FROM A review of Hilaire Belloc’s Economics for Helen by Dr. Peter Chojnowski at The Distributist Review:

There are several aspects of this text, which open up new vistas for those seeking an alternative to the materialistic determinism of both the Marxists and the Economic Liberals. All of these insights, on the part of Belloc, into the very fiber of the economic life of man, point to the fact that economics is grounded in two realities, both of which the Capitalists and the Socialists have overlooked: the divinely ordained goal-orientation of human nature and the freedom of choice originating in the spiritual principle of man, which is his soul.

What these two facts indicate is that economics is grounded in the psychological, spiritual, and intellectual life of man to such an extent that the orientations and demands of this life create economic facts and laws that cannot be circumvented. One mentioned by Belloc is the idea of “subsistence.” According to Belloc, “subsistence” is “the worth while of labor.” By this, he means that if a certain standard of living were not provided to the worker, on account of his work, labor itself would no longer be thought to be worthwhile and, hence, would not be engaged in. Belloc identifies this as an economic law, rather than a moral law. Here we see the advancing of a concrete example of an “economic law” which all nations and economic concerns must adhere to if they are to maintain a healthy economic life. Moreover, Belloc implicitly refutes his accusers who charge him with collapsing economic law into moral law. If a nation does not provide its people, in their generality and in their individuality, with work that can sustain a man and his family at levels acceptable within the context of the national culture, men will not work and the nation will not prosper. Of course, it is the obligation of the State to ensure that companies and enterprises uninterested in providing subsistence wages do not simply locate their factories in foreign countries and export their products to the “job-free zones” of the “developed” countries.

— Comments —

Tim writes:

It just so happens that I gave a talk to the Northern Virginia Chesterton Society the day before your post on Economics for Helen about this very book. In fact it was the third of three talks on Belloc’s books on Distribution. The other two books we also discussed on the topic by him were The Servile State and The Restoration of Property. Anyone who wishes to get a good basic understanding of Distributism should read these books.

What is Distributism? Simple. It is an economic model based on morals.

As Belloc explains, a millennium before Capitalism and Socialism were invented, there was an economic model based on the principles of Subsidarity, that is, solving problems at the lowest level possible, the Ten Commandments, Natural Law, and the Corporal Acts of Mercy. It was the moral norm, and prevailed in those countries where the Catholic Church had influence.

Capitalism and Socialism are concerned solely with the material need of man. We see that clearly in the corruption in both of these models.

“That a man may lead a good life, two things are required. The chief requisite is virtuous action … The other requisite, which is secondary and quasi-instrumental in character, is a sufficiency of material goods, the use of which is necessary for virtuous action.” St. Thomas Aquinas

Tim adds:

The charge is sometimes made that Distributism is Socialism by a different name. Not so.

As Belloc explains, the three elements necessary for the creation of wealth are: land, labor and capital. In the Distributist model, wealth is distributed as widely as possible, both my moral norm and laws that support these norms.

To produce wealth morally, these three elements need to be in proportion to the need. To distort any one of these creates an imbalance and opens the door to abuse. In the case of both Capitalism and Socialism, land and labor are either in the hands of individuals or corporations or in the hands of the State. Both of these model exclude labor, and make labor dependent upon them.

As Belloc says: “It is obvious that who ever controls the means of production controls the supply of wealth. If, therefore the means for the production of that wealth which a family needs are in the control of others than the family, the family will be dependent upon those others; it will not be economically free.” The Restoration of Property

John Purdy writes:

I’ve heard of Distributism, although I am no expert on its intricacies but I am willing to give it a fair hearing. I would like, if I may, to pose some simple hypotheticals to Tim (or Laura) to gain an understanding of how Distributism would address them.

First, two farmers, A and B behave differently. A is industrious and frugal and after some years accumulates a body of savings. B is indolent and spendthrift. After some years he is bankrupt and feels compelled to sell his land to A and work for him. How does Distributism address this real-life possibility?

Second, Belloc does not mention energy or resources as part of his land, labor and capital formula. Yet energy, even if it’s a campfire, has been central to human development for ever. Suppose farmer A discovers a valuable source of energy on his land. How is that to be developed? Who owns it?

I offer this in a spirit of honest debate and would be very interested in your response.

July 11, 2018

Tim writes:

Belloc does address this first question. Keep in mind that not everyone is cut out to work for themselves. Distributism is about distributing wealth as widely as possible. Thus, a small farmer may need outside help. This additional labor can be a partner in the farm, but not the manager. According to Plato, these managers should be paid no more that a ratio of 6:1 to the average wage of the workers. Thus, everyone is entitled to a living wage. Modern cooperatives are a good example of this today.

Next, the question of the discovery of an energy source on private property: the above farm example could be applied to this situation as well, only on a larger scale. More capital and labor is needed to develop this resource. The land owner could retain full rights, or develop a partnership of investors and labor to share in the proceeds.

At the heart of any economic issue is the centralization vs. decentralization of control. A good example of this is the birth of the oil industry in the early 1900s. At that time, Americans made ethanol in their backyards to burn in their lamps, in their stoves, their furnaces to heat their homes. Some was made to drink. When the automobile came along, they made ethanol to fuel cars. Farms set up cooperatives to build larger distilleries to convert crops into ethanol. Henry Ford made all his vehicles to burn either ethanol, gasoline, or both. Depending what fuel was in the tank, the driver simply manually adjusted the engine from his seat, and off he went.

John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, saw a burgeoning new market for his gasoline in the automobile. He was instrumental in getting the Eighteenth Amendment passed in 1918 by demonizing the evils of liquor, thus prohibiting the manufacture, sale and distribution of intoxicating spirits. This Amendment was meant to crush our decentralized ethanol energy industry. Once destroyed, the Twenty First Amendment (1933) repealed this previous Amendment (the only Amendment ever to be repealed) and Americans were now wholly dependent on gasoline.

We once had a Distributist energy independent country that was stolen from us.

Mr. Purdy writes:

First, I had no idea Rockefeller played such a role in the Volstead Act. It reminds me a bit of the argument that suppression of marijuana had more to do with the suppression of hemp, a cheap alternative to cotton and other textiles than it did with stopping people from getting high. Also, I had it in my head that the 18th came in in the late twenties. Live and learn.

Second, and more important, Tim’s response to my hypotheticals is satisfactory but let me extend them a bit further to see if we reach a crisis point.

Let us suppose there are many farmer Bs in farmer A’s vicinity. Over a period of years they agree to sell to farmer A and work for him. Let us further stipulate he does so through entirely ethical means (unlike Rockefeller) based entirely upon his industry, inventiveness and frugality. Farmer A is now on his way to becoming a wealthy landowner. Perhaps you can guess where I’m going with this – it has to do with capital accumulation.

This proposed 6:1 ratio between incomes becomes a bit harder to maintain as A is certainly more than 6 times as wealthy as his workers. We can hope he is a good Catholic but that is a bit utopian. This scenario suggests the need for state intervention. I am not a fanatical libertarian (although I was) but state intervention always makes me a bit nervous.

So, how do we address the “problem” of capital accumulation while respecting property rights and the observed difference in capabilities in the population?

July 13, 2018

Tim writes:

In response to Mr. Purdy:

Yes, industrial Hemp, an amazing crop, was declared illegal in 1937 under pressure by DuPont Chemical and Dow Chemical because it competed with several of their products. This law was rescinded in 1942 to allow U.S.-grown hemp to make rope for the war effort, and then reversed after the war ended. This despite the fact that both Jefferson and Washington grew hemp on their farms, and even the Declaration of Independence was printed on hemp paper. A great website to educate one on this topic is votehemp.com.

Now, back to your latest question.

As Avarice is one of the Seven Capital Sins, we must always be on the alert to its seductive ways.

In the scenario you describe, the first step is to solve the problem locally (that’s known as “Subsidiarity”). No need to call in the government, as they will only muck things up and then claim a great victory for the common man.

Rather, the farmers selling to the alpha farmer should do so as partners in the venture, owning an appropriate percentage of the operation. All business decisions are made jointly, the books are open, and all is equal and fair. The 6:1 ratio can also be retained. This should keep everyone honest.

Your interest in this subject is encouraging. To get you started on a proper path to understanding this fascinating subject, may I suggest you read Belloc’s The Servile State (1912), then The Restoration of Property (1936) and finally Economics for Helen (1924).

Then move onto Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism (1935) by Dr. Amintore Fanfani followed by Beyond Capitalism & Socialism: A New Statement of an Old Ideal (2008) both by IHS Press. (This same press has several other titles related to the topic of Distributism that you may also find useful.)

A recent discovery on YouTube is an excellent series of short videos that are written, narrated and animated by the author, David Richins. Spend just seven minutes watching the first episode and you will be hooked. Well worth the time to see the entire series.

Laura writes:

Regarding Mr. Purdy’s question about Farmers A and B: In a healthy farming economy, others would probably be interested in purchasing the land of the farmer B’s.

Mr. Purdy writes:

I would like to thank Tim and Laura for an informative and very polite discussion on Distributism. This is a rare commodity on the Internet. I find as I get older I prefer some kind of exchange of ideas before I take on yet another reading project, as I am already up to my ears in books I should read. I will definitely bump up Distributism in my priorities. and thanks for the reading list.

Laura writes:

You’re welcome. I am going to be writing soon about a book that gives a nice overview.

Please follow and like us: