An Essay on the Restoration of Property

by Hilaire Belloc

This short work is a program for property distribution as an alternative to how it is planned by socialist states or naturally happens in capitalist societies. It is a landmark of European social thought, attempting to rectify the wrongs in both of the major economic theories by approaching the problem from an entirely new angle. The essay is thus an anticapitalist and antisocialist work of Christian and Catholic social thought in which basic truths about society and human nature are applied to socioeconomics. It is a manifesto and a program for the Distributist League, of which Belloc and G. K. Chesterton were the primary figures. It marks a key point in the history of economic thought, and it is a fundamental text illustrating the influence of religion and philosophy on social thought and their practical application to societal questions.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Catholic, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History

104 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

People 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.

Reviews

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

A classic statement of Distributism, which aims to answer the problems created by socialism and crony capitalism, but introduces a new set of problems.

[Jason Carter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Belloc, along with GK Chesterton, championed the little known, completely dead, but eminently reasonable economic system known as Distributism. Belloc argues that Industrial Capitalism, as practiced in the west, leads inexorably to one of two states: Communism or the Servile State. The Servile State is that state "where *all* men, the few Capitalists and the mass of proletariat are *all* securely nourished--the latter on a wage, or, lacking this, a subsidy in idleness."

As pandemic subsidies increase momentum towards the universal basic income, it is hard not to view Belloc as prescient, pointing out this inevitability 80-plus years ago.

In this long essay / short book, he lays out a program designed to bring about a third alternative--the wide distribution of property. Whereas socialism concentrates the means of production in the state, and capitalism in the hands of the few capitalists, distributism would have the means of production widely dispersed among the many, avoiding the proletariat selling his wages to either of the former. The result, presumably, is a solid middle class of economically independent--and therefore politically free--peasants, craftsmen, and shareholders in larger cooperatives.

Belloc is under no illusion this will be easy, recommending gradual attainment primarily through preferential laws and a tax code designed to incentivize the small businessman over and against the large corporations.

The ideas espoused by the distributists are sorely needed, making this one of the most important essays written in the last one hundred years. If I had a required reading list of ten books for every thoughtful American, this would no doubt make the list.

[W. Littlejohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here's the full review:
Hilaire Belloc’s Essay on the Restoration of Property is a fantastic paradigm-rocker. In it, he sets forth the shocking, but ultimately quite sensible claim that, far from being opposites, capitalism and socialism are essentially of the same genus; socialism just takes capitalism a bit further--to it’s logical conclusion. How could this be? Because both are the rejection of private property. But wait, hold on a minute--I thought capitalism was all in favor of private property. Well, not really. With the rise of modern capitalism, the possession of real, productive property, which was once widely distributed among the majority of the population, was rapidly concentrated in the hands of a small minority of the population, leaving very few small proprietors and producers, and enslaving most of those that remained to the control of banks. Socialism is simply taking the next step--if we’ve already dispossessed most people, and concentrated the means of production in the hands of a few, let’s just go ahead and concentrate them in the hands of one entity that is at least looking out for the welfare of everyone.

The result, of course, in either case, is loss of freedom: “The possessors alone remain to enjoy economic freedom, the disposessed--the very great majority--are deprived of it; but there is already at least security of some revenue for nearly all, and there can, with proper organization, be sufficiency for all as well. The only good lost to the masses, if it be a good, is freedom. For in such a state of society (the Servile State) the determining note is lack of freedom: the determing mass of society have no experience of economic liberty. The master class directs and is free: but society thinks and acts in terms of wage earners. The masses are kept alive, they are taught by a subsidy in childhood, treated by a subsidy in illness, and maintained by a subsidy in old age, widowhood and incapacity from accident. Soon no one of them may be suffering either hunger or cold or lack of any plain material necessity consonant to the type of civilization in which they live. But their activities are at the mercy of their masters.”

In other words, we, who pride ourselves in living in such a very free society, faced with the prospect of boundless choice, are actually like hamsters, so long confined to their cage and fattened by indolence that their hopes, horizons, and imagination have shrunk to the point that they imagine themselves to be living in a paradise of free entertainments, and can wish for nothing more than their prefab food pellets.

The solution, of course (and here Belloc has the Old Testament clearly on his side, although he doesn’t use it--indeed, the almost total lack of reference to Scripture or Church in this book was a big weakness) is to structure one’s economy such that property is once again widely distributed, and big producers are prevented from devouring small producers, so that we have a society of genuinely free men no longer alienated from the products of their labor.

Belloc is eloquently pessimistic about whether this is feasible: “Respect for reality compels me to say that the Restoration of Property when that institution has all but disappeared is a task almost impossible of achievement. If it were quite impossible of achievement it would not be worth while wasting breath or ink upon it. It is not quite impossible of achievement; at least, it is not quite impossible to start the beginnings of a change. But the odds against a reconstruction of economic freedom in a society which has long acquired the practice and habit of wage slavery is difficult beyond any other political task. I do not know whether it be possible to start even the beginnings of a change. I doubt heavily that it is possible to plant successfully even the small seedlings of economic freedom in our society, here, in England, today. What I certainly know is that, failing such a change, our industrial society msut necesarily end in the restoration of slavery. The choice lies between property on the one hand and slavery, public or private, on the other. There is no third issue.”

Belloc insists that the rise of modern capitalism was by no means a social or economic necessity: “It is not true that capitalism arose inevitably from the necessary development of economic institutions under the doctrine of private proprty. Capitalism arose only after the safeguards guaranteeing well-distributed private property had been deliberately broken down by an evil will insufficiently resisted.” But, on the other hand, he does not thereby believe that the market, left to itself, will continue in an idyllic state of freedom and equality: “once restored, Property must be constantly sustained or it will lapse again into Capitalism. Private property acting unchecked, that is, in the absence of all safeguards for the preservation of the small man’s independence, tends inevitably to an ultimate control of the means of production by a few; that is, in economics, to Capitalism, and therefore, in politics, to plutocracy.”
Here is the reconciliation of these two statements--“Though it is true that unchecked competition must ultimately produce the rule of ownership by a few, yet it is also true that mankind has always felt this to be the danger, has instinctively safeguarded itself against that danger by the setting up of institutions for the protection of small property, and that these institutions have never broken down of themselves, but always and only under the conscious action of a deliberately hostile attack.”

Probably the strongest section in the book is his account of the seven reasons why the market, unfettered, will tend toward increasing centralization: 1) overhead charges; the larger an organization, up to a very considerable size at least, the lower its overhead costs will generally be, proportionately. One can administer ten thousand retail stores under a single corporation for a much lower average cost than ten thousand men can administer ten thousand independent retail stores. 2) Information. The larger an organization, its ability to publicize itself will be exponentially greater (there’s some great remarks on the evils of advertising in this section). 3) The power to obtain credit: a larger entity can get credit much more easily, at much lower rates of interest, and can continue to hold a line of credit even when insolvent, because the lenders are afraid of letting it collapse. 4) Underselling. We all know this phenomenon with Wal-mart; the bigger organization sells at a loss for a while in order to drive the smaller competition out of business. 5) Ease of accumulating capital. This one’s a bit more complicated, but the essence is that a big wealthy organization can afford to set aside money to accumulate capital much more easily than a small producer. 6) Political influence. The large organization can easily put all sorts of pressure on a parliamentary political system to enact laws and policies friendly to it. 7) Judicial influence. The larger organization can often afford to take legal advantage of the smaller organization, because the latter simply cannot afford the costs of carrying on a court case, even one they ought to win. (It’s particularly remarkable that Belloc had already noted this danger in 1936, a danger that has spiralled out of control since.)

There is, however, a weakness in the book, and that is that Belloc’s pessimism about seeing this restoration of property mean that he rests what little hope he has on the State. This is odd, given that he sees so clearly the collusion of state and big business, and even says at the end, “Parliaments are necessarily the organs of plutocracy. There is no approach through them whereby the small man can have effect in the economic field.” Apparently he hopes for the ending of the Parliamentary system of government, being convinced that monarchy is much more favorable to distributism. Early on, he seems to say that a top-down fix is not the answer: “The evil has gone so far that, though the preaching of a new doctrine is invaluable, the creation of new and effective immediate machinery is impossible. The restoration of Property must essentially be the product of a new mood, not of a new scheme. It must grow from seed planted in the breast. It is too late to reinfuse it by design, and our effort must everywhere be particular, local, and in its origins, small.”

But later on, he explicitly rejects the idea that the solution is to be found in changing the philosophy, the religion, of the society; it’s too late for that, he says. If anything is to be done, it will have to be done soon, and resolutely. “No such reformation as we are contemplating can be undertaken or continued without State power....We shall find as we proceed in our search for Economic Freedom, that we cannot follow it for any distance without calling in the powers of the State, to contrast with, and as far as possible to destroy, the usurped powers of Big Business.”

To this end, he recommends a system of differential taxation, carefully calculated to make life more difficult for the big producer and easier for the small producer. “It will be objected, of course,” he says, “that for such a system you would need an extension of bureaucracy, that the definition of the various categories will be difficult, etc. It is true that in all these reforms we shall have to extend, for the moment, bureaucratic action. The nature of the modern world is such that we cannot escape from being helped by the State in our reforms.”

In general, he would prefer to avoid State ownership, but says that it will be necessary in certain situations. Repeatedly he speaks of the need for the State to artificially foster the isolated and feeble seedlings of small property ownership at the expense of the rest of society, and is unapologetic about what this requires: “You cannot start a new peasantry save at the expense of the diseased society surrounding it; and if you are not prepared to impose that sacrifice your peasantry will never be established. It must begin as a social luxury, and, while it remains in that initial ‘luxury’ stage, it must like all luxuries, be extravagantly paid for.”

Now, all of this, I am perhaps not so opposed to in principle as you might think. If the government is responsible for administering justice and providing for the common good, and there is indeed a serious structural injustice, one that the government helped create, then there is certainly something to be said for having the government go to work to undo the harm it did, and “artificially” restore a juster order. I am certainly not wholeheartedly in favor of that proposition, but I could seriously entertain it. But on a pragmatic level, I have deep doubts. If it be true, as Belloc recognizes clearly, that governments, at least of the sort we now have to reckon with, are almost chronically unable to avoid getting in bed with big corporations, how could we genuinely trust them with such a project? In this irreligious and secular age, how can we hope that more corruption, rather than more care for their citizens, will be the end result? And, if society as a whole is screwed up, how will a top-down imposition work? It will simply prompt an uprising by the monied interests, who will use all the means at their disposal to bring the government back under their control; plus, it simply will not take root among a citizenry indisposed to take on the responsibilities of real property-ownership.

Personally, I think Distributism’s best chance for success lies in being “particular, local, and in its origins, small,” in particular, focusing on local church initiatives. Church communities and denominations, if they’re really serious about these ideals, can go a long way to nourishing free, just, well-distributed economic organizations in their midst. Of course if the State really desires to help out in some way, they should rejoice, but they shouldn’t put too much hope there. It will be a long, slow, hard process of swimming upstream, but it seems more likely to pay off in the long run.

[Andrew Figueiredo · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Essay on the Restoration of Property" is another classic distributist text I read for this project I'm undertaking. In it, Belloc presents his outline for distributism. Like Chesterton, Belloc is realistic about the odds of revolutionizing property-holding; it won't happen until there are enough (and protected) smallholders to define the tone of the state and change peoples' minds. Therefore, he merely suggests a starting point in this work.

Many trends are arrayed against the resurgence of property-holding. industrial capitalism, or what Belloc refers to as the Servile State, is quite advanced and influences political choices. Communism presented at the time a formidable challenge to the West as well. Distributism is meant to avoid both of these, but it contends with various obstacles. For example, the writer discusses the trends which tend to breed economic concentration. He also acknowledges that people have lost their sense of pride in property, which makes his task a more challenging endeavor.

However, Belloc valuably explores the connections between property-holding and freedom, doing so more eloquently than Chesterton, although without the funny metaphors. He claims to not list a platform per se, but a policy focus keeps re-emerging, based on differential taxation, more egalitarian shareholding of natural monopolies, and the formation of guilds for cooperation between small businesses. Interestingly, while Chesterton made space for a sort of government dividend in his framework, Belloc would reject that in favor of actual ownership. For the latter, a UBI would simply be the mark of a Servile State. Most of Belloc's solutions make sense from his perspective, although I question whether guilds can become in themselves monopolistic and exclusionary. In the contemporary United States, such organizations erect barriers to entry and make entire sectors (barbershops are a good example) less competitive, not more. Surely guilds partook in similar activities throughout history, so I was disappointed Belloc didn't explore this aspect of his proposals. In addition, I have a bone to pick with his strident anti-modernism when it bleeds into anti-democratic sentiment. Belloc claims that parliaments are solely vehicles for plutocracy, but countless examples of how popular movements like the US' Populist Party and Progressives and the CCF in Canada and Labour in the UK would suggest otherwise. Belloc was wrong on that count, as less democratic structures are often less attuned to working-class demands.

Along with 'The Outline of Sanity", this is an essential read for anybody seeking to learn more about distributism. While I vehemently disagree with some of Belloc's writings, this book is free from his prejudices and worthy of recommendation.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 3 out of 5]

L' "essai sur la restauration de la propriété" est un traité court (100 pages) de Hilaire Belloc qui sert de manifeste et programme pour revenir à une petite propriété normative, *contra* le capitalisme et sa division entre grands propriétaires et masse de prolétaire qui est en train de détruire notre société aujourd'hui.

En aussi peu de pages, il y a tout juste ce qu'il faut pour avoir un plan d'action. La partie la plus intéressante est la première partie, où il décrit le plan général et le "comment" se mobiliser. J'ai particulièrement apprécié son exhortation à agir, qui est bien écrite et motive puissamment à se lancer contre le béhémoth du Marché.
La deuxième partie en revanche, la plus pratique, est complètement obsolète, vu qu'elle s'applique au monde économique des années 30. Elle permet toutefois d'avoir un exemple de "planification" distributiste.

Une lecture utile, mais il faudrait mieux consulter un plan plus à jour.

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Der schmale Band beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, ob es im entwickelten kapitalistischen Wirtschaftssystem Möglichkeiten gibt, Eigentum als Grundlage von Einkommen "wohlzuverteilen". Denn nur der Bürger, der auf eigener wirtschaftlicher Grundlage lebt, kann als wirklich freier Mensch handeln und an den Entscheidungen des Gemeinwesens teilhaben, so Belloc. Entsprechend wenden sich die Idee gegen z.B. Konzernstrukturen, (Effizienz-)Wachstum und die Konzentration auf Einkommens(um-)verteilung in politischen Debatten.
(Meine deutsche Ausgabe heißt: "Recht auf Eigentum"; was leider den Inhalt nicht trifft.)
Die entwickelten Ideen dazu sind rein politischer Natur, gesetzliche Eingriffe in die Wirtschaftsverfassung -- Belloc ist, meiner Meinung nach zu Recht, sehr pessimistisch, was die Erreichbarkeit solcher Gesetze angeht.

Dennoch ist das Buch, als eine sehr knappe Einführung in ein konservatives, Belloc selbst nennt die Absichten an einer Stelle "reaktionär", Wirtschaftsideal überraschend und bereichernd.

[Luke Ingram · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I disagree with a lot in this (and agree with some of it) this is really well written; concise, clear and a great work of persuasive writing. Once you've read the first 20 pages or so you can guess Belloc's political prescription for the remainder, yet this deserves a proper review once I've read around the topic some more.

[Peter Swindeman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Belloc produces a lucid explanation of what it means to implement the principle of subsidiarity economically: private productive property. He also provides a elementary outline of what can be done to remedy his contemporary economic issues.

[sch]

Recommended by John Senior.

[Anna Keating · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's so pleasant to think through his arguments. An essay against "wage slavery" capitalist or socialist. An essay in defense of making, tilling, creating as human needs.

[Leland Rowley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a practical handbook for distributists. Belloc focuses on what Distributism is and how to implement it in a modern society rather than focusing on detailing the problems in an Industrial Capitalist society like he did in his book, The Servile State. My only problem is that he advocates appealing to the government to implement changes rather than changing opinions on a more local level and allowing Distributism to be established because people realize that it has many benefits over the current economic systems. The idea that giving the government increased power to force change, and then hoping that when the changes are complete they will step down, seems very naive. Belloc was not a naive person, so I must believe that his willingness to overlook the obvious was due to his fear of a servile state that he believed was so close that immediate and drastic measures were needed if disaster was to be averted. Wonderful book overall and one I would highly recommend to anyone who is disenchanted with the current economic systems.

[graceofgod · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting short book on catholic social thought and distributism. I do have one critique of it though, at the end of the book(pg 96) he writes(referring to trade unions):

"It is a proletarian institution through and through, and a proletariat and proletarian spirit is exactly what we are aiming to destroy."


This is all well and good, but the problem with distributism is that while it claims to want to abolish the proletariat, it also at the same time wants to preserve "well-ordered property"(private property). Thish necessarily will lead to wage slavery. Distributist's would like to de-proletarianize(to use Dorothy Day's word) the proletariat and to make everyone petit-bourgeois. But how would one do that without overtaking the means of production(which Distributist's explicitly are against)?

Enjoyable but extremely idealistic.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very perspicuous exposition of the economic philosophy which has been called "distributism" but which here Belloc calls "the proprietary state," meaning a state in which the character of the society and its institutions is largely influenced by freeholders and the so-called "self-employed." Such a society would be characterized, Belloc argues, by economic freedom for the great mass of families. He is emphatic that such a condition of society can only be brought about by positive state action, though he eschews many of the measures liberals often propose for ameliorating the conditions of the working classes, mainly because such measures solidify their status as working classes and not producing or independent classes. As an aside, the illustrations that IHS Press includes in their books are quite charming. Recommended for those with an interest in economic theory.

[Titus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good book. Radical, even by today's standards. Guidelines for very gradually planting the seeds to restoring property from the hands of a few to the hands of many, all based on the idea that people will be happier if they are given the opportunity to own property responsibly. Belloc is neither capitalistic nor socialistic in ideology, but instead he advocates distributism, a system in which the State fosters small business at the expense of big business, where enough citizens retain property in society such that they make up the character of that society–ultimately, a system where absolute free enterprise is restricted of the few who would otherwise dominate for the sake of preserving freedom for the many.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

Belloc's premise is interesting: finding fault with both capitalism (leading to the Servile State) and communism (leading to tyranny), he offers a third way: distributism. Basically, distributism is a focus on small-scale economics. Preserving private property and small-scale ownership, Belloc argues that social and economic laws and structures should favor local, small-scale businesses and the restoration of guilds over large, trans-national corporations, which he sees as leading only to slavery and illusory freedom. Belloc's argument is interesting, and bears serious consideration, especially in light of Schumacher's Small is Beautiful, and Mohammed Yunus' work with microcredit.

[Charise D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book outlines the difference between economic freedom and mere purchasing power, shows how Capitalism and Socialism are basically cut from the same cloth, introduces the economic theory of Distributism, and suggests a plan for return to the Proprietary State, in which people actually own property and use it to create wealth for themselves. Distributism is a more humane economic theory, and the one which I believe is the most natural to mankind.

[C. McMaster · Rating 3 out of 5]

an attempt at practical solutions for redeeming a servile society and implementing distributism. he presents a good starting point, but his ideas clearly need improving. how can society makes these changes without too much government intervention?

[Magnus]

A book by one of the original distributists. I agree with the ends of Bellocs distributism, but I think he has a bit more of a statist/socialist approach to the means than I think is good. It seems to me that Cherston respected private property a bit more than Belloc.

[Marc · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very solid essay, and lays out a compelling vision, but more recent works are necessary to get a good idea of how it could be concretely implemented in the modern world.

[Georges-emile Durand · Rating 3 out of 5]

Heureux de l'avoir lu, pas plus.