What do you think?
Rate this book
The Servile State
Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953) was one of the most respected men of his day for his learning, insight, wit, and brilliant literary style. Author of over a hundred books and articles, Belloc was a journalist, polemicist, social and political analyst, literary critic, poet, and novelist.
The Servile State has endured as his most important political work. The effect of socialist doctrine on capitalist society, Belloc wrote, is to produce a third thing different from either—the servile state, today commonly called the welfare state.
The Servile State has endured as his most important political work. The effect of socialist doctrine on capitalist society, Belloc wrote, is to produce a third thing different from either—the servile state, today commonly called the welfare state.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1912
128 people are currently reading
1718 people want to read
About the author
Hilaire Belloc
723 books401 followersPeople considered Joseph Hilaire Pierre René Belloc, French-born British writer, as a master of light English prose and also knew widely his droll verse, especially
The Bad Child's Book of Beasts
in 1896.
Sharp wit of Hilaire Belloc, an historian, poet, and orator, extended across literary output and strong political and religious convictions. Oxford educated this distinguished debater and scholar. Throughout his career, he prolifically across a range of genres and produced histories, essays, travelogues, poetry, and satirical works.
Cautionary Tales for Children collects best humorous yet dark morals, and historical works of Hilaire Belloc often reflected his staunch Catholicism and critique of Protestant interpretations. He led advocates of an economic theory that promotes and championed distribution of small-scale property ownership as a middle ground between capitalism and socialism alongside Gilbert Keith Chesterton, his close friend.
In politics, Hilaire Belloc served as a member of Parliament for the Liberal party, but the establishment disillusioned him. His polemical style and strong opinions made a controversial figure, who particularly viewed modernism, secularism, and financial capitalism as threats to traditional Christian society in his critiques.
Influence and vast literary legacy of Hilaire Belloc extends into historical circles. Erudition, humor, and a forceful rhetorical style characterized intellectual vigor and unique perspective, which people continue to study and to appreciate, on history, society, and human nature.
Sharp wit of Hilaire Belloc, an historian, poet, and orator, extended across literary output and strong political and religious convictions. Oxford educated this distinguished debater and scholar. Throughout his career, he prolifically across a range of genres and produced histories, essays, travelogues, poetry, and satirical works.
Cautionary Tales for Children collects best humorous yet dark morals, and historical works of Hilaire Belloc often reflected his staunch Catholicism and critique of Protestant interpretations. He led advocates of an economic theory that promotes and championed distribution of small-scale property ownership as a middle ground between capitalism and socialism alongside Gilbert Keith Chesterton, his close friend.
In politics, Hilaire Belloc served as a member of Parliament for the Liberal party, but the establishment disillusioned him. His polemical style and strong opinions made a controversial figure, who particularly viewed modernism, secularism, and financial capitalism as threats to traditional Christian society in his critiques.
Influence and vast literary legacy of Hilaire Belloc extends into historical circles. Erudition, humor, and a forceful rhetorical style characterized intellectual vigor and unique perspective, which people continue to study and to appreciate, on history, society, and human nature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
March 15, 2012
Hilaire Belloc offers us a concise history of economics in Europe generally, and the distributist and servile states specifically. He begins his exposition with a thesis as remarkable as it is shocking, "[T]hat industrial society as we know it will tend towards the re-establishment of slavery." He does not hesitate to start his economic trek full-force and declares the subject of his book to be "that our free modern society in which the means of production are owned by a few being necessarily in unstable equilibrium, it is tending to reach a condition of stable equilibrium by the establishment of compulsory labor legally enforceable upon those who do not own the means of production for the advantage of those who do (emphasis his)." Belloc is pulling no punches in this philosophical boxing match.
The author moves on quickly to the general history of distributism through the two Christian millennia, especially up until the Reformation of the 16th Century. It was here, Belloc maintains, at "the capital episode in the history of Christendom," that distributism was dismantled by the forced creation of capitalism. While Christianity had slowly pulled Europe out of the degrading slavery of the servile state, the Reformation, with its destruction of western unity, undid much or all of this progress. The distributist state did not fall of its own accord but was instead knocked down. No longer do men as a rule own productive property and maintain their own livelihoods; instead, Belloc argues, the modern European (and, I would interject, American) is a wage-slave to a richer and more economically savvy capitalist. Not only this, but the various states, while attempting to wrench the proletariat from the grasp of the rich man, actually go leaps and bounds toward further entrenching him in the mires of slavery. The modern westerner's destiny is not usually in his hands but in the hands of his employer. He is not a citizen so much as he is an employee. The two classes, created legislatively in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, have solidified this process. Belloc variously argues that unemployment compensation and minimum wage laws reflect this servile status, and go to massive lengths to display that the employer is a greater man than his employee (that, in fact, he is an owner and his employee a slave or at least a serf, though that terminology would never be accepted by society despite its accuracy).
Belloc goes on to prove that the socialist, communist and generally collectivist models will not only fail but will accidentally (or intentionally, in certain cases) create the servile state through concession and compromise. The motives of collectivists will lead them to the servile state necessarily. In cutting through this haze, it becomes obvious that there are only two solutions to the current state of things (as socialism falls by the wayside as impossible): 1. The stabilizing of the capitalist model by the creation of the servile state, in which the proletariat will lose their economic and political freedom in exchange for financial security, and the capitalist class will be guaranteed profit or 2. The restoration of well-distributed productive property among the masses. While we are headed for the former, Belloc does not discount the possibility of the latter (especially, in his time, in Ireland and France) due to "a complex knot of forces underlying any nation once Christian; a smoldering of the old fires." The servile state is "not the only force in the field." Belloc holds out hope but nevertheless declares, "The internal strains which have threatened society during its capitalist phase will be relaxed and eliminated, and the community will settle down upon that servile basis which was its foundation before the advent of the Christian faith, from which that faith slowly weaned it, and to which in the decay of that faith it naturally returns."
It is up to the proletariat, the average people, as to what takes place in their country: servility or redistribution and restoration of property. We have, in America, seen the dismantling of well-distributed productive property in the last century, through property taxes (by which no one really owns, but only rents, property), the unfair tax dichotomy between rich and middle class, and the attempts through legislation to create an employer class and an employee class. America's progress (or regress) has much mirrored Europe's, until recently, when much of Europe has ironically taken an about-face. Europe's old embers are stirring; the faith has declared a new evangelization, and the heartbeat of the continent seems to be reinvigorated. America continues down the well-trodden path of servility, with only a fraction of its citizens decrying the process and still fewer really understanding the system's failures. How many today know the economic history of the West (and much of the East), know its intimations and decay, its fall and possible future rise? Americans have taken a tense hold against each other, half for collectivism and half for libertarianism. But the defects of both models become apparent when examined historically and philosophically. These are distressing signs, as the increased polarization of our nation gives way for government to make greater and greater strides towards the servile state, all the while aiming for something entirely different. Belloc holds hope despite the odds:
"I am upon the whole hopeful that the faith will recover its intimate and guiding place in the heart of Europe, so I believe that this sinking back into our original paganism (for the tendency to the servile state is nothing less) will in due time be halted and reversed.
Videat Deus."
The author moves on quickly to the general history of distributism through the two Christian millennia, especially up until the Reformation of the 16th Century. It was here, Belloc maintains, at "the capital episode in the history of Christendom," that distributism was dismantled by the forced creation of capitalism. While Christianity had slowly pulled Europe out of the degrading slavery of the servile state, the Reformation, with its destruction of western unity, undid much or all of this progress. The distributist state did not fall of its own accord but was instead knocked down. No longer do men as a rule own productive property and maintain their own livelihoods; instead, Belloc argues, the modern European (and, I would interject, American) is a wage-slave to a richer and more economically savvy capitalist. Not only this, but the various states, while attempting to wrench the proletariat from the grasp of the rich man, actually go leaps and bounds toward further entrenching him in the mires of slavery. The modern westerner's destiny is not usually in his hands but in the hands of his employer. He is not a citizen so much as he is an employee. The two classes, created legislatively in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, have solidified this process. Belloc variously argues that unemployment compensation and minimum wage laws reflect this servile status, and go to massive lengths to display that the employer is a greater man than his employee (that, in fact, he is an owner and his employee a slave or at least a serf, though that terminology would never be accepted by society despite its accuracy).
Belloc goes on to prove that the socialist, communist and generally collectivist models will not only fail but will accidentally (or intentionally, in certain cases) create the servile state through concession and compromise. The motives of collectivists will lead them to the servile state necessarily. In cutting through this haze, it becomes obvious that there are only two solutions to the current state of things (as socialism falls by the wayside as impossible): 1. The stabilizing of the capitalist model by the creation of the servile state, in which the proletariat will lose their economic and political freedom in exchange for financial security, and the capitalist class will be guaranteed profit or 2. The restoration of well-distributed productive property among the masses. While we are headed for the former, Belloc does not discount the possibility of the latter (especially, in his time, in Ireland and France) due to "a complex knot of forces underlying any nation once Christian; a smoldering of the old fires." The servile state is "not the only force in the field." Belloc holds out hope but nevertheless declares, "The internal strains which have threatened society during its capitalist phase will be relaxed and eliminated, and the community will settle down upon that servile basis which was its foundation before the advent of the Christian faith, from which that faith slowly weaned it, and to which in the decay of that faith it naturally returns."
It is up to the proletariat, the average people, as to what takes place in their country: servility or redistribution and restoration of property. We have, in America, seen the dismantling of well-distributed productive property in the last century, through property taxes (by which no one really owns, but only rents, property), the unfair tax dichotomy between rich and middle class, and the attempts through legislation to create an employer class and an employee class. America's progress (or regress) has much mirrored Europe's, until recently, when much of Europe has ironically taken an about-face. Europe's old embers are stirring; the faith has declared a new evangelization, and the heartbeat of the continent seems to be reinvigorated. America continues down the well-trodden path of servility, with only a fraction of its citizens decrying the process and still fewer really understanding the system's failures. How many today know the economic history of the West (and much of the East), know its intimations and decay, its fall and possible future rise? Americans have taken a tense hold against each other, half for collectivism and half for libertarianism. But the defects of both models become apparent when examined historically and philosophically. These are distressing signs, as the increased polarization of our nation gives way for government to make greater and greater strides towards the servile state, all the while aiming for something entirely different. Belloc holds hope despite the odds:
"I am upon the whole hopeful that the faith will recover its intimate and guiding place in the heart of Europe, so I believe that this sinking back into our original paganism (for the tendency to the servile state is nothing less) will in due time be halted and reversed.
Videat Deus."
August 24, 2020
"Therefore, to control the production of wealth is to control human life itself. To refuse man the opportunity for the production of wealth is to refuse him the opportunity for life;"
Belloc sees capitalism as inherently unstable and, in conjunction with socialism, it leads to the servile state, which is a type of slave-society where the majority of families labor for the advantage of the few. Unlike the Marxists who view capital as naturally concentrating in the hands of the capitalists, Belloc identifies the dissolution of the monasteries as the cause of the wealthy oligarchy permanently gaining dominance over wage-earners. So his solution to this problem is not to move from restricted private ownership to public ownership of the means of production, but to have the means of production widely distributed and privately owned. In his view ownership of capital is what allows families to be self-sufficient and removes them from "wage-slavery" whereby they depend on the capitalist to provide for their basic needs.
Belloc has a lot of really good critiques of socialist solutions to the social problems associated with capitalism. For instance, he shows that the insecurity of the wage earner is not solved by minimum wage laws which only serve to price workers out of jobs. The increase in unemployment will then be addressed by increase in the welfare state. So instead of giving wage earners more financial freedom the government intervention has solidified the economic status of the wage earner by centralizing power in the hands of bureaucrats.
I don't agree with Belloc's position on widely distributing the means of production for a number of reasons, but even without ceding that point this book has important things to say about the mutually aggrandizing relationship between big government and big business that threatens a truly free market.
Belloc sees capitalism as inherently unstable and, in conjunction with socialism, it leads to the servile state, which is a type of slave-society where the majority of families labor for the advantage of the few. Unlike the Marxists who view capital as naturally concentrating in the hands of the capitalists, Belloc identifies the dissolution of the monasteries as the cause of the wealthy oligarchy permanently gaining dominance over wage-earners. So his solution to this problem is not to move from restricted private ownership to public ownership of the means of production, but to have the means of production widely distributed and privately owned. In his view ownership of capital is what allows families to be self-sufficient and removes them from "wage-slavery" whereby they depend on the capitalist to provide for their basic needs.
Belloc has a lot of really good critiques of socialist solutions to the social problems associated with capitalism. For instance, he shows that the insecurity of the wage earner is not solved by minimum wage laws which only serve to price workers out of jobs. The increase in unemployment will then be addressed by increase in the welfare state. So instead of giving wage earners more financial freedom the government intervention has solidified the economic status of the wage earner by centralizing power in the hands of bureaucrats.
I don't agree with Belloc's position on widely distributing the means of production for a number of reasons, but even without ceding that point this book has important things to say about the mutually aggrandizing relationship between big government and big business that threatens a truly free market.
November 22, 2022
Dedicated with affection to Manuel Alfonseca, and John Seymour.
Ladies and gentlemen. Now with your permission a re-reading will be discussed. This book has been read for some time, but on the occasion of its triumph in the survey of The Catholic Book Club is being reread (I attach the link in case any user wishes to participate in this debate, which is being exciting) https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group... . We are discussing this issue my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (co-moderator of the group), John Seymour (to distinguish him from my good friend John A. Pretorius https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) who is the moderator, Mari Angeles, and a humble server, who posts this criticism in these social networks, have also participated my friend Galicius (to whom he sent a greeting, and I don't know if Mary Catelli. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... I invited Michael D. Greaney, but so far he has not been seen here, and he has not accepted my proposal). Invite my friend Michael D. Greaney https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... to participate (to whom he sent a greeting) I invite people to read his wonderful articles in @catholicworldreport. This is going to be an arid criticism, because economics, even if it is basic (let's not be as don't be as donkey as Manuel Azaña, who went beyond those issues) is something, which like theology, and philosophy have never been my fortes. Although my grandfather was Professor of Mercantile, and Accountant (like the Scottish Bruce Marshall https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) I never inherited his mathematical talent. In fact, I had a very hard time at school with mathematics, although I liked the history of mathematics, and the life of mathematicians. The only one approved of the whole career I had in the subject of Finance, and Taxation in the old Regime. So that you can see how bad these subjects are given to me, but they are basic for daily life, and day to day. Here I am not going to overwhelm you with technical issues as I did in the "Letters of Philip II to his daughters" that by the way I have yet to translate into Polish, and write the review of "Juanita Tabor, and 666" by the interesting Argentine writer Hugo Wast (whom I also recommend). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . I have some overdue reviews, which I would like to finalize as the very interesting "Young Siberian" by Xavier le Maistre, which for me has been the great surprise, and revelation of this year, although far from the great winners of this year, but unless I read memorable titles I would like it to be in my top ten of best readings of this 2022 (that review if I write it will be in English, Spanish, Polish, French, and Russian. Because it was written by a French writer seems to me like a Russian novel. For me it announces Dostoyevsky https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... in other writers, and I like it more than Gogol's stories https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... Those Russian bugs that the protagonist of A.J. Cronin's "Citadel" spoke of https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... I would also like to talk about the works of Alarcón, and Agustín de Moreto https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... with Disdain with disdain, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... and the beautiful Don Diego https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6..., I would also perhaps like to talk about Ernest Hemingway's "Old Man, the Sea" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... , although I have already forgotten a lot, or "The Winter's Tale" that very interesting work of the Bard, or the Swan of Avon William Shakespeare https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . But the users of goodreads have not come to know my future projects, but to see my valuation, and my opinion of "The Servile State". Before this criticism begins. I have said that "Estado Servil" being such an old reading does not enter my contest, although the work "The guardian of the flame" by the writer Marta Luján https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... will receive an honorable mention. , and which I read before it was edited by the publisher whom I thank for it.
Anyone who knows Hilaire Belloc, Catholic writer, and comrade-in-arms of G.K. Chesterton will https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... know that they promoted a third way called Distributism against the Capitalist, and Collectivist models (Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism must be included in this category). Of course, although Belloc wrote this book in 1912, it is clear that he does not propose a Fascist, or National Socialist, economic model (this was clarified because some critics, and obtuse writers such as Fazio for example that in his work "Christians at the Crossroads" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... He has branded Belloc a Fascist, because he was more comfortable with the leftist positions of Emmanuel Mounier https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and the philo-democratic positions of Jacques Maritain https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... It is not the only case in which an allegedly Catholic writer messes with Belloc, or G.K. Chesterton we have the case of the convert Dawn Eden Goldstein, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... who came to attack Chesterton for anti-Semitism, and except for sexual abuse does not seem to worry him more about things about our Church, which also require attention, especially taking care of the victims. What I'm saying is that it annoys me, that I only pay attention to those two things), but the truth is that fascism, and Nazism would be an economic model closer to the extreme left. In fact, it would be an extreme anti-Marxist left (the first thing we were taught in third year is that there are no differences between fascism, National Socialism, and communism the methods, languages, means, and use of violence against political adversaries are very similar.
The book of the Servile State does not propose either the measures of a Distributist system, but analyzes why Capitalism, and Collectivism lead us to the Servile State. When my father studied at school, all the Economic Doctrines were explained, the best being the Social Doctrine of the Church, which is the one that tries to resurrect Distributism (which drinks a lot from the work of Cardinal Henry Edward Manining https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... They so influenced the young Chesterton, and Belloc, Vincet in Spain, Von Ketterer, and Windharst of the Zentrum in Spain, and Germany, as well as Ozanam, Montalembert, Lacordaire, and others in France. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . It is interesting to compare these measures with the brilliant essay written by the Marquis of Valdegamas Donoso Cortés in which he criticized socialism, and liberalism, against Catholicism https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Contemporaries of a similar thought can be found, and this I mentioned in the debate to the white Russian (for his hostility to communism) Nikolai A. Berdyaev https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... with his eloio of the Middle Ages, and although he was a little younger to highlight the historian Christopher Henry Dawson https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , and then we will talk about the continuators of this economic doctrine, which in my opinion should be considered.
But what this book was going to explains that Capitalism, and Collectivism (this in the immediate term) lead us to the Servile State. That is, to slavery, and to the loss of freedom of the individual. Capitalism because it concentrates money in a few hands, and Collectivism because it makes the State our master. Distributism aims to protect the family and religion against the aggressions of these two systems. It must be said that Belloc's book is not a covert Socialism in fact, the struggles with George Bernard Shaw https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., and H.G. Wells were https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... very frequent, and G.K. Chesterton already debated against them in a debate collected in a little book called "Do we agree?" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... . To which it was reached that they did not agree, and that Socialism, and Distributism are two opposing systems (admittedly the Fabians embryo of the heterodox English socialism known as Labour. It is curious because Marx did https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... devise his model for England not for Russia, or China, but Labour did recognize a certain private property.) John who defends a soft capitalism has defended that capitalism creates wealth, and I have told him that, although those bases were planted before the Protestant Reformation the economy, and the model, that my friend John defends inspired by Scholasticism, The School of Salamanca was mercantilism, which in France became Colbertism. Capitalism is shaped by Adam Smith https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... What he calls capitalism is a mercantilist society based on medieval scholasticism. In Thomas E. Woods' book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... (with a wonderful foreword by Cardinal Cañizares in Spain https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ). in @ciudadelalibros as the foundations were laid before Luther (in fact E. Woods, who was the adversary of Luther Cardinal Cajetan, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... whom he devised the capitalist model, although there were already the Bills of Exchange in Italy, and the Monte Pios de Piedad), but Christianity that had fought to eliminate the Previous Slave Society. By converting and expanding it reduced the crisis of slavery in the long run (this is what Belloc says, and this is what I talked about in my critique of Philip II's Letters to his daughters). But with the Reformation that reaccepts usury, and Interest, it is even said that being rich is a sign that one enjoys God's favor in this world, and in the next. This is defended by Calvin https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... He favored in the English case the confiscation of monasteries. Spain would live a similar case with liberalism and the confiscations of Godoy, Mendizabal, and Madoz, which caused money to remain in few hands, and the abyss between rich and poor increased (this occurred because both the enlightenment and liberalism had destroyed the Catholic religion). The financier Esteban Collantes said things very similar to those that Calvin pointed out, and that being poor was a sign that he was an imbecile. Which proves, that like socialism (Nagy tried in Hungary, but failed) it has no human face. Belloc's thoughts are very interesting, considering as the main cause of the capitalist model the confiscation of monasteries made by Henry VIII https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... The Stock Exchange was established in the reign of William III, who brought it from Holland (this was commented by Leonardo Castellani) https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...). It is very interesting another reflection of Hilaire Belloc that machines do not make us slaves, prior to the arrival of machines we had lost our freedom. Belloc speaks of the social deterioration, and the social deterioration of the conditions of the most disadvantaged commenting on the time of Charles I, and the eighteenth century, which is when industrialization begins with those brutal schedules for children, and women.
Then Belloc explains why a collectivist state would lead to the servile state, and why the implementation of socialism would favor a State Trust (Curzio Malaparte reaches the same conclusion in "The History of Tomorrow" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ), apart from the impossibility of compensation to the owners. For Belloc the way to avoid the servile state is to favor the middle classes, the family, and religion. He believes that Ireland and France will be saved, but I believe that it is a global evil. I told John that capitalism and collectivism are not enemies, but one is a descendant of the other, as Dostoyevsky's "The Demons" cleverly warned https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5.... I see almost no difference between capitalism and communism. We already see amalgams of both. In China that maintains the communist system, and a savage capitalism, and in Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, South Korea you see this, and I put the case of the Squid Game series, which is supposed to be a critique of capitalism, and in the end producers, the country, and Netflix have fought over profits. Today the left adopts the economic model of the right, and the right the morality, and culture of the left.
For me Distributism would work a few generations and therefore it must be implanted to seek the salvation of souls, as many as possible, and according to Vaya decay reforming it, to avoid corruption. Although knowing how humanity is will end up being corrupted, but it would be good for future generations so it must be done. Distributism was updated by Ernst F. Schumacher in "Small is Beautiful" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., the Focolare, by Dorothy Day https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., and Peter Marin, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... even the John Senior models https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... (whose anti-machinism drinks a lot from Father Vincent McNabb https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ), Spanish traditionalism with my admired Juan Manuel de Prada https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... , José Miguel Gambra https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... , https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Miguel Ayuso https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and Wendell Berry https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... are a continuation of the distributist model. The Tolkienian Shire https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... perhaps Joseph Pearce should be put https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... would be the distributist model par excellence. Despite its difficulty (because the economic and theological books tell me a lot) my grade is (5/5). Although this book, being a rereading, does not enter the contest.
Ladies and gentlemen. Now with your permission a re-reading will be discussed. This book has been read for some time, but on the occasion of its triumph in the survey of The Catholic Book Club is being reread (I attach the link in case any user wishes to participate in this debate, which is being exciting) https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group... . We are discussing this issue my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (co-moderator of the group), John Seymour (to distinguish him from my good friend John A. Pretorius https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) who is the moderator, Mari Angeles, and a humble server, who posts this criticism in these social networks, have also participated my friend Galicius (to whom he sent a greeting, and I don't know if Mary Catelli. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... I invited Michael D. Greaney, but so far he has not been seen here, and he has not accepted my proposal). Invite my friend Michael D. Greaney https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... to participate (to whom he sent a greeting) I invite people to read his wonderful articles in @catholicworldreport. This is going to be an arid criticism, because economics, even if it is basic (let's not be as don't be as donkey as Manuel Azaña, who went beyond those issues) is something, which like theology, and philosophy have never been my fortes. Although my grandfather was Professor of Mercantile, and Accountant (like the Scottish Bruce Marshall https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) I never inherited his mathematical talent. In fact, I had a very hard time at school with mathematics, although I liked the history of mathematics, and the life of mathematicians. The only one approved of the whole career I had in the subject of Finance, and Taxation in the old Regime. So that you can see how bad these subjects are given to me, but they are basic for daily life, and day to day. Here I am not going to overwhelm you with technical issues as I did in the "Letters of Philip II to his daughters" that by the way I have yet to translate into Polish, and write the review of "Juanita Tabor, and 666" by the interesting Argentine writer Hugo Wast (whom I also recommend). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . I have some overdue reviews, which I would like to finalize as the very interesting "Young Siberian" by Xavier le Maistre, which for me has been the great surprise, and revelation of this year, although far from the great winners of this year, but unless I read memorable titles I would like it to be in my top ten of best readings of this 2022 (that review if I write it will be in English, Spanish, Polish, French, and Russian. Because it was written by a French writer seems to me like a Russian novel. For me it announces Dostoyevsky https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... in other writers, and I like it more than Gogol's stories https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... Those Russian bugs that the protagonist of A.J. Cronin's "Citadel" spoke of https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... I would also like to talk about the works of Alarcón, and Agustín de Moreto https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... with Disdain with disdain, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... and the beautiful Don Diego https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6..., I would also perhaps like to talk about Ernest Hemingway's "Old Man, the Sea" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... , although I have already forgotten a lot, or "The Winter's Tale" that very interesting work of the Bard, or the Swan of Avon William Shakespeare https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . But the users of goodreads have not come to know my future projects, but to see my valuation, and my opinion of "The Servile State". Before this criticism begins. I have said that "Estado Servil" being such an old reading does not enter my contest, although the work "The guardian of the flame" by the writer Marta Luján https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... will receive an honorable mention. , and which I read before it was edited by the publisher whom I thank for it.
Anyone who knows Hilaire Belloc, Catholic writer, and comrade-in-arms of G.K. Chesterton will https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... know that they promoted a third way called Distributism against the Capitalist, and Collectivist models (Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism must be included in this category). Of course, although Belloc wrote this book in 1912, it is clear that he does not propose a Fascist, or National Socialist, economic model (this was clarified because some critics, and obtuse writers such as Fazio for example that in his work "Christians at the Crossroads" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... He has branded Belloc a Fascist, because he was more comfortable with the leftist positions of Emmanuel Mounier https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and the philo-democratic positions of Jacques Maritain https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... It is not the only case in which an allegedly Catholic writer messes with Belloc, or G.K. Chesterton we have the case of the convert Dawn Eden Goldstein, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... who came to attack Chesterton for anti-Semitism, and except for sexual abuse does not seem to worry him more about things about our Church, which also require attention, especially taking care of the victims. What I'm saying is that it annoys me, that I only pay attention to those two things), but the truth is that fascism, and Nazism would be an economic model closer to the extreme left. In fact, it would be an extreme anti-Marxist left (the first thing we were taught in third year is that there are no differences between fascism, National Socialism, and communism the methods, languages, means, and use of violence against political adversaries are very similar.
The book of the Servile State does not propose either the measures of a Distributist system, but analyzes why Capitalism, and Collectivism lead us to the Servile State. When my father studied at school, all the Economic Doctrines were explained, the best being the Social Doctrine of the Church, which is the one that tries to resurrect Distributism (which drinks a lot from the work of Cardinal Henry Edward Manining https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... They so influenced the young Chesterton, and Belloc, Vincet in Spain, Von Ketterer, and Windharst of the Zentrum in Spain, and Germany, as well as Ozanam, Montalembert, Lacordaire, and others in France. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... . It is interesting to compare these measures with the brilliant essay written by the Marquis of Valdegamas Donoso Cortés in which he criticized socialism, and liberalism, against Catholicism https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Contemporaries of a similar thought can be found, and this I mentioned in the debate to the white Russian (for his hostility to communism) Nikolai A. Berdyaev https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... with his eloio of the Middle Ages, and although he was a little younger to highlight the historian Christopher Henry Dawson https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , and then we will talk about the continuators of this economic doctrine, which in my opinion should be considered.
But what this book was going to explains that Capitalism, and Collectivism (this in the immediate term) lead us to the Servile State. That is, to slavery, and to the loss of freedom of the individual. Capitalism because it concentrates money in a few hands, and Collectivism because it makes the State our master. Distributism aims to protect the family and religion against the aggressions of these two systems. It must be said that Belloc's book is not a covert Socialism in fact, the struggles with George Bernard Shaw https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., and H.G. Wells were https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... very frequent, and G.K. Chesterton already debated against them in a debate collected in a little book called "Do we agree?" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... . To which it was reached that they did not agree, and that Socialism, and Distributism are two opposing systems (admittedly the Fabians embryo of the heterodox English socialism known as Labour. It is curious because Marx did https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... devise his model for England not for Russia, or China, but Labour did recognize a certain private property.) John who defends a soft capitalism has defended that capitalism creates wealth, and I have told him that, although those bases were planted before the Protestant Reformation the economy, and the model, that my friend John defends inspired by Scholasticism, The School of Salamanca was mercantilism, which in France became Colbertism. Capitalism is shaped by Adam Smith https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... What he calls capitalism is a mercantilist society based on medieval scholasticism. In Thomas E. Woods' book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... (with a wonderful foreword by Cardinal Cañizares in Spain https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ). in @ciudadelalibros as the foundations were laid before Luther (in fact E. Woods, who was the adversary of Luther Cardinal Cajetan, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... whom he devised the capitalist model, although there were already the Bills of Exchange in Italy, and the Monte Pios de Piedad), but Christianity that had fought to eliminate the Previous Slave Society. By converting and expanding it reduced the crisis of slavery in the long run (this is what Belloc says, and this is what I talked about in my critique of Philip II's Letters to his daughters). But with the Reformation that reaccepts usury, and Interest, it is even said that being rich is a sign that one enjoys God's favor in this world, and in the next. This is defended by Calvin https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... He favored in the English case the confiscation of monasteries. Spain would live a similar case with liberalism and the confiscations of Godoy, Mendizabal, and Madoz, which caused money to remain in few hands, and the abyss between rich and poor increased (this occurred because both the enlightenment and liberalism had destroyed the Catholic religion). The financier Esteban Collantes said things very similar to those that Calvin pointed out, and that being poor was a sign that he was an imbecile. Which proves, that like socialism (Nagy tried in Hungary, but failed) it has no human face. Belloc's thoughts are very interesting, considering as the main cause of the capitalist model the confiscation of monasteries made by Henry VIII https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... The Stock Exchange was established in the reign of William III, who brought it from Holland (this was commented by Leonardo Castellani) https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...). It is very interesting another reflection of Hilaire Belloc that machines do not make us slaves, prior to the arrival of machines we had lost our freedom. Belloc speaks of the social deterioration, and the social deterioration of the conditions of the most disadvantaged commenting on the time of Charles I, and the eighteenth century, which is when industrialization begins with those brutal schedules for children, and women.
Then Belloc explains why a collectivist state would lead to the servile state, and why the implementation of socialism would favor a State Trust (Curzio Malaparte reaches the same conclusion in "The History of Tomorrow" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ), apart from the impossibility of compensation to the owners. For Belloc the way to avoid the servile state is to favor the middle classes, the family, and religion. He believes that Ireland and France will be saved, but I believe that it is a global evil. I told John that capitalism and collectivism are not enemies, but one is a descendant of the other, as Dostoyevsky's "The Demons" cleverly warned https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5.... I see almost no difference between capitalism and communism. We already see amalgams of both. In China that maintains the communist system, and a savage capitalism, and in Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, South Korea you see this, and I put the case of the Squid Game series, which is supposed to be a critique of capitalism, and in the end producers, the country, and Netflix have fought over profits. Today the left adopts the economic model of the right, and the right the morality, and culture of the left.
For me Distributism would work a few generations and therefore it must be implanted to seek the salvation of souls, as many as possible, and according to Vaya decay reforming it, to avoid corruption. Although knowing how humanity is will end up being corrupted, but it would be good for future generations so it must be done. Distributism was updated by Ernst F. Schumacher in "Small is Beautiful" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., the Focolare, by Dorothy Day https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., and Peter Marin, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... even the John Senior models https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... (whose anti-machinism drinks a lot from Father Vincent McNabb https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ), Spanish traditionalism with my admired Juan Manuel de Prada https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... , José Miguel Gambra https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... , https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Miguel Ayuso https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and Wendell Berry https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... are a continuation of the distributist model. The Tolkienian Shire https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... perhaps Joseph Pearce should be put https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... would be the distributist model par excellence. Despite its difficulty (because the economic and theological books tell me a lot) my grade is (5/5). Although this book, being a rereading, does not enter the contest.
November 6, 2022
ENGLISH: This second time I have read this book, I agree even more with what Belloc says.
Like many works that aim to predict the future, this book may be considered now somewhat outdated. Some of his predictions did not happen, in others he hit the mark. On the one hand, the Russian revolution had not yet happened (it was written several years before). But on the other, the evolution of capitalism has taken place more or less along the lines Belloc foresaw.
Belloc saw capitalism evolving towards a situation where the state would guarantee protection to the proletariat, but the means of production would remain in the hands of capitalists. In this, he has predicted well the evolution of capitalism towards the welfare state in most Western countries (more in Europe than in the U.S.).
Some of his forecasts (as the establishment of a minimum wage) have taken place. He also foresaw the fusion of the proletariat with the middle class, although he didn't take into account the replacement of agriculture and industry by services as the main economic activity, and the arise of an independent work power based on self-employment.
We are ever more becoming slaves of the state, with lots of rules and regulations which invade our private life, even further than Belloc had foreseen.
ESPAÑOL: Leyendo este libro por segunda vez, descubro que cada vez estoy más de acuerdo con lo que dice Belloc.
Como muchas obras que tienen como objetivo predecir el futuro, este libro puede considerarse ahora algo obsoleto. Algunas de sus predicciones no se cumplieron, aunque en otras dio en el blanco. Por un lado, la revolución rusa a��n no había tenido lugar (Belloc escribió esto varios años antes). Pero por otro lado, la evolución del capitalismo ha tenido lugar más o menos en la línea que preveía Belloc.
Belloc vio que el capitalismo iba evolucionando hacia una situación en la que el estado garantizaría la protección del proletariado, pero los medios de producción permanecerían en manos de los capitalistas. En esto, ha predicho bien la evolución del capitalismo hacia el estado del bienestar en la mayor parte de los países occidentales (más en Europa que en EE.UU.).
Algunas de sus previsiones (como el establecimiento de un salario mínimo) se han cumplido. También previó la fusión del proletariado con la clase media, aunque no tuvo en cuenta la sustitución de la agricultura y la industria por los servicios como principal actividad económica, y la aparición de una fuerza de trabajo independiente compuesta por trabajadores autónomos.
Cada vez nos volvemos más esclavos del Estado, con muchas reglas y normas que invaden nuestra vida privada, más allá aún de lo previsto por Belloc.
Like many works that aim to predict the future, this book may be considered now somewhat outdated. Some of his predictions did not happen, in others he hit the mark. On the one hand, the Russian revolution had not yet happened (it was written several years before). But on the other, the evolution of capitalism has taken place more or less along the lines Belloc foresaw.
Belloc saw capitalism evolving towards a situation where the state would guarantee protection to the proletariat, but the means of production would remain in the hands of capitalists. In this, he has predicted well the evolution of capitalism towards the welfare state in most Western countries (more in Europe than in the U.S.).
Some of his forecasts (as the establishment of a minimum wage) have taken place. He also foresaw the fusion of the proletariat with the middle class, although he didn't take into account the replacement of agriculture and industry by services as the main economic activity, and the arise of an independent work power based on self-employment.
We are ever more becoming slaves of the state, with lots of rules and regulations which invade our private life, even further than Belloc had foreseen.
ESPAÑOL: Leyendo este libro por segunda vez, descubro que cada vez estoy más de acuerdo con lo que dice Belloc.
Como muchas obras que tienen como objetivo predecir el futuro, este libro puede considerarse ahora algo obsoleto. Algunas de sus predicciones no se cumplieron, aunque en otras dio en el blanco. Por un lado, la revolución rusa a��n no había tenido lugar (Belloc escribió esto varios años antes). Pero por otro lado, la evolución del capitalismo ha tenido lugar más o menos en la línea que preveía Belloc.
Belloc vio que el capitalismo iba evolucionando hacia una situación en la que el estado garantizaría la protección del proletariado, pero los medios de producción permanecerían en manos de los capitalistas. En esto, ha predicho bien la evolución del capitalismo hacia el estado del bienestar en la mayor parte de los países occidentales (más en Europa que en EE.UU.).
Algunas de sus previsiones (como el establecimiento de un salario mínimo) se han cumplido. También previó la fusión del proletariado con la clase media, aunque no tuvo en cuenta la sustitución de la agricultura y la industria por los servicios como principal actividad económica, y la aparición de una fuerza de trabajo independiente compuesta por trabajadores autónomos.
Cada vez nos volvemos más esclavos del Estado, con muchas reglas y normas que invaden nuestra vida privada, más allá aún de lo previsto por Belloc.
June 29, 2015
I enjoyed this book, which was in different measures confused and insightful. The difficulty is that when it was insightful, he would use his own peculiar definitions of terms (e.g. capitalism), and when it was confused, he would apply critiques to socialism that applied equally well to his distributism. Still, the game was worth the candle.
September 29, 2012
It's hard to read, but there's some staggering insights here that shouldn't be ignored.
The thesis is that Capitalist societies are transitional ones that are birthed not from the productivity gained from the Industrial Revolution, but from the redistribution of public wealth (in England's case, seized church funds) to a small cadre of owners. There's only three options: a slave state, a collectivist state, or a distributive state. Belloc believes that the collectivist state is a natural progression from Capitalism because it keeps the capitalist/proletariat distinction. The collectivist society becomes a servile one.
Honestly, Belloc's prose style is tough to wade through, and I'm probably missing a lot. But the thesis is vital because eventually we must transition from capitalism. Why? As in the analogy in the book The Lights in the Tunnel, a small amount of capitalists can't shine bright enough to light the tunnel of life as the proletariat dims. We are seeing the end of productivity in creative destruction of jobs on a wide scale, and there are some eerie parallels to what Belloc writes and our current state. Unfortunately the book offers no solution, but it's definitely an interesting, if hard to read view on the problems of capitalism.
The thesis is that Capitalist societies are transitional ones that are birthed not from the productivity gained from the Industrial Revolution, but from the redistribution of public wealth (in England's case, seized church funds) to a small cadre of owners. There's only three options: a slave state, a collectivist state, or a distributive state. Belloc believes that the collectivist state is a natural progression from Capitalism because it keeps the capitalist/proletariat distinction. The collectivist society becomes a servile one.
Honestly, Belloc's prose style is tough to wade through, and I'm probably missing a lot. But the thesis is vital because eventually we must transition from capitalism. Why? As in the analogy in the book The Lights in the Tunnel, a small amount of capitalists can't shine bright enough to light the tunnel of life as the proletariat dims. We are seeing the end of productivity in creative destruction of jobs on a wide scale, and there are some eerie parallels to what Belloc writes and our current state. Unfortunately the book offers no solution, but it's definitely an interesting, if hard to read view on the problems of capitalism.
June 6, 2013
I'm not sure what I was expecting when I picked up the Servile State but I did not expect to be reading a book with such a historical background. Of course Belloc was well known for his love of history as well as for his poetry, (The Teddy Bears are having a picnic was Jackie Onasis' favorite children's poem). This book thus begins by a history of feaudalism and a clear and concise clarification of foundation economic terms, like capital and wealth in a more humanizing manner than we are used to reading about things like labor unions and land. Belloc was most definitely anti-communist, his book goes on to talk about the reasons why socialism cannot give man his human dignity, but he was also not a proponent of unrestrained capitalism. Unrestrained capitalism devolves into a slave society, Belloc analysed as he watched the beginnings of the industrial revolution. This book proposes a third option instead.
July 11, 2024
This is the fourth book I've read by Belloc (in order: The Jews, The Great Heresies, and Napoleon), and I could never tire of reading Belloc, over and over again. It's surprising how he manages to weave together historical events, explain and analyse the before and after, with a clear and concise style.
In this book, he discusses the history of capitalism and then critiques both capitalism and communism. He proposes an alternative to both: the Distributive State. In my opinion, it's difficult to apply today, but it would be worth a try.
What can I say? An exceptional man, a remarkable historian. In another life, I would definitely ask him out 🙂🙂🙂
A huge thank you to a special person who "introduced" him to me 😉
In this book, he discusses the history of capitalism and then critiques both capitalism and communism. He proposes an alternative to both: the Distributive State. In my opinion, it's difficult to apply today, but it would be worth a try.
What can I say? An exceptional man, a remarkable historian. In another life, I would definitely ask him out 🙂🙂🙂
A huge thank you to a special person who "introduced" him to me 😉
June 24, 2018
Eye opening and useful, Belloc discusses the loss of freedom of the working man in both the Socialist and Capitalist system. He shows, with many examples, the worker's loss of the means of production, primarily, the land; and how the means have been gobbled up by either the State or a privileged few. Interesting and informative read, check it out.
August 2, 2024
Clear, cogent, and concise look at how capitalism morphs into something akin to serfdom. Highly relevant to today (2024), but provides no clear solution (nor was that Belloc's intention).
November 7, 2022
All books should be 100 pages or less. Immediate 5 star rating for that. Belloc speaks Truth (capital T, Catholic) to power (lowercase p, Liberal(derogatory)aka demonic) in this extremely powerful and concise description of the Modus Operandi (Latin phrase. Real catholic heads know what’s up) of every liberal state on planet earth. Propagation over progress. They will stop at nothing to see their nightmare political project continue eternally. What they didn’t plan on? A little something called the Church Militant.
July 8, 2014
Belloc defined the servile state as "that arrangement of society in which so considerable a number of the families and individuals are constrained by positive law to labor for the advantage of other families and individuals as to stamp the whole community with the mark of such labor."
I found Belloc's historical explanation of the rise and fall of capitalism a little problematic; a Catholic with a French name blamed it on Protestant Brits. Go figure. Once I got passed that bit of partial self-indulgence, I enjoyed the book much more. His basic premise is that Europe's pagan history took slavery, or the servile institution, for granted. Christianity changed that and created a society of relative equality--not egalitarian but not so iniquitous to bring about instability. As the capitalist state grew more perfect, it grew most unstable making the non-owner wage-laborers insecure and threatened with insufficiency. Belloc proposes three possible solutions: 1) return to a more distributive society with diverse ownership; 2) collectivism; or 3) the servile state. Belloc is skeptical that the first could be achieved, and argues that an attempt at collectivism is doomed to fail and result in the third option, the servile state that borders on returning to something akin to slavery with complicity from the state that distinguishes between owners and workers (the distinctions already baked in to things like workers' comp rules and agency, and since Belloc's time healthcare benefits). Perhaps overstated, but what I can't tell is if capitalism appears to have corrected here and there in the century since this was written and to what extend collectivist programs also mitigated the rise of the servile state. Or whether the interplay between capitalism and collectivism has actually hastened the servile state. Still, it seems we fall short of Belloc's vision of servile society, but not by much.
I found Belloc's historical explanation of the rise and fall of capitalism a little problematic; a Catholic with a French name blamed it on Protestant Brits. Go figure. Once I got passed that bit of partial self-indulgence, I enjoyed the book much more. His basic premise is that Europe's pagan history took slavery, or the servile institution, for granted. Christianity changed that and created a society of relative equality--not egalitarian but not so iniquitous to bring about instability. As the capitalist state grew more perfect, it grew most unstable making the non-owner wage-laborers insecure and threatened with insufficiency. Belloc proposes three possible solutions: 1) return to a more distributive society with diverse ownership; 2) collectivism; or 3) the servile state. Belloc is skeptical that the first could be achieved, and argues that an attempt at collectivism is doomed to fail and result in the third option, the servile state that borders on returning to something akin to slavery with complicity from the state that distinguishes between owners and workers (the distinctions already baked in to things like workers' comp rules and agency, and since Belloc's time healthcare benefits). Perhaps overstated, but what I can't tell is if capitalism appears to have corrected here and there in the century since this was written and to what extend collectivist programs also mitigated the rise of the servile state. Or whether the interplay between capitalism and collectivism has actually hastened the servile state. Still, it seems we fall short of Belloc's vision of servile society, but not by much.
April 30, 2019
Belloc offers a similar argument as Schumpeter on the development of capitalism into what, for lack of a better term, Marx called "late-stage capitalism." As the modes of production, Belloc argues, inevitably become concentrated in the hands of the few, there will be a strong incentive for the rest of the population to attempt a transformation from this capitalist state to a collectivist one. Here, he creates a distinction between socialism and collectivism. Socialism, for Belloc, is the common ownership of production, while collectivism is the redistribution of wealth. This redistribution in which productive members, in effect, subsidize unproductive members will therefore result in what Belloc deemed the "servile state," ending the unstable system of capitalism. Schumpeter, on the other hand, paradoxically argued that the downfall of capitalism was its strength. As entrepreneurs, managers, and the wealthy become more adept at arranging human capital, they will seek greater influence in politics, and overall the state. They will thereby convince the people to subsidize business and in other ways rent-seek, arguing that such policies will reflect in the betterment of welfare for the economy and society, while in reality this will result in a poorer society (economically, as the society will generate less wealth and socially, as the society will engage in harmful, rent-seeking behavior in order to concentrate benefits to a small group while harming the larger community). The two arguments, as we see, are similar but distinct, and both thinkers conclude capitalism is inherently unstable over the long run.
Belloc has some Marxist influence but also some influence from the liberal thinkers of his time and of the past. If he were alive today, he would most likely to have aligned close to Russell Kirk. He does not recognize the Industrial Revolution as a time of betterment for the average man but as a time of social upheavel and turmoil, falling prey to the Victorian view promoted by Dickens and the like. Moreover, while he uses the language of exploitation and hints at the labor theory of value, he nonetheless recognizes the tremendous benefits of economic freedom and liberty in general, noting how the elimination of compulsory labor (slavery) resulted in one of the greatest creation of wealth in human history, allowing impoverished individuals to feed and clothe themselves.
Indeed, Belloc starts his book with a historical overview of continental thinking on slavery, labor, and production; arguing the main economic driving force was forced slave labor. This view is essentially correct and cannot seriously be contested. There was, however, and over an extended period of time, an evolution from slavery to serfdom and servitude whereby these slaves gradually gained greater and greater ownership of land and the freedom to use it however they desired. Students of Hayek will notice the progress highlighted here is gradual and builds upon knowledge and rules which these individuals did not consciously know or change but, in effect, tacitly evolved into a system which resulted in more mutually beneficial outcomes. In short, Belloc provides a very Hayekian explanation about the change in roles of slaves, and overal freedom.
Towards the end of the book, Belloc presciently understands the issues contained with the project of redistribution. He categorizes two types of reformers: the confiscatory reformer and the "buying out" reformer. The first type, those who do succeed in confiscating the means of production, must choose how to distribute, who to distribute, and the amount of distribution to the recipients. Such a problem cannot provide the entire society with an equitable outcome. This reformer, in spite of his or her ideal of a socialist and collectivist state, will inevitably move away from his or her goals and towards a system in which the mass of people will produce for the benefit of the few, as in the decision, there will exist possessors and the dispossessors. In an attempt to create security and sufficiency, the reformer--the collectivist idealist--will instead perpetuate the evils of insecurity and insufficiency. Indeed, as Belloc notes, price controls and enregimentation exercised the by the wealthy and the reformers will lead to an increasing degree of benefits to the wealthy.
In some pages, Belloc comes close to the concept of regulatory capture. For example, when he talks about the minimum wage and compulsory labor, policies which have not yet been adopted at his time, he rightfully realizes certain industries will benefit from the passage of such legislation, securing greater profits and labor, and thus generating greater surplus value for the businesses. In such a world, men are no longer free to bargain with each other but are held captive by positive laws created in part by the law maker and in another part by the business owners. Therefore, Belloc correctly sees the state upon inserting itself between the laborer and business owner as removing the freedom of bargaining between both individuals.
As a final word, while I may not agreed with some of Belloc's thoughts, particularly his views on the evils of capitalism and his understanding of the Victorian era, he does highlight and explore the tendency of wealthy countries to practice greater and greater cronyism and harmful paternalism of the state, though this state of affairs is neither inevitable nor necessary. Men are affected by ideas, the extent and manner still currently unknown--and may never be known. Morality and ethics within business may still come to fruition as the ideas of Adam Smith, particularly his work The Theory of Moral Sentiments, was expounded to combat the potentially dangerous road of self-interest and false individualism. The ongoing evolution of ideas, patterned behaviors (manners), ethics, kindness, and other virtues have and will continue to adapt. Countries with greater amounts of liberty--social and economic--are kinder, gentler, and more tolerant. There is no reason, as such, to be pessimistic, like Belloc or Schumpeter.
Belloc has some Marxist influence but also some influence from the liberal thinkers of his time and of the past. If he were alive today, he would most likely to have aligned close to Russell Kirk. He does not recognize the Industrial Revolution as a time of betterment for the average man but as a time of social upheavel and turmoil, falling prey to the Victorian view promoted by Dickens and the like. Moreover, while he uses the language of exploitation and hints at the labor theory of value, he nonetheless recognizes the tremendous benefits of economic freedom and liberty in general, noting how the elimination of compulsory labor (slavery) resulted in one of the greatest creation of wealth in human history, allowing impoverished individuals to feed and clothe themselves.
Indeed, Belloc starts his book with a historical overview of continental thinking on slavery, labor, and production; arguing the main economic driving force was forced slave labor. This view is essentially correct and cannot seriously be contested. There was, however, and over an extended period of time, an evolution from slavery to serfdom and servitude whereby these slaves gradually gained greater and greater ownership of land and the freedom to use it however they desired. Students of Hayek will notice the progress highlighted here is gradual and builds upon knowledge and rules which these individuals did not consciously know or change but, in effect, tacitly evolved into a system which resulted in more mutually beneficial outcomes. In short, Belloc provides a very Hayekian explanation about the change in roles of slaves, and overal freedom.
Towards the end of the book, Belloc presciently understands the issues contained with the project of redistribution. He categorizes two types of reformers: the confiscatory reformer and the "buying out" reformer. The first type, those who do succeed in confiscating the means of production, must choose how to distribute, who to distribute, and the amount of distribution to the recipients. Such a problem cannot provide the entire society with an equitable outcome. This reformer, in spite of his or her ideal of a socialist and collectivist state, will inevitably move away from his or her goals and towards a system in which the mass of people will produce for the benefit of the few, as in the decision, there will exist possessors and the dispossessors. In an attempt to create security and sufficiency, the reformer--the collectivist idealist--will instead perpetuate the evils of insecurity and insufficiency. Indeed, as Belloc notes, price controls and enregimentation exercised the by the wealthy and the reformers will lead to an increasing degree of benefits to the wealthy.
In some pages, Belloc comes close to the concept of regulatory capture. For example, when he talks about the minimum wage and compulsory labor, policies which have not yet been adopted at his time, he rightfully realizes certain industries will benefit from the passage of such legislation, securing greater profits and labor, and thus generating greater surplus value for the businesses. In such a world, men are no longer free to bargain with each other but are held captive by positive laws created in part by the law maker and in another part by the business owners. Therefore, Belloc correctly sees the state upon inserting itself between the laborer and business owner as removing the freedom of bargaining between both individuals.
As a final word, while I may not agreed with some of Belloc's thoughts, particularly his views on the evils of capitalism and his understanding of the Victorian era, he does highlight and explore the tendency of wealthy countries to practice greater and greater cronyism and harmful paternalism of the state, though this state of affairs is neither inevitable nor necessary. Men are affected by ideas, the extent and manner still currently unknown--and may never be known. Morality and ethics within business may still come to fruition as the ideas of Adam Smith, particularly his work The Theory of Moral Sentiments, was expounded to combat the potentially dangerous road of self-interest and false individualism. The ongoing evolution of ideas, patterned behaviors (manners), ethics, kindness, and other virtues have and will continue to adapt. Countries with greater amounts of liberty--social and economic--are kinder, gentler, and more tolerant. There is no reason, as such, to be pessimistic, like Belloc or Schumpeter.
September 11, 2024
The desperately needed correction on still widely held historical myths of the Medieval and Middle Ages periods, a critical assessment of the often ignored revolutionary economic effects of the Reformation, and a brilliant prediction the Keynesian globalist economic regime that won over its flip side of the same coin collectivist socialism. Essential reading for distributists—those wanting to restore/reform our society to one of wide ownership and true economic and political freedom.
February 28, 2013
extremely prophetic. the high point is when Belloc shows how capitalism as an economic system is unstable and impossible to maintain in its true form. though it provides liberty, it is volatile and unsecure and will inevitably drift into an alternative system.
December 7, 2016
The central theme of this book is that capitalism inevitably moves towards a welfare state by the enslavement of the masses, who own no property (thereby the means of production), to a massive economic machine with no boundaries for its ever extending reaches.
December 10, 2019
An excellent and eye opening argument for distributism. It’s easy to think in terms of capitalism or socialism, but Belloc offers an option that is distinct from both and answers each of their flaws.
Want to read
November 16, 2009Recommended by James Schall in Another Sort of Learning, Chapter 12, as one of Ten Books by Hilaire Belloc Well Worth Reading.
May 26, 2020
An in depth investigation (from 100 years ago) about how society is leading us to a state of dependence and servitude, and how the proposed solutions to our societal ills just increase our servitude.
July 1, 2021
Ο μοντέρνος κόσμος θέτει σήμερα διλήμματα τα οποία είναι σχεδιασμένα για να περιορίζουν την νόηση σε ψευδο-όρια ώστε να δυσκολευτεί ο άνθρωπος να κοιτάξει άλλες λύσεις πέρα από εκείνες που του παρουσιάζονται ως μονοδρομιακές. Το επικρατέστερο δίλημμα κοινωνικής και οικονομικής οργάνωσης των κοινωνιών είναι το δίπολο Καπιταλισμού-Σοσιαλισμού, κατάλοιπο ίσως του Ψυχρού Πολέμου. Ωστόσω, περισσότερο από 100 χρόνια πριν, το δίπολο αυτό όχι μόνο δεν ήταν δεδομένο, αλλά ο συγγραφέας παρουσιάζει μια σκέψη κατά την οποία τα δύο αυτά συστήματα είναι θεμελιωδώς το ίδιο ανελεύθερα για τα κονωνικά στρώματα εκείνα που δεν ανήκουν στην διοικούσα οικονομική και πολιτική τάξη των κοινωνιών τους.
Ο συγγραφέας παρουσιάζει τον Καπιταλισμό όπως το έζησε η Αγγλία της βιομηχανικής επανάστασης και της Βικτωριανής εποχής, παρουσιάζοντας όμως και τις απαρχές του στην Αγγλική κοινωνία από την Μεταρρύθμιση του 16ου αιώνος. Το βιβλίο δείχνει την ηλικία του λέγοντας ότι ο Σοσιαλισμός δεν έχει εφαρμοστεί (το 1912 δεν υπήρχαν ακόμα τα παραδείγματα που έχουμε σήμερα), ωστόσω η δική μας γνώση της Ιστορίας του 20ου αιώνα έρχεται να επιβεβαιώσει τις παρατηρήσεις του συγγραφέα περί δουλικότητας των προλετάριων στο σύστημα αυτό ενώ όσοι ζουν και εργάζονται ως υπάλληλοι σε εργασιακές συνθήκες σύγχρονου Καπιταλισμού θα ταυτίσουν επίσης τις σκέψεις που ενδεχομένως έχουν κάνει με τις παρατηρήσεις του βιβλίου.
Ιδιαίτερη εντύπωση κάνει η λογικότατη παρουσίαση των εμπλεκόμενων ομάδων στην σταθεροποίηση του δουλικού συστήματος από Καπιταλιστικό σε Σοσιαλιστικό, κάτι που μπορούμε να παρατηρήσουμε και στη δική μας εποχή να προχωράει με τους ρυθμούς βάθους γενεών όπως περιγράφει ο συγγραφέας. Κάποιος μπορεί να αισθανθεί δικαίωση διαβάζοντας την κατακεραύνωση από τον συγγραφέα εκείνων των «πρακτικών» ανθρώπων, που σήμερα μπορεί να χρησιμοποιούσαμε τον χαρακτηρισμό «χρήσιμοι ηλίθιοι» για εκείνους.
Όμως καθώς είναι πολύ εύκολο, με λίγη μελέτη και λογική ρητορική, να αναγνωρίσει κάποιος ένα πρόβλημα, αλλά δεν είναι εύκολο να προτείνει λύσεις, ο συγγραφέας έρχεται να κάνει και αυτό. Περιγράφει ένα σύστημα κατά το οποίο η ιδιοκτησία θα διανεμηθεί σε πολύ περισσότερους ανθρώπους απ’ ότι στις μέρες του και έτσι η αστάθεια του Καπιταλισμού θα διευθετηθεί με τρόπο που οι άνθρωποι δεν θα είναι δουλικοί. Όμως και ο ίδιος αναγνωρίζει ότι κάτι τέτοιο είναι κόντρα στην φυσική πορεία των πραγμάτων όπως έχουν γίνει σήμερα και ο φτωχός εύκολα θα θυσιάσει την ελευθερία του προκειμένου να έχει οικονομική και όχι μόνο ασφάλεια, κάτι που είναι οφθαλμοφανές και στις μέρες μας.
Ως προς την μετάφραση, η προσπάθεια του μεταφραστή θα πρέπει να ήταν ιδιαίτερα πολύπλοκη και δύσκολη καθώς το βιβλίο περιέχει έννοιες που δεν είναι εύκολο να αποδωθούν στην Ελληνική γλώσσα και να προβάλουν το ίδιο νόημα που στόχευε ο συγγραφέας. Η δουλειά γίνεται ιδιαίτερα δύσκολη όταν κάποιος σκεφτεί και τον έναν αιώνα που μας χωρίζει από την συγγραφή του βιβλίου και το κοινωνικό και γλωσσικό πλαίσιο που ζει ο συγγραφέας. Παρόλ’ αυτά, ο μεταφραστής έχει περάσει με επιτυχία όλα αυτά τα εμπόδια και η ανάγνωση του βιβλίου γίνεται με σαφήνεια και ευκολία.
Ο συγγραφέας παρουσιάζει τον Καπιταλισμό όπως το έζησε η Αγγλία της βιομηχανικής επανάστασης και της Βικτωριανής εποχής, παρουσιάζοντας όμως και τις απαρχές του στην Αγγλική κοινωνία από την Μεταρρύθμιση του 16ου αιώνος. Το βιβλίο δείχνει την ηλικία του λέγοντας ότι ο Σοσιαλισμός δεν έχει εφαρμοστεί (το 1912 δεν υπήρχαν ακόμα τα παραδείγματα που έχουμε σήμερα), ωστόσω η δική μας γνώση της Ιστορίας του 20ου αιώνα έρχεται να επιβεβαιώσει τις παρατηρήσεις του συγγραφέα περί δουλικότητας των προλετάριων στο σύστημα αυτό ενώ όσοι ζουν και εργάζονται ως υπάλληλοι σε εργασιακές συνθήκες σύγχρονου Καπιταλισμού θα ταυτίσουν επίσης τις σκέψεις που ενδεχομένως έχουν κάνει με τις παρατηρήσεις του βιβλίου.
Ιδιαίτερη εντύπωση κάνει η λογικότατη παρουσίαση των εμπλεκόμενων ομάδων στην σταθεροποίηση του δουλικού συστήματος από Καπιταλιστικό σε Σοσιαλιστικό, κάτι που μπορούμε να παρατηρήσουμε και στη δική μας εποχή να προχωράει με τους ρυθμούς βάθους γενεών όπως περιγράφει ο συγγραφέας. Κάποιος μπορεί να αισθανθεί δικαίωση διαβάζοντας την κατακεραύνωση από τον συγγραφέα εκείνων των «πρακτικών» ανθρώπων, που σήμερα μπορεί να χρησιμοποιούσαμε τον χαρακτηρισμό «χρήσιμοι ηλίθιοι» για εκείνους.
Όμως καθώς είναι πολύ εύκολο, με λίγη μελέτη και λογική ρητορική, να αναγνωρίσει κάποιος ένα πρόβλημα, αλλά δεν είναι εύκολο να προτείνει λύσεις, ο συγγραφέας έρχεται να κάνει και αυτό. Περιγράφει ένα σύστημα κατά το οποίο η ιδιοκτησία θα διανεμηθεί σε πολύ περισσότερους ανθρώπους απ’ ότι στις μέρες του και έτσι η αστάθεια του Καπιταλισμού θα διευθετηθεί με τρόπο που οι άνθρωποι δεν θα είναι δουλικοί. Όμως και ο ίδιος αναγνωρίζει ότι κάτι τέτοιο είναι κόντρα στην φυσική πορεία των πραγμάτων όπως έχουν γίνει σήμερα και ο φτωχός εύκολα θα θυσιάσει την ελευθερία του προκειμένου να έχει οικονομική και όχι μόνο ασφάλεια, κάτι που είναι οφθαλμοφανές και στις μέρες μας.
Ως προς την μετάφραση, η προσπάθεια του μεταφραστή θα πρέπει να ήταν ιδιαίτερα πολύπλοκη και δύσκολη καθώς το βιβλίο περιέχει έννοιες που δεν είναι εύκολο να αποδωθούν στην Ελληνική γλώσσα και να προβάλουν το ίδιο νόημα που στόχευε ο συγγραφέας. Η δουλειά γίνεται ιδιαίτερα δύσκολη όταν κάποιος σκεφτεί και τον έναν αιώνα που μας χωρίζει από την συγγραφή του βιβλίου και το κοινωνικό και γλωσσικό πλαίσιο που ζει ο συγγραφέας. Παρόλ’ αυτά, ο μεταφραστής έχει περάσει με επιτυχία όλα αυτά τα εμπόδια και η ανάγνωση του βιβλίου γίνεται με σαφήνεια και ευκολία.
January 1, 2026
O Estado Servil é um livro reacionário que envelheceu mal! Nessa obra de 1912, Belloc argumenta que o capitalismo implicou trabalho obrigatório para as massas em benefício de uma minoria de proprietários livres. Para ele, as leis sociais (do estado de bem-estar social) mantém os despossuídos servindo aos possuidores com baixos salários, resultando em um tipo de escravidão e exploração proletária.
O Estado Servil é justamente caracterizado por trabalho compulsório aos não detentores dos meios de produção, dando a esses um mínimo de subsistência social. Para Belloc, o mundo moderno está voltando à escravidão por meio da lei que legitima o sistema capitalista.
Na história de Belloc, a Idade Média teve um Estado Distributista: famílias detentoras de terra de pequenos proprietários autogeridos. O capitalismo destruiu esse estado de coisas. Quem causou essa queda? Belloc toma o exemplo da Inglaterra. Segundo ele, no séc. XVII, a Inglaterra retomou as terras da igreja e poucas famílias se aproveitaram para concentrá-las, inserindo tecnologias e controlando o sistema estatal e de educação. A massa ficou sem terras e sem estudos, tornou-se proletária. O capitalismo destruiu o distributismo.
Na previsão de Belloc, o capitalismo vai se destruir por ser instável moralmente (não se adequar a valores de justiça) e por não oferecer segurança ao proletariado. O autor sugere como alternativa a volta ao distributismo. Ele exalta o sistema de pequenas propriedades da Idade Média e vê nesse cenário uma boa opção para evitar o capitalismo e socialismo coletivista.
A obra é eminentemente reacionária. Existe um tom de enaltecimento da Idade Média. Ele chega a dizer que o distributismo é coisa de tradicionalista que sabe que a Idade Média tinha propriedade distribuída “durante os períodos mais felizes da história” (p. 108). Ele sugeriu que o capitalismo acabaria. Não existe nenhuma garantia de que o distributismo não se torne um coletivismo estatal para impor uma distribuição por um planejamento central. Não existe qualquer menção a mérito e competência. A obra é péssima e envelheceu mal.
O Estado Servil é justamente caracterizado por trabalho compulsório aos não detentores dos meios de produção, dando a esses um mínimo de subsistência social. Para Belloc, o mundo moderno está voltando à escravidão por meio da lei que legitima o sistema capitalista.
Na história de Belloc, a Idade Média teve um Estado Distributista: famílias detentoras de terra de pequenos proprietários autogeridos. O capitalismo destruiu esse estado de coisas. Quem causou essa queda? Belloc toma o exemplo da Inglaterra. Segundo ele, no séc. XVII, a Inglaterra retomou as terras da igreja e poucas famílias se aproveitaram para concentrá-las, inserindo tecnologias e controlando o sistema estatal e de educação. A massa ficou sem terras e sem estudos, tornou-se proletária. O capitalismo destruiu o distributismo.
Na previsão de Belloc, o capitalismo vai se destruir por ser instável moralmente (não se adequar a valores de justiça) e por não oferecer segurança ao proletariado. O autor sugere como alternativa a volta ao distributismo. Ele exalta o sistema de pequenas propriedades da Idade Média e vê nesse cenário uma boa opção para evitar o capitalismo e socialismo coletivista.
A obra é eminentemente reacionária. Existe um tom de enaltecimento da Idade Média. Ele chega a dizer que o distributismo é coisa de tradicionalista que sabe que a Idade Média tinha propriedade distribuída “durante os períodos mais felizes da história” (p. 108). Ele sugeriu que o capitalismo acabaria. Não existe nenhuma garantia de que o distributismo não se torne um coletivismo estatal para impor uma distribuição por um planejamento central. Não existe qualquer menção a mérito e competência. A obra é péssima e envelheceu mal.
February 17, 2024
Listened to this book through LibriVox.
"Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common." - Acts 4:32
A foundational work in distributism, Belloc makes the following outline:
"Now, in attempting to remedy the evils of Capitalism by remedying that one of its two factors which consists in an ill distribution of property, you have two, and only two, courses open to you... The first is the negation of private property and the establishment of what is called Collectivism: that is, the management of the means of production by the political officers of the community. The second is the wider distribution of property until that institution shall become the mark of the whole State, and until free citizens are normally found to be possessors of capital or land, or both.
The first model we call Socialism or the Collectivist State; the second we call the Proprietary or Distributive State."
He also states:
"The future of industrial society, and in particular of English society, left to its own direction, is a future in which subsistence and security shall be guaranteed for the Proletariat, but shall be guaranteed at the expense of the old political freedom and by the establishment of that Proletariat in a status really, though not nominally, servile. At the same time, the Owners will be guaranteed in their profits, the whole machinery of production in the smoothness of its working, and that stability which has been lost under the Capitalist phase of society will be found once more.
The internal strains which have threatened society during its Capitalist phase will be relaxed and eliminated, and the community will settle down upon that Servile basis which was its foundation before the advent of the Christian faith, from which that faith slowly weaned it, and to which in the decay of that faith it naturally returns."
With the decay of Christianity, it is obvious that our society should return to the Servile State. Unfortunately, I don't think that Belloc makes very many practical suggestions to return to the medieval distributist model, and I don't think there truly is one outside of the restoration of Christendom. Maybe unions can serve the place that guilds used to? Overall, I think distributism is the correct economic model, in line with Pope Leo XIII's social encyclical, Rerum novarum and consistent with Catholic Social Teaching, but I think I will have to continue reading to see this idea more fleshed out and working in a practical manner.
"Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common." - Acts 4:32
A foundational work in distributism, Belloc makes the following outline:
"Now, in attempting to remedy the evils of Capitalism by remedying that one of its two factors which consists in an ill distribution of property, you have two, and only two, courses open to you... The first is the negation of private property and the establishment of what is called Collectivism: that is, the management of the means of production by the political officers of the community. The second is the wider distribution of property until that institution shall become the mark of the whole State, and until free citizens are normally found to be possessors of capital or land, or both.
The first model we call Socialism or the Collectivist State; the second we call the Proprietary or Distributive State."
He also states:
"The future of industrial society, and in particular of English society, left to its own direction, is a future in which subsistence and security shall be guaranteed for the Proletariat, but shall be guaranteed at the expense of the old political freedom and by the establishment of that Proletariat in a status really, though not nominally, servile. At the same time, the Owners will be guaranteed in their profits, the whole machinery of production in the smoothness of its working, and that stability which has been lost under the Capitalist phase of society will be found once more.
The internal strains which have threatened society during its Capitalist phase will be relaxed and eliminated, and the community will settle down upon that Servile basis which was its foundation before the advent of the Christian faith, from which that faith slowly weaned it, and to which in the decay of that faith it naturally returns."
With the decay of Christianity, it is obvious that our society should return to the Servile State. Unfortunately, I don't think that Belloc makes very many practical suggestions to return to the medieval distributist model, and I don't think there truly is one outside of the restoration of Christendom. Maybe unions can serve the place that guilds used to? Overall, I think distributism is the correct economic model, in line with Pope Leo XIII's social encyclical, Rerum novarum and consistent with Catholic Social Teaching, but I think I will have to continue reading to see this idea more fleshed out and working in a practical manner.
April 8, 2020
A remarkably apt book for our current situation, where those who are compelled by threat of starvation or homelessness to work at whatever job they can manage to find are no longer permitted to work. Belloc highlights the instability of capitalism (not a free market, but the lasting possession of capital in the hands of the few creating distinct classes of "Capitalist" and "proletariat") on both moral and practical grounds.
Morally, capitalism does not necessarily provide for all, and must sacrifice its own stringent principles of freedom to achieve some sort of collective solution for the sake of humanity: "So long as the political freedom of all citizens is granted (the freedom of the few possessors of food to grant or withhold it, of the many nonpossessors to strike any bargain at all, lest they lack it): to exercise such freedom fully is to starve the very young, the old, the impotent, and the despairing to death. Capitalism must keep alive, by noncapitalist methods, great masses of the population who would otherwise starve to death."
Practically, capitalism's brutal system of competition incentivizes gaming the system against the very principles of free exchange that supposedly undergird it: "Competition is, as a fact, restricted to an increasing extend by an understanding between the competitors, accompanied, especially in this country, by the ruin of the smaller competitor through secret conspiracies entered into by the larger men, and supported by the secret political forces of the state." A worthwhile piece of political and economic prognostication for the times.
Morally, capitalism does not necessarily provide for all, and must sacrifice its own stringent principles of freedom to achieve some sort of collective solution for the sake of humanity: "So long as the political freedom of all citizens is granted (the freedom of the few possessors of food to grant or withhold it, of the many nonpossessors to strike any bargain at all, lest they lack it): to exercise such freedom fully is to starve the very young, the old, the impotent, and the despairing to death. Capitalism must keep alive, by noncapitalist methods, great masses of the population who would otherwise starve to death."
Practically, capitalism's brutal system of competition incentivizes gaming the system against the very principles of free exchange that supposedly undergird it: "Competition is, as a fact, restricted to an increasing extend by an understanding between the competitors, accompanied, especially in this country, by the ruin of the smaller competitor through secret conspiracies entered into by the larger men, and supported by the secret political forces of the state." A worthwhile piece of political and economic prognostication for the times.
February 7, 2021
It deserves a closer reading than I was able to give it at this time. I was most struck by how the history is presented: medieval society mostly good, concerned with limits, guilds are mocked now but did a lot, then the mean Tudors confiscated the monasteries, enclosures, and industrial capitalism. I usually associate distributism with this sort of turn of the century Edwardian shire living, but Belloc disabuses the reader of this quite strongly and points farther back in history. Brief sidenote: I usually like anti-Whiggish takes because they are relatively rare. Even if I disagree they keep things spicy.
I also like that he stresses the moral weight of this story. Rather than a sort of mechanical dialectical materialism people weren’t merely moved by the flow of history so much as they chose many of these things. The story of artisans vs industrialists is usually one which highlights an inevitable economy of scale, and while that certainly is in the mix, it glosses over a ton of fascinating labor history documented in a book like Fossil Capital. The tech wasn’t always better in an objective sense so much as it created/reproduced property relations for those with the power to shape them. I don’t have the final word on any of that though. I’m tired and it’s a topic where the scholars buy ink by the barrel.
It is also, like much of Catholic Social Teaching, liable to make everyone mad. It seeks to preserve the idea of property while disputing its distribution. It is suspicious of both the state and the context in which the market operates. It makes some good challenges in multiple directions and is worth a read.
Will revisit, or at least read more.
I also like that he stresses the moral weight of this story. Rather than a sort of mechanical dialectical materialism people weren’t merely moved by the flow of history so much as they chose many of these things. The story of artisans vs industrialists is usually one which highlights an inevitable economy of scale, and while that certainly is in the mix, it glosses over a ton of fascinating labor history documented in a book like Fossil Capital. The tech wasn’t always better in an objective sense so much as it created/reproduced property relations for those with the power to shape them. I don’t have the final word on any of that though. I’m tired and it’s a topic where the scholars buy ink by the barrel.
It is also, like much of Catholic Social Teaching, liable to make everyone mad. It seeks to preserve the idea of property while disputing its distribution. It is suspicious of both the state and the context in which the market operates. It makes some good challenges in multiple directions and is worth a read.
Will revisit, or at least read more.
March 22, 2019
A tese central do livro é que estamos em uma fase de transição na qual caminhamos de um Estado Capitalista para um Servil em que os proletários, trabalhadores que não possuindo mais propriedades podem apenas ofertar a força de trabalho, serão obrigados por lei a trabalhar, perdendo portanto a liberdade de ofertar seus serviços, e os capitalistas, classe dos possuidores de propriedade e de verdadeira liberdade, terão seus lucros assegurados. Em suma, a Igreja Católica e a experiência moral cristã nos retiraram do paganismo e da servidão, nos dando educação, propriedade e liberdade, porém, por conta da traição intelectual e moral dos homens, estamos voltando para o estado inicial das coisas.
Como todos os livros da corrente política tradicionalista há uma certa simplificação da realidade de maneira que eles sempre contam com pontos-chave em que tudo se altera, em O Estado Servil o autor acredita que o turning point tenha sido a tomada de terras eclesiásticas (monasteriais) promovida por Henrique VIII. Apesar desse defeito, é inegável que muito do que foi dito por Belloc de fato ocorreu, por exemplo: não há uma só corrente coletivista que após subir ao poder de fato tenha acabado com a propriedade privada, no máximo controlaram duramente o capital (como faziam os fascistas e nazistas), ademais há também interessantes informações historiográficas. O trabalho de Belloc é muito valioso e é uma verdadeira honra conhecer mais das teses que embasar a Doutrina Social da Igreja.
Como todos os livros da corrente política tradicionalista há uma certa simplificação da realidade de maneira que eles sempre contam com pontos-chave em que tudo se altera, em O Estado Servil o autor acredita que o turning point tenha sido a tomada de terras eclesiásticas (monasteriais) promovida por Henrique VIII. Apesar desse defeito, é inegável que muito do que foi dito por Belloc de fato ocorreu, por exemplo: não há uma só corrente coletivista que após subir ao poder de fato tenha acabado com a propriedade privada, no máximo controlaram duramente o capital (como faziam os fascistas e nazistas), ademais há também interessantes informações historiográficas. O trabalho de Belloc é muito valioso e é uma verdadeira honra conhecer mais das teses que embasar a Doutrina Social da Igreja.
March 31, 2019
Der Band versucht eine Wirtschaftstheorie zu entwickeln und zu belegen, deren Hauptpunkt darin besteht, daß der Kapitalismus, als die Gesellschaft moralisch und für die Mehrheit in den Lebensgrundlagen destabilisierend, nur eine Übergangsform zu einer stabilen Gesellschaft sein kann. Die wahrscheinlichste Entwicklungsrichtung, die Belloc 1912 sieht, ist eine Sklavengesellschaft (eben dem Servile State), alternative Antworten wären Kollektivismus und Distributionismus, den Belloc selbst befürwortet, siehe An Essay on the Restoration of Property.
Die geschichtlichen Herleitungen und Einschätzungen zur Stützung der Theorie kann man sicher nicht mehr Ernst nehmen, sondern, so man historisch interessiert ist, höchstens als Ausgangspunkt eigener Fragen an Entwicklungen nutzen. Denn trotz seiner Fehler ist der Text auch hier noch mit überraschenden Blickwechseln verbunden, die bereichern.
Im letzten Drittel werden die seinerzeit aktuellen politischen Maßnahmen untersucht und mit der Theorie abgeglichen. Dieser Teil ist sicher der spannendste: Hier erkennt man die wirkliche Kraft von Bellocs Ideen und Beobachtungen, die, an tatsächlichen Verhältnissen angewandt, sehr viel größere Überzeugungskraft gewinnen, als an luftiger Historiographie.
Hinzu kommt, daß wirklich unangenehm viele Parallelen zu heutigen Problemen und
Lösungsversuchen auffallen, die den hundert Jahre alten Text zu einer spannenden und überdenkenswerten Lektüre machen.
Die geschichtlichen Herleitungen und Einschätzungen zur Stützung der Theorie kann man sicher nicht mehr Ernst nehmen, sondern, so man historisch interessiert ist, höchstens als Ausgangspunkt eigener Fragen an Entwicklungen nutzen. Denn trotz seiner Fehler ist der Text auch hier noch mit überraschenden Blickwechseln verbunden, die bereichern.
Im letzten Drittel werden die seinerzeit aktuellen politischen Maßnahmen untersucht und mit der Theorie abgeglichen. Dieser Teil ist sicher der spannendste: Hier erkennt man die wirkliche Kraft von Bellocs Ideen und Beobachtungen, die, an tatsächlichen Verhältnissen angewandt, sehr viel größere Überzeugungskraft gewinnen, als an luftiger Historiographie.
Hinzu kommt, daß wirklich unangenehm viele Parallelen zu heutigen Problemen und
Lösungsversuchen auffallen, die den hundert Jahre alten Text zu einer spannenden und überdenkenswerten Lektüre machen.
June 10, 2021
This book was a very enlightening look at an economic "third-way." Belloc doesn't get too into distributism, however. He focuses more on where capitalism will lead us. He outlines capitalism as a transitory phase that is not stable. It has the same kind of "equilibrium" that a pyramid would have if you balanced it on its point. That equilibrium is so unstable that the slightest force will cause the whole thing to come tumbling down. That is very true for our capitalistic society (where a few owners own a large proportion of the property).
We constantly have recessions and economic instability amongst the working classes. This, you may say, sounds quite Marxist. You would be wrong, however. Belloc is just identifying a problem that capitalism creates. His solution is quite different than Marx's solution. Belloc would not have all property put back into the hands of the workers through a government trust (which is how every collectivist state has operated on Marx's redistribution of wealth scheme). Rather, Belloc has immense respect for private property and thinks that everyone should have a more-or-less equal share of some kind of property (land or capital). This allows all people to engage in free-market behavior without being exploited by the capitalist class while still respecting private property.
If an economic third-way interests you, I would check out "The Servile State."
We constantly have recessions and economic instability amongst the working classes. This, you may say, sounds quite Marxist. You would be wrong, however. Belloc is just identifying a problem that capitalism creates. His solution is quite different than Marx's solution. Belloc would not have all property put back into the hands of the workers through a government trust (which is how every collectivist state has operated on Marx's redistribution of wealth scheme). Rather, Belloc has immense respect for private property and thinks that everyone should have a more-or-less equal share of some kind of property (land or capital). This allows all people to engage in free-market behavior without being exploited by the capitalist class while still respecting private property.
If an economic third-way interests you, I would check out "The Servile State."
January 26, 2021
Belloc seems to have a dim or pessimistic view of human nature. We are predisposed to rule or be ruled he seems to believe. And he argues that once upon a time men willingly sold themselves into slavery in order to avoid destitution and were content to receive the security of a meager subsistence in return. Then he proposes, and it’s hard to tell if he’s suggesting it or if he believe it will develop naturally, a complex set of regulations that permit this continued wage slavery but with many worker protections. What he describes is much like what we have now, though what we have today is infinitely more complex but nonetheless designed to maintain the wealth in the hands of an effective oligopoly. He also had some dim views of humanity at one point saying something like some have a vice of having too many children they can’t afford so that’s a problem in terms of social welfare programs. Well, I suppose it is but the way in which he said it seemed to be that he thought little of these people, that they are stupid or something and that was sad to read.
September 13, 2021
Facinating book. I like thinkers that go outside the normal boxes, and Belloc certainly does that in this book. A strongly argued book, although I did find myself raising my eyebrows at some of the things asserted as facts (for example, that the late middles ages were objectively the "happiest of times for men"). I don't think that his predictions have panned out either. We still largely have freedom of choice in where we work, and to a large extent with our welfare systems have more freedom than ever before to not work.
I quite enjoyed the thinking this book gave me to do. As I said a strongly argued book, that nevertheless seems have been wrong and so it was interesting to think about what was missing in his arguments and approaches. It was a good exercise in critical thinking. I also like the idea of distributivism. I think there are some echos of it even in modern movements like "support local" and other things. Overall, I enjoyed it as a critique of captilism that didn't just propose big government or collectivism as the solutions.
I quite enjoyed the thinking this book gave me to do. As I said a strongly argued book, that nevertheless seems have been wrong and so it was interesting to think about what was missing in his arguments and approaches. It was a good exercise in critical thinking. I also like the idea of distributivism. I think there are some echos of it even in modern movements like "support local" and other things. Overall, I enjoyed it as a critique of captilism that didn't just propose big government or collectivism as the solutions.
April 27, 2022
Pretty mind blowing stuff. Deserves careful reading and rereading to fully understand the argument but well worth it.
The book leads us through the progression of European societies from a slave based system to one of distributed ownership in the Middle Ages. Belloc then traces how rather than capitalism starting as most people think as a consequence of the industrial revolution and technological advances the concentration of assets in a few hands in England started as a result of the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII and the transfer of much land previously owned by the church to a small number of great families with a relatively weak executive (monarchy).
He notes that capitalism is inherently unstable as a system and must eventually transition to one of three possible systems - a return to a medieval peasant society, collective ownership (socialism) or what he describes as a servile state.
He argues that we were well on the way to the third option at the beginning of the 20tb century.
The detail of this book is fascinating and illuminating.
The book leads us through the progression of European societies from a slave based system to one of distributed ownership in the Middle Ages. Belloc then traces how rather than capitalism starting as most people think as a consequence of the industrial revolution and technological advances the concentration of assets in a few hands in England started as a result of the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII and the transfer of much land previously owned by the church to a small number of great families with a relatively weak executive (monarchy).
He notes that capitalism is inherently unstable as a system and must eventually transition to one of three possible systems - a return to a medieval peasant society, collective ownership (socialism) or what he describes as a servile state.
He argues that we were well on the way to the third option at the beginning of the 20tb century.
The detail of this book is fascinating and illuminating.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews