The Catholic Book Club discussion

Use this topic to post comments and thoughts "along the way," that might not fit into one of the other questions.

Horvat seems to wish we had a guild system. This is symptomatic of his approach. In some golden age in the past, Christendom had an ideal economy and today everything has gone bad. But the past was not all sunshine and roses and today is not as thoroughly rotten as he suggests (though on the latter point, I am more sympathetic). Guild systems had endemic problems of corruption and protectionism. Insiders were protected. Family member of senior guild members would be recognized as masters over the heads of much more qualified journeymen. Maybe static guild systems are a better way to organize economic life, but it can't be discussed intelligently if one doesn't recognize and acknowledge the limitations a problems of that type of social organization.

The statements that in the feudal state there was an "almost absolute lack of finances" and "administrative expenses of the State in medieval Europe were few and simple" are unbelievable.

In chapter 21, Horvat writes:

A living being grows and develops at its own speed according to its own inner dynamism and force that comes from the life of each cell. A machine is inert, operates at a determined speed, and always needs an external force or motor to make each piece move or act. Because they are part of the living organism, individual members or organs grow, change, and continually renew themselves in union with it. A severed arm, for example, cannot long survive separated from the whole body. In contrast, spare parts can exist outside the machine and be used interchangeably with others. No machine part can renew itself from within the mechanism; defective parts must be replaced.
To apply this to social terms: In an organic society, a person is treated as an integral part of society; in a mechanistic society the individual is an interchangeable cog in an organization.

This is a simplification. It seems to work, because he is comparing a computer board to a hummingbird. But the comparison could have been quite different. Take an insect, for instance: after Fabre's experiments, we know that insects act as machines. They are unable to learn new patterns of behavior, and repeat the same answer time and time again, as though they were machines. Why? Their nervous system is too small and everything is hardwired.

On the other hand, insect societies have always been presented as the alternative to a good ordered human society. So the alternative is not between living beings and machines, for insects are living beings. It is between good and bad organization.

A little later, in the same chapter 21, Horvat says:

Thus an organic society respects the fact that we are living and social beings.

Ant colonies are living and social beings. Should we take them as our model?

I think we should leave living beings and machines out of the question, or we may end up saying the opposite of what we intended.

Mariangel wrote: "The statements that in the feudal state there was an "almost absolute lack of finances" and "administrative expenses of the State in medieval Europe were few and simple" are unbelievable."

I haven't read the chapter yet (I assume this is in Chapter 19, which I am about to start), but I think the first depend on what you think "finances" means and the second seems true enough in light of later developments - no welfare apparatus, limited if any infrastructure spending, no attempt at management of the economy.

By finances, there were certainly taxes to fund the court and law courts and the army and prisons, etc. And kings frequently borrowed large sums from a nascent banking industry to wage war. As with all industries, there was growth and development in law and commercial practice and theory. Horvat doesn't seem to like banking, though I am sure he would say it was okay before it was infected by frenetic intemperance. But he never says when that happened. He never gets to specifics.

When he says that banking is linked to crisis, quoting Gov. King, he should be more accurate and note that fractional reserve banking is linked to crisis. But the alternative to fractional reserve banking is to pay banks to safeguard your money (or to bury it in your yard or in a mattress). On the question of "too big to fail," I agree with the other quote by Gov. King, "Too big to fail is too big."

In chapter 27, Horvat revises the Christian family as a basic social institution, together with some of its economic advantages. I agree with some of the things he says. However, in chapter 28 he writes this:

This is especially true in time of crisis. The inadequacy of the family becomes evident by the mere size of the problems that dwarf the family and its resources.

He does not mention, however, that the family has provided a financial cushion and performed the role of a social safety net during the current economic crisis. This fact has been appreciated even by opponents of the Christian family. In Spain, for instance, there were families whose working members went all to unemployment, and later lost even the unemployment state help, which can be received for just some time. Many of them could survive because they had help from their retired parents, who had not lost their pension. I think this point is very important, and should have been highlighted.

I disagree with some other supposed advantages of the family, such as primogeniture, or professions that "run in the family." The latter, for instance, is a very dangerous concept, as it goes against the freedom to choose one's own profession. During the late Roman Empire, in the time of Emperor Diocletian, there was an attempt by the state to impose this concept so as to freeze social up-and-down movement by making every man forced to follow the same profession as his father. Fortunately, the attempt failed.

On the other hand, I don't agree that we should go back to the feudal bond and the guilds. Those medieval social elements could be good for that time, but they would scarcely be adapted to a population over 14 times larger in number, as we have today.

With respect to Horvat's defense of family economy, I decided to seek a few data, and found out that in the U.S. today the proportion of family business in total business is at least 90%: http://www.attitudemedia.com/the-keep...

These figures are equivalent to those in Spain, where the proportion of family business is calculated as 90% in number and 67% in labor force: https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodia...
The discrepancy between number of firms and labor force is due to the fact that family business are usually (not always) small firms. There are exceptions, however, such as Inditex (a Spanish family business created by Amancio Ortega, which has spread to the whole world, while its founder is one of the richest persons of the world.

So my conclusion is that essentially the return to family business that Horvat promotes is unneeded, as our economy is still essentially based on family business. The reason for the present problems of the world should be looked for in some other place.

Manuel wrote: "With respect to Horvat's defense of family economy, I decided to seek a few data, and found out that in the U.S. today the proportion of family business in total business is at least 90%: http://ww..."

Two thoughts: the other two concepts that would be relevant in determining how much the economy is family based would be share of value - probably harder to come up with - and share of GNP.

If those are similar numbers (in the 70+ percent range), isn't the argument that we are already close to a family based economy and the transition would not be wrenching? But I wonder if Horvat would include Cargill in the category of family business. Founded by the Cargill and McMillan families, it is one of the largest agricultural companies in the world and I believe it is still owned by the families, but I don't believe there are any family members left in management. I suspect this giant global enterprise is not what Horvat has in mind.

I just finished it. I found it a bit repetitive at times. There's a chapter towards the end with some suggestions, mostly on how each of us should change (which is not a bad thing), but they are still not very specific.

A book that I proposed in my list of nominations, "The restoration of Christian culture" by John Senior, is similar, though not focused on the economy. I liked it much more and it has more concrete suggestions.

One of your members asked me to respond to some of the questions from your reading and I gladly do so.
I am not surprised that the first chapters of the book are underwhelming to a Catholic book club since it is merely a description of the crisis in American economy and culture. It does not enter into Church teaching as does the second half.
However, the first part does mention frenetic intemperance as part of the economic culture and stresses that this is above all a moral problem not an economic problem.
I do not think the guild system is a cure-all solution since it must be family-based lest it become tyrannical.
If you have any questions, I will reply with pleasure. God bless and thank for choosing Return to Order. I am greatly honored.

Mr. Horvat,

Thank you for volunteering to tackle some of our questions.

I am traveling to day and don't have a lot of time, but I will start with guilds and perhaps we can discuss other topics over the next week or so.

I am not sure what you mean when you say guilds should be family-based to avoid tyranny. What do you mean by family based? One of the problems with guilds in the past was nepotism, a "family-based" tyranny. How does one avoid that?

As I come near the end of your book one the problems I have is it seems to assume a return to Christendom as a starting point for reform of the economy. Is that a fair assessment? If so, how do you suggest to bring that about? (I apologize if you address this later in your book.)

Many of those who favor the Benedict Option approach (I don't), are saying guilds and similar arrangements are the answer. Return to Order refers the spirit of the family in which intermediary associations were very family-like in their functioning and thus very temperate. The guilds decayed when they became extremely rich, lost this spirit and became oriented by self-interest.
Another abuse of the guild ideal was the guild socialism, corporatism set up by the fascist in the thirties. They turned the guilds into an instrument of the State.
The central argument of Return to Order is that the present system is coming apart, a return to order is presented as an alternative that needs to be considered.

Hi! I have been traveling for two weeks and will join in with the next book! Elizabeth