A human solution to the economic meltdown

I've waited to make any comment on what is going on for several reasons, one is to gather facts rather than off the cuff assertions, and two because I simply don't have time.

However, after having taken in three weeks of this spectacle, I feel I won't see anything new that either isn't expected or predicted.

My first reaction to all of it, which is more of the anarchist in me than anything, is the nuclear option. Why help these idiots who ran their businesses into the ground and now expect the public to bail them out with a golden parachute? Let the whole lending system burn down. We don't need it anyway. As I said that is more the anarchist in me than anything, because in reality, a government watchful for the common good can not do that. The meltdown of economic markets as they are (predicted by Chesterton and Belloc), while enjoyable from the standpoint of the anti-capitalist spectator, will not long be enjoyable unless one is already self sufficient and well armed. If the power goes out in a major city for a few hours there is looting, rape and pillage. If there is a mass failing of business due to the meltdown of credit, the detriment to the common good is unimaginable. Apart from the fact that every criminal element of society will be unleashed, that millions of innocent people will starve and be bereft of material necessities, the result will be either constant anarchy or a police state.

Americans are overly individualistic, we do not knit together into a likeminded culture solicitous for the common good. As such, the best of us who tend toward that will be victimized by the worst who don't. Subsequently a parralell economy would form largely criminal in nature, with or without a strong central authority or martial law (perhaps in collusion with it as in the aftermath of the Soviet breakdown).

However, all of this will be the result of an overall descent which will take time to effect. Apart from random acts of crime which will break out, no doubt inspired by media hyperstimulation and hysteria (I always say TV news is a defeat for humanity), the country will not fall apart from a market crash. It will merely transform into anarchy or a police state, or a terribly unhealthy mix of both, and even then steps could be taken to avert that course.

There are of course alarmists who are running out and declaring that the sky is falling. I have heard radio hosts saying if the government doesn't do something the whole country will be destroyed. Not the least of the alarmists are Geroge W. Bush, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson and their banking buddies. If our society had any moral fibre they would all be drawn and quartered, and perhaps burned alive (satire). Instead we listen as they advocate that we buy up the debt, and take a huge loss in doing it, so as to re-constitute Mammon. I have read every statement by the three aforementioned characters, and essentially that is their plan. Borrow money from China or print more treasury notes or both, buy up the debt and reconstitute the money lending empire which put us in this mess. It will be, as it is now, a society built on debt. Well, debt for some and filthy profits (mammon) for CEOs who will repeat this whole fiasco down the road, if there is enough time for them to do so. In the mean time, where is the public good? You must pass this bill they say. Then the Democrats say okay, just give us some things we want. They then claim they support the middle class, but pushing for some relief for tax payers and some such things is not sufficient to solve the problem. Then come in the free market economists with their fairy tales.

It is truly incredible. They will blame the current crisis on a whole host of things. They will blame Bush as I blame him, but for different reasons. They will condemn the bailout as I do, but not because they believe there is something better, but because government shouldn't be involved in the market forces which shape the economy. This is where the fairy tales are necessary. What the hellen keller are market forces? They are rather like the tooth fairy or the easter bunny, they neither exist nor communicate any valuable message or moral in their telling. There is no such thing as a market force, or markets which rebound or markets which come into being or crash, or for that matter which are free. There are men who determine the actions other men must make by their inventments, their trades, and their blunders. There are men who initiate bad practices, and other men who react to them. But there is no hidden hand at Wall Street which comes into play and guides men safely so long as governments leave it alone. Yet that is what they will have you believe. If only George Bush didn't interfere with the market, after all, sub-prime mortgages are his fault according to one author, part of a scheme to create an "ownership society" (the horror if men owned something and didn't pay greedy bankers!) like in Argentina. Or, this is all the fault of tax policies and spending.

All of that is fiction. The situation we are in arose precisely because government followed these principles and provided no oversight and no intervention, just as Economic liberals want. The reality is that Free Market Economics (i.e. Economic Liberalism) are a failure. The current situation allows us to write economic liberalism's obituary as surely as Richard Pipes could write Communism's obituary. They will still gasp from the grave, just as the leftover communists do today, but it is clear that Free Market principles are as effective in economics as excrement is at keeping away flies. We need government regulation in the economy to make sure that greed, the sole force involved in a "free market" does not endanger the public good.

However, what kind of government intervention we need is the real question. The answer should be that which tends toward the common good. When we consider government intervention in that light, it is incumbent upon voters to reject this proposed $700 billion bale out on its face as a phony solution which will do nothing to "sure up the economy", that is make it stable. (They won't, they will take it as they have taken every step of Bush's creation of National Socialism, and this is no exception).

A stable economy is necessarily defined by real ownership. It is sad that ownership must be qualified with the adjective "real", but today people have the idea that when they are paying three or four times what something is worth that they actually own the thing rather than that they are renting it from the bank until the latter has several pounds of flesh, which as we have seen they can then invest badly or soundly, not dependent upon illusory market forces but upon the skills or lack thereof of the investor. People have the idea that an Ipod bought on a credit card is "theirs". Regardless there is no ownership in that scenario, except on the part of those who have caused the economic meltdown, which are a gross minority. The "bail-out plan" does nothing to fix the lack of equity in society's ownership. Worse than that even, is that there is no standard by which worth is to be judged in all of this worthless debt which the government is about to buy, only to sell back in the future. How do we know that the banks will not cheat the government? Will the government, staffed by individuals who used to work for the same firms which they are now bailing out, such as Mr. Paulson a former Goldman-Sachs employee, act in the people's interest or in the bank's interest? Yes, that is rhetorical. Like all political hacks and quislings, from Bush down to the lowest treasury appointee, they serve the banks, as they have for 150 years if not more.

Even worse than all of that, is the fact that this plan as it is currently proposed gives unprecedented power to government bureacrats in the treasury department. (source)They will be free from judicial overview, from congressional oversite, and answerable to no voter and no veto. And people wonder why I don't vote. You don't live in a democracy, you live in a National Socialist dictatorship, where the hands are hidden rather than seen like in Germany or Russia, where the change is gradual rather than sudden, as in Hitler's appointment or the Bolshevik Revolution. This is just the icing on the cake, and if this bill goes into effect that is exactly what it will create. But never mind that.

We were talking about stability. The plan, as old as the 1930's, is to bail out the fools who created the problem, thinking that if we re-establish the status quo, we won't end up in the same place. This is literally like saying we will put the train backward 20 miles, we will sure up the track, but don't worry, we won't end up in Chicago again. The primary problem is that what the bail out aims at creating is not a stable economy, nor a safe one. It is an attempt to stimulate business and lending. NOTHING MORE, by saddling you and I with worthless assets. This is nothing other than welfare for the rich.

If the government were to take an action that seriously aimed at helping people below a net worth of a million or so, there is one thing it could do. It is so simple as to be more or less unthinkable, principly because it is too human and religious. Amnesty.

Only a year ago amnesty was a hotly debated topic, being advocated by a majority of the government as a grand solution to the problem of illegal immigration. When opponents declared that it will only make the problem worse, proponents declared that they would re-structure the government and put laws in place to prevent an increase in illegal immigration.

Well...... no one said that such a thing couldn't work, only that the government would never live up to the committment. And one would probably have been right. Nevertheless, let us apply the same concept to this situation. The government could just declare an amnesty, particularly on mortgages. If it limited itself to this, and did not try to also bail out credit cards where more than 50% was spent on comoddities, then something unthinkable might be achieved: ownership. Some will say but this will only encourage people get into debt again. This is easily solved, place terms and conditions. The homeowner would have to agree not to sell for 7 years. That should be a fair amount of time to satisfy the governments interests and sure up some of the debt problem. Essentially what I am proposing is that debt be wiped right off of the books. Nothing for the rich, heaven knows they can afford it, afterall, they got us into the mess, there is no need to reward them.

Declaring an amnesty for home mortgages under certain conditions has more benefits: It prevents a wave of homlessness which certainly leads to crime while at the same time presents an asset with a verifiable value, as opposed to the sewage debt that the banks will foist upon the government. Concommitant with this move would be to foster the growth of small business and local community. At the present slugs like you and I are seen by Wall Street as one thing: A consumer income. We don't own anything, we can not stop and buy a house or a car, but we can by worthless commodities, and we are told this will keep the economy running. We know now that this is false. The economy will not keep running because people buy chinese made crap at Walmart.

Yet what if we not only formed small economic communities, championed by ownership, but also produced goods which people need? You mean we don't need to get it from China? No. You mean I can buy it out of my pocket? Yes. You mean I can perform a service to society or produce something for it, rather than speculate about it in New York? Damn straight.

But it won't happen. To do that means alienating the money class, the business owners, the banks, and all of their cronies in government, presuming they are not running the whole show from behind the scenes. To do that means dismantling the status quo and getting people to think differently, which the government has no interest in. Hilaire Belloc essentially said the same thing a hundred years ago in his classic "The Servile State". In that work, he predicted that the capitalist state, constituted as it was in England at the beginning of the 20th century (more or less what it is here and now, just on a smaller scale) would fall apart because credit would get so out of control some defaults would effect the whole system, and lead to an overall collapse and millions out of work, as with Capitalism's beginning. The solution? Slavery. When Belloc says we will return to slavery, he does not mean it in the sense of ancient Rome or Greece, because he recognized that we have created such an animus to slavery. So instead of "slavery", it will be reinstituted under a different name, "lifetime employment". A well to do banker, bailed out by Mr. Paulson's plan, will one day be able to go to the employment office and pick up a "lifer", someone guaranteed to work for him for life.

In the event you are shaking your head in disbelief, consider the results of my non-scientific sociological experiment. Feel free to conduct it yourself. Just in the work place, both of them in fact, I popped the question to various co-workers of different sexes and positions, through a general run down of how in the future we will lose our jobs, and then slavery will be introduced only it will be called "lifetime employment. Out of 50 people, only 2 people objected. The response from everyone else was "well, that sounds kind of nice actually. Job security", or "Well, I wouln't have to pay for food and rent, would I?" I suppose not. Freedom in exchange for food and shelter. People have lived long enough without owning or producing anything of value, that food, clothing and shelter for free for life won't be such a bad deal in exchange for work.

Community Supported Agriculture

From: The Idaho Statesman

Casey O'Leary pedals to her dream job, towing a shovel, a hoe, a rake and a flat of tiny vegetable starts on her bike trailer. Her rubber boots shed yesterday's mud as she rides.

Her dog, Norm, who has been waiting all morning, runs alongside her on their way to a small plot of land - one of three that O'Leary cultivates in Boise's Collister neighborhood.

"I used to think I had to get out of the city to get back to nature," O'Leary said. "Urban farming is the ideal interface between city and country."

You won't find O'Leary at the farmers market. She already has sold her harvest to 25 shareholders, or members of her CSA farm. They've paid upfront for 18 weeks of fresh food.

"My members just cherish the work I do," O'Leary said. "It's because of them that I'm able to have this absolutely beautiful life that I love so much."

WHAT'S A CSA?

Community-supported agriculture is a mouthful to say, but it is an easy idea to grasp.

Members agree to pay farmers in advance of planting for a season of food. That gives farmers money when they need it most, in early spring.

Members receive a guaranteed source of fresh produce and the security of knowing where their food comes from, how it was grown and who grew it.

"I like to buy as much as I can from the farmer directly," said Nina Bied, a CSA member of Morning Owl Farm in Southeast Boise. "Food is our medicine. If we eat the proper food, why would our bodies break down?"

Farmers and members also share the risk of crop failure, which helps keep small-acreage farms in business.

Most farmers have a drop site for vegetable pickup once a week, although arrangements vary. For $4 extra a week, for example, O'Leary will make a home delivery, by bicycle.

To market directly to eaters, farmers who want to use a CSA model often must learn to navigate the Internet, network among social groups and put in lots of face time every week, in addition to completing the work the growing cycle demands.

"There's a myth that it's the D students who end up on the farm," O'Leary said. "I've never been more intellectually challenged in my life."

Since the publication of recent books "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver, the idea of eating locally grown food has swept into the national consciousness, O'Leary said.

Shares of her farm sold out last fall, and by March 15, most CSA memberships in the Treasure Valley were taken.

Despite the spark in interest, only about 10 farms in the Treasure Valley offer CSAs. Several of them are profiled here. Each has modified the traditional model to fit its needs.

CHANGING FOOD CULTURE

Eaters in the United States usually decide what's for dinner while contemplating a large selection of produce from around the country and the world.

The CSA model turns that culture on its head. A member starts with a bag of food and makes meals with what's inside.

A typical share feeds a family of four. Some farmers sell half shares, and others offer work opportunities in exchange for shares. Most shares in Treasure Valley farms cost $300-$550 for 18-22 weeks of food.

Mary Ann Newcomer has a share in O'Leary's CSA.

"The first year, it was hard to keep up with the amount we got," she said. "I ended up making greens the centerpiece of the meal and pushed the store-bought chicken and fish to the side."

Eating what's growing in season can be a challenge. Many CSA farmers provide recipes and helpful hints with their produce every week to introduce members to vegetables they've never seen before.

MORNING OWL FARM

Because CSA farmers have to supply food every week, about 20 percent of the vegetables they grow no one has heard of, said Mary Rohlfing, who operates Morning Owl Farm in East Boise.

But not everyone wants to add exotic vegetables to their diet. This year, Rohlfing is trying something new with her CSA. She's setting up a farm stand on Wednesday nights, where members can buy what they want with their pre-paid shares. The stand will be open to the public on Thursday nights.

"My fear is, what if everyone wants carrots?" she said. "What about the bok choy?"

Nina Bied, a member of Rohlfing's CSA, said she's excited about the farm stand but never had a problem getting her two kids to eat vegetables.

"I teach my children about all the vegetables and fruits," she said. "To them, whatever I cook for them is great."

Rohlfing started her CSA five years ago because she liked the idea of being connected to the people who ate the food she grew. It is that connection - the phone call in February from a member having tomato dreams - that keeps her farming, she said.

"You start with a love of your fellow species, and then you want to feed them all," Rohlfing said.

Rohlfing uses ducks, about 300 of them, to maintain the ecosystem on her farm. They eat the bugs and weeds, lay eggs and provide manure.

"We're becoming a no-till farm. We run the ducks," she said. "I don't have to run a tractor over three acres of land, and that's better for everybody."

Rohlfing recently received a $15,000 grant from Western Sustainable Agriculture Research Eduction. The program is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

She will study the viability of using ducks for many purposes on a farm. She will let 40 ducks graze on a pasture for three years as part of the study.

Research is nothing new for Rohlfing. In her past life, she was a tenured professor at BSU.

"Health insurance is a scary thing to let go of," she said.

Part of what motivated her to change her life was a conversation she had with her uncle shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Her uncle had walked home from his office in the World Trade Center.

"He said to me, 'You need to do what you want to do, and you need to be fearless,' " she said.

FARMING IN THE SUBURBS

Farmers for hire Doreen Guenther and Jenn Harrington signed a three-year contract to manage production at the Hidden Springs Community Farm.

When the subdivision was built, the developer saved the farm, Guenther said, which was certified as organic last year.

This is their first year running the CSA. Only five of the 26 acres will be in production.

"Having two brains is nice," Guenther said. "I can see why families want to do this together."

Guenther and Harrington offer 200 shares, as well as a work-share program - four hours of work a week in exchange for a share. Shares are open to anyone, not just residents of Hidden Springs; there still are some left.

"We did a preseason survey of former members," Harrington said. "They told us they want more of the basics."

NOT JUST VEGGIES

The Vogels used to raise just hogs on their Kuna farm. They exported the meat to Japan.

As the houses got closer, they felt the need to downsize and try to sell the meat in the Treasure Valley. Having a CSA is part of their farm's survival strategy.

"No way, if we expanded, would we recoup the money," said Debi Engelhardt-Vogel, who operates the farm with her husband, Eddie. "Doing this, we hope we can stay here longer."

According to a 2002 study by the American Farmland Trust, 1.2 million acres of farmland nationwide is lost annually to development - about two acres of farmland per minute.

In the six years between 1997 and 2003, Idaho lost 56,600 acres of farmland to urban development, according to the National Resources Inventory.

The Vogels raise hogs and cattle and will add about 100 chickens by midsummer. All the animals are born and raised in Kuna and butchered, frozen and USDA certified in Meridian.

"So much of the cost of meat comes from getting it places," Engelhardt-Vogel said. "When you buy meat at the store, you don't know where it came from."

The Vogels grow their own feed, sending the cattle out to pasture to forage for themselves. They don't use antibiotics or hormones, and their animals are left to grow at their own rate.

A full share in the Vogel's CSA includes 30 pounds of meat, pork and beef, for $107 a month plus tax. For subscriptions that are paid six months in advance, the Vogels pay the taxes.

"Some customers will buy a whole hog (140 pounds) and just take a beef subscription," Engelhardt-Vogel said.

They'll also have a stand at the Kuna Farmers Market.

Eddie Vogel's family has been in the hog business for more than 50 years. Debi moved to Kuna from Seattle after she and Eddie married 10 years ago.

"I hated pork when I lived in Seattle," she said. "It was tasteless. I had to marinate it."

FROM ORCHARD TO FIELD

Cathy and Chan Cabalo keep their bees in the fridge, so the pollinators think it is winter until the apple trees blossom.

The Cabalos started farming four years ago on Cathy's family orchard of about 1,000 trees. They grow four kinds of apples and three kinds of pears, along with pie cherries, prunes and plums.

"When we took over the farm, we assumed they had a clientele," Cathy Cabalo said. "Three years ago, we had a beautiful crop and no one to buy it."

She remembered how her dad used to talk about the Kuna Farmers Market, but it didn't exist when she moved home. So she and her husband set about reviving it.

"We used to go with whatever I could put in the back of a Suburban," she said.

The success of the Kuna Farmers Market led them to try a CSA this year for the first time. They plan to cultivate four acres of vegetables, a large part of which will be a you-pick pumpkin patch.

"I have to be able to fill the subscriptions and still have enough to go to market," Cathy Cabalo said. "My first number was 10, but I thought if I could do 10, I could do 20."

The Cabalos still have shares available.

Three years ago, they converted to organic practices because their daughter has allergies, Cathy said.

"We had a crop failure in the orchard when we were switching," Cathy said. "Every single apple had a sting here or a bite there. It takes a while to regain the balance."

The Cabalos feel the pressure from residential development encroaching on their farm.

They are teaming up with the Vogels to offer events, like an apple blossom festival, throughout the growing season to connect people from town with where their food comes from.

Plainly visible through the rows of bare trees in early spring, a McMansion sits at the far side of their orchard.

"Someday, somebody's gonna starve to death because we grew houses and not food," she said.

Orestes Brownson on the oppression of "Free Labour"

Orestes Brownson was a late convert to Catholicism in the 19th century, and described by the Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman as "The Greatest thinker the United States has ever produced."

From The Boston Quarterly Review; 3 (1840): 368-370

In regard to labor, two systems obtain: one that of slave labor, the other that of free labor. Of the two, the first is, in our judgment, except so far as the feelings are concerned, decidedly the least oppressive. If the slave has never been a free man, we think, as a general rule, his sufferings are less than those of the free laborer at wages. As to actual freedom, one has just about as much as the other. The laborer at wages has all the disadvantages of freedom and none of its blessings, while the slave, if denied the blessings, is freed from the disadvantages.

We are no advocates of slavery. We are as heartily opposed to it as any modern abolitionist can be. But we say frankly that, if there must always be a laboring population distinct from proprietors and employers, we regard the slave system as decidedly preferable to the system at wages.

It is no pleasant thing to go days without food; to lie idle for weeks, seeking work and finding none; to rise in the morning with a wife and children you love, and know not where to procure them a breakfast; and to see constantly before you no brighter prospect than the almshouse.

Yet these are no infrequent incidents in the lives of our laboring population. Even in seasons of general prosperity, when there was only the ordinary cry of "hard times," we have seen hundreds of people in a not very populous village, in a wealthy portion of our common country, suffering for the want of the necessaries of life, willing to work and yet finding no work to do. Many and many is the application of a poor man for work, merely for his food, we have seen rejected. These things are little thought of, for the applicants are poor; they fill no conspicuous place in society, and they have no biographers. But their wrongs are chronicled in heaven.

It is said there is no want in this country. There may be less in some other countries. But death by actual starvation in this country is, we apprehend, no uncommon occurrence. The sufferings of a quiet, unassuming but useful class of females in our cities, in general seamstresses, too proud to beg or to apply to the almshouse, are not easily told. They are industrious; they do all that they can find to do. But yet the little there is for them to do, and the miserable pittance they receive for it, is hardly sufficient to keep soul and body together.

And yet there is a man who employs them to make shirts, trousers, etc., and grows rich on their labors. He is one of our respectable citizens, perhaps is praised in the newspapers for his liberal donations to some charitable institution. He passes among us as a pattern of morality and is honored as a worthy Christian. And why should he not be, since our Christian community is made up of such as he, and since our clergy would not dare question his piety lest they should incur the reproach of infidelity and lose their standing and their salaries? . . .

The average life--working life, we mean--of the girls that come to Lowell, for instance, from Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, we have been assured, is only about three years. What becomes of them then? Few of them ever marry; fewer still ever return to their native places with reputations unimpaired. "She has worked in a factory" is almost enough to damn to infamy the most worthy and virtuous girl. . . .

Where go the proceeds of their labors? The man who employs them, and for whom they are toiling as so many slaves, is one of our city nabobs, reveling in luxury; or he is a member of our legislature, enacting laws to put money in his own pocket; or he is a member of Congress, contending for a high tariff to tax the poor for the benefit of the rich; or in these times he is shedding crocodile tears over the deplorable condition of the poor laborer, while he docks his wages 25 percent. . . . And this man too would fain pass for a Christian and a republican. He shouts for liberty, stickles for equality, and is horrified at a Southern planter who keeps slaves.

One thing is certain: that, of the amount actually produced by the operative, he retains a less proportion than it costs the master to feed, clothe, and lodge his slave. Wages is a cunning device of the devil, for the benefit of tender consciences who would retain all the advantages of the slave system without the expense, trouble, and odium of being slaveholders.

Distributism in Action

As John Médaille from The Distributist Review pointed out recently, various new endeavors are in preparation for the coming year.

We hinted in the past about a future conference. Now we are working in earnest to secure a site and date for the event. This will be a full day conference with eight speakers who have generously offered their time and support. Please return to our site for updates as developments unfold.

A Grassroots Movement Rising…Again

The original Distributist League initially met at the Devereux pub and spawned 24 like-minded branches across Great Britain within a single year.* These in turn hosted lectures and conferences, and coordinated with complimentary organizations such as Fr. McQuillan’s Catholic Land Association.

In recent years, many have made efforts to re-introduce Distributism and, as a result, discussions surrounding the topic have been increasing on the world-wide-web. These consequences are not negligible. Book publishers, online and print journals, lectures, universities, and television programs have either touched on the topic or have dedicated themselves to it.

Short-term Goals

We would like to notify our readers of the following proposed objectives we will meet:

1. The establishment of a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to educate society about and in support of Distributism. This apostolate will engage in the dissemination of educational materials, semi-annual lecture series, and conferences.

2. A chronicle in print is in development with the intent of discussing solutions to our current global dilemmas. Conceptually the magazine will concentrate on both the practical application of Distributism, as well as analysis of various movements conformes with Distributist thought. This journal will include some of the writers featured on our online archive and debates with capitalists and socialists will also be welcome.

3. Fund-raising will play a supporting role towards keeping our costs down for events and all materials. All profits will be used toward our described efforts.

You Can Have an Impact

Send us an email and let us know whether you would like to be contacted with updates and information about said events. We will not release your information to any third parties and you will not have to provide your name if you desire not to do so. Just send us an email that you wish to subscribe and please provide us with your country of residence, city and state/province. This will assist us when preparing future events.

Ultimately we would like to lecture across the globe, so please support this effort by being a part of the mailing list

Establishing a database will allow us to quantify the existing support for these ventures, and inform our readers when and where they will take place.

Please contact us at:

societyfordistributism@gmail.com **

Country of residence:
City:
State/Province:

Sending us your information will be invaluable in our efforts to coordinate these goals

Servire Deo Regnare Est!

Richard Aleman
The ChesterBelloc Mandate

*According to John Michael Thorn’s book, An Unexplored Chapter in Recent English History, these branches were founded between 1926 and 1927.
**Upon the establishment of a non-profit, we will notify our subscribers of our new email address.

Tent City

Tent city in suburbs is cost of home crisis
Subprime woes plague California
By Dana Ford

ONTARIO, California (Reuters) - Between railroad tracks and beneath the roar of departing planes sits "tent city," a terminus for homeless people. It is not, as might be expected, in a blighted city center, but in the once-booming suburbia of Southern California.

The noisy, dusty camp sprang up in July with 20 residents and now numbers 200 people, including several children, growing as this region east of Los Angeles has been hit by the U.S. housing crisis.

The unraveling of the region known as the Inland Empire reads like a 21st century version of "The Grapes of Wrath," John Steinbeck's novel about families driven from their lands by the Great Depression.

As more families throw in the towel and head to foreclosure here and across the nation, the social costs of collapse are adding up in the form of higher rates of homelessness, crime and even disease.

While no current residents claim to be victims of foreclosure, all agree that tent city is a symptom of the wider economic downturn. And it's just a matter of time before foreclosed families end up at tent city, local housing experts say.

"They don't hit the streets immediately," said activist Jane Mercer. Most families can find transitional housing in a motel or with friends before turning to charity or the streets. "They only hit tent city when they really bottom out."

Steve, 50, who declined to give his last name, moved to tent city four months ago. He gets social security payments, but cannot work and said rents are too high.

"House prices are going down, but the rentals are sky-high," said Steve. "If it wasn't for here, I wouldn't have a place to go."


'SQUATTING IN VACANT HOUSES'

Nationally, foreclosures are at an all-time high. Filings are up nearly 100 percent from a year ago, according to the data firm RealtyTrac. Officials say that as many as half a million people could lose their homes as adjustable mortgage rates rise over the next two years.

California ranks second in the nation for foreclosure filings -- one per 88 households last quarter. Within California, San Bernardino county in the Inland Empire is worse -- one filing for every 43 households, according to RealtyTrac.

Maryanne Hernandez bought her dream house in San Bernardino in 2003 and now risks losing it after falling four months behind on mortgage payments.

"It's not just us. It's all over," said Hernandez, who lives in a neighborhood where most families are struggling to meet payments and many have lost their homes.

She has noticed an increase in crime since the foreclosures started. Her house was robbed, her kids' bikes were stolen and she worries about what type of message empty houses send.

The pattern is cropping up in communities across the country, like Cleveland, Ohio, where Mark Wiseman, director of the Cuyahoga County Foreclosure Prevention Program, said there are entire blocks of homes in Cleveland where 60 or 70 percent of houses are boarded up.

"I don't think there are enough police to go after criminals holed up in those houses, squatting or doing drug deals or whatever," Wiseman said.

"And it's not just a problem of a neighborhood filled with people squatting in the vacant houses, it's the people left behind, who have to worry about people taking siding off your home or breaking into your house while you're sleeping."

Health risks are also on the rise. All those empty swimming pools in California's Inland Empire have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes, which can transmit the sometimes deadly West Nile virus, Riverside County officials say.


'TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECT'

But it is not just homeowners who are hit by the foreclosure wave. People who rent now find themselves in a tighter, more expensive market as demand rises from families who lost homes, said Jean Beil, senior vice president for programs and services at Catholic Charities USA.

"Folks who would have been in a house before are now in an apartment and folks that would have been in an apartment, now can't afford it," said Beil. "It has a trickle-down effect."

For cities, foreclosures can trigger a range of short-term costs, like added policing, inspection and code enforcement. These expenses can be significant, said Lt. Scott Patterson with the San Bernardino Police Department, but the larger concern is that vacant properties lower home values and in the long-run, decrease tax revenues.

And it all comes at a time when municipalities are ill-equipped to respond. High foreclosure rates and declining home values are sapping property tax revenues, a key source of local funding to tackle such problems.

Earlier this month, U.S. President George W. Bush rolled out a plan to slow foreclosures by freezing the interest rates on some loans. But for many in these parts, the intervention is too little and too late.

Ken Sawa, CEO of Catholic Charities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, said his organization is overwhelmed and ill-equipped to handle the volume of people seeking help.

"We feel helpless," said Sawa. "Obviously, it's a local problem because it's in our backyard, but the solution is not local."

© Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.

Vintage Distributism

"Usury", as found in "Essays of a Catholic"
by Hilaire Belloc

Suppose there is an oasis of date-palms in the desert, the water-supply of which is got at by very primitive means. There comes a financier who lends money for development. The capital is productively used; artesian wells are sunk; the water-supply is largely increased; a better organization of the date-cultivation is begun; the produce of the oasis rapidly grows from year to year; the profits legitimately demanded by the financier are a apart of the total extra annual wealth, the presence of which has been due to his enterprise. All are well-to-do; everything flourishes.
Then, whether through fatigue, or through war or pestilence, or variations in the eternal market, or some calamity of climate, things begin to go wrong. The annual wealth produced by the oasis declines. But the interest on the money lent must still be paid. As the cultivators get more and more embarrassed they borrow in order to pay that interest, and there comes a time of "overlap," during which, paradoxically enough, the banker appears to be more and more prosperous, though the community which supplies him is getting less and less so. But it is mere arithmetic that the process must come to an end. There will arrive a moment after which the cultivator can no longer find the money to pay the interest, which has long since ceased to be morally due. Mere coercion under an all-powerful police system has got the last penny out of him. The "overlap" between real prosperity and apparent-merely financial or paper- prosperity ceases; and the temporary wealth enjoyed by the lender comes to an end, as had previously come to an end the real prosperity of the borrower.
In other words, great banking prosperity in any particular period may be, and commonly is, the proof of all-round prosperity in that period; but it is not necessarily nor always so. The one is not an inevitable adjunct of the other.

"Island Hopping" to Distributism

by Athanasius

In the Second World War, the United States employed a tactic known in our history books as "Island hopping", to defeat the Japanese. Instead of merely throwing all of our military might indiscriminately, we took key Islands in order to create a path straight to the Japanese mainland.

Whenever large tasks are undertaken correctly, they are taken in this manner, by prioritizing and making gains step by step, even if the gains added up do not equal the over all objective, they may in fact lead to it.

Today however, the way men engage in accomplishing tasks suggests that they don't understand this philosophy. Likewise they look at step by step strategies as cumbersome rather than throwing weight at the problem. It would be as if they were to look down on General MacArthur and chide him for making his troops fight to the death with the Japanese over a mile wide strip of island.

The greatest example of that today is in the political process here in the United States. When men try to take on the institutionalized 2-party juggernaut of "Republicrat" and "Democan", they usually aim for the mainland without securing the island path by running presidential candidates who have no recognition and whose message is rarely heard.

"Island hopping" a third party into existence takes time and patience, perhaps as much as ten years to run candidates at a local level before acquiring state and later national recognition, by which one could compete with the big parties. At present any 3rd party candidate running for president will be boxed out every time because of the lack of support and recognition, like a military strike for the main target that goes astray for lack of support and back up.

This is also true when we consider Distributism. There can be no question of walking out with a referendum to establish a distributist society, nor of laws enacted to establish Distributism without the edifice of support first. Thus like MacArthur, we must identify a) The goal and b) the steps to get there.

A. The Distributist society is one in which private productive property is widespread but limited so that the availability of property will always be present.

According to Belloc not every man needs to own his own property, but only a sufficient number to mark the society with a character of ownership. As Chesterton said, if a man chooses not to own, that's his own business, but the opportunity that is not present today for the rest of society will be. Another way to put it, is that we are going to create more Capitalists than the elite over at Wall Street. Laws are in force to keep the large unit from destroying the small, or the small from becoming too large, and in this fashion protecting ownership by the many.

B. The steps to get there are suggested best and most orderly in Hilaire Belloc's book An Essay on the Restoration of Property. Yet these are by no means the only ways to do it, nor is it some be all and end all. Belloc proposed a process by which a restoration might take place in England in his day. He wrote specifically of England because "If it can be done in England, it could be done anywhere." The beautiful thing about Distributism is that it is not limited to what the founders believed or thought, but is eminently adaptable. Thus it is not called Chester-Bellocism, because while their ideas serve as a strong foundation, they are not a fixed and stagnated list of proposals. Even within Distributism, there were disagreements. Arthur Penty believed in government price setting (for most of his life) while Chesterton and Belloc thought it was a rotten idea.

The first step, without which Distributism could never flourish, is to create the desire in men for ownership. If men do not want to own there is little chance of re-establishing ownership. There are many ways in which this could be done, certainly apologetics and spreading more information about Distributism is a start. Before I read Chesterton and Belloc's works I scarcely would have aspired to owning my livelihood. However even that would not be sufficient to sway most men who have now become accustomed to living as proletarians. The first step is to make ownership a thing possible for men to consider it is to remove the blatant bias in our laws and financial system for large entities. We do not have to favor small units necessarily, just make it so a small business could succeed.

Here I mean in the way of government taxes, fees, and endless rounds of paperwork and tax forms, which are easily dealt with by large units with their legions of law firms, and their large bank book, but not by the small business which must pay the same fees as with a smaller budget. Let us say if the government was to remove all inspection fees (but not the inspections!) on small businesses which made less than $60,000 a year (that figure after of course expenses such as salaries and taxes, accounting of losses, etc.); or minimizing the taxes on such businesses. My own Father was self employed for many years, and made somewhere near that amount, but then had to pay half of it to the government between state and federal taxes and fees, even absurd things like "use" taxes for his equipment. When one thinks of 50 cents of every dollar he makes going to Washington, it is little wonder he must think twice about a business. For larger operations, not only does 15 cents of every dollar go for Social Security, but 7 1/2 cents of every dollar he pays his employees must go to the government, while they pay the other 7 1/2 cents.

Perhaps the biggest corruption and scandal of the 20th century is the government thievery we otherwise call "Social Security" which became a big blank check that increasingly demands more and pays less, and now can scarcely meet its obligations. A reform in this obscene and ridiculous theft by the government under the guise of retirement care which allowed small businesses to keep that 15 cents of each dollar would be a huge boon to ownership. This is even before we have considered the points of Belloc's essay.

The next step after the desire for ownership has been established is to make it more possible to own property, and that is by actively penalizing the purchase of small institutions by larger ones, penalize mergers, and leave no or a tiny fee for small entities acquiring property from larger ones. The large institution can always shoulder the cost, but the small one cannot, thus you remove that penalty. Thus if a man wants to own a mechanic shop, (and following the earlier suggested, the $60,000 which he must make before he can begin to make $1 of profit to pay for groceries and bills has dwindled to something more reasonable at this time, like $10,000) and a large national chain such as Jiffy Lube (known for its poor service) comes in and buys his shop, they receive a large tax for doing so, something like 60 or 70% of the sale. If a man on the other hand wanted to buy a failing Jiffy Lube (again known for its shoddy service as many thousands can attest who have paid for new air filters several times and yet have the same one!) and make it into a small mechanic business, he has no tax on the sale, or perhaps 5%, and receives fees proportionally smaller for inspection. This process can be applied to the small grocer, the self employed contractor, co-owned or employee owned stores, etc. And particularly small agriculture. Instead of subsidizing farmers, which hurts them in the long run and hurts farmers around the world at present, we should be removing taxes and fees on agricultural output which is under a certain amount and raise on those of an amount to constitute agribusiness.

Ultimately, the next step must deal with Usery, which the Catholic Church has always and everywhere condemned. Hilaire Belloc gives an excellent description of Usery, it is money charged for money, rather than money charged for a productive loan. If a bank loans money, and demands a payment of so much extra of the loan regardless of the use and production from that money, this is what the Church has always condemned. Yet, if money should be given, even by a bank, and a percentage of the profits earned (plus the money back) are demanded, then the Church has nothing to say because one is entitled to the profits his money earned, just as the one who borrows the money is entitled to the profits he earned with the money.

Yet Usery is the source of the power of modern banking institutions, and it is the agent that maintains capital in the hands of but a few. It allows capital to be hoarded by a bunch of investment firms in New York and Geneva, when the community is starving for the substance to even make ends meet. The substantial credit card debt of the majority of our nation should be sufficient to attest to that, and the frankly criminal FICO system which is used as a pretext of denying even jobs to men who have made even a few mistakes. In some places you can not even rent an apartment if you have a "credit score below so much".

This power has to be positively broken in order for ownership to be achieved. The best way is to outlaw usery and limit the amount demanded on loans to the positive profit from it. Whether or not this can even be done in our modern plutocracies which we misname "democracy" is something which remains to be seen. The chief power in our system is in the hands of banks. I personally would not be surprised to discover that all of our elections were rigged by the same, but that is positive conspiracy theory for which I have no evidence. I am not even sure if it is true, it is only a thought.

Next, unrestrained competition needs to be reigned in. This is what Pope Pius XI tells us in Quadragesimo Anno, is the "poison spring from which all evils flow." A larger unit should not have the power to ruin the smaller one by taking losses the small man can never take with the aim of ruining his livelihood and taking the market share at the expense of the small man's family. The truth is, we are not free to do with our property what we please. Thus the state, in the form of the local authority (we'll get to local power over central power next) needs to set laws curbing unjust competition.

Local currencies help local communities establish a local economy, and as such allow local reckoning for goods and abilities to pay through barter or through other means, and keep the power over currency away from banks. Thus they go along way toward curbing unjust competition by giving a local standard for which companies must operate. To do this in our country the Federal Reserve Act must be repealed, and the Federal Reserve must be completely destroyed. It is a corrupt institution which holds more power over our country than all three branches of Government combined.

Lastly, if all of this can be done, the focus has to be on a local, rather than national or heaven forbid "global" economy. Global trade should only be carried out for goods which can not be produced locally. For local economies we need local power restored and centralized authority minimized. This is because a community has the most control over its local authorities and the least control over its central authorities. If a mayor wants to use emminent domain to steal your house and give it to the rich, some protest of 10,000 men is sufficient to detour him, since ignoring the protest would be the end of his political life. Yet, when the Supreme Court says that the government can steal your house and give it to the rich, what can you do?

Thus for local communities you need local bodies, such as can train, take on apprentices, make loans for property out of the overall group possessions, etc. Co-ownership of large machinery and factories for example would be a positive good in that direction, overseen by local authorities. A community will be more outraged and take more action over someone losing his property to unjust competition than a central authority which is more or less accountable to no one. Yet all of this hinges on people wanting the property. As I have mentioned before in my writings, Distributism can not be established by a minority over a majority like Capitalism or Communism, it must be something which comes from society itself as it did at the end of the Roman Empire in the West.

All of these of course are ways that it could be done, not ways that it must be done. Distributism is capable of adapting to new needs and new ideas, it remains the same in as much as it makes its aim for widespread ownership of property.

Books: Modernity's Abuse of an Art

by Donald Goodman

Having read lately the words of the great Hilaire Belloc on modernity's ignorance of books and their importance (I'd encourage readers who aren't familiar with the work to read through it themselves, at Belloc Speaks: On the Decline of the Book), I thought I'd extend that to the decline of the mechanical art of the book---that is, to the simple make-up of a good, sturdy book. Like most crafts, that of bookbinding has suffered a vast decline in the modern age; but once, the make-up of a book was a piece of great artistry and talent.

Most modern readers will blink a little bit at this and, after remarking that they like a well-put-together book as much as anyone, will be perfectly satisfied with their paperbacks or hardcovers and never think another thing about it. But the fact is that modernity, thanks to the sort of thinking that gives rise to both capitalism and socialism, has destroyed a once great art, an art that deserves learning and maintaining for our descendents. That is the subject of this article.

I begin by saying that this article owes absolutely nothing to my own skill in this ancient art, which is slight and halting. For the knowledge contained herein, I am indebted first and foremost to the master binders at Colonial Williamsburg, who spent four good years answering my constant inquiries despite the fact that they didn't even know my name. Much of the technical knowledge, which could not be gained without an apprenticeship, I have acquired through reading, most especially Douglas Cockerell's Bookbinding and the Care of Books and Edith Diehl's Bookbinding: Its Background and Technique. Those interested in this most important craft are encouraged to seek further information there.

Books were once precious; purchasing one might take a month of an average man's wages, and the vast majority of the populace owned none or only one or two (generally the Bible or a Primer). The rich owned many, and the Church, of course, had many; but each of these was a work of art in itself, even speaking purely mechanically, independently of its content. Books carried knowledge, and knowledge is power; they imparted wisdom and understanding to those who understood them, and were formed and cared for appropriately considering this great, almost mystical, property which is uniquely theirs.

The book was a long time in developing, and always got better and more sensible until the arrival of modern economical philosophies rendered art a financial liability and artlessness an inducement to profit. A brief history of this development, drawn more or less entirely from Diehl's excellent work mentioned above, will be helpful in determining what I mean.

The first set of records put together for a specific purpose was the "foundation cylinder." Symbols were inscribed upon the outside of the cylinder, and the reader turned it as he read; when he had turned it all the way around, he had read the entire "book." This is, clearly, a cumbersome way of recording things, and is suitable only for short passages. A better form had to be devised.

It was followed by the clay tablet, a simpler though larger form of record, which was first used by the ancient Babylonians. Often the writing would continue from tablet to tablet, and they would be covered and organized by subject matter on shelves, just as books are. The first library in recorded history was of clay tablets, at Nineveh. It was destroyed along with that city at the fall of the Assyrian empire.

The classical scroll was first used in Egypt; papyrus sheets were pasted together, and the writer simply continued pasting until he was finished. The roll was then tightened and placed in a cylindrical container. This held writings very compactly, but was cumbersome to read, requiring the unrolling of the scroll in such a way as to prevent its complete unravelling but still permitting reading. The material of papyrus was used for millenia, but greatly limited the form of records. It was too brittle to be folded without breaking, which meant that it could never be used for a book. So the scroll was the only acceptable form until a better writing medium was devised.

That medium came with the invention of vellum. The skins of animals had been used for writing before, but they had always been prepared by tanning, like other leather. Vellum, however, is prepared not by tanning, but by another process too complicated to enter into here, though Diehl treats it in some detail. For a time vellum was used in scrolls just as papyrus was; however, the material permitted a superior form of record to develop.

Scrolls were generally inscribed (that is, written upon) in one of two ways. First, the lines would sometimes be continued all along the length of the scroll, then returned to the beginning. This was somewhat cumbersome for later reading, so the second form developed: continue the lines along the length of the scroll for some sensible distance, then return to just below where the first line began and start again. Continue doing this until one reached the bottom of the scroll, then start a new column. Essentially, this made a scroll a long line of pages lined up one after another. The new medium of vellum allowed these pseudo-pages to become pages in fact.

Somewhere in the Middle East, someone got the idea of folding the scroll, to make it into a pile of these "pages" that could be unfolded as one read. Two boards (unattached to the folded "scroll") were placed on top and underneath to keep the folds flat. This, of course, lent itself to another development: why not cut the folds off on one side, and keep the other side bound together, allowing one to just flip through the pages rather than having to unfold one side and fold up the other as one read? When the backs of these books were bound, and the boards on top and bottom were attached (now to protect the pages, rather than merely to keep them flattened), the early Christian codex was born. This was, for all intents and purposes, our book.

Such is the power of this seemingly simple form that no less a rationalist and scientific utopian than Isaac Asimov, in "The Ancient and the Ultimate," described the perfect form for preserving our thoughts and ideas for the future and for other men: nothing other than our ancient, perfect book. Yet despite its apparent simplicity, man took four thousand years to develop it, eighteen hundred years perfecting it---and only one hundred and fifty destroying it. But I'm afraid I'm moving ahead of myself; the book has still only just been made.

Throughout the Christian era, the book's form was strengthened and made more permanent, more eduring, to befit most of the material which was being bound, the classics of pagan and Christian philosophy and, of course, of the Christian religion, especially the Scriptures and books of the Sacraments. Gradually, the boards came to be attached to the manuscript itself; cords were sewn to the signatures, or leaves, of the book, and they were then laced into the boards (generally oaken, at least in northern Europe), ensuring the permanency of the binding. These boards would then be covered by leather of many types, from pigskin to lamb. The medieval craftsmen withheld no effort or expense in their quest to make permanent, beautiful volumes; the cords used for binding were not single, but double, and made of leather; even the head and tail guards were sewn throughout and laced into the boards. This was the age when binding, as such, truly came into being; these books would last for centuries, and when they finally did wear out, after five or six hundred years, they could be unbound, the paper still intact, and rebound with new boards and covers.

The medieval diligence was relaxed somewhat with the invention of printing; the volume of books was simply too great to permit such extravagance with every project. However, permanency and beauty was never sacrificed; the cords were no longer doubled, perhaps, and the boards were no longer wooden; the head and tail guards were not sewn throughout, nor were they laced in. But the quality of these books was still superb; and the stronger, older bindings could still be executed for books of particularly lasting value, like the Scriptures or the breviary.

A summary of the condition of the book at this point (call it the late eighteenth century) would be helpful. Books of any lasting value (that is, everything but propaganda tracts, almanacs, and the like) were printed mostly on paper, not vellum; however, this was rag paper, not wood pulp paper, and would last literally for centuries without deterioration of any significant kind. I personally have handled four-hundred-year-old rag paper and found it still supple, not at all brittle, and though it had been handled repeatedly and even occasionally roughly it was in perfectly legible and sturdy order.

Many "pages" of the book were printed on a single sheet of this rag paper; the bookbinder took these large sheets (often called "broadsides," on which newspapers are still printed) and folded them appropriately so that the pages would all appear in the proper sequence. These folded sheets are known as "signatures." The binder then pressed the signatures for several days to ensure that they would lay perfectly flat; this done, he put the back of the book (what we now would call, improperly for modern books, the "binding") against cords, made of acid-free linen (medieval binders used leather, stronger but stiffer), generally five in number, and sewed each and every signature, by hand, to each and every cord, adding a "kettle-stitch" about halfway between the final cord and the end on both the top and bottom of the back. He used linen thread for this, as well; cotton deteriorates too quickly, and tends to be weak under pressure. He later laced the cords firmly into the front and back boards (what we'd call, properly for modern bindings, the "covers"), to ensure their firm attachment.

The signatures sewn, he began a complicated process known as "backing," in which the back ("binding") of the book was treated so that it would open freely and easily (indeed, such books could be opened and folded back on themselves without any harm to the back itself, though with today's books such activity is disastrous). This involved many steps, not least of which involved covering the whole of the back in a fine layer of hide glue (too much would make the back brittle; too little, weak). It was important to ensure that the curvature of the back was precisely correct, or the book would be too "tight" (that is, it would not rest open, but constantly try to
close itself by the force of its back). Furthermore, the few signatures at the beginning and the end of the book had to be knocked down, so that, when the boards were added, they would form a tight joint, without knocking them down so much that they would overlap, and possibly lose parts of their texts into the binding. This was rightly considered the most delicate part of the process, short of decorating the actual covers.

After the book was backed, the binder would put on the head and tail pieces (small lines of linen on the top and bottom of the back; these prevented the pages from getting caught or worn when the book was removed from or replaced on the shelf, and were often quite an art form in themselves).

Then the boards would be added. These were not simply pasted to the end papers (the blank sheets on the top and bottom of the book), as they are in modern books, but were firmly attached and seen as an integral part of the volume. When the book was backed, the binder had knocked down the two edges of the curve to provide a spot for the joint between the back and the boards. Now, the boards were fitted into that joint. The location of the cords were marked on the boards; the boards were removed, and the binder then punched holes in them at the proper locations. He then replaced the boards in the joints, one at a time, and laced the cords (already sewn, remember, individually to each and every signature) through the boards. Care was taken that the boards were not attached too firmly, lest the book not open far enough or easily enough; properly, the book should, when opened and set on a table, rest opened without any tendency to close itself, and without any damage being done to the binding (note that in modern books this behavior can only be achieved by "cracking" the binding, which completely ruins what little strength it has). This completed, the book was ready for the final step: the covering.

The binder had several choices for covering, conventionally known as the quarter-cover, the half-cover, and the full-cover. The quarter cover consisted of leather wrapped around the back of the book and over part of the sides; it was rarely used. The half-cover, much more common, consisted of a quarter cover embellished by leather also wrapped around the two fore corners; it was common for utilitarian volumes like bankbooks. Finally, the full cover, utilized for any book of lasting and significant value, consisted of leather wrapped around the entirety of the book. This cover would often be decorated, as explained below.

We'll presume a full-cover here. The leather was first treated; not chemically, but with a special blade called a "paring knife." The leather was pared, or thinned to the appropriate thickness. This had to be done with great care, lest the leather be thinned to the point that it was no longer strong enough to protect the volume. Various parts of the leather were kept thicker, and various thinner, depending on where strength and flexibility was most needed. The precise spots would vary based on the book itself and how its construction had proceeded. Especially important to pare were the edges; these had to be wrapped around the edges of the boards, and if too thick would prevent the book from closing flush to the pages, but if too thin would be prone to tearing from the edges of the boards.

Different types of leather would be selected. In medieval times, especially in northern Europe, pigskin was common; this was strong, of course, but also comparatively inflexible. By the heyday of the binder's craft, the early to mid eighteenth century, two types of leather were recognized as the best: skiver, or lambskin, which was strong but so thin that it scarcely required any paring, and Moroccan goatskin, which was highly valued for its skiver-like characteristics combined with its delightful reddish color.

The binder then applied a layer of wheat paste to the entirety of the inside of the leather; he then stretched the leather in one piece around the whole of the book. This had to be done quickly; the moisture of the wheat paste expanded the leather, and it would shrink as it dried, so it was important that it be in its proper place before the shrinkage began. Especially difficult were wrapping around the corners and at the binding, as the leather had to be folded properly behind itself at the binding, where there was no board for it to be wrapped around. Some edges, once the cover was on and dried, would be snipped; then the end papers were pasted on, over the edges of the leather. Remember that this was rag paper, and the paste did not have the ruinous effect that it has on cheap modern pulp.

It is important to note that for the master binder of binding's golden age, the cover served two purposes: strength and beauty. It did not hold the book together; it made the book stronger, more resistent to the elements, easier to use, and more beautiful. But the binding, the part that really held the book together in one piece, had already been done before the leather was even pared. That is, it was the binding part of the book: the backs of the signature sewn to the cords and properly backed. The cover added to its strength, but it did not form it. The book was firm and strong before the leather was ever added.

The leather would then be decorated, if desired. This decoration could be as elaborate or as simple as the nature of the book and the desire and talent of the binder were able to justify. The cover was decorated either with blind tooling (simple designs imprinted on the leather) or gold leaf (blind tooling into which real gold leaf was placed). Many binders created works not only of solid material craftsmanship, but also of stunning artistic beauty in this way.

Of course, shorter-lived books were bound differently; once pressed and flattened, the binder simply punched three holes from top to bottom on the back, then laced it together through them with some sturdy linen cords. This would do for works of only transient significance, such as almanacs, short stories, and political tracts (and was indeed considerably sturdier than most of even the strongest modern bindings). But lasting works were done as just described.

This, then, is the condition of the book after fifteen hundred years of development, the art being passed down and improved from master to apprentice for a millenium and a half. The book is a craft and an art; its focus is on quality, strength, and beauty first, and the profitability of the trade only second. Then, however, enter modernity and capitalism; the whole art begins to break down.

The nineteenth century began the doom of this great art. The first blow was the development of wood pulp paper; this supplanted almost entirely (and continues to supplant) the use of the studier and nearly immortal rag paper which had previously been used. This paper begins to deteriorate after a mere decade or so; if treated very well, it may last for a century or more, but only if treated very well. But the old rag paper lasted centuries even when treated badly and used heavily. This was unquestionably a step down, and began the change for bookbinding from long-lasting art to merely profitable business.

Bindings began to be reduced in quality. With signatures sewn strongly and beautifully on cords, the cords show through on the back, providing a beautiful and functional reminder of the book's solid craftsmanship and strength. For whatever reason, however, it became stylish to have smooth backs, and so binders, succombing to the all-important profit motive, often sacrificed the integrity of their craft on the altar of increased gain. They sawed into the backs of the signatures and embedded the cords within; this significantly reduced the strength of the back and the longevity of the paper, which with the introduction of wood paper had already been immensely reduced. Eventually, they began to sew the signatures on mere flimsy tapes, rather than the sturdy linen, or even leather, cords; this gave rise to the phenomenon of books only five or ten years old literally falling apart at their seams, the bindings sadly lasting even less time than the low-quality paper they attempt to hold together.

Soon, even true binding was abandoned; rather than binding the entire set of signatures together, a mere fraction of the signatures were sewn on three, rather than the usual and sensible five, cords. Soon, those cords were even eliminated, being replaced with flimsy plastic tapes. Most of the job of "binding" (that is, holding the signatures together) was now done by a layer of paste wiped over the back, a sad substitute for the strong bindings of the prior age. Those flimsy tapes were no longer laced into the boards, either, thus truly binding together the signatures, the boards, and the cover, but rather the boards were attached to the signatures only by the endpapers, pasted to the inside of the boards (once only one of the many ways in which the book was held together), and the cover (rarely if ever leather) merely wrapped around that, completely separate from the binding. This would rightly have shocked the traditional binder; the book is no longer really bound, but merely cased, with boards on either side, going almost all the way back to the old codex. The art, and even the trade, of really binding had died; now mere casing, almost universally mechanical, controls.

And all this decay, remember, is entirely hardcover; we have not even begun to mention the inferiority of paperback "bindings."

Why did this happen? For the same reason that all the great traditional crafts have been broken: the love of money. Binders (and, more often, their employers) could sell more books for less, and thus make greater profit, the lower the quality of their bindings. The average person, unschooled in the ancient art, won't know the difference, thinks a book is a book, and will simply buy without worrying about it. This is the death of crafts and the severe wounding of art, and a capitalist will never worry about it. Why should he? It must be good; it's increased the profit margins.

That's the reason that, for example, great architecture is practically never produced, why the capitalist age has never produced anything even remotely comparable to the Gothic cathedrals or the great palaces of the old world: there's no money in it. People need places to stay and do things; they'll stay and do things in a mediocre building just as readily as in a beautiful one, and it's much cheaper to build that way. They'll fancy a building up, of course; people like perks. But beauty isn't always profitable, so capitalism doesn't need it. Herein lies one of the greatest evils of capitalism (and with it, socialism, though for an entirely different reason): it kills art in the name of merely material gain.

This situation in books is parallel to that of many once-great arts, and many arts which could become great if not stifled by the all-powerful necessity of seeking the greatest possible profit with the least possible expenditure. What can the distributist do, practically, to help slow, or even reverse, this process? What we can do for books will provide some principles for what we can do with everything, even though naturally the details will change according to the subject.

For books, the first step is the most important: print fewer books. There is no need for the vast quantity of print that is churned out of publishing houses year after year. Certainly, there is no need to go back to copying vital manuscripts by hand; a large volume of books is a valuable and important thing. But a large volume of books is useful only if it is a large volume of good books. Can we honestly claim that the books which moderns are constantly cranking from the presses are vital to human flourishing? Some of them are, certainly; but the vast majority are frivolous, unnecessary, and often positively harmful publications that ought never to have been printed. They are published not because they will edify their readers, enlighten the populace, or serve to build virtue in society; they are published because they will sell well. To foster the mechanical art of books we must eliminate such frivolous publication. The fewer the books and the more important their content, the more likely that men will see their value and prepare them mechanically in a manner worthy of their subjects. Further, the fewer the books, the fewer men will buy; this will not only focus their attention more on the contents of those books, having less frivolous nonsense to read, but will make men more willing to spend the necessary funds on quality binding for those books, since they are buying many fewer. Granted, this point is beyond the purview of the binder and within that of the printer, but it's a necessary step in the process.

The second step is equally simple: guage the quality of binding based on the importance of the book. For example, when binding a copy of Holy Writ, the best of bindings is not good enough; we must always execute the most permanent possible binding for such volumes. Books of the Sacraments must be likewise treated with the utmost respect. This is difficult to understand, sometimes, in these postconciliar days, when new "translations" and "editions" and outright revisions of the sacred rites seem to be published every week or two, but when the world returns to some measure of sanity it will thank us for our care and foresight. Sacred books deserve only the best; we would not offer the Holy Mass with a mere wineglass, and neither should we hold our Scriptures in a low-quality paper case. Some books are more important than others, and ought to be treated as such. This will allow the binder to handle a large volume of books, and even make a profit from them, while still preserving the full glory of his craft where it is truly needed.

Most importantly, of course, and also the sine qua non, is what distributists have been saying since the notion of distributism was invented: institute and live out the Social Reign of Christ the King. Remember Christ, and remember that greed should not be the driving force of the economy. Encourage and enable craftsmen to free themselves from their employers and become their own masters, which will also free themselves from the demands of corporate profitability. Then, remind craftsmen that there are more important things than turning an ever-increasing profit far beyond what anyone needs to maintain themselves and their families. Hearken them back to the guilds of past ages, who carefully set their prices to ensure both affordability of their products, sustainability of their craftsmen, and, most relevant here, the integrity of their craft. Modernity doesn't care about craftsmanship unless it makes them money, and in this case it just doesn't make enough for the ever-increasing appetite of modern man. But a craftsman loves and values his craft; if he can make a living, he will settle for his living, and refuse to sacrifice his craft for the sake of getting more.

Our society does not encourage craftsmen; it encourages businessmen. Thus, it does not encourage production of works of craftsmanship, but rather of money. Let us try to change our society; let us focus once again on using our God-given talents not to produce greater quantities of digitized green paper, but on producing works of value, of beauty, and of grace. Only by submitting ourselves and our society to the rule of Christ the King can we overcome our greed and selfishness and focus instead on doing good. Let us work for and welcome that reign; only in this way can we regain this and all the other lost crafts and glories that we once raised up to our Savior.

I conclude with the prayer to our Almighty Father, that through the intercession of the glorious and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, the ancient art of bookbinding might return to its former glory, and the holy and elevated things will again be esteemed and treated as the precious things that they are. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Who founded Distributism? A response to TIA

by Athanasius

There is a particular logical fallacy that is employed very frequently by the left and the right in national politics to reject an idea without even once engaging any of its ideas, or accurately depicting it to begin with. This fallacy is called "guilt by association". What it means is a syllogism is constructed in the following manner: A believes B. A is bad, therefore B is bad too. Take for example, any argument out of political debates of our day. Because a small percentage of Catholic priests are guilty of molesting young adolescent males, all Catholic priests are presumed to be involved in something bad. This is a clear case of guilt by association. Or, liberals eat organic food, liberals are bad, therefore organic food is bad. This type of absurd logic governs the lives of many people.

It is unusual however to find the same thing on the conservative side of things, coming from a Traditionalist entity which should be conscious of how logical and rational discourse ought to be carried out according to Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy.

Tradition in Action, which is a pro-Capitalist organization, has two articles attacking Distributism on their website. Interestingly, none of them deal with Distributism proper, none of them make an attempt to engage the ideas behind Distributism or its foundation in Catholic social teaching.

Both instead, engage in guilt by association and other empty reasoning which can be summarized thus: These two people are unlikeable, they were Distributists, therefore Distrubtism is unlikeable.

Here we will consider the first article, Eric Gill, the pedophile founder of Distributism, by Patrick Odou,TIA makes every misrepresentation possible, and then expects you to nod your head because, after all, Mr. Gill was a sexual reprobate.

A father and brother like Gill should raise the indignation of Catholics! They should have an equally strong rejection of any of his ideas. It is my opinion that this man should have been removed from society and put in a psychiatric hospital for sex maniacs. It seems absurd that a man with these moral patterns should be accepted and followed as an ideologue who knows what is good or bad for society. Notwithstanding, today we can see, even among Catholics, the name of this depraved father and brother being promoted as a founder of Distributism.....

Now, after studying Eric Gill, I see that Catholics are also being advised to stomach the terrible morals of a pornographic and blasphemous author. It is incomprehensible that any Catholic would suggest lending an ear to such a filthy creature.

The italicized portion should be of concern. What if he had an idea that also happened to be right? What happened to St. Thomas' principle that one should reject what is false from sources such as pagans and accept what is true?

Let us go one step further. Let us agree wholeheartedly that Eric Gill did what the author of this article alleges, and let us also agree Mr. Gill's art is profane and abominable, and that Catholics should be rightly indignant over his life. Based on my own research into Mr. Gill I have no reason to doubt any of that. The man was driven to perversion and had problems to say the least. He's despicable. How does that make him a "founder" of Distributive principles and how does that take away from the movements arguments. Furthermore, can Mr Odou point to any Distributist that has asked Catholics to accept Mr. Gill's aberrant morality? A further search of the Tradition in Action site reveals only people claiming Mr. Odou's facts were wrong. Nowhere do we find anyone saying that we must accept his life or imitate it. Morever Mr. Odou provides no citation from Gill's works on Distributism, or the article which appears in Distributist Perspectives that suggests any connection between Mr. Gill's disgusting private life and the belief that property should be well divided in society and the rights of the common man to own property should be protected against those of the wealthy. This is because there are none. Can no one say that because one pervert once said it? If so, then no one can be a Christian because one of the original founders betrayed his master for 30 pieces of silver. In fact, his master was known to eat with sinners and touch lepers. Probably not a good thing there.

In all honestly that is what it comes down to. The argument of Mr. Odou and all of TIA's remarks on Distributism are specious. It would be one thing if the article were to ask why Distributists would include a work by Gill in an anthology. I have the exact same question for IHS' editors. I would rather not be associated with Mr. Gill either, and his artwork would make better firewood than anything else. Did Mr. Odou or TIA attempt to contact the editors of IHS to find out why? They rightly ask the questions, but did they do anything that amounts to 2 minutes to write an e-mail? No.

Not only does that say nothing about Distributism, Gill is also not "the" founder much less a founder. By far the founders are Chesterton and Belloc. Without them there would not be a Distributist movement for Gill to be apart of. Chesterton and Belloc themselves derive their ideas from Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI who spells it out more clearly. In His encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI calls Free Market Capitalism a poisoned spring from which all evils flow. Perhaps Mr. Odou is going to suggest to us that Chesterton, Belloc and Pius XI were all pedophiles too, all because Eric Gill was? That follows from what he has already written, even though I am sure he would not say such a thing. It has nothing to do with "following Eric Gill", it has everything to do with following Catholic social teaching. If all he had to say was why are Distributists making use of this man who is a British version of Kinsey, I should echo him rather loudly. But he has gone much further and suggested that Distributism is to be rejected because this man held to it. That is intellectually irresponsible. Should we reject Catholicism because Popes such as Nicholas II, Alexander the VI and John XII broke the vows and engaged in sexual experimentation (and with the exception of Nicholas II while they were Pope!)? After all, we should not believe anything they held to!

It is shocking to see an organization dedicated to Catholic Tradition using shallow arguments more reminiscent of Communist smear tactics than clear Thomistic logic, but there you have it.

Lastly, in other articles such as this one, Mr. Odou claims again that all these men must have been in on something bad together, after all look, Eric Gill drew a picture of Belloc, he was Vice President of the League. What he forgets is men who live lives of sin often do so in secret, and unfortunately for Mr. Gill he didn't get away with it, what was wrought in darkness has been brought to light, and his fault will always injure a good cause. It is eminently possible that Mr. Gill could be guilty of all these things and more, and no one ever knew about it. Often people such as this have a certain dynamism that attracts people, or that leaves a lasting and respectable impression so that when you find out that such and such has happened, you are quite shocked. One would need that type of dynamism in order to keep his wife quiet (who undoubtedly knew all of this) and to get his daughters to allow an act of incest even at age 16 without all of this coming out in his lifetime. It is also possible that such people can have fundamental disconnects between something they acknowledge as true, and something they do which they know is evil. Can we not find Popes of this nature in history? Mr. Odou has failed to produce anything from Eric Gill's writings on Distributism that would suggest anything wrong with Distributism itself. The only thing produced was testimony from Gill himself proving he was a sick man and needed the grace of Jesus Christ to be saved, and we commend such twisted men to the mercy of our Lord.

From The ChesterBelloc Mandate:

Editor's Note: The past few months have been quite busy for two reasons. The first is due to a book in the works. This book will be Chesterton and the Distributists as has not been seen since the early days of Distributism. The title of this work will be Found Wandering. More information on this will be posted as details are confirmed.

The second is as follows. We at the ChesterBelloc Mandate have considered and gathered information to form a possible Distributist conference by the end of 2008. This conference, and we might add it is not definite, will be successful by the attendance of our readers and those interested in Distributism.

While certain names have already been spoken to as possible guest speakers, many of whom our readers are familiar with, none have been confirmed as of yet. Talks would include topics about the origins of Distributism, economic history, the Distributist economic model, and what we can do to further Distributism in contemporary society. This would start as a one day conference and hopefully blossom in the years to come as a two-day. Lunch would be offered as an option to attendees as well as conference rates at the hotel for anyone wishing to stay overnight.

You can help.

As we need to get a pulse for the growing interest in Distributism and whether or not a conference like this is desired, we ask our readers to vote in our poll located at the sidebar. We ask that only those considering attendance vote. It is understandable that we have many readers overseas, however we ask that those voting are seriously considering attending a conference of this nature, here in the States.

The conference would most likely take place in New Jersey or New York City, both great locations for anyone attending in the New England and Tri-State area, as well as affording those in the Maryland and Washington areas the possibility of attendance. Of course, we hope some of those attending would consider flying or other means of transportation to attend, but we believe the Tri-State area is our best chance for exposure.

To vote, please go to The ChesterBelloc Mandate.

Thank you all for your patience these past couple of months. May this year be promising for all of us as we restore Christendom.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Brief excerpt from Dorothy Day
The Catholic Worker, February 1954

"We need to look back to the city states of Italy (all of their good aspects, as Kropotkin did) and to the guilds; to our own early American principles, "he governs best who governs least;" we need to study such a teacher as Don Luigi Sturzo who held political office and founded a party which worked towards credit unions, cooperatives, labor unions, land for the people, as the beginning of an order in which men could be conscious of their dignity and responsibility; we need to consider the principle of subsidiarity when we talk of authority and freedom.

Everything needs to be broken down into smaller units to be workable and according to man's nature, whether it is States, cities, factories. A union, a cooperative, is no better than the men in it, than the locals or cells which make it up.

Man must be responsible, in other words, to exercise his freedom which is God's greatest gift to him. The greatest message which Peter Maurin had for us was this reminder of man's freedom."