Medieval Socialism

Last updated on: September 19, 2019 at 3:41 pm by Chase Padusniak

Medieval Socialism 2019-09-19T15:41:26-04:00 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.

Next, he discusses feudalism. His scholarship here is a bit outdated; he makes the feudal structure into a single “thing” in a way that modern scholars are less likely to accept. That said, his point still holds: in the medieval period, ownership was itself always provisional. A villein held his land on lease from a noble, who held his land on lease from another noble, who held it on lease from another noble, who held it on lease from the king, who himself held it on lease from God. In other words, the social system itself implied the provisional nature of “ownership.”

Further, he cites Aquinas, who (and let’s recall that he’s a Dominican) is a top authority from his perspective. Thomas, he notes, observes a similar distinction: property itself is natural to human beings because they need to be able to possess something so as to plan for the future—to eat, to survive, that is, to live. The exact nature of this division, however, was contingent, based on historical circumstances:

[I]t depended on specific conditions and stages of development. Thus nature dictated no division of property, though it implied the necessity of some property; the need of the division was only discovered when men set t work to live in social intercourse. Then it was found that unless divisions were made, existence was intolerable; and so by human convention, as St. Thomas sometimes say, or by the law of nature [Jarrett reads this as the same as the ius gentium], as he elsewhere expresses it, the division into private property was agreed upon and took place. (Medieval Socialism 77)

Lastly, there is the issue of the state, which medieval thinkers simply could not have understood in the same way; feudal relations, a lack of mass communication, etc. limited the power of the centralized government. Over time, however, the power of the king itself became a sort of “state,” one capable of doing basically anything. Many lawyers subtly argued for how it was that the monarch could dispense his or her power in this way. The exact arguments are not important; what is worth noting, however, is that, insofar as forms of governance are subject to historical conditions, there is no absolute sense in which the state or other governmental bodies could not be used to reorganize property relations in a given society. One might argue that an overly-powerful state is a bad idea under current conditions. One, however, per Jarrett, cannot merely reject such an option out of hand. In fact, one could contend that, in our global society, one in which localities have comparatively little power over and against trans-national corporations and other bodies, that a strong state is the only hope for fighting for more just property relations.

He discusses quite a few other things: various reformers, how it is that many medieval “communists” were actually apologists for increasing secular power (e.g. Wycliffe), etc. His point, however, remains the same: the medieval view of property is that it is necessary, but provisional. The exact organization it takes is dependent upon material conditions. This is, believe it or not, not terribly different (in general terms) from certain socialistic theories that accept “personal property,” while denying the bourgeois concept of private property as some inalienable absolute.

Concomitant with this is the fact that what we call “charity” is a matter of justice. Voluntary giving is often said to be a matter of charity, as if that excused people from needing to do it in meaningful ways. “Charity,” however, comes from the word “caritas,” or love. The Christian virtue that goes by this name has to do with love for one’s fellow human beings; it is enjoined upon us as believers who must pray for our enemies and do good to those who hate us. It, however, has little to do with almsgiving, which is related to justice. As Jarrett writes, summarizing the beliefs of medieval economists:

A man is obliged to help another in his extreme need even at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself.
A man is obliged to help another who, though not in extreme need, is yet in considerable distress, but not at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself.
A man is not obliged to help another whose necessity is slight, even though the risk to himself should be quite trifling.

[…]

[T]he giver should possess superfluities.
[T]he receiver should be in need.

Where both these suppositions are fulfilled, the duty of almsgiving becomes a matter not of charity, but of justice. (Medieval Socialism 141)

In other words, not only can property relations be fundamentally rearranged in a matter totally consonant with Catholic Social Teaching but also we are under an obligation at all times to be giving alms, as a matter of justice, as long as some fairly-simple criteria are met. Property is provisional in that we need to be willing to part with it as long as another is in need and we are not. Our absolute conception of property rights can only conceive of such giving as a voluntarist act of “charity,” rather than the question of justice that it truly is. In this way, medieval people and socialists have more in common than we might expect.

One might quibble with Jarrett’s comparison. Some socialists might argue that he emphasizes the state too much in his definition. He doesn’t talk enough about worker ownership (though it is implied as a possibility in how he discusses the contingent nature of property relations). Regardless, he provides a fascinating rebuke to the way that contemporary Christians talk about property and socialism. If a fairly-conservative, orthodox Dominican can talk in these terms, we are obliged to listen.

Previous Post

March 29, 2019

Donald Trump, Literature Lover

Next Post

April 15, 2019 Notre Dame de Paris is Burning

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

Which prophet had a vision of a rebuilt Temple with flowing water?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Joel Ezekiel Micah Daniel