THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: As Christians we are all familiar with the political parties and economic theories of the various nations we inhabit. In America it's the Democrats vs. the Republicans, or Liberals vs. Conservatives, or just Socialists vs. Capitalists. Most of us don't like to think in economic terms. We often take those for granted. Instead we prefer to look at the social issues, such as abortion, prayer in schools, gay-marriage, etc. What we often fail to realize is that all of these social issues are interrelated with economics, and that economics often shapes society's moral views without us even realizing it. The two prevailing economic theories operating in our world today are Socialism and Capitalism. What a lot of people don't know is that while they appear to be opposed to each other on the surface, they are actually related to each other underneath on a moral level. Both systems of thought operate on a similar principle that people are commodities, mere "things" to be used as needed for the goals of those "in charge." In the end Capitalism results in Socialism. Because both systems devalue life, marriage and family. Both systems, in their most pure form, know nothing of subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.
Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."We are all familiar with the evils of Socialism. It's all around us. Our governments gradually (and sometimes not so gradually) take away our earnings and property to "re-distribute" them as they see fit, replacing the work of charity within the Church and setting themselves up as God. Along with our resources and property, these same governments deprive us of our freedoms. Make no mistake about it "re-distributism" (a.k.a. "Socialism") is THEFT! It is a violation of the Ten Commandments and an act of lawlessness. Those who advocate it are toying with their souls and placing their salvation in jeopardy. Socialism is a moral evil which the Catholic Church has always stood squarely against in it's doctrinal teaching. Sadly, many Catholics (including some clergy) are Socialists. For this they are denying the clear teachings of the Church and will have to answer before God. Along with Socialism however, comes a social ethic, or morality, which is really immorality. Anyone who reads the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels will quickly discover that the path to Socialism is paved with immorality - particularly sexual immorality. Yes, one sin leads to another, and the fathers of Socialism had no problem using vice as a means of furthering the "revolution." Make no mistake about it. Socialism destroys faith, turning the Church into a mere "religious institution" without sufficient works of charity. It is the Church's right to feed and shelter the poor. When the government takes this responsibility away from the Church, it deprives her of her right, and effectively strips her of her social mantle. In time, people lose faith in the Church. Who needs it? you see, when we have the government to take care of the poor. Socialism destroys families in a similar way, undermining subsidiarity and depriving the mother and father of their parental duties in favor of state-run schools, daycare and various "programs." Once the children are in the hands of the state, they can be further indoctrinated according to the immorality of socialism. Finally, Socialism destroys civilization, because once the faith and family of millions is broken, society starts to break down, causing an increase in lawlessness.
Yes, we all know the evils of Socialism, or at least we SHOULD know them. Sadly, it seems that every government in the world now is heading down the Socialist tracks straight for the cliff of tyranny.
The antithesis of Socialism is Capitalism - or so it would seem on the surface. Capitalism in it's most pure form is laissez-faire, meaning the government has virtually no role in directing the economy. The problem with this model is that it leads to corporate tyranny, wherein wealth and property are concentrated into the hands of the few, while the many are deprived of it. It creates a two-class society. The first class is the investor class, which is wealthy enough to live off capital investments. The second class is the labor class, and this is the class which subsists day to day on a meager wage that may (or may not) be enough to live on. Wealth and property are scarcely within reach for most of these people. Only a small few break out of the labor class and into the investment class. Small businesses are usually gobbled up by big business. The "mom & pop" general store is unable to compete with the mega-chain supermarket. Monopolies are created, driving out competition. The system becomes immoral because it is another kind of THEFT, that deprives families of their ability to own their own property and work it for their own livelihood. When this happens it attacks faith and family. In this case, the corporations become like gods, deciding the fate of their employees with little to no say-so from the employees themselves. Both husbands and wives are forced to work to pay the bills, resulting in children having to be left in daycare or home alone without parental guidance. The labor class becomes slave to the investor class, and unfortunately, this kind of a situation can only last so long before the people begin to demand Socialism. So long as there is wide-spread extreme social inequity as a result of unbridled capitalism, there shall always be those who cry out for Socialism.
Now the sad reality in all of this is that neither model works in it's most pure form. Socialism ultimately has to rely on some Capitalism in order to stay afloat and keep the system going. A perfect example of this is the City of Hong Kong. Originally a colony of the British Empire and now a district of Communist China, Hong Kong is a thriving center of laissez-faire Capitalism that helps support the Socialist policies of the Chinese government. Without Hong Kong, Red China would have collapsed around the same time as the Soviet Union. Inversely, in the United States, Socialism is regularly employed to prop up Capitalism. Large American corporations have, for their own benefit, manipulated government regulations for decades. Everyone who understands American politics knows that Wal Street in New York intersects with K Street in Washington DC. (K Street is where most government lobbyist are headquartered.) This backroom deal-making between big business and government is what made large corporations "too big to fail." Thus when they did fail in the Fall of 2008, the U.S. federal government supplied some $4 trillion of taxpayer money to bail them out. This effectively consolidated the government/corporate conglomerate - another type of Socialism. This is not to mention the multiple times big-business corporations have advocated (and even lobbied for) Socialist redistribution schemes. Social Security and Socialized Medicine are two forms of Socialism that greatly benefit big-business, effectively eliminating their moral responsibilities toward their employees. So on paper both Socialism and Capitalism would appear to work, but in practical application it would seem they are just two sides of the same coin.
![]() |
| “Socialism is the exploitation of man by man; capitalism is the opposite.” -- Old Polish Proverb |
Distributism supports the local family, encouraging private enterprise and small business. It also supports faith, forcing each man to rely on God (not government or corporations) for his daily bread. Private wealth is based entirely on personal merit and hard work. Likewise, the work of charity is returned to the Church, and eliminated from the state.
Let me be perfectly clear here. Distributism does not regulate personal wealth. People are free to work or invest as they see fit, and the amount of wealth they attain from this is their own private property. The Distributist system demands small and localized government. In other words, government starts from the bottom up, gradually getting weaker as you go up the chain. The highest form of government, federal or national level, is simultaneously the weakest and the smallest, limited to very few and defined functions. In other words, the government that governs best, governs close to home. This is subsidiarity, and it goes hand in hand with Distributism.
The implementation of Distributism does not begin at the national politics level. It can't. Rather, it begins at home, with families and individuals. It begins by boycotting the big-business chains, and making a conscious decision to patron cooperatives and family run small-businesses. Of course this begins with where you keep your money. First things first, get your money out of the banks! Invest in a local credit union. Why on earth would you store your money somewhere where somebody else can make a profit on it? Shouldn't YOU be the one who makes the profit? or at least a portion of it? Unless you own your own bank, get into a credit union and divest yourself of the very system that is slowly destroying us. Next we must patron the locally run general stores, and independently owned restaurants, however, this would also include franchise establishments so long as they're locally owned. That's the key. If a franchise establishment is not locally owned, we and our families should boycott it. The next step is to start your own family run business of whatever type you want. If you can't do that, try to work for a cooperative rather than a corporation. If that's not available, try to work for a locally owned family business. Finally, if it's just impossible to get out from under the corporate environment, than turn around and buy some stock in it! For heaven's sake, you work there, so you out to at least own a piece of it. Now, if you're one of the fortunate ones who has been blessed with wealth, than please put it to good use and invest it locally. Finally, the last step on a local level is to work with others preparing a pamphlet or website (or both) listing all the locally owned family run business in your immediate area. Then get that list out to people in the most efficient way possible. This is the core of Distributism. It is the engine that makes it run. Without this it's just a theory on paper.
On a political level it all begins locally as well. We must corner our local politicians running for office - city, county and state. We must pressure them to focus their economic policy on supporting locally owned small business, and protecting them from interstate and international big business corporations. This is why. We need to hit them with these facts to drive the point home and make it stick...
These are points we need to keep driving home to our politicians again and again and again. If our government would finally learn that protecting small business is the key to a good economy (and thus better tax revenue) it would be well on it's way toward restoring national stability. That of course leads to national politics. If the state and local governments are won over first, the federal and national politicians will follow suit, if they know what's good for them. Otherwise, they'll find themselves looking for new jobs after election day.The estimated 29.6 million small businesses in the United States:Source: U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, September 2009
- Employ just over half of the country’s private sector workforce
- Hire 40 percent of high tech workers, such as scientists, engineers and computer workers
- Include 52 percent home-based businesses and two percent franchises
- Represent 97.3 percent of all the exporters of goods
- Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms
- Generate a majority of the innovations that come from United States companies
Of course what I describe here is a very simplified model, and of course people usually do require more detail. There are certain books written on this. One is titled Jobs of Our Own
Please share this blog entry with as many people as you can.
![]() |
| Distributism - A Christian Approach To Economics |


17 comments; post here:
So the question I have is this; if you can explain this, and I can explain this, why is it seemingly impossible for the Church to explain this?
What you have described is not only church teaching but it is also something that, if explained properly, would appeal to the very soul of most Americans. We are a people weaned on free markets. We understand them intuitively. We also know, even though most may not be able to put the reason into words, that a company such as Walmart, with its grip on the market, is the very antithesis of the free market and actually works to destroy it.
I've explained Distibutism to conservatives and liberals alike and, for the most part, they agree with it. Its basic justice, and more importantly its truth, appeals to all but the most strident Socialist/Capitalist zealots.
So where is the Church? Where is the person in robes that can explain this to the people, not in some esoteric statement full of dry words and lofty theological concepts but in the language of the common man? Where is the leadership?
Civilization is about to collapse into slavery and yet we hear nothing! Our Church is failing us at precisely the time we need it most.
Sir Knight,
I am so glad to see your post. When a person really reflects on freedom and property, this is the ONLY conclusion that one can arrive at. It's so simple, yet so over the head for most people. The Catholic Church has remained eerily silent for 50 years on these issues as our economy has slowly traveled down one of these two paths. The Jesuits, unfortunately, are really loud voices in the "re-distribution" of wealth camp. While Distribution made perfect sense even 50 or 60 years ago, most people can't really fathom it. Conservatives adore Capitalism--it is their God--and the Liberals long for Socialism--to make themselves God. The economy WILL collapse--it is only a matter of time and the only way we, as a society, will recover is through the principles of Distributism. We will do it on our own and we will slowly return to God. It will happen, sooner than many think.
An idea whose time has come!
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.
Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay
after only one term, that they specifically exempted th...emselves from many of
the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for
sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The
latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform ... in all of its
forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above
the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat,
Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.
A Constitutional Convention - this is a
good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent
of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed.
There is talk out there that the "government" doesn't care what the people think.
That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials
to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me. Think about this...
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only
3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people
demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell
phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to
become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I'm asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum
of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.
This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States
that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress
shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens
of the United States . Pete Frey
Ah! At Last! I have been waiting for this post for the last 6 months (since finding your blog). Thank you!
I, being a Chesterton devotee (and now Belloc) I have come to love Leo XIII. I have learned so much about how Catholics ought to act in the public sphere from his excellent writings and such.
The only question I have had for myself since then is, "Why don't others see what I see?" I am not intelligent, I am just a common sense and logical thinker. The way for us to go forward in this age is to go backwards. Our souls depend on it.
Sir Knight
This post voices a thought that has been in me for some time, I had no idea it was called Distributism. How simple, one is responsible for his own fate based upon his own desires, ambitions and will. Our own hard work and the will of God are its own rewards.
This gives life to the bumper sticker 'I buy local'.
I would rather our Church talk of this than 'social justice'
It's time has come!
Mark Carney
Sir Knight, distributism sounds fine on paper, but in the real world it sounds like socialism. How are you going to 'distribute' property if somebody doesn't want to give up what's rightfully his? A gun in the back of the head? Also, not everyone wants to own property, because they can't or don't want the responsibility of taking care of it. Will the government force them to own property, even if they're unwilling or incompedent to do so? Scotju
scotju, distributism is micro-capitalism, not micro-socialism. What you're talking about is RE-distributism which is actually the exact opposite of distributism. Nobody can be forced to give up or buy property agaisnt their will. The government has no power to RE-distribute anything because that is Socialism.
Distributism works on the principle of micro-capitalism and limits on growth based at the local level. For example; communities should be able to vote on whether they want a Wal-Mart in their community which will obviously destroy small businesses. If they vote "no" then Wal-Mart will have to set up shop somewhere else. The only catch is once a Wal-Mart is built, nobody has the right to take it away. So if people dont like it, they'll have to drive it out of business by actively coordinating to support small businesses instead. Distributism all happens on the local level, mostly by the actions of private citizens and their own free will. The government cannot impose it. It must be demanded by the people and administered by the people. Nobody can take property from another. Does that make more sense?
Sir Knight, I'm sorry, bt it still sounds like socialism. The Tradition In Action site has several articles on distributism, and these articles make a very strong case for it being socialism in a Catholic mask. And the fact that Eric Gill, a founder of distirbutism, was an open sex pervert, something that was known to Belloc and Chesterson, doesn't exactly recommend it to me either. I suggest you read the TIA articles before you push more of this down our throats. Scotju
Scotju, Belloc and Chesterson are universally regarded as the founders of Distributism. Eric Gill is neither THE founder nor A founder of Distributism. This argument made by Patrick Odou of TIA is soundly refuted here.
Distributism is not Socialism, cannot be Socialism, and to assert that it is Socialism is to deny Capitalism. The motto of Distributism is to support small-business and then go start one. If that's Socialism, than go ahead and call me a Socialist.
I've seen this argument made too many times. Hard core Capitalists point the finger and scream "Socialism" while Socialists of all stripes point the finger and scream "Capitalism." Of course they're going to cry foul, because Distributism seeks to restore private property into the hands of every day private citizens. A champion of private property, Distributism is a threat to anyone who would seek to concentrate property into the hands of a few, be they Socialists or Capitalists.
I do not question the faith or sincerity of Patrick Odou or the TIA. I believe they are what they say they are, an honest attempt to defend Church Tradition. I do however question their arguments made against Distributism. I believe them to be severely flawed and misguided.
Websters defines Socialism as follows...
Definition of SOCIALISM
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
There is absolutely nothing in Distributism that can be honestly construed as Socialism based on the very definition of Socialism. Socialism pushes the abolition of private property, Distributism asserts that private property is GOOD, and it should be held privately by as many private citizens as possible. Under Socialist ideals you own nothing! Under Distributist ideals you own as much as possible. How can these two be related in any way? Show me where, anywhere, Distributism advocates the abolition of private property and I'll drop Distributism like a hot red communist potato. So far however, all I've seen of arguments against Distributism are ad hominems, straw men and confusion.
The idea that property is only held by the "evil investor class" is self-evidently false. The idea that owning wealth takes away from someone else was true when wealth was based on land, of which there is a very limited amount. Today however, real capital comes in many forms and is held by even the poor in our society.
The thing that makes me angry about you distributists is your insistence that yours is the only legitimate Catholic position and that anyone like myself who disagrees is a heretic. I have read Rerum Novarum. I have read the Catechism. Nowhere do I see the distributist system mandated as a matter of doctrine. I think that distributism is a perfectly legitimate position for a Catholic to hold, but it is not the only one.
What is it with you people and Wal Mart? Wal Mart is just a store, it's not evil. Some stores have been driven out of business by Wal Mart, but other stores are actually helped by the presence of a Wal Mart because Wal Mart shoppers save money which can then be spent at more specialized local stores.
Lest I sound uncharitable, I think distributists have the best of intentions and I don't mean to malign them. I just thing that they are very wrong.
God Bless
The road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions. Will Distributism lead to Heaven on Earth or Hell on Earth?
Distributism has many attractive principles, but I have many questions. You are the first person I felt might have reasonable thoughts on this since virtually every other "distributionist" I've read is in actuality a socialist. So here goes. Most large corporations started out as small businesses. What does one do when the product/service one offers is so good and so popular that the business grows large? Also, for many valuable products, there is a size of company below which it would be impossible to produce. Distributism sounds nice until the day last summer I had a child very sick with pneumonia. How enormously grateful I was that I could get in my car (produced by a large corporation), drive to a large corporation (a hospital), see doctors educated at large universities, get him diagnosed with an expensive, complex machine produced by "large" research and large corporations, and give him medecine researched, developed, tested, and produced by a large corporation. Within a day, he was running around, not dead. How would that work under a distributist system?
Erica, you asked "How would that work under a distributist system?"
I have just four words to answer that question. The first two words are "cooperative ownership" and the second two words are "stock option."
Both of these methods allow companies to grow very large and wield a lot of power, WITHOUT depriving people of the right to ownership. In a "stock option" company, employees have the option to buy stock in the company in lieu of additional pay. This gives the employee a "stake" in the company and a "say" in how things are run. While "cooperative ownership" is the same idea but in a much more profound way. In the latter every employee is an "equal owner" with the same stake and voting rights.
So that's how you get the big things done, like hospitals, cars, pharmaceuticals, etc. As for small local things, you're looking at much more local control by the local city and county governments. For example, a city could pass a law mandating that every retail outlet over so-many thousand square feet either be one that offers stock option to its employees or else is cooperatively owned. Then again, if a city wants to, it can simply zone all retail sales space to limit large outlets all together. This would make the city more friendly to small business.
Distributism is not against "big business" per se'. What Distributism opposes is exclusive ownership of big business which often results in monopolies. In order to maintain a truly free market, the first thing that has to be done is break up the monopolies. This is done through vigorous enforcement of government antitrust laws at the federal level. One could argue the states should have some authority to enforce these laws as well. Then local (county and city) governments handle the rest with zoning laws.
Institutions like hospitals (using your example) should all be cooperatives, as they often lose money, and we don't want to turn them into profit-seeking machines that put patient care last. A stock option would create that environment, so the cooperative solution would work well for the hospital business model.
I'm no fan of wealth redistribution, but I'm not entirely sure why you call it theft. Is it because the government is taking your money? That would make taxes theft. Is it because the government takes your money and gives it to other people? Then paying for the military is theft. Is it because those other people aren't actually doing anything for you?
...it sounds like you're saying the government has no right to give your money to the poor unless the poor give something back.
Why should a community need to vote on whether or not to allow a Wal-Mart to be built? Isn't it their right to purchase land and build a business on it? If you do not like Wal-Mart, or any other 'big' corporation for that matter, the solution is simple. Don't go there. If you don't give them your money than they cannot destroy the small businesses who you DO choose to patronize.
Anonymous, your comment is made without considering the historical facts. Wal Mart kills small business -- period. The same is true with many other "big box" superstores, but Wal Mart is the poster boy.
The problem has to do with unfair business practices. Wal Mart is able to buy large quantities of goods from other countries at extremely low prices. This is because of virtual slave labour in those countries, where people have virtually no rights and work for pennies -- literally. Wal Mart then has access to a distribution system and massive retail outlets that allow it to sell those items at a fraction of the cost. This drives every competitor out of business in the immediate area. Thus, people no longer have a choice.
Case in point. I live in a small town. In that town we used to have about a half-dozen general stores, two or three meat markets, and a pretty robust farmer's market. Then Wal Mart came to town. Within just two years all the general stores were gone, two of the meat markets closed, and the farmer's market is now reduced to meeting just one day a month. In the process of this transition, about a dozen family businesses were forced to shut down. The owners of those businesses now work as the local Wal Mart for a fraction of what they once earned. Wal Mart literally owns my small town now. I literally have no choice as to where to do my shopping. I must either go to the local Wal Mart, or else drive a total of forty miles, there and back, to find locally-owned general stores and meat markets in a larger city. Besides the cost of gasoline being outrageous, these locally-owned stores must charge higher prices because their customer volume has gone down -- again thanks to the local Wal Marts. So these locally owned stores now cater to the wealthy in the city, while people like me are almost financially FORCED to shop at the local Wal Mart.
This is not a free market. This is Capitalism run amok. G.K. Chesterton said the following: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." The point he was making is that when a few businesses are given an absolute right to property, and allowed to grow without restraints, they eventually crush all of their competition, resulting in the loss of property for others. Big business kills small business, when big business is allowed to grow without restraint. That results in fewer people being able to start their own small businesses, and that means there are less people who are able to engage in the free market.
For example, there is no way I will ever be able to open a general store or a meat market in my small town, no matter how good of a businessman I might be, because the local Wal Mart will put me out of business within weeks. That's not freedom. That's not liberty. Free-market capitalism? What's that!?! We haven't seen it in my small town for years! Take this story and multiply it by thousands of small towns across America, and you start to get a real picture of what is going on.
Post a Comment