A Facebook friend brought my attention to the tug of war taking place over the legacy of Dorothy Day in recent months between pro and anti-capitalists. The Catholic Worker has criticized both the NY Times and Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute on Day-related matters. Liberals can’t claim her, so it is said, because she was anti-abortion and loyal to Church teaching, obviously never having gone the way of radical disobedient feminism. But conservatives and libertarians can’t claim her either because she rejected capitalism.
Or did she? As best I can tell, she neither practiced it or preached it as a way of life. And yet she did say the following:
We believe that social security legislation, now balled as a great victory for the poor and for the worker, is a great defeat for Christianity. It is an acceptance of the Idea of force and compulsion…
Of course, Pope Pius XI said that, when such a crisis came about, in unemployment, fire, flood, earthquake, etc., the state had to enter in and help.
But we in our generation have more and more come to consider the state as bountiful Uncle Sam.
If you don’t believe in “force and compulsion”, you believe – by logical necessity – that capitalism is at least permissible. At least capitalism as Fr. Sirico, Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard would define it, which is nothing more than private property + free exchange of goods and services. No capitalist along these lines, moreover, could or likely would raise any objection to voluntary collectivist projects such as workers cooperatives or agricultural communes. Voluntary Distributism, which Day supported in her writings, is capitalism.
At any rate it is evident that Day’s conception of “social justice” had little if anything to do with the modern conception on both the Catholic and secular left. If she rejected a “bountiful Uncle Sam”, what would she say about Uncle Barry? The practice of taxation and redistribution rests upon “force and compulsion”, which doesn’t magically become something else because the man with the gun to your head is wearing a badge.
I’m probably not as radical as Day, since I believe in minimal taxation for a minimalist state. I also think that she and her comrades did not fully understand the extent to which free-market capitalism would and actually did raise the standard of living for the poor. Many people fail to see this, however, for a simple reason: capitalism has spread so much wealth (peacefully and voluntarily) that the relatively few pockets of society that have failed to benefit from it are all the more distinctive. They take on the appearance of a crisis only because so much of the rest of society has attained a dignified standard of living, an unacceptable anomaly in our midst.
Even so, it is clear that Day wouldn’t have advocated the idea of shaking down “the rich” in order to address the problem. And this isn’t really where the Obama-money flows anyway. It has never really been about the poor, except perhaps to make sure that they stay pacified. It has been about the aggrandizement of the state – the padding of government salaries and department budgets, the purchase of demographic voting blocs, social engineering, and of course, the war machine. If anything is unmistakable about Day, she opposed the state in all of these endeavors. And since, unlike a lot of left-anarchists I have known, she was unambiguous in her rejection of the use of force and compulsion to obtain “social justice”, I don’t think it can be said that she opposed capitalism either.
Throw in her pacifism and pro-life position, and look at her photos as an older woman in a certain light, and she almost looks like this guy. I don’t go as far as she does with pacifism or anarchism, but she’s an inspiration to me all the same.
Thanks for writing this, Bonchamps. I have a growing interest in Ms. Day and her cause for canonization. When I was younger and heard mention of her, I think I dismissed her as some “peace and justice” hippy, but that just shows the limitations that impeded my understanding of comprehensive Catholicism at the time.
I do think she was as equally derisive of capitalism as she was of government-enforced socialism. I just read Merton’s “Seven-Storey Mountain,” and his ideas seem very similar. Day talks about “creating a new society within the shell of the old one.” Her ideas seem to be very communitarian and compatible with distributism.
http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=175
That is to say, there should be equity and moderation in society, but it is not the government’s role to enforce such things. It must come from the community. This also is probably what CS Lewis meant when he said in Mere Christianity that the ideal Christian community would probably be “more socialist” than we are now, not meaning that the government would redistribute wealth, but that people (or rather, civic, religious, and social institutions) would moderate themselves. This is what Deneen means when he says that liberty is “the cultivated ability to engage in self-governance.” That is, the community recognizes that their is one telos for humanity and that the virtues required to move individuals and the community toward that telos must be inculcated and grown, virtues that necessarily moderate and temper self-interest. I think this is supportive of MacIntyre’s assertion that a community where human flourishing can occur to the highest degree possible must be founded on “moral consensus,” as opposed to legally enshrined pluralism, which I would argue is the case in America. (For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Founders planned this to happen…it was probably inconceivable back in 1780 when basically everyone was a Christian of some stripe…still, I think they knew better than they built).
I also hesitate to support so absolutely the idea that capitalism has uplifted humanity. Capitalism is responsible for incredible things, like longevity, increased literacy rates, prosperity, etc. But focusing on these metrics is in many ways the same mistake the “bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth” crowd in favor of government redistribution of wealth are wont to make. Human flourishing is about far more than material advancements. I would argue that it’s about more souls getting to Heaven. Can we say with certainty that capitalism has contributed positively to this end?
Finally, I think that analyzing Day (and Merton and Chesterton, etc) in the context of the American political spectrum is too confining. She was neither a “conservative” nor a “liberal,” because she more or less rejected the philosophical underpinnings that America was built upon.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1860/dorothy_day_a_saint_to_transcend_partisan_politics.aspx#.USE4caU3uSo
Have you (or has anyone else) read Orestes Brownson?
“It has never really been about the poor, except perhaps to make sure that they stay pacified. It has been about the aggrandizement of the state – the padding of government salaries and department budgets, the purchase of demographic voting blocs, social engineering, and of course, the war machine.”
you seem to think anything that “expands the state” is automatically bad/sinister. obviously plenty of people have criticized the stimulus but generally even critics haven’t ascribed these basely cynical motives to it. i don’t see any reason to think Obama doesn’t legitimately believe in what he’s doing, whatever we may think of it. the fact that his version of trying to jump-start the economy involves government expansion is a consequence, sure, but that doesn’t make it the point, as though he would’ve acted the exact same if the economy’d been humming along in 2009.
as far as “war machine” we’re winding down in Afghanistan, so unless some drone strikes on al Qaeda operatives makes us a nefarious Empire i dunno what this means
As to Day, I think JL has it more right than Bonchamps. I’m not sure I would agree his description of Sirico’s capitalism as merely “nothing more than private property + free exchange of goods and services.” He is much further from Day than that (and for that matter, from JPII and Benedict XVI.)
Day was more akin to Chesterton who said something to the effect that capitalism is to private property what a harem is to the sacrament of marriage.
There is a tendency to equate respecting the right to economic initiative – which Day, Sirico, and Paul support(ed) – with support of the free market and then with capitalism. I’ve never read anything to support the claim that Day went that far. In fact, her writings appear to reject that conclusion.
Re: “jump-starting the economy”: The recovery began in June 2009 (most economists say) and yet, three-and-a-half years later the Fed persists in printing $900 billion a year and keeping real interest rates negative, and the US gov still is spending $1.3 trillion more than it receives in taxes.
Zero Hedge quotes Mort Zuckerman, “Jobs! President Obama has set a record. In his speech to Congress on Tuesday, he uttered the word ‘jobs’ more than in any of his previous four State of the Union addresses. His 45 mentions were more than double the references to any of the other policy ambitions encapsulated in his speech by such words as health, education, immigration, guns, deficit, debt, energy, climate, economy, Afghanistan, wage, spend or tax (the runner-up). If only the president’s record on unemployment were as good. After four years America remains in a jobs depression as great as the Great Depression.”
Worse, the prices of food and fuel have skyrocketed. So, Obama wants to give a couple hundred billions to boondoggles like Solyndra.
None of it (unprecedented amounts of fiscal and monetary stimulus) is working (Obama’s is the weakest post-war recovery: compared to Reagan and all the others) because everything Obama does is ideological not economical. Obamacare will take over health; will further retard economic growth; and worsen care for all of us. Legalizing 11 to 35 million will quicken the bankruptcies of medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Dodd-Frank did not correct the causes of the banking crisis but, at best, papered over them, at worst, expanded them.
Obama is not about econmic growth and development. He is about changing society and enriching his Wall Street backers.
And, capitalism may not be uplifting (look to Jesus) of society, but it is the only economic system, along with freedom, that maximizes a nation’s and a people’s wealth. It’s not as if the alternatives have not been tested and found wanting, causing not only poverty (misallocation of resources by central planning and/or command economies), but mass misery in all aspects of human life.
In my travels, I have shopped at a “Giant Food” store which states in its signage that it is “100% employee-owned.” That sounds good to me.
Obama and his gang are either idiots or they are out to ruin America. I will not judge.
“And, capitalism may not be uplifting (look to Jesus) of society, but it is the only economic system, along with freedom, that maximizes a nation’s and a people’s wealth. It’s not as if the alternatives have not been tested and found wanting, causing not only poverty (misallocation of resources by central planning and/or command economies), but mass misery in all aspects of human life.”
I’m going to alter the original quote, but i don’t think GK would mind:
“Distributism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”
I think capitalism is a system, and a system that can work (provided it’s grounded in a pervasive ethical system which is not merely “voluntarily” adhered to, an impossibility in America). That doesn’t mean that other approaches don’t exist or shouldn’t be explored.
T. Shaw:
i wasn’t commenting on how well said policies have worked. i just don’t share the cynicism that Obama is expanding government for purposely malignant purposes. attributing mala fides (and talking about “enriching Wall Street buddies” as though that’s the ultimate aim here) might be a nice way to avoid engaging separate views but it is lazy.
JL,
“I do think she was as equally derisive of capitalism as she was of government-enforced socialism.”
I haven’t seen it. But then, I haven’t read every word she ever wrote. I’ve browsed her writings at the Catholic Worker archive.
“Her ideas seem to be very communitarian and compatible with distributism.”
As far as I know, she identified as a Distributist. But her brand of Distributism is entirely compatible with free-market capitalism.
“That is, the community recognizes that their is one telos for humanity and that the virtues required to move individuals and the community toward that telos must be inculcated and grown, virtues that necessarily moderate and temper self-interest.”
Self-interest, properly understood, benefits the community. Selfishness benefits neither the selfish individual or the community. As for a community telos, that only exists in the Church. Unfortunately the two are no longer one. The community wanted a divorce.
” I think this is supportive of MacIntyre’s assertion that a community where human flourishing can occur to the highest degree possible must be founded on “moral consensus,” as opposed to legally enshrined pluralism, which I would argue is the case in America.”
Yes, I’ve heard of him and his assertion. It may be true but it is also irrelevant. It’s not like we have a choice between these two things. Legally enshrined pluralism was and remains the only political alternative to non-stop sectarian warfare. You can’t just create a moral consensus. It grows organically out of a culture. Christianity fought for its place in society amidst a kind of pluralism as well in the Roman Empire.
“(For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Founders planned this to happen…it was probably inconceivable back in 1780 when basically everyone was a Christian of some stripe…still, I think they knew better than they built).”
The founders did want a pluralistic society. They basically embraced subsidiarity, as far as I can tell – moral instruction was the responsibility of parents and religious authorities at the local level. It certainly wasn’t the job of the government to create or enforce a “moral consensus.” I don’t know if MacIntyre thinks that it is, but some people I have seen quoting this view of his seem to think so. I think Obama thinks so too.
“I also hesitate to support so absolutely the idea that capitalism has uplifted humanity.”
It has materially. That really is indisputable. I didn’t say anything about other aspects of humanity, though. Technology is mostly morally neutral, to be used by human beings for good or evil. It also amplifies both the good and evil we are capable of.
“I would argue that it’s about more souls getting to Heaven. Can we say with certainty that capitalism has contributed positively to this end?”
I don’t think it has been a net positive or negative. Capitalism has enabled a lot of filth to be spread. It has also enabled the word of God to reach billions. Roman roads were responsible for the spread of the Gospel in the ancient world. Fiber-optic cables fulfill a similar role today.
“Finally, I think that analyzing Day (and Merton and Chesterton, etc) in the context of the American political spectrum is too confining.”
I don’t think I did or would. I do feel obligated to use the words that are in common circulation though, so people understand where I am coming from. Hopefully from there it becomes clear that I’m not talking about Rush Limbaugh vs. Chris Matthews.
JDP,
“you seem to think anything that “expands the state” is automatically bad/sinister.”
Guilty as charged. The state is an engine of compulsion and violence. I do believe a minimal state is necessary. But with Jefferson, I want to see it shackled by the chains of the Constitution. I want to see it limited to its necessary and legitimate functions. I do think that many evils are involved when the state expands beyond that, especially as it must put guns to our heads and confiscate our labor in order to do so.
“obviously plenty of people have criticized the stimulus but generally even critics haven’t ascribed these basely cynical motives to it.”
Ah. Well, let me be clear. I don’t ascribe these motives to this particular stimulus. I think those are the motives of all governments at all times. Is that cynical enough for you?
If you follow the link I provide, though, you’ll see that it really has nothing to do with speculation about motives. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been invested in economic failures and have subsidized the free-time of unproductive workers. This is a massive injustice on top of being clear evidence of the complete and total incompetence of Obama and his cronies.
I wasn’t a Mitt Romney fan, but I voted for him largely because of his private sector experience, precisely so this sort of criminal stupidity would be minimized. He at least might have been dependable when it came to investing taxpayer money. If it is going to be taken and spent regardless of what I do, I’d at least like it spent wisely.
“i don’t see any reason to think Obama doesn’t legitimately believe in what he’s doing, whatever we may think of it. ”
I think he legitimately believes in expanding the power of the state, that government employees deserve more money, that government agencies deserve bigger budgets, that social engineering is morally justifiable, and that his military policies are as well. No argument from me there.
“as far as “war machine” we’re winding down in Afghanistan, so unless some drone strikes on al Qaeda operatives makes us a nefarious Empire i dunno what this means”
I’m not even going to discuss imperialism with someone who seems to think that it is the equivalent of military occupation. You dunno much about it.
ctd,
“I’m not sure I would agree his description of Sirico’s capitalism as merely “nothing more than private property + free exchange of goods and services.” He is much further from Day than that (and for that matter, from JPII and Benedict XVI.)”
How would you describe it then?
I’d like to know exactly what he believes that Day would find repugnant. Maybe some quotations to support it.
“Day was more akin to Chesterton who said something to the effect that capitalism is to private property what a harem is to the sacrament of marriage.”
You know, this is the second time here someone has said something like “Day’s views were like so-and-so’s views and so-and-so didn’t like capitalism.” Even the descriptions of her articles on the Catholic Worker website try to make her more hostile to capitalism than I ever actually read in her own words.
As for Chesterton, I’m sorry, but you can’t dismiss everything with a clever quip. We wouldn’t even be aware of his writings if it weren’t for the communications infrastructure built up through saving and investment over the last century and a half. Is that like a “harem” too?
“There is a tendency to equate respecting the right to economic initiative – which Day, Sirico, and Paul support(ed) – with support of the free market and then with capitalism. I’ve never read anything to support the claim that Day went that far. In fact, her writings appear to reject that conclusion.”
I don’t see it as “going far.” What does “right to economic initiative” mean? How is this substantially different with the right to own private property and exchange the products of your labor with others without government interference?
Show me some of the writings. I’ve been looking myself, and I haven’t seen any evidence of this. I’ve seen some statements that might be construed that way, but I haven’t seen anything to the effect of “capitalism is evil and should be rejected.” But like I said, I’ve only really started reading.
JL,
“I think capitalism is a system, and a system that can work (provided it’s grounded in a pervasive ethical system which is not merely “voluntarily” adhered to, an impossibility in America). That doesn’t mean that other approaches don’t exist or shouldn’t be explored.”
Why “voluntary” in scare quotes? What is it you want to force people to do? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, I really want to know – if not “voluntary”, then what and why?
As for other approaches, capitalism has room for a very wide spectrum. The only prohibition is on force and fraud. Don’t use violence and don’t steal, and you can try any approach you like.
Now we’re having fun, aren’t we? I look forward to replies.
Hi Bonchamps,
“I haven’t seen it. But then, I haven’t read every word she ever wrote. I’ve browsed her writings at the Catholic Worker archive.”
I’m no expert on Ms. Day, but it’s out there. Her constant mis-representation as a Communist is largely in response to her critique of capitalism.
“As far as I know, she identified as a Distributist. But her brand of Distributism is entirely compatible with free-market capitalism.”
But what about distributism’s central claim that wealth-producing capital and property should be as widely distributed as possible (of course, not necessarily by government mechanizing)? Dorothy Day hated welfare and capitalism because she believed the poor should learn to be self-sufficient, neither beholden to the state nor corporations.
“Self-interest, properly understood, benefits the community. Selfishness benefits neither the selfish individual or the community.”
Do you have a good definitional distinction between the two? Were Goldman-Sachs execs not acting in their self-interest when they engaged in dubious lending practices and then bet against the market? They made off quite nicely. I expect the counter is that if the market had been allowed to operate successfully, they would have been punished accordingly.
“As for a community telos, that only exists in the Church. Unfortunately the two are no longer one. The community wanted a divorce.”
I’m optimistic that it can exist in intentional communities (recently spent a week at the Abbey of Gethsemani) and someday perhaps in some sort of confessional state.
Yes, I’ve heard of him and his assertion. It may be true but it is also irrelevant. It’s not like we have a choice between these two things. Legally enshrined pluralism was and remains the only political alternative to non-stop sectarian warfare. You can’t just create a moral consensus. It grows organically out of a culture. Christianity fought for its place in society amidst a kind of pluralism as well in the Roman Empire.
I would highly recommend reading After Virtue. His argument is serious and not easy to dismiss. Well, I think we do have a choice, but as you point out, one seems associated with the high possibility of sectarian strife. The other, though, is not convincingly better in my opinion. MacIntyre holds up the Greek polis as his model. The limitations are there, but his entire argument is that this type of society is where virtues flourish and humans fulfill their telos. I like to think we could have something like that without the sexism and racism and slavery of Aristotle’s day. Who knows, maybe it’s a pipe dream.
“The founders did want a pluralistic society. They basically embraced subsidiarity, as far as I can tell – moral instruction was the responsibility of parents and religious authorities at the local level. It certainly wasn’t the job of the government to create or enforce a “moral consensus.” I don’t know if MacIntyre thinks that it is, but some people I have seen quoting this view of his seem to think so. I think Obama thinks so too.”
I don’t think the founders thought it would be as pluralistic to the extent it is today. They all recognized the need for authentic religion and morality to moderate, as Adams put it, “avarice, ambition, lust, and licentiousness.” As Tocqueville predicted, society is now dominated by formless spiritualities that bend and move to adapt to peoples’ own base wants and desires. It’s not that America is unreligious, it’s that the religions people adhere to are their own personal concoctions, moral therapeutic deism or heresies posing as orthodoxy. Bad Religion by Douthat is an excellent examination of this phenomenon.
“It has materially. That really is indisputable. I didn’t say anything about other aspects of humanity, though. Technology is mostly morally neutral, to be used by human beings for good or evil. It also amplifies both the good and evil we are capable of.”
I agree that this is indisputable, but I wonder what the correlation is between material well-being and spiritual well-being.
“I don’t think it has been a net positive or negative. Capitalism has enabled a lot of filth to be spread. It has also enabled the word of God to reach billions. Roman roads were responsible for the spread of the Gospel in the ancient world. Fiber-optic cables fulfill a similar role today.”
True, true. I guess it’s easy to romanticize the past and hate the present. And vice versa.
You and I are both Ron Paul fans, but perhaps for slightly different reasons. I am no libertarian, but I recognize that with someone like Paul as president, we have a real chance of returning to authentic federalism (or at least as good as we’ve ever had), where states can be allowed to operate as mini-republics and the type of religiously oriented communities we saw in the colonial days would be realistic. Plausibly. What do you think of that theory?
I’m not sure I’ll find the time to find all the quotes from Day or Sirico, but I think that the basic problem here is that everyone is working with different definitions. Day, like her mentor Maurin, criticized a system where ownership and operation was controlled by those with capital rather than the workers. To them, that was capitalism. Sirico, and it appears like you as well, equate capitalism with economic liberty and the free market.
The other problem is that too much talk is about the results of these systems rather than the philosophical and theological bases for supporting, opposing, or criticizing them. Libertarians like Paul, and I would submit that Sirico does this as well, start by putting the freedom of the individual contra government as the fundamental principle. Day would never have done that. She put the person, in the context of community, first, and she criticized both government and corporations for failing to respect that.
“Why “voluntary” in scare quotes? What is it you want to force people to do? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, I really want to know – if not “voluntary”, then what and why?”
My thoughts can be found here: http://abovethespectrum.com/2013/02/15/the-merits-and-limitations-of-conscious-capitalism/
In a nutshell, if the ethical foundation that everyone from Smith to Adams to Strauss to Tocqeville recognized as necessary to the vitality of capitalism is completely voluntary, people will simply escape it in a liberal society where their right to will always be favored. Eventually, you’ll get to where we are today, where organized religion is pushed out of public life and into the private realm. It’s only capable of doing anything so long as people consent to it, and, as we can see, fewer and fewer people are. Their is no ethical foundation for capitalism to stand upon.
Have you read much of Patrick Deneen?
“I’ve seen some statements that might be construed that way, but I haven’t seen anything to the effect of “capitalism is evil and should be rejected.””
I don’t think any of us are saying that she said or would have said such a thing. What we are questioning is the jump in saying that her rejection of force and compulsion by government means she accepted capitalism.
If you haven’t done so, take a look at the publications of the Houston Catholic Worker (http://cjd.org/). They are probably the organization most remains true to Day’s actual views. And yes, there are some articles comparing Sirico with Day.
JL,
“But what about distributism’s central claim that wealth-producing capital and property should be as widely distributed as possible (of course, not necessarily by government mechanizing)?”
What about it? If it isn’t done by force, then capitalism has no objection. Distribute away. Recombine in any way. I don’t see how any of it conflicts with capitalism.
“Dorothy Day hated welfare and capitalism because she believed the poor should learn to be self-sufficient, neither beholden to the state nor corporations.”
How does one become and remain self-sufficient? By working, producing, and exchanging, and also, if one has the willingness and ability, saving and investing. Private property + free exchange. Capitalism.
No one is beholden to a corporation. We’re talking about voluntary employment, not enslavement or handouts. You provide a service – your labor. In exchange, you get an agreed-upon wage. If this arrangement proves unsatisfactory, it can be terminated at any time. And if alternatives are lacking, that’s where Day and others step in. Create the alternatives. Create the kind of businesses you think should exist. No one in the free market opposes it. But you have to be able to provide people with things that they want.
That’s what self-sufficiency really consists of, you see. It consists of being able to contribute something useful to society, something that others in society will be willing to exchange for. That’s what capitalism is. That’s all it ever was. Something for nothing – that is social democracy, Keyensianism, Obamunism.
“Do you have a good definitional distinction between the two?”
I think so. Self-interest seeking one’s own good, but not at the expense of others, and often in cooperation with them. There may also be competition for scarce resources, but this is actually reduced and minimized by capitalism, not inflated by it. We no longer have tribe wars every month for water and food because we are able to produce enough to feed almost everyone consistently – thanks to technology, innovation, capitalism. THAT was dangerous competition. Two companies slugging it out seems rather tame and acceptable by comparison.
When you save and invest, you create wealth for others as well. Jobs are created for workers; products are created for consumers; if you do your part well, the jobs become more plentiful and valuable, and the products become cheaper. Everyone wins.
“Were Goldman-Sachs execs not acting in their self-interest when they engaged in dubious lending practices and then bet against the market? They made off quite nicely.”
Did they? I read reports that they started carrying handguns to the office every day because of the massive volume of threats they were receiving. They know too that if the system were to malfunction tomorrow, they and their families would be the first to be brutally massacred by an enraged populace, or, if they are lucky, arrested by a provisional government and given a quick execution for their crimes. I don’t think they sleep too soundly.
There is also the matter of what will happen to their souls when they die. Evil, especially of that magnitude, is never in anyone’s self-interest if we – as you rightly suggest – look beyond the material and the physical.
” I expect the counter is that if the market had been allowed to operate successfully, they would have been punished accordingly.”
There’s that too. But really in a free market they wouldn’t have been able to do any of this. They wouldn’t have had access to cheap and easy credit in the quantities they became accustom to. They would have been bound by a tighter money supply along with everyone else. So there would likely have been nothing to punish.
Likewise, they’re only still around because of the bailouts. It seems rather insane to me to blame the free market when the government is guaranteeing bailouts to the tune of hundreds of billions – and in fact, if you look at some reports following the secret money – trillions!
Free markets create incentives to save and invest, to be prudent with one’s wealth and resources. It is government intervention that creates incentives to the sort of horrific recklessness that has characterized the financial class (distinct, in my mind from the industrial class) in recent years. This should be clear. But so many people have the opposite assumption – they think the abuse of freedom led to this mess, and that more rules would have prevented it. It is completely wrong, but it kinda sounds right to people who are completely ignorant of the facts.
“Well, I think we do have a choice, but as you point out, one seems associated with the high possibility of sectarian strife. The other, though, is not convincingly better in my opinion.”
How many people, and again I ask in all seriousness, are you willing to kill for a “moral consensus” to emerge? That’s what sectarian strife entails.
Christianity did not require a moral consensus to reach a critical mass; it established a moral consensus once it had reached a critical mass on its own merits. But there are many, many reasons why I believe that this will not repeat itself. Eschatological reasons, if you want to really get down to it.
I like what the old Joseph Ratzinger said, before he started talking about global financial regulations and the like as B16. We will never defeat evil, but we can minimize it and keep it at bay until God intervenes decisively and finally.
“MacIntyre holds up the Greek polis as his model. ”
I like the Greek polis. I like today’s city-states, i.e. Hong Kong. But we would have a plurality of polities. I’m all for local fascism, as long as I can leave.
” It’s not that America is unreligious, it’s that the religions people adhere to are their own personal concoctions, moral therapeutic deism or heresies posing as orthodoxy. ”
This is true, and deplorable. But I don’t know what can be done about it, other than witnessing for the true faith. Or acknowledging that there is a true faith. Or acknowledging that truth exists. We have to start there, really. That’s how far we are from a moral consensus, and one of the reasons I don’t ever see it happening.
“I agree that this is indisputable, but I wonder what the correlation is between material well-being and spiritual well-being.”
I’d say it is obvious that one needs both. There is a minimum beneath which no person should fall materially. But there is no maximum for spiritual well-being. God is infinite. We can never have enough.
“What do you think of that theory?”
I like it. If we just respected the 10th amendment and maybe allowed some of the states to split up into smaller states, we could get there (but that would cause all kinds of messy electoral problems, so I dunno).
We still have Rand. Sigh.
ctd,
“Day, like her mentor Maurin, criticized a system where ownership and operation was controlled by those with capital rather than the workers. To them, that was capitalism. Sirico, and it appears like you as well, equate capitalism with economic liberty and the free market.”
It isn’t quite so simple. I mentioned private property as well, which capital usually is. But what else is capital? It is usually savings. So unless there is something immoral about accumulation through saving and then investing the savings, there can’t be anything immoral about capitalism as such. Capitalists take enormous risks with their investments. This merits nothing?
More importantly, though, absolutely nothing prevents “the workers” from saving and investing but their own will. Most workers don’t want the responsibilities or, more importantly, the risks of business ownership and management. If they did, we would see more workers cooperatives. It isn’t like there is a law against them, or as if evil capitalists are conspiring against them. But some workers evidently do want the responsibility, and so we do have some cooperatives and other forms of employee participation in profits. There are also plenty of organizations out there that spread information about these kinds of arrangements.
So a whole distributist economy is there waiting to be carved out of our “individualist” economy if and when a critical mass of people decide they want it.
“The other problem is that too much talk is about the results of these systems rather than the philosophical and theological bases for supporting, opposing, or criticizing them.”
Not when you’re talking to Austrians. For Rothbard and Paul, capitalism is an ethical system. It is based on the non-aggression principle. It is what naturally results when basic individual and natural rights are respected by society and the state.
“Libertarians like Paul, and I would submit that Sirico does this as well, start by putting the freedom of the individual contra government as the fundamental principle.”
The freedom of the individual from aggression, period, of which government aggression is a particular and widespread type.
“Day would never have done that. She put the person, in the context of community, first, and she criticized both government and corporations for failing to respect that.”
Corporations could respect it more, I have to agree. But corporations are mostly reactive. That’s another thing leftists often fail to comprehend. They exist to meet a demand. Whatever they’re supplying is what they’ve discerned as the popular demand. You can say this is immoral, but really it is the purpose, the function, of a business. The immorality lies elsewhere, i.e. with the demanders.
I can understand being a critic of American corporate culture. But it is just factually wrong to set it up as an active opponent of distributism/whatever else you want to promote. That would be my main point. The way things are isn’t the “fault” of the corporations.
“I like what the old Joseph Ratzinger said, before he started talking about global financial regulations and the like as B16.”
But Catholics are not free to merely disregard Catholic social doctrine, which is what Caritas in Veritate is, just because they don’t like it.
“How does one become and remain self-sufficient? By working, producing, and exchanging, and also, if one has the willingness and ability, saving and investing. Private property + free exchange. Capitalism.”
As noted before, many would question this definition of capitalism, but besides that you seem to assume that a free exchange is just. Check the Catechism. “Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.” (2434). That chapter also makes clear that the state has an obligation to interfere in that agreement if necessary because it has an obligation to prevent theft and ensure justice.
ctd,
“But Catholics are not free to merely disregard Catholic social doctrine, which is what Caritas in Veritate is, just because they don’t like it.”
I’m not disregarding it. If it says what I think it says, though, I will criticize it. With plenty of regard.
“As noted before, many would question this definition of capitalism, but besides that you seem to assume that a free exchange is just.”
Not every conceivable free exchange is just. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the use of force is required or justifiable to obtain a just outcome.
“Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.” (2434).”
I know exactly what this is based upon. Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum. And the good news is that what he said is also quite compatible with the typical operation of capitalism. Employers have to pay workers enough to live. With regards to support of family, which was the other provision of Leo’s, we have a stickier problem. This is not because of capitalism as such, however – most employers were able and willing to pay family wages and many still are. What problems we have encountered in this area have to do with the pervasive influence of radical feminism and the massive flood of women into the workplace. The assumption on the part of many employers now is that both the husband and the wife work. There is less of a reason, then, for them to pay out family wages. This isn’t something you can blame on the market. This situation resulted from a cultural revolution.
We also have the issue of global competition, of course. But there the costs of a protectionist regime have to be weighed against the benefits of globalized production and trade.
Finally, and most importantly, it is a critical and serious error to measure economic justice in terms of WAGES alone. It is worth asking whether or not there are other means by which the basic human needs of the worker can be met. Why, for instance, isn’t inflation as thoroughly addressed by ANY pope? Inflation arguably inflicts far more harm than low wages on people of poor and average means. If inflation were seriously addressed, the material situation of the vast majority of the workers could and would improve without any change in the dollar amount received in wages. The same dollars would be able to purchase more. So why the silence on this alternative?
It is because one economic paradigm, and not another, has influenced the Papacy. It is because one economic paradigm, and not another, swept Europe by storm. This can happen in areas not related to faith and morals – the Papacy can become influenced by frankly bad ideas.
“That chapter also makes clear that the state has an obligation to interfere in that agreement if necessary because it has an obligation to prevent theft and ensure justice.”
The state doesn’t have a magic calculator that can determine the market value of someone’s labor. Justice would be ensured if the state stopped printing trillions of dollars and destroying the value of the dollars held by ordinary people. But no one talks about this.
I also have to add that there are many things that you can do to arbitrarily increase wages that would harm all workers and consumers in the long run. When seriously considering the common good, how can one just call for wage increases and ignore all potential negative consequences?
Is the common good ever served by just blindly promoting a single policy?
I wasn’t arguing for responding to injustices by wages alone or anything like that. I was just pointing out one instance in thousands of pages of social doctrine where the Church clearly states (1) that economic freedom between individuals is not itself sufficient and (2) it is entirely proper for the state to intervene in economic matters. Those two principles do not mean that the Church has rejected capitalism, but they do indicate that it rejects the notion that ownership of property and free exchange are sufficient for the protection and fostering of the life and dignity of the human person.
I am troubled by your claim that the Church’s social doctrine has been shaped by a particular economic paradigm and the area itself is not a matter of faith and morals. There wasn’t much serious debate on the matter before John Paul II, but he nevertheless made it very clear that this was not the case. The Church’s social doctrine, including those related to economics, is an integral part of the Church’s teaching and part of the magisterium. It is not just the opinions of various pope’s responding only to particular issues relevant only to their time and experience.
“I’m not even going to discuss imperialism with someone who seems to think that it is the equivalent of military occupation. You dunno much about it.”
well that’s what it is. or is that too technical? i’m not a fan of conflating liberalism with socialism either for that matter.
by your metric the only way the U.S. can be non-“imperial” is if it stops caring about the outcome of certain conflicts/does not kill terrorist associates who are a direct threat, for fear of blowback. that’s rigging the argument.
Ctd,
“I was just pointing out one instance in thousands of pages of social doctrine where the Church clearly states (1) that economic freedom between individuals is not itself sufficient and (2) it is entirely proper for the state to intervene in economic matters. ”
And this is the problem with deductive reasoning. You can start with principles that sound fine in theory and lead to disaster in practice.
It isn’t possible to separate means from ends either, because these principles are all proposed with ends in mind. WHY is it ok for the state to intervene in economic matters, according to the recent social teachings? For some supposed benefit, for the common good, etc. And yet the facts demonstrate that state intervention in the economy almost always causes more problems than it solves and ends up perpetuating injustices instead of eliminating them. So if you have a principle that doesn’t accomplish what its stated purpose is, this is a problem.
Leo XIII, who initiated modern CST, was much more restrained in his approach than his successors. He was much more clear about the purpose and the limitations of the state. An almost laissez-faire model could be derived from Rerum Novarum.
” Those two principles do not mean that the Church has rejected capitalism, but they do indicate that it rejects the notion that ownership of property and free exchange are sufficient for the protection and fostering of the life and dignity of the human person.”
There are two different ideas here.
I don’t believe that ownership + exchange = sufficient for the dignity of humanity, etc. I believe they are necessary. Necessary is not = to sufficient.
The reality is that much of what the Church has proposed for the MATERIAL well-being of humanity in the 20th and 21st centuries has been rooted in flawed economic theories. This is distinct from spiritual well-being, though frankly, as a traditionalist I would point to quite a few problems there as well.
“I am troubled by your claim that the Church’s social doctrine has been shaped by a particular economic paradigm and the area itself is not a matter of faith and morals. ”
Well, it has, and it isn’t. It doesn’t trouble me though. Research how Papal encyclicals come together. Rerum Novarum, for instance, was written under the influence of philosophers and economists who were themselves influenced by Lockean liberalism. Quadragesimo Anno was written when fascist corporatism was at the zenith of its respectability. They are, consequently, two different encyclicals.
Finally, when you advance policies that you claim will have certain effects, and they don’t have those effects – as is demonstrable in the case of Pius XI and Paul VI, just off the top of my head – we are clearly not dealing with infallibility. We’re dealing with an area in which it is possible for error to creep in, and it has.
JDP,
That’s not all that it is. But I seriously have to stop posting now. We can debate imperialism later. If you still really want to.
JDP,
Y’all either type fast or what.
Good job: take a phrase and disregard the facts/truth of the comment.
I don’t believe that Obama thinks he’s doing evil or a sin.
I think Obama believes he’s doing “good” destroying the evil, unjust free market system.
Similarly, Lenin thought he was doing good for Russia by killing hundreds of thousands of uncooperative peasants.
Or else, Obama and his gang simply are morons.
Get it, Bub?
do you really think Obama wants to destroy the free market, or is he someone who believes in a large social safety existing with capitalism, a la certain European countries?
i realize some people think making this distinction is going soft on someone, but i think it’s important. it’s not like the latter situation can’t be argued against.
[…] Catholic Stand The Denial of Being – Kevin O’Brien, Waiting for Godot to Leave Dorothy Day: Anarcho-Capitalist, Perhaps – Bonchamps, The American Cthlc Küng, Sex-Obsessed – New Catholic, Rorate Cæli Is Tim […]
Catholic social teaching would appear to assign a greater rôle to the public authorities than either you or Dorothy Day allow:
As Pope Paul VI said in Populorum Progressio:
“33. Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” [John XXIII, Encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 414] the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.
It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man’s basic human rights.”
MPS,
How many times are you going to post the same quote?
“Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development.”
I don’t even know what this means. What is development and why is it important? I’m sure there’s a definition in there, but you haven’t provided it.
“We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed.”
That isn’t what individual initiative and competition do. This argument is factually false. Competition increases everyone’s wealth. It doesn’t add to anyone’s woes except for the businessmen who lose in the competition, a class of people I’d hardly classify as “oppressed.”
If a pope said that 1 + 1 = 3, I’d tell him he was wrong, with all due respect. I’ll say the same in this case as well. Paul VI and Pius XI were both completely wrong about the cause and effect relationship between competition and the wealth of the masses. The Papacy does not guarantee that they have to be right about it, nor does Church teaching insist that we submit to demonstrably false statements about empirical reality.
i Really Think That Obama’s Intent Is To Destroy america.
Keynes (I am not a Keynesian) said something to the effect: future historians/economists will wonder in amazement that such a dull and illogical “regime” as (marxian) socialism could have exercised such influence (and caused such damage) over so many. Keynes also saw that economic “social justice” could morph to class envy/hate.
And, the Pope is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, not in matters of fiscal (taxes and expenditures); monetary (bank reserve requirements, interest rates, money supply) policy; nor price, income, and employment theory.
Generally, I don’t put any stock in CSJT. It’s used by evil people to promote evil. its cousin, socialism, plays on people’s envy and wrath (the seven deadly sins), as does Obama with his constant divisive, eliminationist rhetoric of “us” vs. “them”, e.g., 4,000,000 NRA members are mass murderers, and tax the rich.
It borders on tragic that the geniuses that dreamt up CSJT didn’t see that it could become the ally of, and aid and abet, evil, e.g., 47 million abortions. I know that was not the intent. It’s just how it plays out.
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
“The Church’s social doctrine “belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology”. It cannot be defined according to socio-economic parameters. It is not an ideological or pragmatic system intended to define and generate economic, political and social relationships, but is a category unto itself.” (No. 72)
“This doctrine has its own profound unity, which flows from Faith in a whole and complete salvation, from Hope in a fullness of justice, and from Love which makes all mankind truly brothers and sisters in Christ: it is the expression of God’s love for the world, which he so loved “that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16). (No. 3)”
Caritas in Veritate:
“In this sense, clarity is not served by certain abstract subdivisions of the Church’s social doctrine, which apply categories to Papal social teaching that are extraneous to it. It is not a case of two typologies of social doctrine . . . differing from one another: on the contrary, there is a single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new. It is one thing to draw attention to the particular characteristics of one Encyclical or another, of the teaching of one Pope or another, but quite another to lose sight of the coherence of the overall doctrinal corpus. (No. 12)”
Capitalism and individual freedom is obviously the only solution that has worked in raising a nations standard of living. This along with a limited government that supports distributism combined with a people that demands subsidiarity and seeks after God is what really works and is sustainable. This is no longer the case in the USA and we are now declining. Obama’s initiatives with new and massive debt spending, unprecedented in our history, are sealing our fate. With nostalgia we refer to the generation that fought in WW-II as the greatest generation. What followed should be called the worst generation. The ignorance and willingness to hand over freedom for another government program is appalling.
To take two examples for Populorum Progressio, where “”Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development.”:
“22. Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth: “God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should flow fairly to all.” ) [Church in the World of Today, no. 69: AAS 58 (1966), 1090 [cf. TPS XI, 306].]
All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.”
And
“24. If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”
I would suggest hat only the public authorities can judge when “the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated” or landed estates (and, presumably other kinds of property) are to be expropriated.
Contrary to what is held by the anti-property anti-market left, in the absence of the state, the natural tendency is toward equality of opportunity. While there will continue to be a wide disparity of wealth – due to the fact that humans are not equal by nature (some are more ambitious and intelligent than others), the super rich will no longer have politicians from whom they can purchase or legislate immunity. The misguided left – including those who claim to be “anarchists” – are comfortable with the intrusive state because of their hatred of property.
The main problem with trying to discuss Dorothy Day is that there is very little objective knowledge about her, as most of what is believed comes from the pen of her most ardent supporters who happen to share one or more of her political positions. The only independent in-depth study of Day and the Catholic Worker is my book, ‘The Catholic Worker (1930-1988): a Critical Analysis’ (2010) which is based on documentary evidence from archival and other authentic sources. The research contained in the book shows that Day espoused a Socialist agenda for economic and social reform which she tried to disguise under the term “Christian Communism” so as to make it acceptable in the Catholic Church.
Day was imbued with Marxist ideology, which was the basis for her rejection of Capitalism.
As for the question of ownership, family rights, subsidiarity, distributism etc., it can be easily shown that Day’s position on each of them does not accord with Catholic principles. In her newspaper, ‘The Catholic Worker’ (CW) which she editied for almost 50 years, she favored many varieties of Socialism merging the ideals of Marxist, anarchist, utopian and religious groups which advocate the application of Communist policies in social life. Here are some examples of the Socialist solutions which she recommended in addition to her own Catholic Worker communes:
• the Koinonia community based on “the firm foundation of non-ownership” (CW May 1957)
• collectivized farming and living arrangements e.g. in China, the USSR and Cuba (CW February 1965), in Tanzania (CW December 1970), among the Hutterites (CW July-August 1969) or on a farming commune in California. (CW January 1972)
• the 19th-century North American pioneering settlements (CW April 1956) which were based on communal ownership of property
• the Israeli Kibbutz system, essentially a Socialist society based on, egalitarianism, non-ownership and communal child rearing (CW March 1968)
We can deduce that Day’s idea of Distributism which did not defend the right to private property was simply a form of Socialism in disguise. It is simply an illusion to imagine that communal ownership of property and the means of production could be achieved without state enforcement – in other words a totalitarian state.
Here is a question for your favorite theologian: “Can God create a degree so useless that even He could not get a real job?”
Theologians and vatican bureaucracy, or whoever writes econocyclicals, know as much about economic growth and development as they do about fornication. With apologiies to General Patton.
Wherever they tried that stuff, people went broke. The contemporary US experience is that it increases the ranks of the poor and, even worse, aids and abets evil: abortion, class envy and mass wrath.
Yesterday a commenter told me:
“attributing mala fides (and talking about “enriching Wall Street buddies” as though that’s the ultimate aim here) might be a nice way to avoid engaging separate views but it is lazy.”
I am lazy, but that’s okay: it’s the truth:
Joel Kotkin quoted at Instapundit, “To many presidential idolaters, this era will be known as the Age of Obama. But, in reality, we live in what may best be called the Age of Bernanke. Essentially, Obamaism increasingly serves as a front for the big-money interests who benefit from the Federal Reserve’s largesse and interest rate policies; progressive rhetoric serves as the beard for royalist results.”
“Many of the biggest losers in the Bernanke era are key Democratic constituencies, such as minorities and the young, who have seen their opportunities dim under the Bernanke regime. The cruelest cuts have been to the poor, whose numbers have surged by more than 2.6 million under a president who has promised relentlessly to reduce poverty.
“Things, of course, have not [been] too great for the middle-age and middle-class – more of them now supporting both aging parents and underemployed children. Median income in America is down 8 percent from 2007, and dropping. Things, in reality, are not getting better for anyone but the most affluent.
“A particular loser has been small business. As we enter the sixth year since the onset of the Great Recession, and nearly four years after the ‘recovery’ officially began, small business remains in a largely defensive mode. Critically, start-up rates are well below those than following previous downturns in 1976 and 1983. The number of startup jobs per 1000 – a key source of job growth in the past – over the past four years is down a full 30 percent from the Bush and Clinton eras. New firms – those five years or younger – now account for less than 8 percent of all companies, down from 12 percent to 13 percent in the early 1980s, another period following a deep recession.”
Well, now we’re getting somewhere.
First, to MPS, then to Dr. Byrne.
MPS,
Pope Leo also quoted the same principle about “the Earth belonging to all”, but it is clear that he did so in the same manner as Locke, for he goes on to justify the appropriation of a portion of it through individual labor.
Goods flow fairly to all when free competition enables the most efficient production and distribution of goods. This, again, is a testable, verifiable statement.
“All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. ”
On the contrary, this principle – of the fair flow of goods – can’t even work unless the rights of property and free trade are considered fundamental and respected as such. It is the fair flow of goods and services that depends upon private property and free trade (capitalism).
You see? We want the same things. We want as many people as possible to get the things they need as efficiently as possible. This is what pure, unfettered capitalism delivers. It is what Keyensianism, social democracy, communism, fascism and Obamunism (a strange sort of neo-fascism if you ask me) obstruct.
“I would suggest hat only the public authorities can judge when “the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated” or landed estates (and, presumably other kinds of property) are to be expropriated.”
If “the public authorities” expropriate lawful and legitimate landowners, they are aggressors. They are violating the principles articulated by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum. So, I will resist, with my life if necessary, any attempt by your or your fellow statists to expropriate lawful property owners, and I will do so with a clean conscience as a Catholic.
Dr. Byrne,
Thanks for your post. I have a lot to say about it, so I hope you stick around and reply.
“The main problem with trying to discuss Dorothy Day is that there is very little objective knowledge about her, as most of what is believed comes from the pen of her most ardent supporters who happen to share one or more of her political positions.”
I agree with you on this point. This is what I have found as well. However, there is a massive online archive of her writings at the Catholic Worker website, so it seems that this kind of ignorance is no longer excusable. I spent some time browsing it myself before writing this post.
On the very general point about Day espousing a socialist agenda:
I have to say that by MY understanding of the words “capitalism” and “socialism”, she could not be credibly called a socialist. Socialism ultimately relies upon widespread coercion. Day explicitly rejected “the idea of force and compulsion” to achieve any kind of social or economic justice.
Voluntary collectivism, on the other hand, is more or less what the early Christians practiced. I don’t see how one can morally object to it.
As for the examples you cite:
I looked up the Feb. 1965 interview you cited. It’s pretty bad, to be sure. You’re absolutely right – she mentions collective communist farming in passing and then later on specifically praises Cuba and is rather blase about Castro’s confiscation of Church property. Its pretty appalling stuff, really. But.
Even the best of political thinkers can have a lapse in consistency. Doesn’t it seem strange to you that someone would oppose Social Security on the grounds that it relied upon force and then praise a violent revolution that expropriated people by force?
It tells me that we don’t really have a consistent thinker here. I think the reality is that she wanted an outcome, a certain kind of society, and was sympathetic to whomever she believed had obtained it or was on the way to obtaining it. If I had the opportunity, I would point out the massive inconsistency in rejecting “force and compulsion” when it comes to something relatively mild like Social Security while remaining ethically uncritical of something like the Cuban Revolution.
I would hope that she would see that social justice is meaningless without justice due to individuals, justice which is denied through totalitarian collectivism.
Finally,
“It is simply an illusion to imagine that communal ownership of property and the means of production could be achieved without state enforcement – in other words a totalitarian state.”
Not really. Ever hear of the Mondragon? Workers cooperatives do exist. All kinds of cooperatives exist, in fact, from agricultural and industrial to commercial and financial. Whatever people decide is in their best interests will ultimately work.
Will EVERYONE be a part of them? No. THAT could only be obtained by a totalitarian state.
P.S. – I read your article on Distributism for TIA. I agree with much if not all of it. I was dismayed when the Distributists I knew reacted with such horror to my suggestion that Distributism was a form of capitalism. It shocked me because they constantly talk about the Mondragon as an example of Distributism. And yet the Mondragon was not established by force, it is privately owned, and it competes in the open market.
I don’t know where the ignorance ends and the malice begins with these people. The two basic ideas of Distributism and capitalism are not at odds. What’s at odds are how most of the Distributists would implement Distributism and capitalism.
I’ve read Dr. Byrne’s book and studied Dorothy Day’s work in some detail–I have most of the books by her, even The 11th Virgin, and most of those about her–but Dr. Byrne’s book was a real eye-opener, and answered many questions.
I had been a fan of Dorothy Day, but was always somewhat curious why she never really came out strong against Communism after her Catholic conversion, especially as this was during a period when Communism was corrupting many people.
After reading Dr. Byrne’s book, I understood why.
Bonchamps
The Cuban episode is one of too many to write her off as merely having “a lapse in consistency”. She was much too intelligent for that, and her lapses all seemed to fall along the same general line.
Really, anyone who wishes to have a full picture of Dorothy Day, and American Catholics should as she is on her way to canonization, needs to read Dr. Byrne’s book.
Fair enough.
Still, she said what she said in the piece I quoted. So what’s up with that?
Wow. Things have certainly gotten interesting in here.
I really only want to respond to this:
“The only independent in-depth study of Day and the Catholic Worker is my book, ‘The Catholic Worker (1930-1988): a Critical Analysis’ (2010) which is based on documentary evidence from archival and other authentic sources.”
I don’t. This seems unlikely. Not saying it isn’t true. But just highly unlikely that there is only one “independent in-depth study of Day and the Catholic Worker.”
JL Liedl et al,
I met Dorothy Day when I was an undergraduate, wet behind the ears, in the mid-1960s. I felt a certain unease, especially after witnessing the lax morality at the Tivoli Catholic Worker (CW) farm, which I naively–and erroneously–thought Day did not know about. Many years later, after an arduous search on the Internet, I found Carol Byrne’s book, which helped me to see that my unease was realistic.
It may seem unlikely, but Byrne’s “The Catholic Worker Movement (1930-1988): A Critical Analysis” is still the only book I have been able to find that is an “independent in-depth study of Day and the Catholic Worker.” Day has been rightly called “the mother of the Catholic left.”
Jim Forest, author of three biographies of Day–all without footnotes–was a CW editor as well as a founder of the CW spinoff, the Catholic Peace Fellowship. He left the Catholic Church for the Orthodox but continues to advocate for Day’s “sanctity” as he heads the Orthodox Peace Fellowship and resides in the Netherlands.
Daniel Ellsberg’s son Robert spent 5 years at the CW, from 1970-1975, under Day’s tutelage. Robert Ellsberg is now the Publisher of Maryknoll’s Orbis Books as well as the editor of Day’s Selected Writings (“By LIttle and by Little”), Selected Letters (“All Is Grace”), and her published Diaries (“The Duty of Delight”), in addition to being on the Steering Committee for the Guild for Dorothy Day.
Patrick Jordan is a former CW and now a member of Day’s Guild’s Executive Committee. While he was Editor of “Commonweal,” Jordan edited a volume of Day’s writings from the magazine.
James H. Martin, SJ, is an editor of “America” and an advocate for Day. In “America,”he endorses her “Duty of Delight” as “one of the most powerful works of Christian spirituality I have ever read.” On the back cover of her Selected Letters, he enthuses: “Read these remarkable letters and come to know a saint.” So much for waiting for the decision of the Church!
Similarly, Robert Coles, prominent Harvard psychiatrist, advisor and friend to Ethel Kennedy, and author of two books about Day and the CW was–who’d a thunk it–a CW volunteer in the 1950s when he was attending medical school at Columbia; and as a professor he sent his students to the CW and also visited the CW with them.
Tom Cornell, also a co-founder of the Catholic Peace Fellowship, a draft-card burner in the 1960s with Day providing public encouragement, and head of the Marlboro, NY CW farm today, does his bit too on behalf of Day in interviews–with no mention of his being on the Executive Committee of Day”s Guild.
Earlier academic authors Nancy L. Roberts and Mel Piehl did studies of the CW that endorsed many of Day’s beliefs. Professor William D. Miller, who wrote the 1982 biography “Dorothy Day,” became Day’s friend and does not provide notes in his work. Rosalie Riegle Troester (now Rosalie G. Riegle post-divorce) is a college professor emerita who has also–surprise–been involved with the CW since the 1960s and is the editor/compiler of two volumes of “oral history” on the CW.
Paul Elie’s “The LIfe You Save May Be Your Own” deals with Dorothy Day’s influence as a Catholic writer and actually analyzes what she wrote–which may be why his work is not listed as a resource at the CW website. However, Elie does not question Day’s “significance,” and declares that her “influence … has spread far and wide” and notes uncritically that “Day is being considered for canonization as a saint in Rome.”
FYI, Dr. Byrne’s complete Supplementary Notes for “The Catholic Worker Movement 1933-1980: A Critical Analysis” are available at the blog “Dorothy Day Another Way” and are well worth reading.
Min, David, Dr. B,
Thanks for all the information. You’ve certainly given us all some pause for consideration. However, I still can’t shake the feeling that this seems like the internet combox version of an infomercial!
Yes, I plan on withholding judgment until I’ve had a chance to acquire more information. Not that I doubt the truthfulness or reliability of anyone who has posted here, of course.
I don’t have a problem with advocacy of voluntary collectivism. I do have a big problem with apologia for violent communist revolutions.
Hilaire Belloc often gave France as an example of distributism, pointing out that some ten million landless peasants were turned into heritable proprietors, largely through the transfer of state and municipal property to private individuals – the royal domain, the common lands, the village lands, the forest lands. the lendowments of dissolved corporations, like the guilds, colleges, hospitals, as well as the confiscated estates of emigrants and malignants – the very reverse of socialism or communism.
Bonchamps, it might seem logical to believe that “unlike a lot of left-anarchists I have known, she was unambiguous in her rejection of the use of force and compulsion to obtain ‘social justice’, I don’t think it can be said that she opposed capitalism either.”
However, this view is contradicted by Day’s writings. The aim of the Catholic Worker according to Day and Peter Maurin is “to make a society in which it is easier for people to be good” by working “to make the rich poor and the poor holy”; Maurin’s favorite mottoes included “Work, not wages” and “Fire the bosses!” (Day, “The Long Loneliness,” 1952, 2006 reprint, pp. 195, 226-227). Throughout her life Day opposed capitalism, and favored the “social advances” of such governments as Castro’s Cuba, Red China, and Ho Chi Minh–which eliminated the advantages of the wealthy–as Carol Byrne documents.
Here are some relevant quotes, with sources, so that readers can confirm Day wrote them:
“Let us be honest and confess that it is the social order which we wish to change.” (“C.W. States Stand on Strikes,” Catholic Worker [CW], July 1936)
“The bourgeois, the material[ist], fights for abstractions like freedom, democracy, because he has the material things of this life (which he is most fearful of being deprived of).” ( “The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day,” 2011, p. 83)
“Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system.” (from a public speech; “Women on War,” Daniela Gioseffi, ed., 1988, pp. 103, 371)
“When people are standing up for our present rotten system, they are being worse than Communists, it seems to me.” (“Duty of Delight,” p. 98)
“We need to change the system. We need to overthrow, not the government, as the authorities are always accusing the Communists ‘of conspiring to teach [us] to do,’ but this rotten, decadent, putrid industrial capitalist system which breeds such suffering in the whited sepulcher of New York.” (“On Pilgrimage,” CW, September 1956)
The CW in Day’s time participated in demonstrations opposing Wall Street in the 1970s, and has supported and participated in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement of the present. As for Day’s opposition to force, she frequently stated she could not “condone” it, but she was able to overlook it when it was used by Communists and achieved “social reforms” (e.g., see CW articles on Cuba, 1962). She also wrote approvingly about the virtues of her old Communist friends Mike Gold, Anna Louise Strong, Rayna Prohme, and Communist Party Chair Elizabeth Gurley Flynn for her CW readers. No wonder President Obama declared her one of “the great social reformers” at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2012.
In the “Long Loneliness” Day declares, “There is so much more to the Catholic Worker Movement than labor and capital. It is people who are important, not the masses” (p. 221). Here are three samples of Day’s view of “people”:
[1] “To see only the good, the Christ, in others! Perhaps if we thought of how Karl Marx was called ‘Papa Marx’ by all the children on the street, if we knew and remembered how he told fairy stories to his children, how he suffered hunger and poverty and pain, how he sat by the body of his dead child and had no money for coffin or funeral, perhaps such thoughts as these would make us love him and his followers. Dear God, for the memory of that dead child, of that faithful wife, grant his stormy spirit ‘a place of refreshment, light and peace.’
And there was Lenin. He hungered and thirsted and at times he had no fixed abode. Mme. Krupskaya, his widow, said that he loved to go into the peace of the pine woods and hunt mushrooms like old Mrs. Dew down at Easton did, and we with her one October. He lived one time in the slums of Paris, and he lived on horse meat when he had meat, and he started schools for the poor and the workers. ‘He went about doing good.’ Is this blasphemy?” (“On Pilgrimage,” CW, April 1948)
[2] The head of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Charles Schwab “had defrauded the worker of a just wage. His sins cried to heaven for vengeance. He had ground the faces of the poor. “Let not the oil of the sinner fatten my head” (Ps. 140:5)….”He that sheddeth blood, and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire, are brothers” (Ecclus. 34:24-27). (From Union Square to Rome, 1938; 2006 reprint, p. 137).
[3] “Marx . . . Lenin . . . Mao Tse-Tung. . . . These men were animated by the love of brother and this we must believe though their ends meant the seizure of power, and the building of mighty armies, the compulsion of concentration camps, the forced labor and torture and killing of tens of thousands, even millions.” (“The Incompatibility of Love and Violence,” CW, May 1951)
JL, please read Day’s writings and see if your judgment changes. When I did this, my initial reaction was shock and disbelief at the difference between Day’s “popular” image and what her writings reveal.
She also says in the same article ((“The Incompatibility of Love and Violence,” CW, May 1951)
“Peter Maurin was constantly restating our position, and finding authorities from all faiths, and races, all authorities. He used to embarrass us sometimes by dragging in Marshal Pétain and Fr. Coughlin and citing something good they had said, even when we were combating the point of view they were representing. Just as we shock people by quoting Marx, Lenin, Mao-Tse-Tung, or Ramakrishna to restate the case for our common humanity, the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God.”
I can admire the patriotism and courage of Charlotte Corday, without endorsing assassination as a political weapon; I can admire the public spirit and integrity of Robespierre, without approving of the Terror.