win? House Rulez takes these questions to a new level.

Distributism and Labor Unions

by Thomas Storck

It has sometimes been said that distributism, the economic system that promotes widely distributed productive property - whether this is owned by a single proprietor, a family, or a worker cooperative - is hostile to labor unions and the labor movement. While I do not deny that there may have been someone who labels himself a distributist who at one time or another said something negative about the labor movement, the central distributist movement, exemplified by theorists such as Hilaire Belloc or G. K. Chesterton, and of late by organs such as Practical Distributism or The Distributist Review, has not embraced such a position. Any apparent hostility is based upon a misunderstanding of the differences between a capitalist economy and a distributist economy. For example, when Belloc wrote that a union "is a proletarian institution through and through and a proletariat and a proletarian spirit is exactly what we are aiming to destroy,"[1] he was simply noting that in a distributist society the labor market divide between owners and workers, which is the hallmark of capitalism, would not exist, or would hardly exist. Since distributists desire a proliferation of small economic units - workshops, stores, farms - it is obvious that in such entities there would be no labor movement because there would be no labor. Or to put it more precisely, the worker would be the owner, and the owner the worker. There would be no need for him to form a union to protect his interests against himself. Entities that of necessity required a large facility with a large workforce would, according to the distributist model, be employee owned and administered by the workers themselves. Again there would be no need for a union. Thus Belloc is not exhibiting any hostility toward workers but rather hopes that their status may be improved by making them owners.