Professional Documents
Culture Documents
167
i he L^hesterton Keview
168
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
Such was the central claim. Nothing indeed could have been simpler.
Ownership deepened human dignity: the more widely spread the owner-
ship, greater the dignity of all. It seems naive, and the ideal social order—
small shops, small farms, small communities, small factories—is easily
mocked as a dainty provincialism, a retreat from the modern. Yet i f Dis-
tributists suffered much condescension,^ they did not lack intellectual
pedigree. Compare two social philosophies. Here is Chesterton: "In my
modern state there would be some things nationalised, some machines
owned corporately, some guilds sharing common profits . . . as well as
many absolute individual owners, where such individual owners are most
possible." 4 Here is an earlier writer:
169
The Chesterton Review
The appeal had nothing to do with novelty. Indeed, the ideas at-
tracted, not because they were new, but because they were old: as old,
perhaps, as Aristotle. Consider again that passage from the Politics. It
contains a glimpse of the Distributist ideal: the dignity of self-sufficiency;
the danger of selfishness; the importance of community; the obligations of
friendship; the dangers of uniformity; the perils of Statism; the value of
local attachments. These are difficult balances, and can be achieved only
if the acquisition of material goods is seen as a means of human f u l f i l -
ment, not as an end in itself. Economic activity is social and, therefore,
moral, a syllogism familiar to most ages save our own. Such was the an-
170
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
cient wisdom, and such was the wisdom until very recently. Only since
the end of the nineteenth century, with the development of the social sci-
ences as discrete disciplines, has there developed the doctrine that "laws"
of economics have nothing to do with morality. Even Adam Smith, apos-
tle of laissez-faire, considered himself primarily a moral philosopher. And
the divorce of economics from morality occurred at precisely the point
when industrialism, with apparent inexorability, seemed to undermine the
social order. Distributists attempted to repair the breach. Had Aristotle
survived, he might have become a valuable contributor to G.K. 's Weekly.
171
The Chesterton Review
Distributists had their critics, and the charges seem to fall into four
categories: first, that they promoted a philosophy which was innocent and
Utopian—a wholly unrealistic rebellion against modernity; second, that it
172
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
173
The Chesterton Review
tributists rejected both the fataHsm and the utopianism. They were anti-
historicist and anti-utopian, urging human autonomy in the face of "des-
tiny" or "forces" or "the inevitabiUty of progress."
But the charge of naivete will not go away. Distributism makes good
morals but bad economics: this is a standard claim. The prescriptions, ac-
cording to critics, are irrelevant in the real world. Consider the market.
Here is a device which, for all its faults, remains the most efficient mecha-
nism for identifying and addressing needs and wants. But faced with the
market, the argument goes, Distributists could only put their heads in the
sand. They hoped it would go away, preaching instead the pieties of "just
price," which (be it added) could be achieved only by the market-rigging
that they deplored in the Capitalist.^^ Indeed, the more subtle criticism
might be offered that while Distributists deplored historicist talk of des-
tiny, they fell into the same trap by speaking of the "market" as i f it were
not a matter of human contrivance or control. They reified it in order to
demonise it, failing to see it as an expression of human creativity.
174
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
175
The Chesterton Review
The criticism misses the point. Distributism was radical, but not egre-
gious. The standard complaint—it was rural, backward, poujadiste—is
caricature. In fact, it was not anti-industrial or opposed to machines.
Rather, it had more to say about ownership itself than about any particular
form of economic activity. "Even while we remain industrial," Chesterton
remarked, "we can work towards industrial distribution and away from in-
dustrial monopoly. . . . Even while we are the workshop of the world, we
can try to own our tools." ^'^ Here was no machine-wrecking, no horrified
flight to the land. Monopoly more than industrialism was the target. In-
deed, because Distributists celebrated variety and heterogeneity, they did
not envision a world entirely of small farmers or shopkeepers. The absur-
dity of "mathematically equal sub-division of property or the imposition
from above of universal one-man independence" held no charm. Self-
sufficiency—call it economic freedom—was the goal. The form of that
freedom was a matter of choice.
176
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
177
The Chesterton Review
178
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
for individuals as well as for societies. This is not quite the providential
claim that CapitaHsm works because it is morally superior; but it is close
to it.
Novak adumbrated the argument in The Spirit of Democratic Capital-
ism (1982). The timing was impeccable. Events in the Soviet Union and
in Eastern Europe made his case. By decade's end, democracy, i f not yet
Democratic Capitalism, was triumphant. Commentators have seen his in-
fluence in crucial passages of Centesimus Annus,^'^ where Pope John Paul
proposes for emerging nations "a business economy, a market economy,
or simply free economy." Most recently, Novak has produced The
Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1993), a response to Max
Weber, arguing that the historic rise of Capitalism owes more to Catholi-
cism than to Calvinism. It is heavy artillery, against which Distributism
(with its pleas for localism and smallness) may sound like a pop-gun.
But let us examine the case more closely. Novak is no apologist for
utilitarian efficiency or for survival of the economic fittest. The argument
is more urbane than that. Rather he sees Capitalism as part of a larger cul-
ture of human creativity. In fact, he resembles Distributists in two ways:
first, because his definition of Capitalism (like theirs) is very precise,
though not equivalent—what he praises is not what they condemn; sec-
ond, because he is interested less in economics per se than in anthropol-
ogy. He does not offer a prescription for prosperity so much as a vision of
man as producer, consumer, and provider. Distributists have been misun-
derstood, Novak has been misunderstood, and ( I suspect) Distributists and
Novak have often misunderstood each other.
What, then, is Novakian CapitaHsm? Largely enterprise. 'The Capi-
taUst spirit," he claims, "is creative, open, spontaneous, co-operative and
liberal in the sense of being innovative, generous and experimental." To
that extent, it is the highest economic expression of the creative subjectiv-
ity of the human person. It represents the best application of human intel-
ligence to the struggle for survival and prosperity. It is a form of co-oper-
ation with the Creator in the legitimate exploitation of the earth's
resources. It is transformative in a double sense: the earth is bountifully
transformed, its riches unlocked; and man himself, dignified by his cre-
ative inteUigence, is transformed into worthiness by his work.
Here is a noble scheme. As working definition, however, it leaves
something to be desired. The problem is obvious: Novak's classification
is so broad as to be heuristically meaningless. To speak of "human capi-
179
The Chesterton Review
180
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
economic individualism but also social harmony, prosperity but also non-
consumerism. I f true, it sounds as i f the economist has succeeded where
the alchemist has failed. He has found the formula to turn base metal—in
this case, greed—into gold. How does he do it? By proposing that the
market is sufficiently self-regulating to make Capitalist excess impossible
because inefficient. Indeed, like Adam and Smith, he sees it not simply as
mechanism but as morality. I f it is to work, it requires those who partici-
pate in it "to practise a sensible regard for others." ^3 Thus any excess
which occurs is, by definition, non-Capitalist, because it does injury to
both the mechanism and the morality. The market, in sum, seems to repre-
sent the highest economic expression of the golden rule.
Here then is Adam Smith brought back to life. The marriage of mar-
kets and morals, announced in The Wealth of Nations, is consummated in
The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Notice the similarities.
Both works are rooted in a Lockean anthropology (in Novak, baptised
with some phenomonology from John Paul II) which sees man as perpetu-
ally active, perpetually creative. Both imagine that this activity is saved
from atomistic excess by the restraints of the market itself or by Capital-
ism's capacity to provide even the loser with gains. And both celebrate (in
strikingly similar terms) the civilising virtues of prosperity. It is man's
"continual motion," says Smith, which [has] "entirely changed the whole
face of the globe, turned the rude forests of nature into agreeable and fer-
tile plains, and made the trackless and barren ocean . . . the great highroad
of communication to the different nations of the earth.^^ And, of modem
Italy, Novak writes, "The narrow winding roads of yore have been re-
placed by valley-arching autostrada as impressive as the ancient aque-
ducts. Shiny new automobiles are everywhere. The prosperity . . . posi-
tively ghstens." For all his denials, consumerism seems to be Dr. Novak's
patent balm for most social ills.
181
Ihe Chesterton Review
tion that the spread of proprietorship i n the West has produced au-
tonomous communities. Indeed, he thinks of himself as something of a
Distributist. More truthfully, it has produced greater social isolation than
before. As we have noticed, ownership alone—of house or car—need not
of itself reduce dependency. It may simply replace one form of rootless-
ness with another.
They are admirable premises, but what conclusions does John Paul
draw? These are offered in the most cited passage of the encyclical:
182
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
Perhaps it will be objected that this is no more coherent than previous at-
tempts to humanise Capitalism. It seems to fall between an anthropology
of work and a sociology of markets, hoping, like Pangloss, that all will be
for the best. But unlike Manning and Novak, John Paul does offer an inte-
grated vision of man and work, of economy and society. How? The an-
swer lies in the definition of the market. The encyclical certainly favours
"the free exercise of economic activity, which will lead to abundant op-
portunities for employment and sources of wealth." But what constitutes
freedom in this context? John Paul suggests that it presumes "a certain
[prior] equality between the parties such that one party would not be so
powerful as practically to reduce the other to subservience."
183
The Chesterton Review
iad ways, Centesimus Annus brings a story full circle. Rerum Novarum in-
spired some intellectuals to a social vision that they called Distributism.
The anniversary encyclical re-states and deepens that vision, providing it
with philosophical tools for another century.
And so, as we contemplate that century, some conclusions are in or-
der. Throughout Eastern Europe, societies and economies are re-inventing
themselves: a rare and glorious moment. Naturally, they do not lack for
advice, our Zagrebian deliberations not excluded. Indeed much of that ad-
vice comes from the United States, where it is complacently assumed that
free-market Capitalism stands unchallenged as the model to adopt. This is
sometimes code for a political philosophy of ineffable banality, as i f the
events of 1989 were merely to make the world safe for MacDonald's,
Coca-Cola, and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Abundance, American-style,
has its price: witness consumerism, a sterile mass culture, suburban alien-
ation, ignorance of the natural world. Capitalism may claim to enrich the
many, but often its product is civic impoverishment. "The business of
America," Calvin Coolidge once asserted, "is business." When business
becomes mere busyness, the spirit has died.
Distributism offers more coherent discernment: a regime of small
ownerships and local attachments, a creed of property but not possessive-
ness. Central to it is a notion of life in community, whether in the town or
the family farm or the parish or the religious order: human organisations
with a soul. The rootlessness of city or suburb, however affluent, holds no
appeal. And it is precisely modest proprietorship which permits individual
independence while preserving social responsibility. Owning one's own
land, one's shop; practising a trade or a skill; sharing profit or loss with
one's fellow workers: these were the Distributist ideals.
184
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
markable resilience. But this should not surprise us. Distributism lays
claim to abiding truths about the purpose of property and the dignity of
work in a free society. I f that purpose is enrichment, it is moral enrich-
ment. I f that dignity lies in creation, it is in the creation of good things. I f
that freedom means choice, it means the freedom to choose wisely. And i f
that society means anything, it means the sociability of individuals honest
enough to acknowledge mutual dependence. "Our business is business,"
claimed Coolidge. "What," he seems to demand of the Distributist, "is
yours?" Quietly, and with no great claim to originality, the Distributist an-
swers: "our business is the business of life itself."
1 K.L. Kendrick as quoted by Michael Coren, Gilbert: The Man Who Was G.K.
Chesterton (London, 1989), p. 235.
2 G.K. Chesterton, G.K. 's: A Miscellany of the First 500 issues of G.K. 's Weekly
(London, 1934), pp. 15-16.
^ See for example G.P. McEntee, The Catholic Social Movement in Great Britain
(New York, 1927), pp. 111-117.
^ G.K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity (London, 1926), p. 108.
^ Aristotle as quoted by L.H. Haney, History of Economic Thought (New York,
1949), p. 62.
^ John Ruskin, Unto this Last (London, 1862), Essay iii, p. 54.
Rerum Novarum, quoted by Maisie Ward, Gilbert Keith Chesterton (London,
1944), p. 437.
^ Appropriately, one may suppose, a similar fate has befallen Centesimus Annus.
^ G.K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity, p. 63.
10 See Maisie Ward, Gilbert Keith Chesterton (London, 1944), p. 435.
See, for example, Brocard Sewell, "Devereux Nights: A Distributist Memoir" in
John Sulhvan (ed.), G.K. Chesterton: Centenary Appraisal (London, 1974).
12 G.K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity, p. 31.
1^ The Distributist Programme (London, 1934), p. 8.
The Distributist Programme, p. 3.
1^ Vincent McNabb, Francis Thompson and Other Essays (London, 1955), p. 75.
16 Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (New York, 1946), p. 53.
Vincent McNabb, Francis Thompson and Other Essays (London, 1954), p. 22.
1^ G.K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity, p. 56.
19 Walter Shewring, Topics (London, 1940), p. 62.
2^ Criticism of the practice of "dumping" was a Distributist favourite. See, for ex-
ample, G.K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity (London, 1926), p. 101 ff.
21 Vincent McNabb, Old Principles and the New Order (London, 1942), p. 12 (My
italics).
22 Vincent McNabb, Francis Thompson and Other Essays (London, 1935), p. 75.
2^ See D.A. Quinn, "Distributism as Movement and Ideal" in The Chesterton Re-
view, Vol. XIX, No. 2 (May, 1993), p. 160 f f
24 See, above all, Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (London, 1911).
25 See G.K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity, p. 80.
185
The Chesterton Review
186
Distributism, Democratic Capitalism and the New World Order
Rab
187