Catholic Economic Theory

[Balthazor]

I agree..
honestly this whole theory sounds a bit..mideavil, i like capitalism...

capitalism with big middle class promotes Democracy

[Balthazor]

My best friend calls me an idealist with the heart of a pragmatist... ithought is was funny

[Balthazor]

Or a pragmatist with the heart of an idealist

[Balthazor]

But Seriously... have you guys ever studied the populist movment?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 11 2004, 08:40 PM'] The idea that morality is wrong is not intrinsically part of capitalism. That is a moral theory. Capitalism is an economic system (I think I mean the same thing as you mean by "free market economy").
Moral and immoral things can be done in a capitalist system, as in any other system, but a capitalist system does not necessitate immorality. [/quote]
The problem with capitalism is that the morality becomes, "private vices become public virtues," or the bad things for a person becomes good for the economy (people seeking to be rich belongs to a vice, but really helps the economy).

[Balthazor]

WeI don't think that capitalism is bad in itself though, for someone completely bereft of morality it can become a power trip. But then that is the problem of most economic systems. I mean look at communism, looks good on paper right? But take into consideration those few people who are out for themselves and it doesn;'t work. At least with capitalism you don't necessarily have to rely on absolutly everyone to be virtuous for it to work properly.

I know it sounds bad to say this but capitalism is the lesser of many evils, and if we have a strong church and strong morality to temper the people who practice it, it can be a very good thing.

[God Conquers]

Yes! Distributism!

What a compromise, free markets but with checks and balances to ensure that no one company aquires undue leverage over the rest. Focus on small business and local economies, private property (true private property) and self-sustenance.

Capitalism means ultimately one person owns everything (corporation)
Communism means one person owns everything (state)

Distributism says everyone (as much as possible) owns something.

Bring back the Guild! Limit and control adverttisement, or tax based on size and spread.

Penalize large companies or owners if they are trying to buy smaller ones, and advantage the small owners.

Man I miss the medieval economy (well... I guess I wasn't there... but still...)

The Catholic way: self-production, owning the land or means of economically providing for your family.

The reformation destroyed economics, among other things, and usury is rampant in our society, leading to greed and poverty of millions.

[God Conquers]

PS read Hillaire Belloc's (great British Catholic statesman and Historian)book

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895554623/ref=ase_poemhunter-20/102-7495074-1029722?v=glance&s=books"]The Crisis of Civilization[/url]

It's great.

[Oik]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Distributism about a lesser but stronger govenment that is less involved with the decisions people make, but setting up an economic environment thatstimulates moral economy, decided on a local level?

[God Conquers]

Essentially yes.

Local economy, small producers, private property, morality.

[Socrates]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Nov 12 2004, 10:29 AM']
Man I miss the medieval economy (well... I guess I wasn't there... but still...)

[/quote]
You might not miss the medieval economy so much if you actually were there!

The fact is that during the middle ages, many people were peasants who spent their lives working the fields of the land-owning nobility in exchange for protection and being allowed to live on the land.

True, there was a growing middle class of merchants and skilled tradesmen, but this can be seen as the beginnings of capitalism. But, even in the late middle-ages, many did not live this way. Starvation was a reality for many in Europe in times of poor harvests, and beggars, lepers, and other unfortunates were a common sight on medieval streets. Life for most was brutal and short, and most, even in the nobility, did not make it past their twenties.

Life was tough for most people in those times, even the nobility, who were rugged warriors.

I would agree that Medieval man was spiritually more healthy than us moderns, but most people in modern industrialized societies enjoy material prosperity far beyond the dreams of people in the middle ages.

Distributism does have a few good points, but we must stick to reality, and not become lost in an innacurate, romanticized vision of medieval life.

Edited November 12, 2004 by Socrates

[Theoketos]

Dude Catholic Social thought is no third way.

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
"Sollicitudo rei socialis"

[quote]The Church's social doctrine is not a "third way" between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own. Nor is it an ideology, but rather the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and in the international order, in the light of faith and of the Church's tradition. Its main aim is to interpret these realities, determining their conformity with or divergence from the lines of the Gospel teaching on man and his vocation, a vocation which is at once earthly and transcendent; its aim is thus to guide Christian behavior. It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology.

The teaching and spreading of her social doctrine are part of the Church's evangelizing mission. And since it is a doctrine aimed at guiding people's behavior, it consequently gives rise to a "commitment to justice," according to each individual's role, vocation and circumstances.[/quote]

The Social Radical's Theory of distributism is not the official Catholic position

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I'm withholding my vote. I would vote for monarchy.

[God Conquers]

[quote]But, even in the late middle-ages, many did not live this way. Starvation was a reality for many in Europe in times of poor harvests, and beggars, lepers, and other unfortunates were a common sight on medieval streets. Life for most was brutal and short, and most, even in the nobility, did not make it past their twenties.[/quote]

This is actually a common misconception.

Recent scholars have shown that the average peasant in the high middle ages ate approximately A POUND of meat per day. I don't eat a pound of meat every day!

Yes, there were periods of shortage seasonally, but these corresponded to the various lents.

Also, if you made it past childhood, chances are you would live into your 40s and 50s and even longer. The low average mortality is due almost exclusively to infant death.

Even the burgeoning city and trading economies were not quite burgeoning capitalism, the laws and rules of trade and purchase at the time made them vastly different and fairer than our capitalism.

Remember USury was a sin. (well, still is, but we don't enforce it)

[yiannii]

I tend to prefer Distributism but I would not necessarly say that Capitalism is wrong. I think Capitalism which has no basic moral or "Christian" background is dangerous.

I wonder if a mix of Distributism and Capitalism would be the perfect ideology - Captriputism....LOL

[Oik]

Theotokos, distributism, I believe, allows it self to be overtaken by the Church and Her teachings, I believe this is the point. See, the phrase "a third alternative" is meant to be a catch, a hook, and even an evangeliazation. Distributism is meant to pull non-catholics to Catholicism. Belloc, Chesterton, etc., all Catholics (the ones who started and pushed it) designed it to function as such.

Ironically, your quote proves just that.

[Don John of Austria]

Fuedal monarchy with an agricultural base. Socrates I wish I had time to debate you on Medieval society but in many ways a medieval peasent had more security than a modern "citizen" God Counquers appears to be handling the issue so I will leave it in his capable hands-- if given only your above choices well then distributism.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 14 2004, 11:50 PM'] Fuedal monarchy with an agricultural base. Socrates I wish I had time to debate you on Medieval society but in many ways a medieval peasent had more security than a modern "citizen" God Counquers appears to be handling the issue so I will leave it in his capable hands-- if given only your above choices well then distributism. [/quote]
Amen

[God Conquers]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 14 2004, 10:50 PM'] Fuedal monarchy with an agricultural base.  Socrates I wish I had time to  debate you on Medieval society but in many ways a medieval peasent had more security than a modern "citizen" God Counquers appears to be handling  the issue so I will leave it in his capable hands-- if given only your above choices well then distributism. [/quote]
It's a simple misinfoprmation problem I believe....

I agree with your assessment of the best economic system, but I think distributism better reflects the realities today (could possibly have a chance of happening).

Come some sort of massive disaster or nuclear holocaust I'd likely suggest an agrarian feudal monarchy.

In fact, I would go so far as saying that this system would develop naturally, as it is the most natural.

Edit: Good to see you around Don John! I trust the turks are being well routed.

[Socrates]

A "feudal monarchy with an agricultural base" is more a social/political system than an economic system.

And I would most definitely not wish to live in such a system. This was the the system in the early middle ages (or "dark ages") in the period of economic devestation following the collapse of the Roman Empire (if you're referring to something before the growth of trade and the "distributivist" economy of the later middle ages).

I do not honestly see how anyone would consider this superior living conditions to either a "distibutist" or "capitalist" system! (Of course everyone wants to be a king or a lord - nobody wants to be a serf!)

I'd like to see some hard facts (not just assertions) from a reputed historian that the average person had more more material goods/prosperity in medieval Europe
than in modern America or Western Europe.

I'm not asserting that medieval times were a horrible hell for everybody, or that the modern system does not have its problems, I'm just saying some historical realism is needed in this debate.