The Great Depression from an Integralist/Distributist Perspective

 

In assessing the financial background of the causes of the Great Depression, it is important to understand that underlying political and social factors were intertwined with the economic factors which produced this phenomenon.  In dealing with this, I am taking this from the point of two traditionalist Catholic positions, Integralism and Distributism, and will analyze based on many writers from those positions what created the Depression, and in many aspects how World War II aided in recovery.  However, some of the writers referenced were published before the Great Depression, but their insights are what many later researchers based their conclusions upon.

In reading Ben S. Bernanke’s analysis of this, he points to two factors which were underlying components in the Great Depression happening[1]:

1.      Failure of Financial Institutions

2.      Widespread Insolvency of Debtors

By the first, Bernanke is talking about the failure of small local banks to handle financial complexities of a national economy, something the position of this article will differ with radically.  On the contrary, the tendency of larger banks to swallow up smaller institutions, as was the case of “crony capitalism,” may have been more of a contributing factor in this.  This causes, as Crean and Fimister note, a situation where the sale of the use of money (excessive interest) is in essence a form of legalized fraud in that the use of such money is distinct from its alienation and thus makes the acquisition of capital more important to the larger institution rather than its circulation into the economy[2].  As Catholic philosopher/theologian Romano Guardini notes, the problem here is one fundamentally in the exercise of power.  He writes[3]:

“A more immediate danger threatens when power is at the disposal of a will that is either morally misguided or morally uncommitted.  Or there may be no appealable will at all, no person answerable for power, only an anonymous organization, each department of which transfers its authority to the next, thus leaving each – seemingly – exempt from responsibility.”

Brazilian Catholic philosopher and economic commentator Plinio Correa de Oliviera notes something similar when he writes in his seminal text Revolution and Counter-Revolution the following[4]:

“Private enterprise is more and more limited. Inheritance taxes are so onerous that in certain cases the federal treasury is the principal heir.  Government interference in such things as exchange, import, and export makes industry, commerce, and banking dependent on the state.”

The danger of this type of situation was noticed by Hilaire Belloc, who wrote in his seminal text The Servile State that this type of corporate capitalism (he called it “perfect capitalism”) would not be feasible in that no one outside a cabal of economic elitists the average person would be deprived of basic essentials such as food, and those who were among these economic elitists would overproduce, glut the markets, and thus initiate economic depression[5].  In view of these writers, Bernanke’s thesis about the cause being the failure of smaller banks is at variance with the views of these earlier writers, in that the larger institutions tended to grab resources for themselves, thus altering the markets and causing both consumer demand and market supply to become unbalanced, and thus causing the Depression.   Many of these same thinkers would not view in a positive light the idea of “corporate capitalism” therefore, in favor of the small business instead.  The lack of focus on investment in small businesses, according to these schools of thought (called Integralism and Distributism) caused many small businesses to falter, and thus adversely affected the local economy.  Bankrupting the grassroots market, then, would have been the ultimate cause of the 1929 Crash that brought on the Great Depression when seen from this perspective.

Looking at it from that perspective, it could actually be easily concluded that a fundamental change in the political order also may have aided in the evolution of factors that led to the Great Depression, as well as the civil and political unrest seen for many decades of the previous century.  Until 1914, there was a stable Monarchist political order – Hapsburg Austria, czarist Russia, etc.  When war and revolution destabilized many of those monarchies and caused a shift in the social order, it caused some upheaval in Europe in particular.  So, what does that have to do with the United States, which was never Monarchist and also where the 1929 Crash originated?  Although the US is a republican government, in values and civilization it was still tied to classical Europe, and according to many Catholic thinkers in particular – Monarchists, Distributists, Integralists, etc. – the collapse of the “old order” in Europe had a catastrophic domino effect that was felt worldwide.  Many scholars would even argue actually that World Wars I and II were in reality on 31-year conflict, and the Depression was located at the central chronological apex of this.  If that be the case, it would mean that socio-political, as well as economic, factors are what made the Great Depression happen. 

As can be seen, there is a variance in theories between Bernanke and the classic Catholic writers on economics and social theories, and that variance places the causation of the Depression on two different things – Bernanke and others like him would say that the small banks and small business was the cause, while Belloc and others would note that bigger corporate interests, allowed to grow unchecked in the new “corporatist” system, were the cause.  Personally, the second view seems to have more credence, as it does appear that larger interests such as mega-banks and large corporations sought to monopolize certain sectors and accumulate their fortunes at the expense of the local businesses that built the individual local economies, that in turn made a stronger national economic stability possible.  As the bigger corporations made it so they had international reach, they then could even dictate the economies of nations. It also would impact significantly local communities (case in point, the city of Gary, Indiana – the major industries who at one time provided an economic base in Gary eventually abandoned their endeavors there in order to pursue markets that were more favorable to them) even beyond the timeframe of the Great Depression. Although it sounds conspiratory, evidence suggests that a similar role is being played today by mega-corporations, especially the new “Silicon Valley” group that exercise almost a monolithic control over cybercommunications.  If this is the case, it begs the question as to whether or not a second Great Depression could happen, and that is something that surely should be paid closer attention.

---

[1] Ben S. Bernanke, “Nonmonetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in the Propagation of the Great Depression,” American Economic Review 73, no. 3 (1983): 258-261.

[2] Thomas Crean and Alan Fimister, Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy (Havertown, PA: Casemate Publishers, 2020): 191.

[3] Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1998): 124.

[4] Plinio Correa de Oliviera, Revolution and Counter-Revolution (Spring Grove, PA: American TFP, 1993): 111-112.

[5] Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (London: T.N. Foulis, 1912): 55-56.

There's Always One!

 For those of you who know me over the years, I am an alumnus of Franciscan University of Steubenville, as well as a convert to the Catholic Church from the Pentecostal tradition.  While at Steubenville, I had the privilege of being under the tutelage of a brilliant professor by the name of Scott Hahn.  Dr. Hahn, like me, is a convert to the Church, and his story is very well-known.  He also has published many phenomenal books - some in collaboration with equally-brilliant scholars such as Benjamin Wiker, John Bergsma, and Brant Pitre.  He is a stellar human being as well as being a capable Biblical scholar and theologian, and his insights over the years have been a major benefit to me as well as many others.  Yet, no one is loved by everyone, and of course it was only a matter of time before Dr. Hahn's detractors would come out of the woodwork, like barnacles off an old rusty ship.  Some have disagreed with him before, including a former classmate of his and fellow convert (who is now a sedevacantist Catholic) but the name of Gerry Matatics, but for the most part even they have refrained from attacking his scholarship and resorting to ad hominem BS.  But, there is always one of course who will stoop to that level, and recently he revealed who he was.  

Sean Swain Martin, self-identified "doctoral student" who is obsessed with Scott Hahn

Sean Swain Martin is, by his own designation, a "doctoral student" now at the University of Dayton, and he wrote a book recently called American Pope: Scott Hahn and the Rise of Catholic Fundamentalism.  I haven't read it, and to be honest the title of the thing tells me all I need to know.  However, Eric Sammons, the editor of Crisis Magazine, did review the book, and it was worse than I would have thought it to be.  Martin is, just by his attitude, more than likely a theological liberal - he doesn't like evangelization, and anything that shows the average Catholic in the pew getting enthusiastic about their faith is for him a form of "fundamentalism."  This elitist snobbery (which bears a theological term for those who possess it - pompous ass) is something I have seen before.  About ten years ago, a similar attitude was expressed by Lee Roy Martin, who at the time was the President of the Society for Pentecostal Socialists - oops, I mean "Studies!" - made a comment in regard to a renegade theologically liberal Assemblies of God professor who used to be Paul Alexander (he has since declared himself "transgender" and is going by the name April these days - mental illness masquerading as scholarship is ridiculous but seems to be accepted for some reason) that really raised my hackles then.  When confronted with his controversial stand, Martin said this: "In fact, I would insist in the strongest terms that our scholars are more devoted to the Pentecostal faith than are Pentecostal laity and ministers in general" (Mark Tooley, "Society for Pentecostal Studies President Reacts to Paul Alexander Controversy," Juicy Ecumenism: The Institute on Religion and Democracy's Blog. April 10, 2013, at https://juicyecumenism.com/2013/04/10/society-for-pentecostal-studies-president-reacts-to-paul-alexander-controversy/ - Accessed November 13, 2021).  I see a similar attitude with Sean Swain Martin in his comments in the book about Catholic laity studying Scripture.  And, that leads me to a couple of observations.

First, what in blazes is the deal with these guys with the surname Martin??  This guy, Lee Roy Martin, "Father" James Martin  - seriously!  All of them are liberal, pompous, and they are giving that surname a bad reputation.  I mean, in collecting vintage big band recordings, I am a big fan of the late Freddy Martin's orchestra, but I doubt if Freddy, if he were alive, would have much in common with those sharing the surname.  And, I don't think it should be an indictment against others with that surname either - there are probably a lot of good people with the last name Martin who would actually be a little shocked at the attitudes of these jerks.  That has about as much to do with the subject as the price of tea in Taiwan, but it is odd that all of the culprits of the craft of pompous assery have the same surname.  Are they related?  That would bear more investigation, but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. 

Sean Martin, like his distant cousin Lee Roy (if they are related) seems to have a similar disdain for Catholics who want to study Scripture, and he is really upset that Dr. Hahn has been encouraging them to do so - oh the horror!  I mean, think about it - Biblically-literate lay Catholics who become more appreciative of their faith.  After all, it might be a revelation to those messing with Pachamama idols or something, God forbid.  Sean, do us all a favor, bro - get a real hobby and stop trying to play theologian.  In his own words, here is what esteemed scholar Sean Martin thinks of you if you read your Bible daily as a lay Catholic, as Eric Sammons quotes him - "It would be difficult to expect each individual Catholic to be prepared to offer such a careful investigation of the different literary forms employed, cultural influences manifest, etc., in the Scriptures so as to easily move from familiarity to 'eminent knowability." (Eric Sammons, "Is Scott Hahn a Fundamentalist?" Crisis Magazine Website, https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/is-scott-hahn-a-fundamentalist?fbclid=IwAR0kQYvUIHbNjI87KZOmgrUKEIIvq0vamZUViuy7nR_334jY0T1D6rP41Yw, November 11, 2021 - Accessed November 13, 2021).  Oh really, Doctor Sean??  I don't think that the average lay Catholic is seeking to be a textual scholar - they read Scripture for spiritual growth, not to be a Greek scholar.  And, if it does motivate some of them to study further, what in hell does it have to do with you, Sean??  Methinks Sean, like so many others, feels threatened - academics don't appreciate when people read for themselves and do as II Timothy 2:15 admonishes, "studying to show themselves approved."  However, Dr. Hahn is not your typical academic - he is also an inspiration as a faithful lay Catholic himself who happens to have theological credentials and he doesn't feel threatened by people learning things; if he did, he would not be an educator to begin with, would he?  Dr. Hahn is a phenomenal scholar, but he is not pompous or an elitist academic - he is a man who lives his faith, and has a passion for sharing it, and the way he does so is by discipling others to grow in theirs by knowing what Scripture says for themselves.  Sean, though, is not that devout in his faith I would bet - my guess, just by reading some of his material on his blog, is that he doesn't believe the Bible is even true, so he feels threatened by others who take it seriously.  Sean would be better off as an Episcopalian maybe, as a church of rich White snobs might suit him better than the culturally-diverse atmosphere of an orthodox Catholic parish.  And, it is possible that Sean is being bankrolled by rich White snobs who think like he does, so he has to know how to pucker up to their posteriors.  His scholarship, though, is lacking - he derides Dr. Hahn for appealing to the laity, yet his own writing style is pretentious, verbose, and also focusing on irrelevant crap that brings nothing to the discussion.  Also, Dr. Hahn is a doctor - Sean is merely a doctoral student, as I am myself - perhaps he needs to wait until he can prefix his name with the letters "Dr." before he claims to know more than someone who actually has earned those credentials. 

Despite how I just shredded Sean, I feel sorry for him - he is so limited (I believe Sammons used the word "small-minded") that he cannot even see what he clearly needs to.  And, it has made him a professional theologian who has no real faith except academic elitism and the idolatry of status he engages in.  If he doesn't have an encounter with the real Jesus of the Eucharist and doesn't get the desire to deepen his faith, he may regret it one day when the torments of hell wrack his soul.  I only pray he finds out sooner than later.