Subsidarity Is Not Libertarianism

Last updated on: August 9, 2017 at 7:16 pm by Chase Padusniak

Subsidarity Is Not Libertarianism 2017-08-09T19:16:13-04:00 Chase Padusniak

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

First, the state is given “supreme authority.” It may “let” lower authorities handle issues when those authorities are capable of dealing with them, but only then. The graduation of power is intended to the common good and is not in itself the ultimate good. Insofar as Catholics accept the particularity of God’s grace and the necessity of community in human life, lower orders are encouraged to handle all that they can, but, again, what they can handle will vary from period to period (and here the overarching concern is clearly increasing respect for the dignity of workers, which will be important to keep in mind).

This brings us to my second point about whence Pius’ usage of the term emerges: medieval feudalism. This is not to say that Pius was a medieval, nor that somehow he actually meant that we should have manors and knights. Rather, it is important to keep in mind the Church’s long-standing mistrust of American republicanism, not to mention the fact that feudalism effectively existed throughout most of Europe (whether peasants were “properly” serfs or not) until the 19th century, and in some places, into the 20th. Michael Haneke makes this clear in his haunting (and enchanting) film, The White Ribbon (about a north German village and its local baron in 1913-1914). This is why, in the 19th century, Marx could still write about peasant landholders (in essence, U.S. Southern sharecropping was effectively a belated and non-overtly-aristocratic form of feudal land tenure).

Subsidiarity thus has its basis not in American-style federalism, but in the overlapping and often devolved medieval modes of landholding and politics. Villagers farmed a common green; local lords dealt with local problems with (as time went on) more frequent visits from central governmental officials (the emergence of “true” last names in the 14th century has to do with the need to keep more detailed tax records, as bureaucracies became more sophisticated and feudalism, at least in its most “pristine” form, began to wane).

What’s key here, however, is that, even as feudalism left quite a mark, and many responsibilities remained local, governments did become increasingly centralized. Why? To be reductive (but, to my mind also essentially correct): capitalism, or, to put it more accurately, the development of an enriched merchant class within deeply disparate, often colonial, states and empires. The causes of the change were complex, but Chris Harman, in an insightful piece on the topic, outlines the following primary changes:

Before the argument can begin it is necessary to spell out what the ’transition’ was about. There has been a tendency in the recent discussions among Marxists to see it in terms of the change from the organisation of society (or at least of the economy) of the 14th century to that of the late 18th century. But the scale of the ’transition’ is best grasped by comparing feudalism in its ’classic’ form, that of the 10th century, with capitalism in its classic form, that of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Tenth century feudalism was an overwhelmingly rural society. Almost the whole of the population lived off the land, in more or less self contained manorial villages. Control of each manor lay with the feudal lord – either a warrior or an ecclesiastical body – exercising political and juridical as well as economic power in the locality. The mass of peasants were serfs, unable to leave the manor, where they tilled strips of land for themselves but also provided for the livelihood of the feudal lord, either by forced labour on his estate (‘demesne’) or by payment of rent in kind. Money played very little role in rural life, with the feudal lords using serf labour to produce non-agricultural produce in demesne workshops.

Towns were few, far between and small, with many town dwellers themselves tilling plots for part of their livelihood. Trade was carried out by despised travelling peddlers who provided those few essential goods (for instance, salt) which the local serfs could not produce. Because land was the only source of substantial wealth, control of it was the motive force behind the behaviour of the ruling class – and the cause of repeated armed conflicts within it.

The feudal lord exploited the peasants, often forcing them into abject poverty. Yet he could not exploit in order to amass profits. The aim of production was consumption (including conspicuous consumption), not accumulation. As Marx put it, ‘the limits to the exploitation of the feudal serf were determined by the walls of the stomach of the feudal lord’.

Contrast capitalism at its height. Urban life dominates, so that even owners of agricultural land are based in towns. The great majority of the population work in industry or ‘services’. Money plays an absolutely central role. Everyone depends on selling something in order to get the means of livelihood – even if all most people have to sell is their labour power. Most importantly, there is no limit to the accumulation of wealth. Everything can be turned into money and members of the ruling class can own endless amounts of money. What drives the system forward is not the consumption of the ruling class, but what Marx called self-expansion of capital, the endless pursuit of accumulation for the sake of accumulation.

Thus subsidiarity was, in many senses, an attempt by the Church to carve out room for traditional spheres of independence over and against the tentacles of the modern state (animated as it was by the need to increase trade, valorize capital, and generally spread the central tenets of European liberalism). In this sense, subsidiarity itself was a way of combating, not of abetting, the liberalism that lies behind the libertarian understanding of American federalism.

As capitalism has changed thus so too have the demands of subsidiarity. Can my municipal or my state government actually claim the ability to regulate successfully contemporary finance capital such that the dignity of workers (emphasized by Pius) is protected? Can these levels of government guarantee protection for the poor and destitute, who, by definition are our primary concern within Catholic Social Teaching?

Go back Continue Reading

Politics

Capitalism

Catholic Social Teaching

Previous Post

August 8, 2017

Catholic Modesty Fetishism

Next Post

August 22, 2017 For Those Considering Leaving the Church

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Culture Politics Reviews Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 December 2020 November 2020 July 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the name "Israel" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Mountain of God The Lord provides He struggles with God Father of a multitude