An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.
— Plutarch
A favorite author of the 20th Century was an unlettered (in the sense of a formal degree) Englishman, G.K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936). Chesterton was a prolific writer of popular newspaper columns, mystery novels, short stories, and theological observations or apologies. His works were often published in the United States and other English-speaking countries as well. Decades after his death, his popular Father Brown murder mysteries were dramatized in an eponymous PBS television series.
For 30 years Chesterton wrote weekly opinion pieces for the Illustrated London News in which he commented on the political and social events of the day. These have been republished and are interesting to read for the common threads of economic, moral, and social concerns prevalent a 100 years ago and today.
Chesterton, a Catholic, agreed with his early contemporary Pope Leo XIII that socialism is merely a form of communism. He declared it to be “a formula of fatalism.” (Chesterton, “Socialism and the Real Distribution of Property,” Illustrated London News, American edition published January 5, 1924.)
However, to a degree Chesterton was also critical of capitalism. He was concerned that capitalism, through industry and commerce, took people from their rural family farms and brought them to work in physically and spiritually unhealthy cities. He felt that leaving bucolic, family-oriented farm life for confined, sterile city life presented a domestic strain. (“The Future of Commercial Empires,” Illustrated London News, American edition published February 3, 1923.) He predicted that the result of workers giving up property ownership and, therefore, their ties to the land would eventually be devastating to all of society.
In addition to providing a livelihood, although often meager, the farm was a family’s physical and emotional center of life. In comparison, city workers did not “live” where they earned their livelihoods. While the rural property they farmed and lived on had been theirs, in a city they neither owned the apartments where they resided nor had ownership in the commercial or industrial concerns for which they worked. Without ownership interest in their dwellings and work endeavors, Chesterton predicted that an imbalance would grow to the extent that ethics and morality would fail in that class and, eventually, all of society.
As an alternative, Chesterton offered his economic theory of “distributism” under which there would be property ownership and a return to family farms. However, he never gave details as to how his proposed remedy could be accomplished.
I’ve heard Gerard Gibert say on the radio that in all history only capitalism and free trade have gotten the masses out of poverty. I don’t think that Mr. Gibert’s 21st century opinion is at odds with 20th century Chesterton’s. I believe the poverty that Chesterton was referring to was a poverty of spirit, a poverty of the soul; whereas Gibert is talking about financial poverty. The Englishmen who were moving from the farms and the coal fields in Chesterton’s day were doing so to escape economic poverty. In that sense financially they were probably better off working in the industrial cities. What the Christian apologist and philosopher lamented was that one form of poverty was being traded for another and ultimately the bargain was not a good one.
The divine idea of being able to “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest awhile” (Mark 6:31-32) in the sense of tranquility seems to have merit for the family life of every class and would contribute to the stability of society. Think of the possibilities for physical and spiritual health to the good of America if every family had 20-or-so acres out in the country to go to as a place away from the madding crowd to rejuvenate or settle; a safe and secluded place to grow one’s own corn and peas, listen to the whip-poor-wills, and gaze at the stars.
Could America go back to an agrarian society while maintaining the prosperity of capitalism? I think it a nice idea. “The federal government is the nation’s biggest landowner, holding one-third of all property - - a land mass six times the size of California.” (Joel Kotkin and Michael Toth, “Opinion – How federal lands can be used to ease the housing crisis,” The Hill, posted March 10, 2025.) Rather than putting federal lands up for sale to replenish the country’s bank account as has been proposed (Andrew McKean, “How Seriously Should We Take the Sale of Public Lands …”, Outdoor Life, posted Feb. 26, 2025), under a National Distributism Act the country would give away parcels of her abundant lands to every American family. Of course, distribution would have to be subject to the goals intended by the purpose for making the transfers.
Outlandish, impractical, and unlikely? Perhaps. But in my opinion such a Chesterton inspired solution has merit. An imbalanced economic system is not the sole cause of a society’s collapse. Spiritual reverence in doctrine and practice are more important foundations for the equilibrium of society. And when earthly and spiritual conditions are in balance, the result is always good.
Chip Williams is a Northsider.
