What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Consumer Society

The Distributist Review has a new and much improved website, which I highly recommend. Please give it a look. On the front page you will find the following embedded video:

Now, I am not a fully committed distributist, or even a half-way committed distributist. I have lots of sympathy for the idea, but substantial doubts about its real-word possibilities. I do find, however, that distributist thinkers offer some valuable insights into the flaws of our present system. The consumerism depicted in this video is not exaggerated. Apologists for capitalism, if they are also social conservatives, need to explain their unqualified support for an economic system that is so inherently corrosive of tradition and virtue.

Whatever one thinks of capitalism, it is important for traditionalist conservatives to extract themselves and their families from the ubiquitous snares of consumerism (and that includes media and entertainment). Turn off and tune out. We can't drop out of society altogether, nor should we, but there is no reason why our lives and homes must be completely absorbed into the Machine. Even the daily news can be a problem if it sets our priorities. Part of the reason we're at where we're at is the want of imagination. There is no possibility of renewal if our imaginations - shaped by our habits of living - are confined to the parameters of the global-democratic-capitalist anti-culture.

Comments (93)

What gets distributed? On what grounds are judgments made on who gets what? What is the entity that assessing the grounds and does the distributing?

I know, Dr. Beckwith, I know. I am not proposing distributism: that wasn't the purpose of this post. But I do insist that capitalism is something less than the best we can do. We have a mixed economy in any case: let's have a mix in which free enterprise actually means something to the average person, more men own productive property, and corporate decisions are influenced by higher values than the demands of investment bankers and short-term profits.

Back to the original point, is not consumerism something toxic? Do we not have a duty to disengage? Are there no public policy remedies?

"Back to the original point, is not consumerism something toxic? Do we not have a duty to disengage? Are there no public policy remedies?"

Human beings themselves are toxic, and so is every system they devise, distributism included. Free enterprise is historically less toxic than any competing system. If, as a Christian, you hate poverty and oppression, then free enterprise ought to be high on your list of things to support because it has created more freedom and prosperity than any other system.

No, we do not have a duty to disengage. We have an obligation to engage more fully and more effectively. In other words, we have a duty to bring the lordship of Christ to bear on everything we human beings do and everything we believe. We ought to redeem and transform, not disengage. Put differently, the market gives folks what they want better than any other system. But it does not teach them what to want. Given their fallenness, what they want is is predictably twisted. So teach them better what they ought to want, which requires fully-orbed Christian engagement, using all the tools in the toolbox, even "the Machine." (I find it richly ironic that someone denigrates "the Machine" -- online.)

No, there is no political solution. Indeed there is no political solution to most of the problems that plague us because those problems arise from human nature -- and human nature is notoriously intractable. Government cannot fix it. To fix that problem, public policy is impotent.


I myself don't identify the free market with consumerism, as the latter term is usually used. There is nothing inherently corrosive of tradition and virtue in the fact that I have a large range of brands of bread from which to choose at the local grocery store. There _is_ something corrosive of tradition and virtue in the ads for Victoria's Secret and other offensive material that used to pop up in my face on Yahoo before I used a different part of the free market to purchase for one browser and download free for another some excellent ad blocking software. (This doesn't mean that I don't also think there can and should be laws against pornography, etc. I do.)

As for tuning out, I'm with you. I'm the one with no television channels. I would add that some of my fellow bloggers here are dubious about having no television channels because of a belief that sports are the last manifestation of good, clean, manly activity or something of that kind, and they would miss the sports without television channels. We all have to make those judgement calls.

Yeah, "don't repair, buy ugly shoes and clothes instead of vegetables" is _exactly_ what all free market advocates are all about.

By the way: When I suggested on another thread that America should stop inflating the currency and should get rid of the deficit, I was told _on this very site_ by a fellow blogger that the entire world economy is based on American sovereign debt or something like that, so if America stopped being in debt, the whole world economy would be in trouble, because there would be no way to evaluate world prices, or words to that effect. I ask: Does this not seem a lot more like the caricature of "you must consume, or the economy will collapse" than anything said by any unabashed advocate of the free market writing on this site?

I'm currently reading Whittaker Chambers's letters to W.F. Buckley, and just this a.m. read one in which WC argues that conservatism and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible. Chambers said that he was not a conservative, but a "man of the Right," siding with capitalism. He does go on to say, however, that he laments the fact that the wheels of capitalist progress have gotten to a place where they seemingly have no brake (he was writing in the late 50s -- I wonder what he'd think now?).

Some on this site have argued that the problem with capitalism today is that it has become "crony capitalism," as opposed to straight or "pure" capitalism. It seems to me, however, that given the sheer size of today's corporations such cronyism is inevitable. In other words, today's capitalism is necessarily "crony capitalism," which will lead to Belloc's "servile state."

"the market gives folks what they want better than any other system. But it does not teach them what to want."

Hogwash. Madison Ave. is all about teaching people what to want. And today's capitalism and modern advertising are joined at the hip.

~~I find it richly ironic that someone denigrates "the Machine" -- online.~~

Actually it's not ironic at all. There is a difference between using a machine while fully aware of its dangers and potentially negative consequences, (and, I might add, wishing all the while that one didn't have to use it) and using it uncritically, even worshipfully.


Consumerism is not the disease but only a symptom. Neither is the free market the disease. The disease is Nihilism, of which distributism is no cure. Actually, distributism is just another symptom of Nihilism.

I don't think I heard the phrase "free market" once in this video, so all of the defenses of the free market do not really apply, as if the video were attacking open access to markets by honest and hard working businesses. Also, pay attention to the actors in the video, they are teenagers. It is precisely this group, young people who are in the process of becoming adults, that falls victim to these soul corrupting habits of consumerism. Lydia said that there is nothing wrong with having access to different brands of bread at the market, but that is not per se consumerism since bread is essential to human life. What is consumerism is the unnecessary and destructive pop culture which wraps itself in the cloak of free markets in order to defend itself while it destroys your children.

Mr. Culbreath is right, we do have a duty to disengage. The idea that we can create a wholesome pop culture is ridiculous. Mass culture is itself inimical to the Christian life because it is inimical to the human life.

let's have a mix in which free enterprise actually means something to the average person, more men own productive property, and corporate decisions are influenced by higher values than the demands of investment bankers and short-term profits.

Jeff, you say you're not a distributist? Then what the hell is that? Pure, undiluted distributist propaganda, that's what it is.

Oh, come. The video is being _presented_ as a critique of "capitalism" and as a challenge to the apologists for "capitalism." It can't be presented that way in the first place and then be withdrawn as such a critique when someone uses the phrase "the free market" instead of the term "capitalism."

I would note that the economics caricatured in the video are Keynesian. Since when are blatantly demand-side (rather than supply side) Keynesian economics to be identified with capitalism? Those are usually taken to be at odds with one another. It was hardly advocates of capitalism who told the employers to keep on their employees at the beginning of the Great Depression, thus worsening it, on the theory that this would help stimulate the economy by giving people money to spend. The whole idea that spending is what drives the economy is precisely _not_ supply side economics!

The first part of that last comment was in response to Edward's comment, btw. George and I posted at about the same time.

Madison Ave. is all about teaching people what to want. And today's capitalism and modern advertising are joined at the hip.

So, Rob, do you do whatever Madison Avenue suggests?
I didn't think so. Neither does anyone else. Advertise all you want, but people just aren't going to buy Edsels -- or countless thousands and thousands of other products advertisers try to hawk.

BTW, using "the Machine" while complaining about "the Machine" is ironic even if one knows its dangers. If one advocates distributism while using "the Machine," then clearly one does not truly know its dangers -- and especially one's own participation in those dangers. Perhaps those who do such things should "distribute" their "Machine."

"do you do whatever Madison Avenue suggests? I didn't think so. Neither does anyone else."

Of course this sword cuts both ways. If the masses are unteachable by Madison Ave., they are equally unteachable, if not moreso, by Christians in the public square. Given the direction the culture is going, I think it's pretty darned easy to see who's winning this battle.

~~If one advocates distributism while using "the Machine," then clearly one does not truly know its dangers -- and especially one's own participation in those dangers.~~

Hmmm....does this mean Chesterton was wrong and inconsistent when he used a typewriter? Or maybe he was just a nihilist, as George R. implies.

"let's have a mix in which free enterprise actually means something to the average person, more men own productive property, and corporate decisions are influenced by higher values than the demands of investment bankers and short-term profits."

Instead of your angry blubbering, George, how about some sort of substantive criticism of any of Jeff's three points?

"As a member of the consumerist community, it is your duty to consume."

There is no consumerist community. That's a chimerical combination of words. There is no duty to consume, implied, asserted, required, encouraged, or any other such thing. Who get taken in by this nonsense? How do people live with such delusions? This video is Scientology for economics and politics. It makes Randians seem sane. No doubt someone will try to refute me: do so--show me that Descartes, Aristotle, Augustine or someone of equal stature wrote advocating a citizen's duty to consume.

The claim that black women buy little black dresses instead of fruits and vegetables is hilarious. Do the people who made this video actually know any human beings?

The consequences of membership in the consumerist community are that "you feel you no longer fit in." Prior to wholly-fictional "consumerist community" people lived in harmony with each, nature and God. A claim easily disproved by reading in philosophy, religion, or anthropology.

This video simply cannot be serious or taken seriously: it's bad Marxist SF, resembling THX 1138.

Useful arguments can be made that people buy things, take drugs, drink alcohol, and follow crazed politics in a failed attempt to feel complete. This video doesn't even attempt one argument: it's all image and assertion.

I was taught at my mother's knee:

1. Don't buy what you can't afford;
2. Be thrifty and save for a rainy day;
3. Don't be a slave to fashion fads;
4. Stuff does not make you happy;
5. Don't go into debt, and if you must, get out quickly;
6. Just because you can buy something doesn't mean it's morally right to do so, because all your money ultimately belongs to God, and you are only a temporary steward of that money, using it as He'd wish you to use it; and,
7. Part of the reason you earn money is so that you can have enough to give 10% of your gains to the Church, and some additional percentage above that (proportional to your wealth) to the poor in your community and abroad. That's part of what money is for, why God allows it to exist.

Doesn't everyone know that stuff?

I'm not asking whether everyone does that stuff; of course they don't. People sin. They know they shouldn't overeat; but do so anyway. They know they should exercise, but don't. They know they shouldn't gossip, but do. They know they should love others as Christ did, but don't. They sin in their thoughts and in their words, in what they do and what they fail to do.

But the solution for that, of course is: Confess your sins and stop sinning.

Some of the comments here seem to suggest that there's some alternative moral code or philosophy called "comsumerism" which some people believe in, the way a person believes in the Trinity or the Resurrection. This, it seems to me, is bollocks. Nobody believes in some codified creed of consumerism ("I'm a consumer, morally obligated to consume and keep up with fads"). They know perfectly well they're spending frivolously. They just do it anyway.

And it's doubly bollocks to suggest that belief in a code of is somehow intrinsic to capitalism or to free markets. A free market system can -- obviously! -- work just fine in a society which obeys the seven tenets I was taught by my mother.

Yeah, sure, if everyone's buying habits changed overnight, there'd be a problem. But that would never happen anyway, and it's only because of the suddenness: It takes time to adjust to new demand levels.

But if every overspender and fashion victim were to adjust their spending habits so that, over five years, those habits accorded with the seven lessons above? Capitalism or free markets or whatever would be healthier as a result. Indeed, society in general would be healthier as a result. As the American Founding fathers were fond of saying: A free society is fit only for the governance of a moral and prudent people.

My point is this: We don't particularly need to change our economic system to "defeat consumerism." Maybe some restrictions about truth in advertising, or the ubiquity of advertising, would help, but that's a minor adjustment, not a systemic redesign.

What we need to do, as individuals, is obey my mother.

Obviously!

But if every overspender and fashion victim were to adjust their spending habits so that, over five years, those habits accorded with the seven lessons above? Capitalism or free markets or whatever would be healthier as a result. Indeed, society in general would be healthier as a result.

Actually, the economy would have a severe headache from withdrawal. The flow of capital would dry up and economic institutions would shake much like an alcoholic withdrawing from the bottle. Oh, if they hang on, they might be able to sober up, cold turkey, but given the ancillary problems in other moral areas, I doubt society, as a whole, has the strength of will to give up their fix.

The Chicken

Instead of your angry blubbering, George, how about some sort of substantive criticism of any of Jeff's three points?

Okay, if you insist, Rob:

1) let's have a mix in which free enterprise actually means something to the average person,

In other words, let’s have a mix between people being able to buy and sell what they wish and only being able to buy and sell what Jeff and his Committee for Meaningful Commerce think will be good for them.


2) more men own productive property,

And if more men either don’t want to sell or own productive property, see #1.


3) and corporate decisions are influenced by higher values than the demands of investment bankers and short-term profits.

In other words, corporate decisions should not be left to those who, you know, own the company. No, they should be left to those who do not own the company at all, but who instead own an almost boundless temerity that persuades them that they have a God-given right to tell people how they may or may not dispose of their own property. Being overly concerned with short term profits may not be very noble, but being overly concerned with other people's property borders on pathological.

R.C., excellent comments.

One of the things that distresses me is when I find that some of those I respect who criticize capitalism at the same time do not have a horror of debt! I mean, the dislike of debt and the sense of individual responsibility that such a dislike reflects, one of the lessons that your mother taught you, is very important to virtue--personal, national, and civic.

There is no direct political "solution" to the problem of people who don't follow the lessons taught by R.C.'s mother, and in particular, the "distributist" approach is misguided in its implication that a "political solution" would be somehow to regulate the sellers who advertise shoes, etc., that people "don't need."

Insofar as there is any political help, it lies in the government's ceasing to encourage debt both in the government itself and in others. For example, the government's pressuring banks to lend more money to minorities to get them more homes is going in exactly the wrong direction, encouraging debt that people can't sustain. And the government itself goes continually into debt that it can't sustain, and _increases_ that debt because it wants to "do good" with borrowed money beyond its income.

Moreover, inflationary monetary policy itself encourages consumer spending and individual debt.

Going back to Edward's comment above:

Lydia said that there is nothing wrong with having access to different brands of bread at the market, but that is not per se consumerism since bread is essential to human life.

Well, no, that is to ignore the distributist vs. capitalist context of the overall discussion (and the source of the video). Actually, distributists and their close cousins, Crunchy Conservatives, _also_ have a problem with companies that make bread, that build homes, and that do other things that are "essential to human life" insofar as those companies are supposedly "too big," not local enough, build homes without front porches, are housed in allegedly ugly buildings, and a thousand other objections that have nothing to do with virtues like modesty in dress, vices like throwing away stuff that you could go on using simply because it is no longer fashionable, or anything else that I would recognize as having the sort of moral weight the video implies. In other words, we start by talking about serious things and serious problems, and before you know it, someone slips in something about "agribusiness" or characterizes everything sold at Walmart as "cheap junk," or starts talking about the evil aesthetic ugliness of suburban neighborhoods and strip malls, and we're off to the races.

Lydia, I am not a distributist or a crunchy con, so do not immediately assume that this has become some war of ideologies. Many of the critiques of the aesthetic ugliness and cheapness of the modern world are, I think, perfectly legitimate, but I do not need to subscribe to any sort of wide spread practical solution in order to call strip malls and suburban neighborhoods ugly.

I digress. The morphing of the young into mindless consumers, which has already happened to very large segments of America, is a real problem, and it goes deeper than mere economic structure. I do not have to be against free markets, which I am not, to be against a youth and even adult pop culture where people fritter their time away wanting and consuming ad infinitum and thinking that that is living the good life merely because they have choice or can buy things cheaply. For many Americans, earning money and spending it on things that they are told they need is a full time pursuit that ultimately results in spiritual death. This is not merely a question of economics.

This is not merely a question of economics.

Agreed. In fact, I'm somewhat inclined to say that it isn't really _at all_ a question of economics. Look--I'm maybe the loudest-mouthed free market, pro-capitalist advocate on this blog, and I am utterly countercultural in the following ways:

--No TV channels
--Extremely hawkish on clothing modesty
--No cell phones (though that may have to change in a year or two)
--No texting
--Ad block software on all computers and browsers in the home
--Two small, older cars
--Wear clothes until they wear out or are outgrown, and teach the children to do the same
--Violently anti-debt
--Home school


You get the picture. Yet I love capitalism for many, many reasons, including inter alia its ability to satisfy niche markets like mine. The culture is going to hell in a handbasket, but by dint of industrious looking, I'm able to find places that sell modest clothing my daughters can wear, even though I can't sew them myself, home schooling curriculum that reflects my values, and so forth. It would be much harder, in some ways, to be countercultural in a poorer world.

George R wrote, indignantly:

Jeff, you say you're not a distributist? Then what the hell is that? Pure, undiluted distributist propaganda, that's what it is.

I don't mind being called a distributist: that puts me in some respectable company. But I don't believe it is accurate, and I don't think real distributists would have me. Distributism is usually defined as a system wherein every man (or nearly so) makes his living by joining his own property with his own labor. Personally, I don't believe that is grounded in a realistic assessment of human nature. I favor much more in the way of specialization, diversification, and economies of scale than most distributists will allow - which translates into the "wage slavery" real distributists abhor.

Presently ten percent of the American workforce own businesses: the rest of us work for them, or for corporations whose "owners" are faceless stockholders, or for government. As a business broker I can tell you that a very large percentage - probably 50% or more - of that ten percent who own businesses are being supported financially some other way (often enough as an employee). So it is likely that much more than 90% of the workforce is dependent upon wages for their sustenance.

That's not an economy where "free enterprise" is more than a mindless slogan for most people. Business ownership is simply out of reach for the majority - even for the majority who attempt it! You can shout "free enterprise" all you like but it's nothing but cheerleading for a very fortunate few in this country. That's the reality. And that's what needs to change.

I haven't come to any definite conclusions, but I think the chances are pretty good that positive incremental changes can be made within our present economic framework, without radical disruption, making "free enterprise" a reality for those who are suited to it. At the very least, social conservatives have an obligation to explore the idea. Distributism, on the other hand, would require some very drastic measures, likely resulting in massive human displacements and shortages of essential goods and services. Or so it seems to me.

Jeff, I don't quite understand why free enterprise is only a mindless slogan if no more than X percent of people in the country are living solely on business income from their own businesses. Why isn't it more than a mindless slogan for all of us who enjoy the fruits of the businesses that do exist, even if we buy those fruits with wages?

Lydia, very simply, you do not enjoy free enterprise, you enjoy the fruits of someone else's free enterprise. The distinction is rather important.

Well, I'm glad it's there, is all that I can say. You know, I just learned today that a friend who is a missionary to Hungary not only has no clothes dryer, but cannot even purchase one. Evidently they don't have them in Hungary. I have no desire to own a clothes dryer manufacturing company, but I am deeply grateful that I can enjoy the fruits of the economic system that makes it pay for people in the United States to own clothes dryer manufacturing companies.

I'm not altogether sure that we're better off with electric clothes dryers, myself, but I take your point.

Well, Jeff, I'm sure that _we_ are better off with them, for many reasons, but if your family doesn't want to use one, that's entirely up to you.

"They know perfectly well they're spending frivolously. They just do it anyway."

I'm afraid that's not true. There are legions of people who can't tell the difference between needs and wants. You expect that from a 5 year old, but not from a 25 or 35 year old.

Sorry, George, but you you are confusing distributism with redistribution. The latter entails a command economy, the former does not. In any case, I'm not a distributist; I just happen to think that some of their ideas are applicable to our current state. If I had to describe myself I'd say I'm a Southern Conservative of the Tate/Weaver/Bradford sort, even though I was born and raised in the North and live there still. And even though I'm a Northerner I'm sure as hell no Yankee.

According to Eugene Genovese the Southern conservative has "traced the evils of the modern world to:
1. the ascendancy of the profit motive and material acquisition
2. the conversion of small property based on individual labor into accumulated capital manifested as financial assets
3. the centralization and bureaucratization of management
4. the extreme specialization of labor and the rise of consumerism
5. an idolatrous cult of economic growth and scientific and technical progress
6. the destructive exploitation of nature."

Genovese goes on to say, "Thus, down to our own day, southern conservatives have opposed financed capitalism and have regarded socialism as the logical outcome of the capitalist centralization of economic and state power." That's me in a nutshell.

Note also that Kirk, while not a Southerner, had great sympathy for this type of conservatism, and agreed with it in large part. So please, no b.s. about this being "not really conservative." One can oppose socialism and finance capitalism at the same time, and can keep one's conservative bona fides perfectly intact while doing so.

Is there a back-to-nature no-clothes-dryers proponent anywhere who remembers the rush outdoors to take half-dry clothes off the line when a rainstorm blows up? Is there a male in the cybersphere who ever had to do this, and wants to do it again (and again)? How many of the laments about modern plenty assume someone (F?) doing the chores at home *all the time*, in a maximally complicated and exhausting fashion? The Crunchy fantasies are selectively edited, IMO. Let us attend to our characters and repent of our sins without denigrating the richness of this world at this moment in time.

I'm with you Jeff. Distributism is pretty pie-in-the-sky. I can't really believe that we will ever reach a point where the vast majority of households are self employed and self sufficient. But we need to move it in that direction, we need to become as distributist as possible.

The video that started this discussion is (obviously folks) an exaggeration and an oversimplification. But we live in an age where food and clothing are vastly less expensive than ever, yet households have taken on enormous amounts of debt for frivolous luxuries (so, R.C., not everyone knows what your mother taught you). Families today are far smaller, yet new houses are far larger (esp. the closets). People need space for their stuff, you see. Did a personal storage industry even exist a few decades ago?

Free enterprise is great, even Chesterton said that "the problem with capitalism is that there are too few capitalists", but the idea that our society runs on free enterprise is something of a joke at this point. The Federal response the discovery of lead paint in Chinese-made toys was to mandate inspections so stringent that only the big (mostly Chinese) factories could comply with them. Small American outfits could not. Our allegedly anti big business President cuts deals with the pharmaceuticals, in order to come up with a scheme to control medicine that Walmart, of all places, just happens to endorse. He staffs his economic team with Goldman Sachs alumni. I could go on and on. Meanwhile, the regulations, the taxes and the paperwork increase, further choking the attempts of actual entrepreneurs.

Lydia, George R. and the rest of you who fear the "Committee for Meaningful Commerce": I have never read any distributist ever advocate anything of the sort. It is primarily a battle for hearts and minds. Usually back-to-the-land or "Buy Local" kind of stuff. When they stress politics, they stress local politics. No one is praising Robert Mugabe. "Distributism from above" is a contradiction in terms.

Rob G.: A big "Yeeeee-Hawwww" to your last.

dilys: My brother and his wife live this way. They do alright and seem quite happy. Regarding the "richness of this world at this moment in time": That time may be drawing to a close. How long will the Chinese be willing to get by on cabbage, rice and bicycles in order to prolong the richness of our world?

NesicaCato, you and Jeff need to coordinate your versions of distributism. _He_ thinks it would result in a lot of shortages. _You_ say you aren't a distributist (because it's "pie in the sky") but at the same time soothe the rest of us by telling us that distributism isn't proposing anything really economically alarming. I kind of doubt that it can be both.

I'm more familiar with Crunchies, and I'm pretty sure they _are_ proposing things that are economically worriesome, beginning with stuff like punitive laws designed to drag down food providers who aren't doing things the way they want them done. The crunchies I've interacted with have pretty much bought all the leftist nonsense about how big farming is destroying the ocean or some such, how all cattle in factory farms are "tortured," and on and on, and couldn't care less if all our children ended up shorter from protein deficiency and if we all had to "buy organic" and food prices skyrocketed. They should go jump in the lake, as far as I'm concerned. I want nothing to do with their economics.

Your brother and his wife are welcome to do without a clothes dryer. The rest of us are welcome to thank God every day that we have one.

Okay, so this debate has spiraled into a discussion of the worthiness of the clothes dryer. I am sure somebody somewhere thinks that this is a worthy topic, so before they find this site and begin to troll with their anti-dryer propaganda, we should return to the matter at hand.

I have never read and official definition of consumerism, so my thoughts on it are taken from my personal experiences and what I see on television. What I think the video rightly showed was that many modern people, especially but not limited to the young, primarily live as consumers and not real human beings. It isn't that they are actually brainwashed, but their priorities are distorted and they are absolutely encouraged to leave them so by a pop culture that saturates them with advertisement and the illusion of an almost moral obligation to be a part of it. The consumer culture, maintained in large part by our modern economic structure, whatever name you give it, is a culture of indulgence. No society can produce virtuous people if it is built upon the idea that the purpose of life is to perpetually indulge.

~~The crunchies I've interacted with have pretty much bought all the leftist nonsense about how big farming is destroying the ocean or some such, how all cattle in factory farms are "tortured," and on and on, and couldn't care less if all our children ended up shorter from protein deficiency and if we all had to "buy organic" and food prices skyrocketed.~~

Uh, yeah, right. That's a serious misrepresentation, and I think you probably know it. I suggest you watch 'Food Inc.' and read some Pollan and W. Berry, neither of whom is an alarmist and neither of whom supports what you're saying here. Ditto the conservatives over at Front Porch Republic.

~~"Distributism from above" is a contradiction in terms.~~

Amen and Amen. And if the market-worshippers actually familiarized themselves with it they'd know this. One of its key elements is subsidiarity, which is the polar opposite of centralization and control.

That's a serious misrepresentation, and I think you probably know it.

No, I don't. But it would perhaps be impolitic for me to start documenting. Let me merely say that I do definitely have something specific in mind.

This reminded me of something said by critic James Bowman, who is in the middle of a series on the pursuit of happiness in film and last week the film was The Treasure of Sierra Madre (here: http://www.jamesbowman.net/diaryDetail.asp?hpID=397). He noted that the novel was written by a Marxist but that Hollywood managed to invert the message. That is, instead of a tale of greed, Bowman notes:


...it’s not greed he [Dobbs] succumbs to but paranoia — that is, his palpable fear that the greed of the other two men will overpower their sense of right and wrong and his determination to take action against them before it does.

In other words, "what gold does to men''s souls" — at least on this showing — is not to poison them with avarice itself but rather with a deadly suspicion of avarice in others. Dobbs is really the prototype of the left-winger, a man too ready to believe that greed is corruptive of all feelings of morality and decency in his formerly trusted companions. His dark and passionate hatred of them for this mere fantasy of evil that he himself has given birth to and nurtured and encouraged in himself is the real engine that produces the calamity that follows. Dobbs’s attitude is much more akin to that of those, like Bosley Crowther, who are inclined to demonize the "greed" of others than it is like that of simple, decent men like Curtin and Howard, who merely want to get rich themselves but retain a sense of decency and responsibility.


Correction: That quote should have continued to the end.

Okay, so this debate has spiraled into a discussion of the worthiness of the clothes dryer. I am sure somebody somewhere thinks that this is a worthy topic, so before they find this site and begin to troll with their anti-dryer propaganda, we should return to the matter at hand.

Edward, why did I bring up that example? I'll tell you: It's because it's far, far too easy to think we're talking about an "economic system" and to make shallow rants--and I'm sorry, but that video is one of the shallowest, silliest rants I've seen in a while--about kids buying video games, credit card debt, being hooked on fashion, etc., and then thinking that we've said something about economics. In my opinion, we haven't. If you go to R.C.'s otherwise excellent comment and just tweak it to remove the statement that young people know that they are spending frivolously, what could there be to quibble with in it? And that comment makes it clear that the cultural problems being laid at the feet of "capitalism" and "capitalist worshipers" and what-not are just, merely, solely problems because people didn't imbibe the lessons R.C.'s mother taught him! And that's all.

But if we start thinking we've made some deep discovery about an _economic system_ and start messing with the economic system in God knows what ways, it's not so very far-fetched that fewer of us will be able to have clothes dryers and plenty of other legitimate, useful things that are actually distributed by the economic system. We need to be constantly brought up against concrete examples of good things produced and distributed by the economic system so that we can realize that the problem is not with the economic system but with people's poor choices. Otherwise, people start listening to very poor ideas that will impact the economic system as a whole and will harm the production and distribution of legitimate goods and services--a consequence the people who made the video didn't see fit to bother with. They'd rather talk about little black dresses and throwing all your shoes away every season than about, oh, I don't know, perhaps the way that food prices would go up if the foodies and animal rights activists had their way, or the way that you would have to risk getting heat stroke in the summer (and some old people would die of it) if the environmentalists got to ban coolants as "bad for the environment," or the waste and harm of a "green economy," and so on. You know, I don't really _want_ to be Europe. Too many crunchy types wouldn't mind all that much and probably think it would be good for all of us to be forced to do without clothes dryers (and live in much smaller and more cramped quarters, etc.) like they do in a real country, on our real planet, in a supposedly developed country, right this very minute. So I'm happy to play the gadfly and bring up things like clothes dryers.

But it is Jeff's thread, of course, and I would listen to anything he said on the topic of what is off-topic for what he is interested in talking about.

Lydia, you think you have everyone's number but you don't. Nothing that you said can be applied to any of my comments because I am not an environmentalist or a foodie or a distributist or any other type of ideologue. This site seems to be made up of mostly honest Christian folk who comment every now and then on issues brought up by the posters. I do not read the Distributist Review, maybe I will check it out now, nor do I have any secret agenda that needs exposing by your cunning eyes and their ability to read in between every line I write.

This video is not some deep philosophical unraveling of our current economic system, but it was entertaining an many people do, in fact, live this way. Mocking the portions of the video that you find outlandish does nothing to diminish this reality.

Lydia, you wrote:

But if we start thinking we've made some deep discovery about an _economic system_ and start messing with the economic system in God knows what ways, it's not so very far-fetched that fewer of us will be able to have clothes dryers and plenty of other legitimate, useful things that are actually distributed by the economic system. We need to be constantly brought up against concrete examples of good things produced and distributed by the economic system so that we can realize that the problem is not with the economic system but with people's poor choices.


To tell you the truth I'm rather surprised at your imperviousness to the point of the video. Our present "economic system" (which consists, after all, of real people and the choices they make), together with its government and media collaborators, sends precisely the same dumbed-down messages to everyone thousands of times every day. These are NOT exaggerations or caricatures. Yes, of course, everyone should have a mother like R.C.'s mother, and everyone who does should listen to their mothers, but most don't have them and of those who do, most don't listen.

There is a reason for the billions of dollars corporations spend on permeating society with these ideas and messages: the messages work. They overwhelm, intoxicate, and motivate, often in a subliminal way. They succeed brilliantly in changing behavior. They seduce not so much by what they say, but by their powerful and implicit assumptions. That is not to absolve individual consumers from personal responsibility, but it is to say that our society has built-in incentives for certain kinds of behavior and that incentives do matter. The everyday pressures of living in any given society can make ordinary virtue easy, difficult, or nigh-impossible. Perhaps you don't have many neighbors, relatives, friends or acquaintances whose behavior matches that represented in the video: that would be very fortunate for you, but it sure isn't the reality of 21st-century America.

Consumerism is inseparable from capitalism, the rule of money and profit. And Keynesianism is the handmaid of capitalism, in fact it is capitalism's life support. Supply-side theory, though it purports to value savings and investment, is no safeguard at all against consumerism in practice, for it is still fundamentally about maximizing profits.

Granted that reducing the evils of consumerism is not worth famine, displacement, or structural unemployment. But it might be worth some fewer choices in electric appliances, if it comes down to it, or slightly higher food prices in a nation that wastes over 100 billion pounds of food every year. I don't have any policy remedies in mind at the moment, but it is supremely foolish for anyone who values faith, family, tradition and prudence to refuse to explore policy options.

But it is Jeff's thread, of course, and I would listen to anything he said on the topic of what is off-topic for what he is interested in talking about.

Thanks, Lydia. I think we're still in the ball park. Carry on.

Jeff, I'm impervious to the "point" of the video, because the video has more than one point. And I know that both because of the source of the video and because you yourself portray it as a critique of capitalism. In the same way, I was with you to a large extent through the first two paragraphs of what you said above but completely disagree from then on. You see? I totally agree that there are people who are mindless droids in terms of peer pressure, fashion, etc., and that this is a bad thing and to be avoided. That's one of the innumerable reasons I home school

I don't think this gets us within a _stone's throw_ of distributism, nor should it. And I think your words here are ominous:

But it might be worth some fewer choices in electric appliances, if it comes down to it, or slightly higher food prices in a nation that wastes over 100 billion pounds of food every year.

As a famous man once said, there you go again.

It's just what I was about to tell Edward: Edward, I didn't mean you. I meant distributists. And I meant to warn you and anyone else interested: Distributism is a gateway drug for seriously misguided economic policies that I don't hesitate to call socialist. That's why my respected friend Jeff Culbreath, who is merely (I hope this is fair) a sympathetic fellow traveler of distributism but doesn't even consider himself a distributist, is saying things to the effect that reducing the evil of Consumerism might be worth higher food prices.

seriously misguided economic policies that I don't hesitate to call socialist

Lydia, if you seriously believe that business regulations or market interventions by the state are by definition "socialist", then we have a real communication problem.

Depends entirely on what they are, Jeff. But I wasn't talking about forbidding businesses to sell pornography, that's for sure. I would certainly include anything like caps on salaries for CEO's under the "socialist" or at least "socialistic" label. And penalizing large food sellers by refusing to let them treat their transportation costs as deductible for calculating net profit (because they "shouldn't" be distributing their food that far from home and to give an advantage to other businesses) would also come under some such highly negative label from me. These are actual proposals that I know actual people are positive towards who are also some sort of Crunchy types.

And honestly, if we're going to talk about what sorts of policies I had in mind when I called distributism a gateway drug, the two examples above are mild stuff. (More) socialized health care is an even more striking example of something that I strongly suspect distributism makes people more sympathetic to.

Lydia, the policies you mention might be bad or good, but if words have any meaning, they are not inherently "socialistic".

Socialism (Merriam-Webster)

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

If you are working from another definition, please do share it with me.

You could fit a lot in under definition 3, and definition 1 would fit plenty of models of socialized medicine. That's why it's called that.

But it's interesting that either of those two terms should bother you as descriptive of such policies. If you have a better terminological suggestion that both conveys strong disapproval (when used by, say, me) and communicates the, shall we say, common thread running through the three examples I've given, I'd be very happy to consider it.

Lydia:

I've never read the Crunchy Con book. I sounded somewhat interesting but far too faddish. So I can't speak for that crew. Nor do I wear birkenstocks or hemp. I do however, try to buy local produce, even thought it costs more and I encourage others to do the same. Because those extra dollars help the farm down the road stay a farm rather than another development. And because I'm not feeding the demand for yet more illegal immigration. Yes, I have a garden, and I'd like to see more people with gardens because our society needs more appreciation of agriculture, along with other truly productive enterprises, rather than just considering them picturesque, doomed relics. Also because history takes some funny twists and we may need that food and that knowledge. I don't think any of this is going to stunt your children's growth.

As far as politics, I do support local and county candidates who want to strengthen zoning laws and the like in favor of open space preservation and agriculture. I can't prove that these things have been rigged the other way, but I have noticed that realtors and developers take an awful lot of interest and spend a heck of a lot of money on local races around here. I believe I have the same right. I wouldn't describe that as socialist. (I had a McCain bumpersticker, maybe you could describe that as socialist.)

Nor have distributist writings given me knowledge of deep secrets. They have given me a few good insights though. Such as: That the debate over social welfare these days always seems to get framed as "The individual provides for himself vs. the Government (almost always Federal) provides for us all". It wasn't always that way. Social welfare was, until FDR, the business of individuals, families, churches, benevolent associations, other formal and informal structures and as a last resort, local and sometimes state government. But the steady intrusion of the federal sugar daddy with its taxes and, more recently, multi-trillion dollar infusions of foreign credit has rendered these institutions irrelevant, and at times, blatantly crushed their authority. If what I'm smoking smells like a gateway to socialism to you, than so be it.

Seriously Lydia, I don't get your venom towards these ideas. Aren't you the one who posted about the "Still made in America" website and the ladies who sewed good wholesome dresses out in Wisconsin? That's pretty distributist-style stuff. My hope is that enough people could get interested in this sort of stuff that it becomes commonplace and Khloe Kardashian fades into obscurity.

And I want to confiscate your cloths dryer.

If you have a better terminological suggestion that both conveys strong disapproval (when used by, say, me) and communicates the, shall we say, common thread running through the three examples I've given, I'd be very happy to consider it.

The common thread, in my opinion, is a figment of one's imagination. Why not just describe the proposals as they are? If you're looking for a pejorative, the favorite of libertarians is "statism", known to non-libertarians as the act of governing.

Do governments get regulation-happy and go way overboard? Obviously, yes, we are living the dream. The ideology which seems to have the greatest tendency to proliferate regulations is called "democracy".

Anyway - I propose keeping our pejoratives straight. Socialism means government ownership and control of a society's productive capital, or at the very least a definite trajectory in that direction. Capping the annual earnings of corporate CEOs at, say, 50 million is not socialism. It just isn't. If I were proposing socialized garbage collection, such as that which is common in many American cities, then I wouldn't object to the term in that context. But even then, a socialist is not one who proposes socialized garbage collection in his hometown, but one who proposes the socialization of an entire economy, or the essential part of it.

With respect to socialized medicine, that is something entirely different from social (or socialized) insurance. You know that very well. I don't know of any distributists, crunchy cons, agrarians, or their fellow travelers calling for socialized medicine.

There has never been an economy on the planet earth that was completely unregulated. This is just as much a fantasy as distributism, if not more so. The economy I envision would have a few more regulations on one end but vastly fewer regulations on the other - the net result being more economic freedom for more people. In the jargon of talk radio, it would be far less "socialistic" than what we have presently.

I can't be a consumer. I have no money left after paying my bills. Consumerism is a tax on the irresponsible just as a lottery is a tax on those who don't believe in probability.

The Chicken

The common thread, in my opinion, is a figment of one's imagination.

That's one place where we disagree.


Why not just describe the proposals as they are? If you're looking for a pejorative, the favorite of libertarians is "statism", known to non-libertarians as the act of governing.

So there isn't any informative term at all that you would acknowledge can be understood as describing something negative about those three policies (which were just examples among others), because even if I use your suggested term, you will say, "Oh, that just describes the act of governing." That's kind of interesting. Aren't there any contexts in which you think the term "statism" could be used as an accurate criticism of policies?

vastly fewer regulations on the other

I'm sure we can agree on that, anyway!

NesicaCato, I can't recall the "still made in America" billboard. I've probably just forgotten. The Lilies Apparel post, of course, has to do with a product I like and want. Capitalism forever. :-) (By the way, the government set up a serious threat to such small businesses by putting in place a regulation requiring expensive testing of all non-cotton material for clothes for children. I don't know how Lilies dealt with that.) But see several of my comments above: I'm all in favor of being countercultural. You'll have me cheering on your side all the way about being countercultural.

It's when people start saying that "capitalism" is intrinsically inimical to traditional values because it's driven by the profit motive, that "capitalism" is all about "consumerism" (see the video) that I go, "Whoa!" and have no sympathy. That sort of talk sounds to me rather like some sort of ascetic desert father telling us that he regards human civilization with great suspicion because it would come to a halt if it weren't for _sex_. (Not that I know of any desert father who actually said that. It's just a hypothetical.)

Perhaps my negative reaction and the things I am bringing up just happen to be related to the people I've discussed these matters with or the things I've read, such as a self-styled "distributist" who responded to my every expression of the economic value of having people pay for more of their own health care by asking, over and over again, "So, should people without money just die? Come on, answer the question. Should they just die?" And on and on. Or the paleo-crunchy type who told me literally that factory farmers are "sadists" and that he doesn't think it would be a problem if children were shorter because they didn't get enough protein, or the stupid post on Front Porch Republic (which I don't read usually for reasons of keeping my blood pressure down) about how terrible George Bailey is because he builds (gasp!) a _development_ of houses _without front porches_. (I guess that little Italian guy nearly weeping with happiness for his new house that he couldn't afford until George got involved doesn't count for much with the FPR folks.)

NesicaCato, if you just want to buy what you want to buy, and it happens to be organic produce, no problem, and more power to you. But this doesn't sound like any -ism at all, especially not any -ism that proposes to make serious changes to our economic system.

Social welfare was, until FDR, the business of individuals, families, churches, benevolent associations, other formal and informal structures and as a last resort, local and sometimes state government. But the steady intrusion of the federal sugar daddy with its taxes and, more recently, multi-trillion dollar infusions of foreign credit has rendered these institutions irrelevant, and at times, blatantly crushed their authority. If what I'm smoking smells like a gateway to socialism to you, than so be it.

By refusing to fight the federal government's involvement and restore the primacy of those institutions, you are part of the problem. When people keep giving a drug addict their fix because they don't want to make them go cold turkey, we call them enablers. When people refuse to abolish and change seriously problematic social institutions, we call them conservatives.

Perhaps some of the misconceptions about distributist ideas will be cleared up with the publication of this next month:

http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=eb565cff-c3d4-44ed-8029-bd74a87f2a2b

Note that the publisher is ISI, whose conservative identity is demonstrable and unassailable.

Note that the publisher is ISI, whose conservative identity is demonstrable and unassailable.

We can argue terminology till the cows come home. I was pretty shocked when I read an article in ISI's main publication a few years ago advocating that farms be nationalized. Oh, perhaps I wasn't supposed to use that word. Well, I forget what blander word the author used. Perhaps he called it "having farm land owned by a national trust." Seem to recall that this was supposed to be a "distributist" idea. But we can't call it "socialist," of course.

Seem to recall that this was supposed to be a "distributist" idea. But we can't call it "socialist," of course.

It seems to me that these "distributists" cannot bring themselves to admit that most of the flaws in the system are not caused by Capitalism, but by changes put into the system by the left and business elite.

It wasn't Capitalists that restructured the tax code to discourage independent contractors.

It wasn't Capitalists that created a centralized finance/credit system under the federal government's control that works mainly for the benefit of big business.

It wasn't Capitalists that ruled that corporations are human beings for the purposes of the law.

It wasn't Capitalists that created a regulatory environment that discourages manufacturing jobs.

It wasn't Capitalists that, in cases like the big banks and Pfizer, the rule of law only applies to the little people.

~~~It's when people start saying that "capitalism" is intrinsically inimical to traditional values because it's driven by the profit motive~~

It is, because capitalism is necessarily based on change -- the development of newer, bigger, better, faster, i.e., "progress" -- while the conserving of traditional values is the exact opposite. Thus there is always a tension between economic "progress" and traditional values. This tension becomes ever more pronounced as the corporate state gets larger and more intrusive.

I would really like to see that article, because I've subscribed to all of ISI's publications for the past 3 or 4 years and don't remember that. I can't imagine ISI calling for nationalization of agriculture.

Having farmland owned by a national trust would not necessarily be the same thing as nationalization, if the trust were independent and voluntary.

"most of the flaws in the system are not caused by Capitalism, but by changes put into the system by the left and business elite."

Last time I checked, most of the business elite were capitalists. Go figure.

No true Scotsman, Rob.

if the trust were independent and voluntary.

Independent of whom? I assumed that "national" meant "run by the government." I didn't keep the issue, though, so I'm afraid I don't have the citation.

I shd. also add that anything called a "national trust," even if owned by some private group, hardly squares with my idea of _distributing_ land to a larger number of people. If it's just a private group owning a lot of the farmland sold to them voluntarily, then I don't know what all the hoopla is about the evil of big agribusiness _on the grounds that_ they are so big and own so much of the farmland instead of smallholders!

In that context "national" may simply mean national in scope, i.e. a large nationwide trust of some sort. But I wouldn't want to speculate without seeing the piece.

"No true Scotsman, Rob."

Yep. I forgot. The business elites are not really capitalists.

Last time I checked, most of the business elite were capitalists. Go figure.

Their politics suggest otherwise.

Unless, of course, you are calling them "Capitalists" in the sense of a class under Marxism.

No true Scotsman, Rob.

That's right, Maximos. All of those executives who support left-wing causes and give generously to big government politicians are secretly devout followers of Smith and Rand.

It seems to me that a lot of this proceeds on the notion that the profit motive is dirty. For example, let's suppose (yes, we're speculating) that I misunderstood and that the "national trust" idea was supposed to be both voluntary and owned by an entirely non-government entity--and I do mean _entirely_, not just a phony "independent" but still governmental entity. I find the last of these pretty implausible, but let that go. Why, then, is agribusiness bad and to be punished with various laws disfavoring it but a huge, private national trust owning at least as much land isn't? I can only think of one possibility: Because it is presumed that _somehow_ the latter would be pure, purged of the wicked profit motive and therefore, presumably, should not be punished with anti-agribusiness regulations otherwise proposed.

I do not think the profit motive is dirty, and I think that if you think the profit motive is dirty, you are indeed playing with a gateway drug for socialism. So sue me.

Rob G,

I've been "lurking" on this post so far, but something you just wrote is such a common misconception that I thought it worth commenting on: "capitalism is necessarily based on change -- the development of newer, bigger, better, faster, i.e. "progress" -- while the conserving of traditional values is the exact opposite." Capitalism is not based on change, it is based on providing individuals with goods and services they need/want at a profit. The trick, as this entire discussion highlighted, is figuring out what is an authentic need/want and what is in some sense false.

To go back to Dr. Bauman: "Put differently, the market gives folks what they want better than any other system. But it does not teach them what to want." Professor Bauman suggests that public policy is impotent when it comes to cultivating individual character, so that folks will grow up with the wisdom of R.C.'s mother. I share his and Lydia's deep suspicion of broad-based government solutions to this problem, but I would note two points:

1) first, as Lydia already pointed out, there are many free-market solutions that would help promote the wisdom of R.C.'s mother -- e.g. stop encouraging folks to take on so much debt via low down payment mortgages they can't afford and/or keeping interest rates so low that it discourages saving;

2) awhile back we had some sort of debate on consumerism as it related to children and I was persuaded then of the wisdom of setting limits on the amount of ads that TV could be allowed to show during children's programming -- the argument being that their character has yet to be formed and so the government has a proper role in regulating what shapes their minds, given the reality that not every parent will get rid of their TV and/or supervise every minute of their child's TV viewing.

I suppose I might be persuaded of other small-scale regulations governing economic behavior, but I do think that the pejoritive label "statism" has meaning and force when it comes to heavy-handed economic regulation because there is a recognition, at least in America, that economic freedom is integral to a well-ordered free society. So as conservatives we don't just accept such economic regulations as "governing" in the same way we wouldn't accept a majority of secular athiests restricting the public practice of religion as "governing" without a pejoritive label for such legislation.

And all of those executives who lavishly fund "conservative" and Republican causes and candidates aren't seeking the benefactions of the government - there was no K Street project, and Wall Street isn't interested in preserving from scrutiny its lurid expropriations, rents, and usurpations - but sincerely believe in the fantasmatic illusion of an economy utterly unsupported by law, custom, and culture, self-subsisting and prior to all human sociality. Uh-huh.

At the political level, the level of pragmatic political judgments and controversies, capitalism and cultural radicalism are orthogonal; ie., there is no necessary political relationship one way or the other. Rand was a libertine, and her followers tend to defend libertinism, as part of a philosophy which encompasses both capitalism (the unknown ideal!) and liberation; Smith himself acknowledged that capitalists seldom communed with one another but that their conversation ended in conspiracies against the public, but was scarcely a cultural radical himself. American social conservatives endeavour to combine capitalism with traditional values. And so on, and so forth.

At the theoretical level, and the level of psychology, capitalism and the politics of liberation are, at a minimum, symbiotic and mutually contextualizing. This may "sharpen the contradictions" by subverting the bourgeois ethic upon which capitalism is founded, but who said that systems of human thought and practice are wholly self-consistent, self-transparent, and logical?

The profit motive is not dirty in and of itself, but it becomes so when it is joined to avarice, the pursuit of wealth for wealth's sake -- "I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones."

"Capitalism is not based on change, it is based on providing individuals with goods and services they need/want at a profit."

Which amounts to the same thing. In order to maintain/increase profits new products need to be developed and old ones need to be updated or scrapped. Is this not change, and is it not inherent in capitalism?

I want to add one radical thought: Like anything other motive legitimate in itself, the profit motive will be likely to produce bad consequences when and insofar as it is embedded in a disordered society and/or system. This is obviously true morally--people with morally disordered ideas will try to make a profit off of evil activities. I submit that it may also be true by way of unintended consequences when it comes to bad monetary policy. Without a sound currency and with continual inflation, it may perhaps be predictable that people would strive for irrational economic growth, "free lunch" growth, as one might call it, and that individual consumers would spend rather than saving.

Rob G.

"Which amounts to the same thing." -- No, it does not. Who is in charge when we talk about capitalism, the system, fulfilling human needs -- individuals. In your phrase, the impersonal "change" is in charge. I want folks around here to remember that capitalism is just a system for meeting human needs -- for drying their clothes easier, for buying their food cheaper (and fresh fruit in the middle of the winter!), for finding modest clothes online, etc., etc. Some of these needs will change over time, yes, but some won't depending on individual needs.

It seems to me that a lot of this proceeds on the notion that the profit motive is dirty.

The profit motive is not dirty. Profits in business are necessary and perfectly legitimate. The problem with capitalism is not that profit is a motive, but that profit is the sole or overriding motive, to the exclusion of the common good.

That's why my respected friend Jeff Culbreath, who is merely (I hope this is fair) a sympathetic fellow traveler of distributism but doesn't even consider himself a distributist, is saying things to the effect that reducing the evil of Consumerism might be worth higher food prices.

Absolutely. I've been saying that for years: food is too cheap. The resulting waste is astounding. The destruction of small farming operations is staggering. The toxic externalities require massive bureaucracies. I don't understand why this is news to anyone.

Aren't there any contexts in which you think the term "statism" could be used as an accurate criticism of policies?

Yes, I do. I was just being surly. Statism is a perfectly good word for describing overly-intrusive government policies. The problem is that it has been so abused by libertarians that it has lost much of its gravitas.

"Without a sound currency and with continual inflation, it may perhaps be predictable that people would strive for irrational economic growth, "free lunch" growth, as one might call it, and that individual consumers would spend rather than saving."

Which is why there were no problems when all were on the gold standard. The current popularity of the curious notion that a nation's economic policy needs to be cyclical is about to push us into deflation and a prolonged high rate of unemployment.

"This is obviously true morally--people with morally disordered ideas will try to make a profit off of evil activities."

And the circle is complete. All we need to do is create a new man with morally ordered ideas and all will be well. Surely that project will work out better then the one attempted by Marx and Lenin.

Friedman and Schwartz pointed out the foolishness of the Fed in contracting the money supply out of a fear of inflation in the early 1930s.

(good summary by way of DeLong, Krugman and Thoma, http://www.aei.org/outlook/100971 )

Best comment on worrying about inflation - like worrying about water damage when your house is on fire.

The best counterweight to our present corporate capitalism would be legislative majorities of folks like Henry Waxman.

And the circle is complete. All we need to do is create a new man with morally ordered ideas and all will be well.

Far from it. You've been inattentive. Haven't you noticed that I'm ending up in the position of one of the raving libertarians in this discussion? In point of fact, I don't believe that "we" can "create" a new man. God can do that, but certainly not the state. Perish the thought that the state should try.

In that case we are stuck with a world run by our deeply flawed selves and the best system yet devised for that circumstance is a socially democratic state with an appropriately regulated free market.

Much of our current libertarian speculation is an ideological fantasy (recall that Hayek saw a role for government action in cerain areas).

~~Who is in charge when we talk about capitalism, the system, fulfilling human needs -- individuals. In your phrase, the impersonal "change" is in charge.~~

I never said change was in charge; what I said was that it is inherent in capitalism in that it is what motivates individuals' choices. People buy new things because they want change; producers make new things either in response to consumers' demand for new things, or in advance in order to prompt that demand.

In that sense capitalism is based on the reality of change.

But that's only one thing that motivates some of some individuals' choices. I often buy things for the exact opposite reason: Because they are things I have used before and enjoyed. This especially applies in the area of food, but it can also apply to something as esoteric as software. The new Vista program for Windows is widely hated. Microsoft should be regretting the change. There is even a market for software to make Vista behave like older versions of the operating system. If my computer died, I would look for something as much the same as the old one as possible. Many of my purchase choices are motivated by a desire not to change or to replace something that has to be replaced unavoidably (because it has broken irreparably) but that I liked.

People buy new things because they want change

No, they buy things because they believe that the value of the thing meets or exceeds their reservation price. Whether you think it's a rational choice or not, they've subjectively made a calculation of that sort.

I'm not really sure who wants to be in the business of deciding what is consumerism and what isn't. Imelda Marcos owned too many pairs of shoes -- fair enough. Do I own "too many" if I own six pairs? What if I decide that my work shoes are not suitable as hiking boots -- has evil capitalism and Madison Avenue convinced me of a need that I don't really have? I should go hiking through the mud in my oxfords, in that case. Or is a better explanation: A capitalist saw the need for a shoe for hiking other than the one you wear to work every day, and he met a market demand? Is all this change (innovation?) a bad thing? Should good Christians oppose the invention and sale of the hiking boot? And if you think this example is silly, then tell me where do you draw the line, and why is your line the right one?

Not to mention that some change is good change and some change is bad change and some change is morally entirely neutral. If a Muslim young woman converts to Christianity and afterwards is in the market for an attractive hair tie, because now she doesn't wear the hijab, I'm inclined to call this good change, looked at all by itself.

Milton Friedman, on the social responsibilities of business:

There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to improve its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception and fraud.

I love Uncle Milt!

But in all seriousness Jeff, what do you suppose the "social responsiblity" of business should be? As R.C. says above, I know that as a Christian individual, I have a social responsibility to help the poor, and I'm sure many Christian businessmen share this sense of responsibility. But again, the best way to produce the most wealth (while at the same time providing the best goods and services for the most people) to be able to share with the poor, is to be a businessman concerned with the bottom line, period. The minute businesses start worrying about vague "social responsibilites" is the minute they stop worrying how to provide the best goods and services for their customers!

But in all seriousness Jeff, what do you suppose the "social responsiblity" of business should be?

For large businesses - paying a family wage to employees is a good start. Preferring employee retention and longevity to high turnover. Promoting from within. Preferring geographical stability. Doing quality work, making quality products, providing quality service. Creating a humane and stable work environment. Behaving justly toward competitors, neighbors, and customers. Absorbing the cost of externalities. Preferring local vendors and suppliers. Re-investing profits instead of paying CEOs outrageous salaries and bonuses. Etc.

As I often ask my children: is that a question you already knew the answer to?

But in all seriousness Jeff, what do you suppose the "social responsiblity" of business should be?

Not to pick on you, Jeff, but the fact that an intelligent conservative like yourself has to ask this question at all is indicative of the extent to which capitalist ideology has triumphed over Christian common-sense. In other words, we have compartmentalized life so that business/economics has its own rules, its own ethics, its own code of morality, quite apart from the ordinary moral precepts and constraints that pertain to the rest of life.

When I read that from Friedman, I thought your objections would be otherwise, Jeff (Culbreath). I can imagine that a conservative might object to the statement as worded on the grounds that a businessman might be engaging in a _totally bad_ business which he should get out of (like selling pornography) which bad business would damage society and that Friedman doesn't seem to take this possibility into account.

But I'm actually glad in a way that you didn't go there. That would have been too easy. Then we could _all_ have agreed (I know for sure that this would include Jeff Singer) in condemning the statement construed _that_ way--namely, as saying that there can't be any such thing as a bad business and that you should just make as much profit as you can at whatever you choose to do, period.

So here are your examples, interspersed with my reactions:

For large businesses - paying a family wage to employees is a good start.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on too many things to make such a sweeping statement.


Preferring employee retention and longevity to high turnover.

All else being equal, sure. But I wouldn't be inclined myself to call this a "social" responsibility.

Promoting from within.

Too strongly stated. Depends on too many factors.

Preferring geographical stability.

Could be a good idea, but not if the stupid town or state starts enacting punitive measures that understandably drive the business out.

Doing quality work, making quality products, providing quality service.

Absolutely. Loud cheers. Is this a "social" responsibility?


Creating a humane and stable work environment.

Too vague. I can think of things this could mean--like, not trying to get people to work harder by creating a constant atmosphere of fear of reprisals or of firing.


Behaving justly toward competitors, neighbors, and customers.

Too broad as stated, but might include legitimate condemnation of things like cheating and lying, even if the cheating for whatever reason can fly under the radar of the law. (See below for an example where I think a company is behaving wrongly towards its employees.)


Absorbing the cost of externalities.

I'm unsympathetic. I hear too much about "externalities" from people I _know_ I disagree with. This sounds to me too much like, "McDonald's should pay for gym memberships so people can lose the weight they gain from choosing to eat too much McDonald's."


Preferring local vendors and suppliers.

Not as an automatic rule. Doing so might even conflict with producing a high-quality product. It could certainly conflict with the legitimate goal of keeping prices low for customers.

Re-investing profits instead of paying CEOs outrageous salaries and bonuses.

Maybe, but again, I think stated too categorically.

It seems to me that the problems with Friedman's statement arise from a failure to recognize that there are bad things people can do that they think increase their profits. These might include, as in the above example, selling intrinsically bad products. But it might also include being cruel or deceptive. Example: I know that there is a company in my area that hides from all its employees the fact that they are going to be fired. It gives them no notice or chance to find another job. A computer technician is sent to the offices of doomed employees with strict orders to deceive them about what he is there for. He is supposed to tell them he is putting updates on their computers. What he is really doing is getting all of their passwords. When the employee is fired, the computer automatically becomes inaccessible, because the higher-ups have changed all the passwords. Then the employee is fired without notice. Obviously, the computer tech would get in trouble if he gave the employee a tip that he should be looking for another job, and the computer tech (who, in the case I know of, feels very guilty about this) has to keep his mouth shut while listening to the employee make happy plans for the future. This is wrong. It is a form of lying, and it is unnecessarily cruel. If Friedman means to imply that such actions cannot be wrong if they are deemed to improve profits, then he is sadly mistaken.

I'm not sure, however, that Friedman would have said anything of the kind.

Jeff C.,

First of all, thanks for the compliment -- acknowledging your interlocutor as someone who is intelligent and therefore worthy of debate is always pleasant in the middle of such fundamental disagreements. While I generally agree with Lydia's assessment of your examples of "social responsibility" in a businessman, I'm afraid she gives you the kid glove treatment. For example, to say, as you do, that a large business owes its employees a "family wage" is nonsense on stilts as far as I'm concerned and actually harmful to the well-being of a free-market. Many employees, probably because they are entry level and/or low-skilled do not deserve a wage that could support a family. That is not the problem of the business, nor should it be -- they should be concerned with paying what the market price of labor is, no more or no less.

Likewise with many of your other examples -- CEO salaries are large only because the market exists for well-paid CEOs. Crunchy types always freak out at high CEO salaries and bonuses (they also freak out at high salaries for entertainment figures and/or sports celebrities). The only outrageous salary is the one you pay out and don't get your money's worth -- so if LeBron fails to win a championship in Miami it might be fair to say in five years that his salary was outrageous.

Lydia also makes a good point about treating employees with basic decency -- i.e. being honest with them about when you decide you need to fire them. Again, the Friedman quote explicitly references "deception and fraud" so my guess is that he would not be a champion of slimey business ethics.

The problem is that we can't agree on what level of freedom businessmen should have in a free market -- I agree that there will be some basic "rules of the game" to use Friedman's phrase, but we can't agree on the rules. For a free-market capitalist like myself, I want very few rules because I believe this will both further the goal of promoting individual liberty and at the same time allow society to allocate scarce resources better than any other system you might come up with.

Lydia, most of the social responsibilities mentioned are contingent on the business making sufficient profit to stay in business and to reasonably compensate its executives. They are "vague" because circumstances vary. That doesn't mean the responsibilities don't exist.

Jeff S., briefly, with respect to your characterization of a just wage as "nonsense on stilts", you have the following to deal with as a Catholic:

Pope Leo XIII, "Rerum Novarum": Among the most important duties of employers the principal one is to give every worker what is justly due him. Assuredly, to establish a rule of pay in accord with justice, many factors must be taken into account. But, in general, the rich and employers must remember that no laws, either human or divine, permit them for their own profit to oppress the needy and the wretched or to seek gain from another's want. To defraud anyone of the wage due him is a great crime that calls down avenging wrath from Heaven, "Behold, the wages of the laborers...which have been kept back by you unjustly, cry out: and their cry has entered into the ears of the Lord of Hosts." (32)

Pope Pius XI, "Quadragesimo Anno": Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman (71).

Pope John XXIII, "Mater et Magistra": The economic prosperity of any people is to be assessed not so much from the sum total of goods and wealth possessed as from the distribution of goods according to norms of justice (74). The remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace; nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerful. It must be determined in accordance with justice and equity; which means that workers must be paid a wage which allows them to live a truly human life and to fulfill their family obligations in a worthy manner (71).

Pope John XXIII, "Pacem in Terris": Furthermore--and this must be specially emphasized--the worker has a right to a wage determined according to criterions of justice, and sufficient, therefore, in proportion to the available resources, to give workers and their families a standard of living in keeping with the dignity of the human person (20).

Vatican II, "Gaudium et Spes": Finally, remuneration for work should guarantee to individuals the capacity to provide a dignified livelihood for themselves and their family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level corresponding to their roles and productivity, having regard to the relevant economic factors in their employment, and the common good (67).

Pope John Paul II, "Laborum Exercens": Hence in every case a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. (89) Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future (90).


Jeff Singer, I tend to agree very much: the business of deciding which regulations are necessary even though they curtail freedoms is excruciatingly difficult.

Contra Maximos, I would posit that as a general principle society should not feel free to undertake a regulation to constrain market activity unless it can show that lesser intrusions, lower level interventions cannot solve the problem. I will freely admit that this is often very, very difficult to show, and would then result in a lot of cases where society keeps on trying with one low-level, unsuccessful attempt after another. Yup, it would have that result. OK.

But WITH Maximos, I would accept the general principle that market players can and often do abuse the lack of regulations to defraud the general public out of what are, essentially, widespread unnoticed costs of doing business; and that a true level playing field would locate these costs and make them an explicit part of the buy-sell price. Turning your own land into a landfill is one thing. Turning it into a landfill where the runoff destroys the fishery downstream is quite another - unless you want to pay for the result or pay to contain the problem. Offsetting that, the same players are adept at using regulatory efforts to skew the market their way, so regulations are potential market disturbances as well.

However, I repudiate the notion that this tendency in market players is to be attributed to the "capitalist" as such, that it is inherent in the idea of a free-market capital system. There are, actually, two separate concepts under the word "capitalism," and they are inconsistent with each other. The first is the notion of free men choosing freely to allocate their resources, including both saved wealth and labor, in a free determination of more worthwhile endeavors without government control, and also without imposing on others' freedoms. The second notion is that of a system whereby profit from invested capital is the overriding, or even the only active operating principle of business decisions. Many liberals think of the second notion when they use the term "capitalism" and consider it to be (rightly) an ideology, and "ism" properly so called. What they don't realize is that when they do this they are not characterizing what the typical conservative means by the word "capitalism" at all. The typical conservative means the first type, (or at least wants to, while ignoring ways in which a given arrangement fails to be this) which does NOT presume anything like the overriding standard of "profits first, last, and always" as its guiding motto, and is not an "ism" at all.

The primary issue is this: in capitalism (number one), when is state intervention merely correcting a playing field failure, fixing a skewing of the marketplace in favor of some participant to the detriment of many others being able to make truly free choices? And when is it choosing to help one market player over another as a favor? The answer is often found in whether the state, or the persons behind the decision, have truly and honestly found a real marketplace inequity that they are correcting, or whether they have managed to disguise a form of favoritism as a "correction." And we fallen humans will never be wholly satisfied with each other's conclusions about this.

But I would submit that since every person who is born is born into an existing society that he did not choose but which he must accept, the long-standing status quo holds the presumptive form of the level playing field, and the burden of proof is on those who claim the existing condition constitutes a series of these or those "externalities" that are hidden cost-shifting inequities. Therefore, a conservative will naturally and rightly be reluctant to accept new fields of regulations and new cost-sharing regimes for supposed claims of skewed playing fields.

Tony: You stole my thunder. Much of the discussion of Capitalism here has the two camps talking past one another. The pro-distributist side is using the term to describe the system we actually have where the business elite and the governing elite are cutting deals with each other for money and power (what Belloc so long ago described as the "servile state"). The anti-distributist side is using it to describe theoretical capitalism which is just as impossible in the real world as theoretical Marxism (although usually far less brutal) and for the same reason: men are not angels. The Milton Friedman quote has no relation to the real world. The 20-something free marketeer wunderkind becomes the 50-something control freak. (Rockefeller, Morgan, Gates, Buffet, etc.). Sales departments engage in deception every day. One of Obama's magical money men, Ben Bernake, was a protege of Friedman. 'nuff said.

Lydia: Substitute the word "sex" for the phrase "profit motive" and I think you'll see the distributive point of view. And about the Front Porch crew, I see your point, there are some aesthetic dictators over there who would not get my vote.

Jeff Singer re: the well-being of a free-market: The free market is an abstraction and what is good for it is not necessarily good for us. An example: shipping jobs overseas to China. Cheaper labor = Cheaper goods = Great for the free market. But we have fed a Communist/Fascist beast that now owns a good part of our economy and is poised to challenge us up and down the Pacific Rim. The thirty year old argument that "exposure to free markets will make them like us" has not played out. The fact that the former garment worker is now wearing cheaper underwear while he flips burgers is cold comfort.

A free (or nearly free) market is great if it exists in a society with enough morals and commonsense to restrain itself. Conservatives should recognize that we don't have that now. And we should work to restore that, from the ground up.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A fascinating discussion indeed.

I would like to invite Lydia and other critics of Distributism to take a look at it from my point of view.

http://joeahargrave.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/the-distributist-manifesto/

Lydia wrote,

"And I meant to warn you and anyone else interested: Distributism is a gateway drug for seriously misguided economic policies that I don't hesitate to call socialist."

I can't disagree that some - and I emphasize, some - Distributist rhetoric can lead one to that false view. This is unfortunate. But we must separate the rhetoric from the reality.

I've noted the additional post on Fulton Sheen's economic views, and I may have something to say about those as well...

"But we have fed a Communist/Fascist beast that now owns a good part of our economy and is poised to challenge us up and down the Pacific Rim."

Yes, and we are moving to the same place economically/culturally as they are, an omnicompetent managerial state, but from the opposite direction. Both trains are heading for the same ravine, one from the East, the other from the West.

"Conservatism is alien to the very nature of capitalism whose love of life and growth is perpetual change. We are living in one of its periods of breathless acceleration. The Church did well to distrust Roger Bacon. Science has been, from the beginning, the ideological weapon of capitalism, and is now asserting (even though it may not be interested in doing so) an exclusive dominance. I am saying that conservatism and capitalism are mutually exclusive manifestations, and antipathetic at root. Capitalism, whenever it seeks to become conservative in any quarter, at once settles into mere reaction -- that is, a mere brake on the wheel, a brake that does not hold because the logic of the wheel is to turn. Hence the sense of unreality and pessimism on the Right, running off into all manner of crackpotism. Hence, on the other side, the singular manifestation (or so it seems) of prime capitalists...turning, as we say, Left. In fact, whatever political forms their turn cloaks itself in, they are chiefly seeking to pace, in order to continue to dominate, the new developments to which the logic of capitalism itself is giving rise, now at tremendous rates of speed." ~~~~ Whittaker Chambers

Chambers wrote that in a letter to W.F. Buckley in 1958. He considered himself a pro-capitalist, and not a conservative. What's fascinating to me is that W.C., as a pro-capitalist writing 52 years ago, was able to recognize the antipathy between the market and the culture, but today's conservatives, blind as they are to anything antedating Reagan, and infected by Randianism and libertarianism (the modern form of which is more like an economic libertinism) and neo-Conservatism, which is merely liberalism in a penny-pinching form, cannot.

The fact that the vast majority of today's conservatives don't know who Kirk and Weaver and Nisbet and even W.F. Buckley are, let alone read them, speaks volumes. And I own myself guilty here, because for a very long time I was in the same boat. I've been reading the older conservatives for only 5 or 6 years. Prior to that I'd have sounded more like Jeff S. than Jeff C.

The anti-distributist side is using it to describe theoretical capitalism which is just as impossible in the real world as theoretical Marxism (although usually far less brutal) and for the same reason: men are not angels.

Theoretical systems can never be purely implemented because men are not angels, and even when they are trying to be angelic, they tend to be stupid and prideful.

The main problem with our current system is that we have the complete absence of the rule of law once you reach a certain level of influence. The Department of Justice won't hesitate to go after a 1099 who defrauds the federal government, but it announced it won't prosecute Pfizer because of its divisions systematically defrauded Medicare. Too big to fail and all that bovine excrement.

Basic theoretical Capitalism is largely contingent upon the rule of law. That is why it rarely works.

Distributism: Read the interview. Buy the book. Clear your misconceptions.

http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=eb565cff-c3d4-44ed-8029-bd74a87f2a2b

What's wrong with society? It is simple really.

First of all, it isn't possible to understand what is wrong without understanding first what is right. In other words, how are we meant to live and why?

Virtues are the most important things in our life. They directly contribute to spiritual growth and wisdom. In practice, that helps us create and maintain self reliance. So we don't need to rely so much on someone else holding us up. But because we are not gods, we do find ourselves needing help now and then. That's where community comes in. A "society" full of acquaintences and friends who help one another. And because it is a family of trust, there isn't a price tag on getting help. You worry more about giving then receiving. Because it is likely the person you do something for will always remember it and return the favor someday when it counts. That is what is intended. We often see this type of living in the Amish community. They still recognize and maintain those virtues.

With these things said, the purpose of evil is to destroy what is beneficial to people. Since it cannot actually destroy anything that was Created by God, it can only distract or cause people to be misled and away from the path they were meant to be on. So they end up in a way of life that is constantly seducing them. When one thing becomes monotonous, something new comes along to continue to seduction. This person grows in self serving existence. They no longer receives the benefit of virtues and wisdom. And they certainly are completely dependent. The proof we see in modern society.

People typically spend half their time at a miserable job, promoting some greed driven entity (business). They come home to the house they don't own, driving the car they don't own that sets on the land they don't own. But the ways of society have led them to actually believe they own those things. They see the possession of money as an accomplishment. And they use it to take the place of parenting because they cannot see the virtues I have talked about. No longer does their existence revolve around spirituality. But only to consume things. They buy endless gadgets. Take endless vacations. Eat at different places. They just consume consume consume. Use up resources. And continue to play the pawn at work in order to feed and maintain this life choice. But in reality, they continue to hang by a thread they do not see.

Imagine this. What if the power grid went down today and never came back. What would happen to that family? What would happen to many other families? What if this caused the water company to stop? Imagine the gas stations that would close. Grocery stores couldn't operate. No driving. No eating. No drinking. So just how "well off" would all that money make you now? This dire situation would literally test the spiritual strength of a family. And because of the lack of spiritual growth, this family would likely fall apart. That's how dependent they are on outside entities. So what good are they? No better than a sensless cow gracing a field. consumer cattle.

But take family who chose to go Off The Grid and become self reliant. Building an underground home, underground garden on a 10 acre lot. Plenty of trees for wood. Rainwater catch systems and filters to have all they need. Sunlight to use to supplement their energy needs. Lamps and candles for night time light. Maybe even a few solar panels to help here and there. But mostly lack of technology and more of creativity and self ingenuity. No electric bill. No water bill. Maybe yearly property and home taxes. If they were smart, they bought a used car and got it paid off. Raise livestock for food. Heat water with wood, lenses, and other forms of thermal. If the grid goes down, would this family be affected? If so it wouldn't be much at all. Because their way of life is more in line with what God intended to begin with. It allowed this family to stay together, work together, and grow together. And without the constant distractions of the evil you get from modern consumerism. This family is wise. They are spiritual.

So you can see why the government of today tries to prevent families from living this way. It is because our government is one of those evil entities. You cannot trust them with your life. All I can say is that it has been foretold that the day of the crash is going to come. And the signs are already here. The consumer economies are going to bottom out. Many who think they are well off will suffer. Only those who are filthy rich will buy time. But those who weren't consumerized will be unphased by it. They will fullfill God's purpose by helping those in need while protecting their way of life. The Amish are the finest example of this way of life. They have been doing this since the 1500s. And they continue to be persecuted for it. But you don't have to wear a beard to be one of God's children. Just walk away from the modern life and get back on the path. You will never go back once you do.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.