The WEF and "Degrowth"(a.k.a. Degrowth Communism)

[Gandalf the Grey]

https://youtu.be/y9WMbLvZWFo?si=y33knCpigrahAPc3

I seriously hope that this isn't what Francis wants the Church to sign on to.

[BobCatholic]

According to the video's description

Specifically, it's something that should be called "Degrowth Distributism,"

Distributism and Communism are not the same thing. Way different mechanics and role of government.

[Gandalf the Grey]

According to the video's description

Specifically, it's something that should be called "Degrowth Distributism,"

Distributism and Communism are not the same thing. Way different mechanics and role of government.

I believe "Degrowth Distributism" is what the UN and the WEF were calling it.

However the author of the journal Kohei Saito that James Lindsay was reading from and criticizing called it Degrowth Communism. They treat the two as one in the same thing.

As when it comes to almost all iterations of Communist thought, they baffle you with common vocabulary yet they use a completely different dictionary. They know that "communism" is a disreputable word that invokes all sorts of negative connotations, so they replace it with "Distributism."

They really don't care about the confusion and they're more than happy to hide the ball as long as possible until they've grabbed sufficient enough power to make their vision into reality.

[gherkin]

Haven't watched the video, but as Bob says there are tremendous differences between Distributism and Communism. I agree with you that lefties are strongly inclined to conceal their real goals in order to make their proposals seem more palatable. But it should be easy to tell if this "Distributism" is really Distributist or actually socialist. The most directly relevant questions would be: what are they talking about distributing, and who would actually control whatever has been distributed? If they're talking about increasing the responsible ownership of small productive properties (i.e. breaking up large corporations and allowing for smaller craftsmen and merchants to fill the gap), then that's pretty much like Distributism. If they're talking about distributing money by taking corporate entities into governmental control and then giving handouts to the poor, that's a lot more like socialism.

FWIW, you may know--but others may not--that Distributism was formulated and defended first by Chesterton and Belloc as a direct application of the social teaching of the Church, particularly that of Leo XIII.

[Gandalf the Grey]

Haven't watched the video, but as Bob says there are tremendous differences between Distributism and Communism. I agree with you that lefties are strongly inclined to conceal their real goals in order to make their proposals seem more palatable. But it should be easy to tell if this "Distributism" is really Distributist or actually socialist. The most directly relevant questions would be: what are they talking about distributing, and who would actually control whatever has been distributed? If they're talking about increasing the responsible ownership of small productive properties (i.e. breaking up large corporations and allowing for smaller craftsmen and merchants to fill the gap), then that's pretty much like Distributism. If they're talking about distributing money by taking corporate entities into governmental control and then giving handouts to the poor, that's a lot more like socialism.

FWIW, you may know--but others may not--that Distributism was formulated and defended first by Chesterton and Belloc as a direct application of the social teaching of the Church, particularly that of Leo XIII.

I'm well acquainted with Distributism as formulated by Chesterton and Belloc, which is why I believed it important to bring this up here. The aims and goals of the UN and the WEF are no different now for their policy regarding Agenda 2030 than it was for Agenda 2021. It's the same end and goals that China has been employing against their own citizens for the last 15 years: ESG governance, social credit scores, etc. They're obviously bastardizing what we understand "Distributism" to be in order to trick naive people into giving them the power to enact their obvious collectivist and socialist program.

It gives me serious pause when I see prelates in the Church say that we should join with these organizations under the auspices of "stewardship" because none of these programs have anything to do with preserving the planet but rather are just eugenic end-arounds in order to curb population expansion.

As James says in the video, "you are the carbon that they want to reduce."

[BobCatholic]

Not surprised they'd use "distribution" in place of "communism"

Just Orwellian doublespeak.

[Stella]

Not surprised they'd use "distribution" in place of "communism"

Just Orwellian doublespeak.

It can't be that we are meant to maintain the current form of capitalism as there is nothing but atheist communism out there as the alternative. If we were to fly around the globe at a distance and see in panorama the offensive contrast between the greed and materialism of some groups and the abject poverty and indignity of other groups on the planet it would surely move every Christian to want to urgently address that with a sustainable and fair global structure?

[gherkin]

Why global? Distributism, at any rate, can't be conjoined with globalism.

[gherkin]

I'm well acquainted with Distributism as formulated by Chesterton and Belloc, which is why I believed it important to bring this up here. The aims and goals of the UN and the WEF are no different now for their policy regarding Agenda 2030 than it was for Agenda 2021. It's the same end and goals that China has been employing against their own citizens for the last 15 years: ESG governance, social credit scores, etc. They're obviously bastardizing what we understand "Distributism" to be in order to trick naive people into giving them the power to enact their obvious collectivist and socialist program.

It gives me serious pause when I see prelates in the Church say that we should join with these organizations under the auspices of "stewardship" because none of these programs have anything to do with preserving the planet but rather are just eugenic end-arounds in order to curb population expansion.

As James says in the video, "you are the carbon that they want to reduce."

As I say, I didn't watch the video and don't plan to. Youtube commentators are not my thing. Perhaps you could summarize the specifics of the actual documents in question and explain exactly where they differ from Distributism? That could lead to a helpful discussion.

[Gandalf the Grey]

I'm well acquainted with Distributism as formulated by Chesterton and Belloc, which is why I believed it important to bring this up here. The aims and goals of the UN and the WEF are no different now for their policy regarding Agenda 2030 than it was for Agenda 2021. It's the same end and goals that China has been employing against their own citizens for the last 15 years: ESG governance, social credit scores, etc. They're obviously bastardizing what we understand "Distributism" to be in order to trick naive people into giving them the power to enact their obvious collectivist and socialist program.

It gives me serious pause when I see prelates in the Church say that we should join with these organizations under the auspices of "stewardship" because none of these programs have anything to do with preserving the planet but rather are just eugenic end-arounds in order to curb population expansion.

As James says in the video, "you are the carbon that they want to reduce."

As I say, I didn't watch the video and don't plan to. Youtube commentators are not my thing. Perhaps you could summarize the specifics of the actual documents in question and explain exactly where they differ from Distributism? That could lead to a helpful discussion.

Give me some time and I'll go back and listen to the podcast and try to summarize some of the major points .

In the meantime there is another document that was released that corresponds with this same push for "Degrowth" from "UK FIRES" where they're calling for an international push for Absolute Zero emissions by 2050. This includes the elimination of basically all leisure and cargo air travel, the elimination of all leisure and most cargo water travel, most or all emitting vehicles, elimination of carbon emitting foods(cattle and pork), banning of oil heating or gas-fired furnaces in exchange for air or ground-source heat pumps/geothermal systems, etc.

So, you won't be able to travel. Your grocery stores will run into drastic shortages. And your energy infrastructure will be incapable of producing enough energy to sustain demand. You won't be able to drive anywhere else in order to possibly get the food that your local store doesn't have.

And good luck if you live in incredibly cold environments in the winter because, being a service technician who works on geothermal and heat-pump systems, I know that they are both ridiculously expensive to buy, to maintain, and that they break down all the time. Not to mention when the government starts to push restrictions on refrigerants because while they've (rightly)banned refrigerant producers from having chlorine as a chemical component in the refrigerant for the last 30 years, now that they're desperately chasing down carbon they're now coming after and eliminating refrigerants that have carbon in them, which is basically all of them, including hydrocarbon refrigerants that they've been using in residential refrigerators for the last 25 years.

So basically "Degrowth" means starving while you freeze to death in the dark.

https://ukfires.org/new-report-absolute-zero/

[gherkin]

Now there are two ways in which an abundance of foodstuffs can be supplied to a city. The first we have already mentioned, where the soil is so fertile that it amply provides for all the necessities of human life. The second is by trade, through which the necessaries of life are brought to the town in sufficient quantity from different places.

[136] It is quite clear that the first means is better. The more dignified a thing is, the more self-sufficient it is, since whatever needs another’s help is by that fact proven to be deficient. Now the city which is supplied by the surrounding country with all its vital needs is more self-sufficient than another which must obtain those supplies by trade. A city therefore which has an abundance of food from its own territory is more dignified than one which is provisioned through trade.

[137] It seems that self-sufficiency is also safer, for the import of supplies and the access of merchants can easily be prevented whether owing to wars or to the many hazards of the sea, and thus the city may be overcome through lack of food.

[138] Moreover, this first method of supply is more conducive to the preservation of civic life. A city which must engage in much trade in order to supply its needs also has to put up with the continuous presence of foreigners. But intercourse with foreigners, according to Aristotle’s Politics [V, 3: 1303a 27; VII, 6: 1327a 13-15], is particularly harmful to civic customs. For it is inevitable that strangers, brought up under other laws and customs, will in many cases act as the citizens are not wont to act and thus, since the citizens are drawn by their example to act likewise, their own civic life is upset.

[139] Again, if the citizens themselves devote their life to matters of trade, the way will be opened to many vices. Since the foremost tendency of tradesmen is to make money, greed is awakened in the hearts of the citizens through the pursuit of trade. The result is that everything in the city will become venal; good faith will be destroyed and the way opened to all kinds of trickery; each one will work only for his own profit, despising the public good; the cultivation of virtue will fail since honour, virtue’s reward, will be bestowed upon the rich. Thus, in such a city, civic life will necessarily be corrupted.

[140] The pursuit of trade is also very unfavourable to military activity.’ Tradesmen, not being used to the open air and not doing any hard work but enjoying all pleasures, grow soft in spirit and their bodies are weakened and rendered unsuited to military labours. In accordance with this view, Civil Law” forbids soldiers to engage in business.

One of my favorite passages from De Regno. https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/DeRegno.htm#23

Distributists would certainly be in favor of curtailing widespread food shipments in favor of autarchy. Some of what you mention above seems, then, in line with Distributism. Of course, imposing Distributism via top-down, autocratic methods isn't part of the idea. But it does seem clear that we have some food production/energy production/pollution/erosion and other such issues that must be dealt with. The US's endowment of topsoil is largely spent, and continues to float away down the Mississippi. Continuing more petroleum-based, industrial farming is not a good solution, since it's the problem. Modern Protestant Capitalist/Socialist solutions are wicked, but the Church's solutions also appear quite radical in the eyes of the world.

In a peasant-based economy such as the Distributists endorse (along with the Church), how much pleasure-related air travel is really likely? How much dependence on grocery stores would there be? (How much should there be? When did that become the norm?)

A lot of these secular proposals are profoundly wicked in various ways, but not everything you're talking about here is bad.

[Stella]

Why global? Distributism, at any rate, can't be conjoined with globalism.

Yet for the longest time the Church has envisaged a global structure to advantage the people of the whole world. In his encyclical CARITAS IN VERITATE 2009, Pope Benedict XVI references RERUM NOVARUM Leo XIII 1891, QUADRAGESIMO ANNO Pius XI 1931, Paul VI and JPII all advocating a world wide authority.

Benedict writes...

67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii ... varum.html
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/ ... -anno.html
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict ... itate.html

[gherkin]

...subsidiarity...subsidiarity...

[Stella]

It's a long read but it covers a lot. Benedict addresses that particular model as well...

39. Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other”[94]. In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution. Not only is this vision threatened today by the way in which markets and societies are opening up, but it is evidently insufficient to satisfy the demands of a fully humane economy. What the Church's social doctrine has always sustained, on the basis of its vision of man and society, is corroborated today by the dynamics of globalization.

42... Despite some of its structural elements, which should neither be denied nor exaggerated, “globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it”[104]. We should not be its victims, but rather its protagonists, acting in the light of reason, guided by charity and truth. Blind opposition would be a mistaken and prejudiced attitude, incapable of recognizing the positive aspects of the process, with the consequent risk of missing the chance to take advantage of its many opportunities for development. The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis. It is necessary to correct the malfunctions, some of them serious, that cause new divisions between peoples and within peoples, and also to ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict ... itate.html

[gherkin]

The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis.

And here's the key point. 'Globalization' is an empty concept until it is filled out fully, clearly and correctly. And even if such a concept were adequately developed, it would have to be properly implemented. My point in resisting 'globalization' as it is generally understood is multifarious, but begins with the fact that the purpose of the 'redistribution' that Pope Benedict mentions must be subordinated to our final end, namely beatitude, and this depends on the life of virtue, which itself requires both sufficiencies of bodily goods and proper modes of life. But the relevant modes of life ought to be themselves productive of the requisite bodily goods, at least at the level of the local community, which has as its fundamental cell the family. It is the develpment of the family that must drive the bus, and this cannot be provided for at a global level. It can be addressed only locally.

In the past 100 years or so, when the developed world has tried to help the undeveloped world, this help has largely taken the form of trying to make the undeveloped world more like the developed world. But the developed world, as can be seen without difficulty, is guided solely by its interests in the world, the flesh and the devil. So when I hear globalization, indeed, I react rather violently. Pope Benedict can call such opposition blind, but of course such a claim supposes that only one side of the dispute is actually seeing things correctly--the pro-globalization side.

Our world, in general, has no respect for subsidiarity, but Catholic Social Teaching makes it a fundamental principle. Globalization necessarily strains the possibility of subsidiarity to its breaking point--and also strains solidarity to its breaking point. How can I have solidarity with people I don't and can't ever know or form any kind of bond with? It's silly.

[Stella]

The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis.

And here's the key point. 'Globalization' is an empty concept until it is filled out fully, clearly and correctly. And even if such a concept were adequately developed, it would have to be properly implemented. My point in resisting 'globalization' as it is generally understood is multifarious, but begins with the fact that the purpose of the 'redistribution' that Pope Benedict mentions must be subordinated to our final end, namely beatitude, and this depends on the life of virtue, which itself requires both sufficiencies of bodily goods and proper modes of life. But the relevant modes of life ought to be themselves productive of the requisite bodily goods, at least at the level of the local community, which has as its fundamental cell the family. It is the develpment of the family that must drive the bus, and this cannot be provided for at a global level. It can be addressed only locally.

In the encyclical Pope BXVI identifies charity as the root of good relationships, micro and macro.

Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbour; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). For the Church, instructed by the Gospel, charity is everything ....

I believe that the philanthropists around the world who are driving forces of the global 'family' model are being motivated by virtue. I wouldn't think the Church would want to be part of that if they weren't. No doubt there will be crooks trying to take advantage of such a model to be dealt with along the way but that's the same with all initiatives.

In the past 100 years or so, when the developed world has tried to help the undeveloped world, this help has largely taken the form of trying to make the undeveloped world more like the developed world. But the developed world, as can be seen without difficulty, is guided solely by its interests in the world, the flesh and the devil. So when I hear globalization, indeed, I react rather violently. Pope Benedict can call such opposition blind, but of course such a claim supposes that only one side of the dispute is actually seeing things correctly--the pro-globalization side.

I think that that could be said more of the colonists a few more centuries ago. History was written by the 'victors' then but now that we have a greater global awareness about how wealthy countries exploited and used undeveloped peoples goods and changed the courses of their lives in horrible ways... we are naturally sorry and desire to redress the subsequent inequality. We have to be responsible when we know better. That's a virtue.

Our world, in general, has no respect for subsidiarity, but Catholic Social Teaching makes it a fundamental principle. Globalization necessarily strains the possibility of subsidiarity to its breaking point--and also strains solidarity to its breaking point.

Only if we are too prideful to think we have all the answers for everyone. If we value models of subsidiarity that the indigenous in undeveloped countries still want to maintain, we may learn something to heal some of our societies sins?

How can I have solidarity with people I don't and can't ever know or form any kind of bond with? It's silly.

That's the point of putting ourselves in other peoples shoes. I'm fine but what if by fate I had been born somewhere else and had to watch my family struggle and my kids starve? Contemplating the possibility drove all the greatest Saints.

[BobCatholic]

The WEF is a Bond villain and we don't have a James Bond.
The WEF is run by Lex Luthor and we don't have a Superman.

But we do have Jesus Christ.

[Gandalf the Grey]

Now there are two ways in which an abundance of foodstuffs can be supplied to a city. The first we have already mentioned, where the soil is so fertile that it amply provides for all the necessities of human life. The second is by trade, through which the necessaries of life are brought to the town in sufficient quantity from different places.

[136] It is quite clear that the first means is better. The more dignified a thing is, the more self-sufficient it is, since whatever needs another’s help is by that fact proven to be deficient. Now the city which is supplied by the surrounding country with all its vital needs is more self-sufficient than another which must obtain those supplies by trade. A city therefore which has an abundance of food from its own territory is more dignified than one which is provisioned through trade.

[137] It seems that self-sufficiency is also safer, for the import of supplies and the access of merchants can easily be prevented whether owing to wars or to the many hazards of the sea, and thus the city may be overcome through lack of food.

[138] Moreover, this first method of supply is more conducive to the preservation of civic life. A city which must engage in much trade in order to supply its needs also has to put up with the continuous presence of foreigners. But intercourse with foreigners, according to Aristotle’s Politics [V, 3: 1303a 27; VII, 6: 1327a 13-15], is particularly harmful to civic customs. For it is inevitable that strangers, brought up under other laws and customs, will in many cases act as the citizens are not wont to act and thus, since the citizens are drawn by their example to act likewise, their own civic life is upset.

[139] Again, if the citizens themselves devote their life to matters of trade, the way will be opened to many vices. Since the foremost tendency of tradesmen is to make money, greed is awakened in the hearts of the citizens through the pursuit of trade. The result is that everything in the city will become venal; good faith will be destroyed and the way opened to all kinds of trickery; each one will work only for his own profit, despising the public good; the cultivation of virtue will fail since honour, virtue’s reward, will be bestowed upon the rich. Thus, in such a city, civic life will necessarily be corrupted.

[140] The pursuit of trade is also very unfavourable to military activity.’ Tradesmen, not being used to the open air and not doing any hard work but enjoying all pleasures, grow soft in spirit and their bodies are weakened and rendered unsuited to military labours. In accordance with this view, Civil Law” forbids soldiers to engage in business.

One of my favorite passages from De Regno. https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/DeRegno.htm#23

Distributists would certainly be in favor of curtailing widespread food shipments in favor of autarchy. Some of what you mention above seems, then, in line with Distributism. Of course, imposing Distributism via top-down, autocratic methods isn't part of the idea. But it does seem clear that we have some food production/energy production/pollution/erosion and other such issues that must be dealt with. The US's endowment of topsoil is largely spent, and continues to float away down the Mississippi. Continuing more petroleum-based, industrial farming is not a good solution, since it's the problem. Modern Protestant Capitalist/Socialist solutions are wicked, but the Church's solutions also appear quite radical in the eyes of the world.

In a peasant-based economy such as the Distributists endorse (along with the Church), how much pleasure-related air travel is really likely? How much dependence on grocery stores would there be? (How much should there be? When did that become the norm?)

A lot of these secular proposals are profoundly wicked in various ways, but not everything you're talking about here is bad.

My concern is not so much for the availability to consumers as much as it's about the impact of the elimination of entire industries on people who rely on those industries for employment and to support their families. From everything like heating and AC-which is my field-to truck drivers, construction trades, even marketing companies(because you don't need marketing when it's the WEF and the UN telling you exactly what you need).

It's one thing when market driven innovation and technology makes older fields obsolete. It's another when the heavy hand of a globalist bureaucracy just decides to wipe it away by taking a phenomenon and turning it into an overblown crisis as an excuse to grasp at absolute control.

[gherkin]

My concern is not so much for the availability to consumers as much as it's about the impact of the elimination of entire industries on people who rely on those industries for employment and to support their families. From everything like heating and AC-which is my field-to truck drivers, construction trades, even marketing companies(because you don't need marketing when it's the WEF and the UN telling you exactly what you need).

It's one thing when market driven innovation and technology makes older fields obsolete. It's another when the heavy hand of a globalist bureaucracy just decides to wipe it away by taking a phenomenon and turning it into an overblown crisis as an excuse to grasp at absolute control.

Why is the vicious "creative destruction" inherent in capitalism OK but not the same phenomenon arising from other causes?

[gherkin]

I believe that the philanthropists around the world who are driving forces of the global 'family' model are being motivated by virtue. I wouldn't think the Church would want to be part of that if they weren't.

What's your account of virtue? And how would someone like, say, Bill Gates seem to fit into the category of 'virtuous'?

I think that that could be said more of the colonists a few more centuries ago. History was written by the 'victors' then but now that we have a greater global awareness about how wealthy countries exploited and used undeveloped peoples goods and changed the courses of their lives in horrible ways... we are naturally sorry and desire to redress the subsequent inequality.

Well, at the material level, the inequality wasn't created by colonization, it preexisted it.

I'd also suggest that you have a very progressivist notion about our 'greater awareness'. It may be true that people now have certain kinds of prejudices and inclinations that were less prominent a few centuries ago (and naturally label those prejudices and inclinations "virtues"). Since our prejudices and inclinations are different in some ways from those of earlier people, we tend hubristically to assume that ours are better. This may or may not be the case.

But even if we grant that apart from these prejudices and inclinations we've actually gained some sort of knowledge that was lacking earlier, we must in charity and humility recognize that we've likely lost some knowledge that was had earlier.

Only if we are too prideful to think we have all the answers for everyone.

In general, that's exactly the case.