LAETARE SUNDAY, 2001
PREFACE AND DEDICATION
There are a few basic assumptions I begin with. I assume that an American living in our society today has at least a basic superficial knowledge of our economic system, and hence I don’t have to explain the external forms that capitalism takes in our society today. Secondly I also assume that the State has duties assigned to it by God so that it may protect the economic welfare of its citizens – according to the dictates of Catholic principles. But my purpose here is not to prove or discuss the Social Reign of Our Lord, so I will not dwell on this point. Finally, as far as solutions go, this paper is an attempt to analyze capitalism in itself. Thus it is not posed as a problem-solver but rather as an instrument to enlighten those previously unaware of the subject. Ultimately Catholicism does not seek to post hard and fast rules as to how to go about regenerating the economic system. The roots of the reform must be found in the family, led by able and informed fathers. Yet a few remedies and solutions may be discussed in a peripheral manner.
I dedicate this work to Archbishop Lefebvre. It is done so on the 10th anniversary of his death – usually the Incarnation of Our Lady but this year it falls on Laetare Sunday. I ask for his prayers for myself and this work, and for his little band of rebuilders, the Society of St. Pius X.
Before one begins a detailed study of capitalism, it is important to know at base a simple definition of economics, of which capitalism is a system. For the modern, the very word economics brings with it the idea of dusty tomes and columns of numbers and difficult calculations made by a select few who choose the “dismal science.” Indeed this is a false picture. Economics is part of the daily care of every human, whether he wants to partake in it or not. It is important for the Catholic to have a good understanding of economics and secondarily of capitalism, which has become the dominant system of the day, in order to better order his home life to direct his family and himself to heaven.
“The basic principles of economics will not be readily understood or appreciated by people who believe that economic theory explains the operation of an essentially immoral society, one governed by selfishness or dominated by the desire for ‘material welfare’ rather than ‘human welfare’” (Heyne 25-26). This is a good starting point. Economics is not of itself bad. Indeed, it is a science intrinsically tied up with morals – and we as Catholics, especially cognizant of the motto to “restore all things in Christ” cannot ignore economics as an object of restoration. “…the most important part of the case for economic freedom is not its vaunted efficiency as a system for organizing resources, not its dramatic success in promoting economic growth, but rather its consistency with certain fundamental moral principles of life itself” (Rogge 40). “…the subject matter of economics is after all, a field of human activity, namely man’s efforts to supply his material needs. Its material aims, therefore, must ultimately be judged by their conformity to the moral ends of human life, and its methods by the moral standards of human contact” (Hoare 32).
These “moral ends” are not hazy notions, but are clear-cut. In the Middle Ages economists had no doubt that economics was, at bottom, the science of how men ought to behave to one another in the course of getting a living. Hence they dealt primarily with men and their behavior, and only secondarily with goods and money and their accumulation. They emphasized the sinfulness of avarice and of taking advantage of another’s urgent necessities; they held that the craftsman was under a moral obligation to do good work; they required that wages, prices, and rates of interest should be just and not merely competitive; and so forth. They rightly considered that to disregard these principles was bad economics.
Hence the idea of money, prices, and wages enters the pictures. However these terms are not ends in themselves. These are means to an end. Regarding those means the Angelic Doctor paraphrases Aristotle’s view of money in the Ethics. Fr. Fahey in his book Money Manipulation and Social Order quotes St. Thomas: “That a man may lead a virtuous life two things are required. The chief requisite is virtuous action, for virtue is that by which one leads a good life. 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” (8). The idea of “wealth” now comes into play. Again here is another word for which the modern has a preconceived notion. Wealth is perhaps what the “robber barons” have locked up in their Victorian mansions. Piles and piles of gold and money lie in some secret vault behind an expensive painting. Hilaire Belloc in his book Economics for Helen does much to try and correct this false notion in his introductory chapters on the terms of economics. He says, “wealth does not reside in the objects we possess but in the economic values attaching to those objects” (8). A mule one may own does not have intrinsic economic value in itself, but rather in relation to the “mutual relations of human persons arising from their need of external goods or real wealth” (Fahey 8). Belloc continues:
The Science of Economics does not deal with true happiness nor even with well-being in material things. It deals with a strictly limited field of what is called “Economic Wealth” and if it goes outside its own boundaries it goes wrong. Making people as happy as possible is much more than economics can pretend to. Economics cannot even tell you how to make people well to do in material things. But it can tell you how exchangeable wealth is produced and what happens to it; and as it can tell you this, it is a useful servant.
Thus it is illustrated that goods and services, wealth, finance, and the whole business of economics is directed as a service – indeed as a servant to man. Yet we see today that money has become a god and the master of men. Money is in a sense counterfeited as real wealth, when it is only the representative, or guarantee, of wealth residing somewhere else, and not in itself. Hoare adds,
Goods and services must in any case be the real foundation of even the most elaborate monetary economy, which cannot in the long run command confidence unless they exist to back it…(otherwise) money is treated, not only as an instrument for the exchange of commodities, but as if it were itself a commodity to be dealt for in profit.
Fr. Fahey concludes: “Finance is meant to be the servant of Politics and Economics. Instead it has come to be the master of both, so that human beings are sacrificed to the production of material goods and the production and distribution of material goods are sacrificed to finance” (14-15).
The next disaster from this naturally follows. Social justice, which is naturally protected by the normal interaction of goods and services, becomes distorted when money is set up as its own end.
If the manipulators of money get control of the Government of the State then the Government will not be able to compel the bankers and the moneychangers to practice the virtue of social justice, namely, that justice which has for object the Common Good, and the welfare of the whole nation will suffer grievously. Usury and alteration of the price-level will then be permitted to go unchecked, and the real sovereignty in the State will inevitably pass into the hands of the manipulators of money. The next stage will be a move to bring national sovereignty under the domination of some international organization subject to finance. That will make permanent and worldwide the present-day anti-Christian and anti-natural perversion of order involved in the subordination of human persons to the product of material goods and in the subordination of the product and distribution of material goods to finance.
What of this social justice? Stancioff answers: “Social justice cannot wait upon conversion any more than conversion upon social justice. To put off the establishment of God’s law in society until we have established it in each man’s heart is as much a sin as to put off the establishment of God’s law in each man’s heart until we have established it in the whole of society”(16).
The question might follow as to whether the Church has a specific stance. The Church, as she does in government, does not say only one system is ordained by God, but she rather lays down principles that may be reasonably followed by some systems provided the first principle – God and His Holy Church – are respected. The general principles are not many. Ven. Pius XII states: “(the holding) on which the family lives and from the products of which it draws all or part of its subsistence is the most perfect form of private property” (13). In a pastoral letter addressing “a Catholic Economics” the Bishops of Australia wrote: “While the Church desires that the working proprietor should become the characteristic figure of the nation’s economy, it does not believe that all property should be in private hands. Certain forms of property should be owned and operated by public authorities, local or national” (31). Hence some property like the trains or the post office would be administered by the government, although the principle is here established that the government is not normally an employer. The same bishops further add: “…there seems no valid reason why the majority of manufactured goods needed in everyday life should not be manufactured in small and medium-sized workshops…” (33). These everyday items could be things such as shoe polish or canned food, etc. “…(the) principle vindicates the right of the family and individual to enjoy certain fundamental liberties and opportunities and fulfill certain fundamental duties attaching to them as human beings before ever the state came into existence” (Hoare 38). In a few broad strokes, the Church’s basic principles regarding economics are thus seen. Just as Plato begins with one man and through his conversation in the beginning of the Republic concludes that the State is man writ large, and just as Christianity has always understood the end of that State to be the salvation of souls through the public practice and encouragement of virtue, so too a “Catholic economics” is one that understands money as a means to an end, and the exchange of goods and services as a necessary thing, not in itself evil. Catholic Economics revolves around the same basic unit as the State, namely, the family. Just as a system designed against this fundamental unit can be seen as evil and unjust, so too an economic system that either directly or indirectly engineers the breakup of this unit must also be unjust.
POPE LEO XIII
Perhaps most relevant to our day is the Encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII. It would do us well to step aside for a moment and look at certain comments the Holy Father makes.
After the old trade guilds had been destroyed in the last century, and no protection was substituted in their place, and when public institutions and legislation had cast off traditional religious teaching, it gradually came about that the present age handed over to the workers, each alone and defenseless, to the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors. A devouring usury, although often condemned by the Church, but practiced nevertheless under another form by avaricious and grasping men, has increased the evil; and in addition, the whole process of production as well as trade in every kind of goods has been brought almost entirely under the power of a few, so that a very few rich…men have laid a yoke almost of slavery on the unnumbered masses of non-owning workers.
The Pope also sees as a given the fundamental necessity of private property and expresses it very beautifully thus:
…since man expends his mental energy and his bodily strength in procuring the goods of nature, by this very act he appropriates that part of physical nature to himself which he has cultivated. On it he leaves impressed, as it were, a kind of image of his person, so that it must be altogether just that he should possess that part as his very own and that no one in any way should be permitted to violate his right.
Finally, an often neglected point in our “equal” society today:
Therefore, let it be laid down in the first place that a condition of human existence must be borne with, namely, that in civil society the lowest cannot be made equal with the highest…There are truly very great and very many differences among men. Neither the talents, nor the skill, nor the health, nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments.
Those who would rant against the Church’s lack of concern for the worker or the family find a very able and blatant rebuke in Pope Pius XI’s reflection on the impact of Rerum Novarum in his encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno:
Nevertheless, there are some who seem to attach little importance to this Encyclical and to the present anniversary celebration. These men either slander a doctrine of which they are entirely ignorant, or if not unacquainted with this teaching, they betray their failure to understand it, or else if they understand it they lay themselves open to the charge of base injustice and ingratitude.
ECONOMICS IN OUR DAY
After all this sketching of what Economics is and what a Catholic understanding of it must have, we come to our modern age and the dominant system – or rather systems – of this time. We refer to Capitalism and Socialism. We also come to this study through the unique mode of America itself. We as a country tend to “baptize and absolve” all that we promote, even though it may not be “good,” morally speaking, either at the time or now. Hence some good Americans will wince at the mention of “manifest destiny” or “imperialism” – so too with the relations of States and Economics. Russia was an enemy before WWII, but as an ally during that war, Stalin became “Uncle Joe.” It was inconceivable that America would look down on an ally. Indeed, she must baptize and absolve her. Just as America has striven to “make the world safe for democracy” she has striven to make it safe for capitalism as well. Hence criticism of capitalism will automatically meet with hesitation by modern Americans – maybe even modern American Catholics – or even Catholic Americans. Ignorance of this subject is the main cause of misunderstanding.
Before delving into the heart of Capitalism it will be helpful to pause once more briefly to examine it in a background against Socialism/Communism/Collectivism. Marion Stancioff in an article on Distributism argues:
There is no fundamental disagreement between Capitalism and Collectivism. What we have mistaken for a conflict between principles is a conflict between interests only…the same fatalistic belief in an economic manikin pushed around a (surprisingly uneconomic) universe by inexorable “natural” laws has bred the two rival systems which divide the world today and contend for its dominion.
The author continues:
The defenders of industrial Capitalism and the defenders of Communism have told us over and over again that amalgamation is an “economic necessity,” because they think any method cheaper or more efficient must necessarily oust the less cheap and somewhat less efficient. They also imply that there is a “necessity” for the greedier and more cunning man to eat up the more generous and less instructed.
Dr. Peter Chojnowski comments on Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Rerum Novarum:
The ‘new things’ His Holiness was addressing were Capitalism and Socialism. Both meet with his condemnation, although Capitalism is condemned with strong language as an abuse of property, a deprivation of the many by the few, while Socialism is dismissed outright as being contrary to man’s inherent right to own property.
And Belloc further comments on Socialism:
“Socialism can only be (a) good (b) possible when men desire and are at ease in, the latter kind of state; that is, desire and are at ease in complete forgetfulness of self coupled with justice as men ruling, and complete surrender of personal honor and freedom and appetite as men ruled” (Economics 72).
WHAT IS CAPITALISM?
Now that one has been shown a brief comparison between Capitalism and Socialism, and heard the argument that they are not very dissimilar systems, we must go about delving into the nature of Capitalism and see if this is a valid argument and where its conclusions lead.
To begin, it should be noted that
One could easily be led to think that “capitalism” denotes a coherent, systematic theory of economic organization, developed first as a comprehensive abstract philosophy before being tested as a practice. But what we call “capitalism” is actually something very different; it is, for the most part, a set of practices and institutions that were already well established before they became incorporated into an “ism.”
In truth there is no “Capitalist Manifesto.” The closest approximation is Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. But Smith’s treatise deals more with the “laws” of the nature of economics as he sees them, and doesn’t clearly define “capitalism” as the be-all end-all of modern economics. Smith says:
As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenues of the society as great as he can. He generally indeed neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows by how much he is promoting it…He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
Immediately we see two novelties unique to Smith – though would be later taken up by his countrymen also devoted to this subject – namely, the end of economics and the “invisible hand.” “One perhaps comes closest to the core of the matter if one sees capitalism as a social system which is so organized as to recognize, protect, and draw upon a unique form of accumulated wealth called ‘capital’” (McClay 40). The separation here is clear – no longer is the family (at base) “recognized, protected, and drawn upon” but it is the “capital” itself. Benjamin Rogge in his book Can Capitalism Survive? adds: “…Smith replies (that) a spontaneous order emerges in the very nature of things, an order that arises out of the interaction in the marketplace between the two great forces of supply and demand” (91). The human element is thus completely removed and suddenly abstract elements come to play the integral elements of economics. If there is no humanity than Mr. Scrooge’s maxim must be clear: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?” Modern man laments that he can do nothing about the laws of economics, after all, it’s not as if man has the power to interfere in the “iron law of wages” and other such novelties. Capitalism in its most distorted form usurps the liberty of man to go about even the ordinary forms of daily life. We shall see more below.
CAPITALISM AND ITS EVOLVING NATURE
In his book Economics for Helen, Belloc writes:
The chief moral advantage of Capitalism as compared with the Slave-owning state is that every man, however poor, feels himself to be free and to that extent saves his honour…another…purely economic…is the effectiveness of human energy…at first that lash urges men to intense effort, but later it destroys their energy…already the tide has turned, and the inhumanity of such a life is beginning to breed everywhere an ill-ease and revolt which threaten our civilization.
that arrangement of society in which so considerable a number of the families and individuals are constrained by positive law to labor for the advantage of other families and individuals as to stamp the whole community with the mark of such labor we call the servile state.
Capitalism is hence seen as something that may initially be taken up with great energy. It seems to have as its goal “wealth for all” according to each man’s ability and hence each man works with great energy. It is said that in America because of the superabundance of virgin land capitalism took hold that much easier. Perhaps it is so. But the fundamental nature of capitalism prefers accumulation of “capital” and hence it automatically “prefers” the wealth/property to be in the hands of one who can accumulate a large amount of “capital.” But by doing this it is necessary that certain men be impoverished. Yet this impoverishment must continue if capitalism is to continue because the hallmark of success in capitalism is increasing profits. Yet increasing profits can only be obtained by continuing accumulation by one (or a few) at the cost of many.
“Capitalism being an economic system which, in the long run, prevents people from obtaining the wealth produced and prevents the owner of the wealth from finding a market…(the) absurd position of men making more goods than they need, and yet having less of those goods available for themselves than they need” (Chojnowski 34). Ultimately, “neither buyer nor seller is responsible for anything but himself” (Schumacher 42). “In modern Capitalism, however, it is productivity and profit which are the basic aims, not the providing of satisfying work” (Chojnowski 35). Many different authors then see the consequences. Belloc, among others, states:
Capitalism leaves free men under a sense of acute grievance (which they would not feel if they were slaves, accustomed to a regular and fixed status in society), and, what is worse, Capitalism in its later stages need not provide for the livelihood of the mass of citizens, and, in effect, does not so provide.
Capitalism finds itself obliged to evolve in order to survive; the principle of laissez faire gives way to paternalistic legislation, relief, pensions, and social insurances of ever more elaborate character.
Personality is blotted out and with it the gut sense of ownership of the means of production that characterized the self-made man of early capitalism. Capitalism creates the organization man – and the organization man is indifferent to the fate of capitalism. He eventually comes to care little whether he reports to the anonymous stockholders or the anonymous citizen-owners of socialism.
Consuming capacity, therefore, has lagged behind producing capacity, and this has caused production to become largely speculative and to depend to an increasing degree upon the creation of an artificial demand by advertisement and salesmanship. Monetary technique has also been used to expand demand artificially, and the use of it has been seized upon, not only by businessmen seeking profit, but by propagandists preaching increased consumption as an ideal. This creation for an artificial demand, besides being responsible for great financial disorders, has been disastrous morally. It puts the means before the end and, in serving the means, of necessity inverts the true scale of values; for the means are mass-production, which by its nature puts quantity before quality and the material before the spiritual.
Thus we see that a whole psychology of mankind has been perverted and turned towards this scheme of avarice. In the end capitalism shows itself to be purely mitigated and regulated avarice. Man has had entirely taken from him the notions of free enterprise, ownership of private property, and honest work rather than simply “employment.” Novels like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle do not merely paint caricatures but illustrate real-life conditions. Ralph Brown states that what Ketteler, a German reformer, tried to remedy was, “this pulverization method, this chemical solution of humanity into individuals, into grains of dust equal in value, into particles which a puff of wind may scatter in all directions” (53-57). In The Servile State Belloc bemoans: “Is not the whole psychology of a capitalist society divided between the proletarian mass which thinks in terms not of prosperity but of “employment” and the few owners who are alone familiar with the machinery of administration?” (133)
The full horror of the situation may now perhaps be apparent to our reader. Modern man, more worried about keeping his job and feeding his family, or perhaps more worried about what kind of yacht he will buy next, depending on one’s state of life, has no time to ponder whence cometh the winds that blow him around in the world of economics. Today economics – that is our form of economics in the form of capitalism – has grown so intertwined with our form of government – despite Thomas Jefferson’s famous appeals to the agrarian life – that when our country seeks to erect a newly “liberated” country’s government it does so on our model with our economic model, whether or not a country is suited for it. To a discerning mind this may be as gross an error as using Marx’s Manifesto intended for a industrialized country like England and applying it to an agrarian country like Russia or China – yet modern America is guilty of this crime over and over. Hence follow the predictable debts, loans, IMF bailouts, and if a Jubilee Year happens to come along, perhaps we pardon some debts because of the solicitations of a “Jubilee 2000” committee. The cycle continues – a destructive downward cycle.
Can capitalism survive? No, I do not think it can. The thesis I shall endeavor to establish is that the actual and prospective performance of the capitalist system is such as to negate the idea of its breaking down under the weight of economic failure, but that its very success undermines the social institutions which protect it, and inevitably creates conditions in which it will not be able to live and which strongly point to socialism as the heir apparent.
So under Capitalism in its last stages you have the abnormal position of millions of men ready to make the necessaries of life, of machinery ready to produce those necessaries, of raw material standing ready to be worked up by the machinery, if only labourers could be put on, and yet all the machinery standing idle, the wealth not being produced, and the mass who could produce it going hungry and ill-shod and badly clothed. And the more Capitalism develops the more that state of things will develop with it.
Belloc Economics 62
“It is clear that the universal obsession with regard to money and debt has driven the world mad, when there is more joy over one crop that fails than over ninety-nine bounteous harvests” (Fahey 38-39). Fr. Fahey’s comments highlight the absolute absurdity in situations such as the coffee-growers in Colombia – sometimes they are forced to either burn many bags of coffee or just to let them rot – so that their presence on the market will not drive down prices. We see this also in America with our produce – enough to feed the world just from our heartland – yet people are starving.
Amidst these words of criticism there has been an alternative system developed – a system created by Belloc and Chesterton last century – with the bulky and undescriptive name of “distributism.” In a few words it is defined as: “the wide-spread distribution of land, real property, the means of production, and of financial capital, amongst the greater part of the families of a nation” (Chojnowski 38). This system specifically works against the idea of “wage earners” which Belloc lambastes in his book on these subjects. There isn’t anything wrong with the idea of “wage earner” in itself. “…there will always be a certain proportion of wage-earners. These will be made up in part of young men who are working for others during the years before they marry and assume family responsibilities. This group may also recruit its members from those who do not wish to assume the obligations of ownership” (A Catholic Economics 31). Belloc is trying to criticize the fact that capitalism spawns nothing but “wage earners” and the idea of private property being spread around to many people is suppressed. “A Society in which private property in land and capital, that is, the ownership and therefore the control of the means of production, is confined to some number of free citizens not large enough to determine the social mass of the state, while the rest have not such property and are therefore proletarian, we call capitalist” (Servile 49). It is sadly to be lamented that this form of economics is not well-known and certainly not notably enforced or observed anywhere.
In his introduction to the article “A Catholic Philosophy” by F.R. Hoare in the Angelus Christopher McCann writes: “Capitalism is the enemy of the Faith because it requires an atmosphere that excludes moral considerations from economics in order to pave the way for the unfettered reign of ‘market forces.’ The disaster that follows is left to the charity of others with no consideration to the injustice that caused the disaster” (30).
It has become a matter of urgency to cease arguing about the extent to which economic science need take morals or religion into consideration. In present circumstance we need nothing less than an economics that is itself a system of morals in its basic principles…Even by those who by their religious profession acknowledged that morals should come first were generally willing to agree that the case of economics was ‘somehow different.’
It must be remembered as we stated above that the Church doesn’t label one form of economics as “Catholic” just as she doesn’t label one form of government as “Catholic.” However, there is a form of Economics opposed to Christianity. Pope Pius XI affirms: “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist” (58). So too it must be observed that while Capitalism is not of its nature anti-Christian, inevitably in its later stages it becomes so.
Surely it is not vicious of its very nature; but it violates right order whenever capital so employs the working or wage-earning classes as to divert business and economic activity entirely to its own arbitrary will and advantage, without any regard to the human dignity of the workers, the social character of economic life, social justice and the common good.
So we are at the conclusion of our little study. It should and must be noted that as Catholics we must fundamentally realize that economics was once too a part of the integral serenity of Christendom, and if we are to “restore all things in Christ” economics cannot be “somehow different.” We obviously must live in the system that currently enslaves the country, but that doesn’t prevent us from taking measures within our own means – in our Catholic communities – and in our Catholic minds – to restore a proper notion of economics and its relation to Christ’s reign. Pope Pius XI’s words are a fitting close: “Nevertheless, it may be said with all truth that nowadays the conditions of social and economic life are such, that vast multitudes of men can only with great difficult pay attention to that one thing necessary, namely their eternal salvation” (63) and “Men must observe anew the precepts of Him Who alone has the words of eternal life, words which, even though Heaven and earth be changed, shall not pass away” (67).
“A Catholic Economics.” The Angelus June 1997: 28-40.
Belloc, Hilaire. Economics for Helen. Hampshire, England: The St. George Educational Trust. No date given.
Belloc, Hilaire. The Servile State. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1977.
Brown, Ralph. German Theories of the Corporative State. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947.
Chojnowski, Peter. “Distributism: Economics as if People Mattered.” The Angelus July 1998: 33-40.
Fahey, Rev. Denis. Money Manipulation and Social Order. Palmdale: Christian Book Club of America, 1992.
Heyne, Paul. A Student’s Guide to Economics. Wilmington: ISI Books, 2000.
Hoare, F.R. “A Catholic Philosophy of Economics: The Seven Principles of the Radicalism.” Catholic Mind November 8 1941. Repub. The Angelus January 2001: 30-39.
McClay, Wilfred M. A Student’s Guide to U.S. History. Wilmington: ISI Books, 2000.
Mioni, Anthony J., ed. The Popes against Modern Errors, 16 Papal Documents. Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, 1999.
Pope Pius XI. Quadragesimo Anno. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, no date given.
Pope Pius XII. “La Solennita.” Catholic Mind June 8, 1941.
Rogge, Benjamin A. Can Capitalism Survive? Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1979.
Schumacher, E.F. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. New York: Harper Collins Books, 1975.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1962.
Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Modern Library, 1937.
Stancioff, Marion. “Distributism.” Integrity 1949 Vol. 6. Repub. The Angelus July 1998: 10-16.
In Praise of Boredom - G. K. Chesterton reproached the modern experience of boredom. In Heretics, he declares: There is no such thing on earth as an uninteresting subject; the on...
15 hours ago