I'm curious. Would Bonald and Maistre fit that category? Nisbet certainly cites them often. My sense is that they'd qualify for something like the right socialism moniker. And the Catholic model of distributism seems to at least align with guild socialism. In any event, that tradition of Catholic Social Teaching has been on the periphery of my radar for some time. Certainly the Catholic subsidiarity model has a flavor of federal pluralism to it. At some point I'll get there, I trust. Are you planning to write about this tradition? I'd be curious to see it if you are.
I may write a bit about it, but I'm not sure when yet. For now, only if it comes up again in the second half of Logocracy, and I can include it in my summaries. If not, then when I'm done and get around to revising the old summaries, I'll include more about it.
Thomas Storck (in "An Economics of Justice & Charity") lists the main principles as:
1. The necessity for cooperation in economic affairs and the inadequacy of free competition as a general regulating principle for an economy;
2. The duty in commutative justice to pay a just or living wage and hence the duty in social justice to organize the economy so that this duty can be fulfilled;
3. The principle of subsidiarity;
4. The right of private property alongside the social duties of property;
5. The illicitness of usury.
Living wage is defined by the amount a man needs to support a family. If wages do not provide this, it is a sign that there is something deeply wrong with the economic structure.
Usury is such a tricky word. It's used to mean both excess (even illegal) interest, but also any interest at all. I've thrown off so many of the mental shackles from my libertarian/Austrian economics days. But I'm still not convinced one can do away with interest. But I've had to rethink so much recently, I'm always open to hear the arguments.
TBH, the appendix on usury in Storck's book was so boring to me, I skipped it. But there was an offhand comment in the main text that, if I remember correctly, implied that the church is mainly against the former (excess). As for the reasoning, I'll have to steel myself to finish that appendix if it ever becomes a burning question for me. (Also, CST is pro credit union.)
After a couple mentions of Catholic Social Teaching in Lobaczewski, I decided to check it out. On the surface, for me, it seems another strand of rightwing socialism perhaps. Starting with Leo XIII in 1891, it rejects both socialism and secular liberalism (and its form of capitalism). Many of the popes stressed the importance of the guild system, for instance, and had nuanced takes on property.
I'm curious. Would Bonald and Maistre fit that category? Nisbet certainly cites them often. My sense is that they'd qualify for something like the right socialism moniker. And the Catholic model of distributism seems to at least align with guild socialism. In any event, that tradition of Catholic Social Teaching has been on the periphery of my radar for some time. Certainly the Catholic subsidiarity model has a flavor of federal pluralism to it. At some point I'll get there, I trust. Are you planning to write about this tradition? I'd be curious to see it if you are.
I may write a bit about it, but I'm not sure when yet. For now, only if it comes up again in the second half of Logocracy, and I can include it in my summaries. If not, then when I'm done and get around to revising the old summaries, I'll include more about it.
Thomas Storck (in "An Economics of Justice & Charity") lists the main principles as:
1. The necessity for cooperation in economic affairs and the inadequacy of free competition as a general regulating principle for an economy;
2. The duty in commutative justice to pay a just or living wage and hence the duty in social justice to organize the economy so that this duty can be fulfilled;
3. The principle of subsidiarity;
4. The right of private property alongside the social duties of property;
5. The illicitness of usury.
Living wage is defined by the amount a man needs to support a family. If wages do not provide this, it is a sign that there is something deeply wrong with the economic structure.
Usury is such a tricky word. It's used to mean both excess (even illegal) interest, but also any interest at all. I've thrown off so many of the mental shackles from my libertarian/Austrian economics days. But I'm still not convinced one can do away with interest. But I've had to rethink so much recently, I'm always open to hear the arguments.
Thanks Harrison.
TBH, the appendix on usury in Storck's book was so boring to me, I skipped it. But there was an offhand comment in the main text that, if I remember correctly, implied that the church is mainly against the former (excess). As for the reasoning, I'll have to steel myself to finish that appendix if it ever becomes a burning question for me. (Also, CST is pro credit union.)
After a couple mentions of Catholic Social Teaching in Lobaczewski, I decided to check it out. On the surface, for me, it seems another strand of rightwing socialism perhaps. Starting with Leo XIII in 1891, it rejects both socialism and secular liberalism (and its form of capitalism). Many of the popes stressed the importance of the guild system, for instance, and had nuanced takes on property.