In one of the comboxes below, Scott Lahti sent me to this excerpt of a Godspy interview with Joseph Pearce, the Catholic writer who recently wrote a book about the continuing relevance of "Small Is Beautiful" author E.F. Schumacher's ideas:
It sounds very similar to what Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Centisimus Annus, when he said his criticisms of capitalism "are directed not so much against an economic system as against an ethical and cultural system" that "reduces man to the sphere of economics and the satisfaction of material needs." People on both the left and the right have a hard time understanding that it's not just about economic systems.Yes, and one result of that is that for a long time people have assumed that economics have a blind, deterministic power, whether that's a result of the Hegelian philosophy of the Marxists, a sort of economic determinism, or the result of the economic libertarians, who claim the hidden hand of the market is not only all-powerful but beneficial, so both of those beliefs have really dominated economic thinking one way or the other...
They're both materialist philosophies...
Yes, they don't take into account that economics is a servant not a master. Now, in terms of Marxism, things have not evolved as Marx predicted they would, so that kind of economic determinism has lost all credibility, except for a crackpot few. But with economic libertarianism, the issue there is we need to examine their assumptions: First, the free market doesn't really exist, for a number of reasons. People are always interfering with the market, advertising distorts the market, the size of economic activity distorts the market, government policy distorts the market, government subsidy distorts the market, free trade, protectionism distorts the market; the free market as a theory is actually a fallacy in the sense that there are market forces but they're never free, they're always being manipulated by somebody, whether its government or big business, so the issue is how do we interfere with the market, what actually do we want the market to be doing, how should it be manipulated for the common good. I know that libertarians, when they hear the phrase 'the common good', they think you're a communist. But of course, the whole Catholic concept of subsidarity is that both economic and politics should be done on a human scale; it's not only about small businesses but also about small government, that we want the de-volution of power away from big central government back to regional government; we want laws that do not encroach upon the rights of the family, so this is very, very different than a state-run society.
The focus is on the human person...
Yes, for the dignity of the human person. It's about recognizing that the human person has dignity and that economics and politics should serve that dignity and the person should not be subjected to forces which are contrary to human dignity.[snip]
About the Greens, beyond their Marxism, they've also become even more obsessed by sexual politics, by radical personal liberation, don't you think?Exactly. In many respects it's very hedonistic, and of course hedonism works against both environmental health, and individual health. You can't have a system based on selfishness in moral issues and expect, at the same time, to have an economic system based on self-restraint. It's a contradiction. On the one hand, they want complete self-centered liberation from all ethical constraint, and on the other hand, they expect people to behave economically and socially with self-restraint, and that doesn't compute.
It's ironic that in terms of traditional Marxism, whatever you think about it, it certainly wasn't about personal or sexual liberation...Quite frankly I think in the nineteenth and early twentieth century many people who were Marxists were responding to genuine economic injustices; however wrong their solutions were, they may have been well-intentioned. But a large part of the underlying philosophy of the Marxist or Green left today is based upon hatred of the whole of western civilization, driven by the desire to be iconoclastic against anything they consider to be traditional. Of course the result is that it leads to the breakdown of self-control, and people become hedonistic, which doesn't just mean having many sexual partners, but means having a disposal mentality in everything else, so that people like this live a very unhealthy lifestyle from the point of view of the environment, and from the point of view of their own sexual health, the sexual health of others, and social cohesion in general.
Check out the E.F. Schumacher Society.
What would Schumacher say to the presidential candidates if he could sit down with them today for an advisory session? Thoughts?

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
While at the E.F. Schumacher Society web site, anyone for whom discovering unjustly-neglected writers, and browsing deep in the paperback shelves of used bookshops, are familiar exercises, is in for a revelation in bookmarking within its full-run archive (1948-1988) of the humanist weekly MANAS (www.manasjournal.org), one of the best-kept and most charismatic secrets in the history of American periodical publishing (circ. c. 2500); it gave, e.g., Schumacher's famous "Buddhist Economics" (more "Catholic" than Buddhist, actually, as EFS admitted later) its first US hearing. Anonymously edited by a Los Angeles Theosophist (Henry Geiger) without a trace of name-egotism or sectarian axe-grinding, MANAS explored and celebrated undogmatically for over forty years the ideas of some of the most wholesome decentralist thinkers in the West-meets-East interchange: Wendell Berry, the Bhagavad-Gita, William Blake, Martin Buber, Albert Camus, Macneile Dixon, Mohandas Gandhi, Joseph Wood Krutch, Abraham Maslow, Ortega y Gasset, Plato, Michael Polanyi, Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy, Simone Weil...and hundreds of others, offering a running critique of modern "scientism" and offering visions in abundance of ways of life more noble than those pre-fobbed by our technocrat masters across the materialist landscape. Amazon lists back copies of the MANAS READER in abundance for a song.
To one who had before only dreamed of such a periodical, this heroic weekly came like Chapman's Homer did to Keats:
Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken
Or like stout Cortez, when with eagle eyes
He stared at the Pacific, and all his men
Looked at each other with a wild surmise
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.*
*[Or New Canaan - Ed.]
That's the other half of the equation. Without some semblance of safety open spaces will remain unused.
Up here we're still small enough (1.3 mil in the whole state) to keep crime somewhat under control during the daylight hours.
When it comes to places that are already overly developed, the most extreme and least popular means is of course eminent domain buy backs. Next would be neighborhood revitalization plans that include open space, city wide rezoning to include multifamily structures, P.U.D's (planned unit developments with community spaces),High rise projects requiring open land/ buffer zones / parks. . . and on and on. Placing requirements on the builders seems to be the least costly for cities and towns. But the results are very piecemeal. Comprehensive community created and approved land use plans are always better.
One of the most effective plans utilized in the suburbs right now is to create smaller housing lot size standards (from 2 acres to .5 acre)and to require surplus to be built into the subdivision plan as open space.
I'm sure there are plenty of people with degrees in Land Use planning out there who have many more creative and successful scenarios that could be implemented. The point really is that leaving all of our land choices in the hands of the free market may lead to what's most cost effective for the builder but that isn't really what is always best for the community.
That's great Scott thanks. I love Simone Weil and Blake - being a classic Pilgrim soul type.
Wonder what a Theo-Sophist is? Those Sophists are a tricky lot.
should be include MORE multifamily structures.
This discussion points directly at the discussion Crunchy Cons SHOULD be having:
while large families are terrific on the micro-level, enabling family members to learn sharing and compassion and mutual help and all those other great crunchy values, on the macro-level, if everybody has large families, we are suddenly faced with the very un-crunchy tradeoff between open space-small schools-walkable communities, and affordable housing. As one of the earlier posters pointed out, places like Great Barrington MA are havens for crunchy liberals--lots of space and natural beauty, but EXPENSIVE. That's what overpopulation does. One of my favorite sci-fi authors has invented a planet about which she doesn't tell us much except that, in the culture of its people, "You have not thought this through" is a deadly insult. I would move there given half the chance.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.