Christian Democracy, an online publication to which I have contributed, appears to have fallen temptation to what I would call the “socialist seduction” prevalent in certain Christian—including Catholic—circles. Rightly dissatisfied with contemporary capitalism (which finds no support in the Church’s authentic social magisterium), socialist Catholics are in pursuit of a socio-economic order which, broadly speaking, is more just, equitable, and stable then the present ordo. Instead of looking to Catholic-grown theories like distributism or solidarism, these Catholics believe that socialism—or at least some form of socialism—can cure our present woes. The problem facing socialist Catholics is that numerous magisterial statements, including Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum and Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno, appear to condemn socialism outright. What is a good socialist Catholic to do? Christian Democracy authors Jack Quirk and Doran Hunter think they have the answer. In two separate articles (see here and here), both men attempt to lay forth a version of socialism which does not run afoul of the magisterium. So long as socialism isn’t atheistic and hell-bent on destroying the family, private property, or social hierarchies then the conflict is resolved, or so Quirk and Doran opine.
The problem with both men’s analyses is that they largely ignore the central role subsidiarity plays in Catholic social teaching. Although forms of socialism more compatible with subsidiarity have been proposed over the past two centuries, Doran’s preferred brand of socialism seems awfully top heavy with its vision of large social safety nets, agricultural subsidies, and state-aid for select business enterprises. While Doran is right to decry the economic injustices found within our capitalist system, he fails to account for how a socialist system with a large regulatory apparatus can lead to equally problematic injustices such as a “picking winners” approach to industrial policy which can deaden entrepreneurial initiative and waste resources. Although Catholic social teaching contemplates some role for welfare programs and regulation, these ought to be “last resort” measures intended to insure that gross injustices do not befall the least fortunate in society. They should not be prioritized.
Quirk doesn’t deal with subsidiarity at all. He simply defends a type of socialism which “expand[s] ownership of the means of production to working people,” a system Quirk believes “enjoys specific papal approval.” But the mechanism of expansion is key. For decades, neoliberal/libertarian Catholics have accused distributists of simply wanting to capture state power in order to strip people of their wealth and redistribute it across the board. Although distributists have vehemently denied this, Quirk appears to have no problem with it. But that raises all sorts of questions, such as who decides who gets what and under which circumstances? How much wealth is “too much”? And if the means of production are to be forcibly transferred, which means go where and to whom? There seems to be too much top-level guesswork involved, and besides, it’s far from clear that the Church’s magisterium comes close to supporting such a radical, command-planned reorganization of the economy in the first place.
None of this is to say that Quirk and Doran do not have their instincts in the right place. Clearly they do. Economic liberals, such as those housed at the Acton Institute, no longer even try to square their tenets with the Church’s magisterium; their “rigorous economic science” is “above” mere papal pronouncements. To Quirk and Doran’s credit, they try hard to make sure that their brand of socialism is compatible with Catholicism. And even though their respective accounts are not entirely convincing, hopefully they will lead thoughtful readers to explore the Church’s social magisterium more deeply and, from there, to seek out more grounded approaches to restructuring the economy in a thoroughly Catholic manner.
November 24, 2015
I didn’t deal with subsidiarity at all because I didn’t see it as part of the discussion. You could have the Socialism that is prohibited by the Magisterium along with all the Subsidiarity your heart desires. What if society was organized into a large number of municipalities all owning the means of production? There would be plenty of Subsidiarity there, but still the abolition of private property that Catholic Social Teaching condemns.
November 24, 2015
I would contend that it is very important to the discussion. Subsidiarity is not just a question of how small you break down municipalities, but the proper role for all levels of society. I don’t think there is any form of socialism that is fully compatible with the principle of subsidiarity because it will always involve usurping rights and authority from one level or another.
November 24, 2015
I wasn’t arguing with you when I wrote my article, but with individuals who use the word “socialism” without any qualification, and then try to say it’s consistent with Catholic Social Teaching. So I wrote a survey of papal teaching about socialism, which, in that body of literature, is never contradistinguished with subsidiarity. Whether socialism will always involve the usurpation you say it will depends on what you mean by “socialism.” And, it turns out, people can just about mean anything when they say it.
Classic socialism, where the state takes ownership of the means of production, might violate subsidiarity, but would you say the same thing of guild socialism? I don’t know the answer to that specifically, but if any form of “socialism” at all violated subsidiarity then Pope John Paul II would not have qualified the Church’s condemnation of it.
My point, bottom line, is that some folks are starting to call worker ownership of the means of production socialism. But I maintain it is the direct opposite of socialism, classically understood. One expands ownership of the means of production, while the other completely eliminates ownership. They couldn’t be more different. But worker owned enterprises don’t violate subsidiarity, and calling them creatures of socialism (which I don’t approve of) doesn’t change that. Thus, the question of subsidiarity doesn’t really impact the conversation.
November 25, 2015
[…] Gabriel Sanchez has an interesting comment at Opus Publicum, which begins, […]
November 28, 2015
Don’t ignore, as so many do, the degree a tax and interest rate regime contribute to the concentration of power and property in the hands of the state and those who control it and the exemptions that can be granted to maintain control.
For example, it is no coincidence that an artificially low interstate rate regime serves to concentrate power and capital in the hands of the few, and depress entrepreneurs and undermine subsidiarity. One need only look at the evolution of Taiwan (free market for the exchange of money) with its bevy of smaller and unconentrared businesses not having to endure the higher highs and lower lows of say a South Korea, whose government controlled artificially lower rates creates the large corporations dominating the country in symphony with large government. The US until recently could more be compared to Taiwan with Europe as South Korea, but that had changed as the US has moved towards more of the centralized model brought on on no small measure by the Fed keeping rates low.
December 2, 2015
[…] In closing, let me stress that I agree with Estrada that the Church’s social magisterium is not “pro-capitalist” and that the free-market policies championed by the American Enterprise Institute and the Acton Institute are contrary to Catholic social principles. However, Estrada’s sloppy approach to the issue is incredibly unhelpful. All it does is feed into the predominant liberal narrative that Catholic critics of capitalism lack credibility, are selective in their approach to the Church’s social magisterium, and do not have a firm grasp of economics or economic history. While I believe all three of those charges are ultimately false, you wouldn’t know it from reading or Estrada or the careless rhetoric of other Catholics who have fallen pretty to what I have referred to as the “socialist seduction.” […]