Man is Not Capital

A Personal Exhortation To My Fellow Human Beings

Realities exist even when we don’t have words for them.  So when I discovered a word that encapsulated what I, somehow, yet vaguely, innately understood as a truth, I also knew that its finding would solidify my perception of a culture that thrives on false dichotomies.  That false dichotomy is the exhausting rat race which men, who think they are free, work as cogs in a machine that values man as only a unit of capital.

I, Tarzan, was raised by wealthy apes.  They provided for me, but I learned very little from them.  Little is learned by people who would tour poor neighborhoods as weekend entertainment–other than the ingrained instruction that capitalism is economic gospel.  Capitalism, as a word and especially as an economic theory, was a word and meaning that I simply rounded my romantic preference to, because the opposing economic theory, socialism, was apparently the only other means of understanding how the world worked.  Capitalism, the conservative’s liberation theology, works for those who claim to carry the world… and few people question the sacred cow that lays the golden calves.

The self-described and unquestioned presumption that the capitalist elites are those who carry the world, by virtue of them being the only people who can actually shrug, is verifiably invalid—they do not have blisters on their hands.  The tired men who in fact carry the world are those whom the capitalists refer to as labor, as tools, as pieces of property that are owned.  Those who do not believe they are owned yet still participate in the proletariat rat race, innately know that their dignity has been stolen if they contemplate their failure to punch in at the time clock or send a check to pay for their mortgage—a word that unfree people have no choice but to believe means that they own, rather than rent, their homes.

As a response to robber baron-like monopolistic capitalism, socialism, in its humanist utopian garb promised freedom from the few, yet was only a co-godless paradigm that transferred wealth to bureaucrats instead of capitalists.   The dichotomy was set, and the either/or model of who the masters ought to be is an argument that pacifies the masses, entertains the chained, and distracts from the fact that both systems are nearly identical—conduits that transfer the fruit of one’s labor to an elite few.  Since I can usually predict when I will be called a liberal, consider the picture of me on the left as I enthusiastically attend a Tea Party (…and as posted in the HuffPo!).

The peculiar lifestyle of my formative years allowed me to basically watch people from the sidelines.  People who financed their future to earn degrees so they can sit in cubicles for the rest of their lives.  People who work all day to pay for cars to drive to work–to pay for their cars.  People who leave homes to pay for their homes.  People who never risk anything other than hoping that the lottery will favor them.  People who talk themselves into planting their families in situations that can be destroyed if managers decide to relocate a branch.  People who are fined when they plant the wrong species of bush in their covenanted plot.  People who live on the east coast buying food from people on the west coast, and people on the west coast buying food from people on the east coast.  People building monuments to their success by gluing roofing material to homes built out of 2” by 4” pine covered by lick-n-stick faux rock—built in gated communities that any other generation would be ashamed of naming [Blank] Estates.

Everything is a mess, nothing makes sense, and the solution is not more of the same.  Lamenting the fact that “Generation X” must work three times longer than “The Greatest Generation” to live in the same house—a house that a shoe salesman could once afford and support a family–is a reality that is easier to accept when one is aware that the system is not intended to preserve a family’s wealth, or its sanity, but to tie humans into voluntarily driving themselves mad.

As an experiment, I’ve been asking people to explain to me what they believe would be the ideal situation for them, to explain to me the kind of job that they would love to have—what they would be doing if they were free enough to define their lifestyle.  What I’ve received from people is a nostalgic glimpse into a pre-rat race system.  The stories often refer to “the good ol’ days” or consist of words such as “back in the day.”

My father-in-law described being a watchmaker.  Not standing in line making sure that rubber Swatch-watches are properly sealed in plastic packages, but sitting at a desk with a magnifying glass and fine tools, meticulously perfecting his product, polishing it, and being able to actually point to something he created.  Unfortunately, such an independent watchmaker would starve to death in today’s business environment.

A neighbor compared his near-unattainable dream of brewing his own lagers with his former job:  sitting on a stool while watching Coors beer bottles whiz past him on a conveyor belt as he visually made sure that each bottle was properly filled.   He made a wage, just as every slave earned a wage, but his soul was drained.  Building a competitive label may have worked if he had been born only 100 years earlier (as it had for the Coors family)–mass production coupled with long-haul distribution favors established capitalists, and stomps out what previously would have become an entrepreneurial trophy story.

A friend wishes he could build homes similar to the homes that were built at the turn of the century—humble, affordable, and well-built.  However, today’s codes, in an effort to encourage the ever-increasing value of neighborhoods and to display to the masses that “standards of living” are increasing, discourage homes under certain square footages and ratios.  In addition, Americans today prefer homes with impressive street appeal, with brick only on the front and aluminum siding on the back, over all-brick homes where twin girls might need to share bedrooms—though such a home would be passed to future generations with no mortgage payment, and likely changing the family tree forever.  And if the family base were, by chance, passed to a child in this day and age, it would most likely be sold in order to purchase more… stuff.

Once upon a time, bankers did not consider a man’s home to be an asset—nor did any man consider his own home to be an asset.  Today’s economic systems, however, have trained (and forced) people into thinking that their homes are assets.  Without pause, the home is used as a financial tool to leverage into buying boats or paying for vacations.  They are an address, not a family stake.  Subconsciously knowing that their masters can disrupt their lives at the crack of a whip, families view their homes as temporary shelters and tools that make the daily grind possible by providing a place to sleep.  And we are free?

Some of us are more free than others.  I was a member of the lucky sperm club, which gave me an apparent advantage early in my life, allowing me to observe with little participation the maze in which most people wander.  But average people of average means and abilities can become more free by realizing that one can opt-out of the maze.

Distributism is an economic model that is often referred to as a “third way”.  Unlike capitalism, which requires productive property to be owned by an ever-decreasing pool of capitalists (which in today’s terms would mean corporations:  capital = large investment), or socialism, which centralizes ownership of productive property, distributism recognizes the benefit to families when the ownership of productive property is widely owned.

Capitalists, and Americans who ignorantly believe that capitalism equals free markets, are quick to label distributism as socialism; though the systems are fundamentally different.  Such dismissals are understood because most Americans have accepted the false dichotomy of either/or economics.  The Catholic [=Christian] aspect of distibutism that capitalism and socialism deny is the family-centeredness of the theory.  Americanists are also prejudiced against the model because it shares a root word with a socialistic mantra: distribution of wealth.  The hurdle, of course, is being able to explain that socialistic distribution of wealth is state-supported confiscation, and that distribuitsm is the voluntary distribution of productive property through voluntary participation in free markets.  The differences are grave, but the language can derail third rails.

The experiment that I conducted was focused on people whom I understood to be typical, American, Christian, capitalism-favoring men.  All such men, I know, are repulsed by notions of socialism, of “redistribuiton of wealth” (because the term had not been defined), and any derogatory opinion of what people understand as capitalism.  However, every story and dream that I heard held aspects of distributism.  What I discovered is that many people have an innate understanding that the world does not make sense, and that there must be a better way.  Distributism, I believe, is the name of a model that has existed throughout most of Christianity’s history, and has been disrupted and silenced by the enforcers of modernity.

Work is toil, but it is also a blessing, and I’ve never known a man, a real man, who found happiness without working.  We are spiritual beings, religious beings, and we glorify God with our hands when we work.  The Benedictine monks were bound to their monasteries and made their homes holy, like Jesus on the cross.  In a similar way, Christians help to make their homes holy when they make honest livings and add real worth to the family stake.

Distributists understand that God gave the earth to all men, not to only capitalists or bureaucrats whose economic systems attempt to extract that right.  Widespread ownership of productive land should be encouraged, not discouraged or counterfeited with promises of what is simply called “home ownership”—which is a euphemism for being in debt for unproductive real estate.  What the ownership of land and other productive property provides is a base for a family to be secure and tend God’s garden in a dignified way.

Most people cannot simply “get back to the land” in a pure distributist sense, and that is not what I’m urging people to do.  What I wish to share with my readers is that there are steps (ideas) towards a more sane lifestyle that most people in America are able to take.  I believe these steps are best for families and communities—are steps that I have taken or am working closer to take myself.  I’ve also noticed that those who take these steps tend to be the happiest and most free people in the world.

Please pardon my broad strokes as I add only a drop of insight into a seemingly infinite pool of happiness:

I entered adulthood with no skills.  I received zero instruction from my parents growing up other than learning to brush my teeth, to turn my silverware over at the ends of meals, and to “go to college.”  I did all three of those things.  The problem is that everyone else did too.  What I suggest is learning a trade or at least a skill—maybe in addition to what you already know or plan to study.  For example, take a gander at the picture on the left.  This is an aluminum part of a sunshade that I made last week.  It will be used as part of a decorative awning for a bank here in Denver.  No, I never went to a “fabrication school” but what I did is talk to people in the fabrication business and discovered a niche that could be filled.  I became an owner of productive property—only about $5,000 worth of used tools is all that is needed to make this item—that has allowed me to crank out metal parts that larger companies sub out the fabrication for.   In other words, owning productive property, even on a small scale such as this, and building relationships with other producers has provided one more way for me to avoid being owned.  The point: find a niche that values quality over quantity, own your own means of production, and leave an inheritance for your children.

I get a lot of joy out of helping other people become independent.  I have helped hundreds of people all over North America start their own companies in the animal grooming industry.  I build salons and coach groomers on how to run their businesses.  Many of my customers report making over $100,000 each year by doing the same kind of work that employees of companies do for $30,000.  By owning productive property they cannot be fired, are able to relocate if they need, can train children in the business, and change the generational employee habit forever.  The point:  Find a niche that values quality over quantity, own your own productive property, and leave an inheritance for your children.

Do you already have a skill?   Do you use that skill for your job to please a boss?  Consider working for yourself.   Consider becoming an independent contractor.  Purchase your own tools and give yourself the freedom of taking on jobs that you want to take on.  Don’t allow yourself to be fired.  Build a business, train your children in the business, and provide a base of productivity that can be used for generations.  The point:  are you detecting a pattern yet?

With these examples come a more simplified lifestyle that is more family oriented, is more centralized around your home, and calls for change in one’s overall philosophy of living.  The word economy is rooted in the Greek word oikos, or house.  The house/home, is the center of the distributist’s economy, and when one’s world begins to “hit home”, people often realize how important decisions become.

Employees tend to think in terms of production because they will be fired if they don’t produce—though such production is often of intangible items such as “liquidity, air time, websites, etc.), but producers of real products and services (which is what a distributist produces with their productive property) think more in terms of consumption; non-consumption to be more precise.  In other words, employees tend to produce little yet consume much, and distributists produce much yet consume little.  This inverse relationship is a result of becoming disciplined—a byproduct of dignifying oneself with the responsibility of not being owned by anyone other than He who calls us to be disciples—the root word for discipline.

Do you drive for a living?  Consider owning your own vehicle and becoming an independent driver.  Do you own a house with a yard?  Consider growing a garden.  Do you use a bank?  Consider using a locally owned credit union.  Do you throw away worn shoes or do you have them resoled?  Do you hire out your household chores or do you do them yourself?  Do you rely on the Government to educate your children or do you educate them yourself?  Do you drive past a parish on your way to Church or do you walk to your local parish?  Are you able to work form home with your current job?  Is there a home-business with low start-up costs that you might be interested in?

The simple lifestyle is what most mature men dream of attaining, but the empty promises of this world pretends that simplicity is achieved by an intermediate step of becoming rich.  And when people do make more money, it typically translates into a busier, not simpler, lifestyle.  Most Americans of every caste believe they would become content if they could make 20% more money.  When asked how much is enough, the answer is always, “More.”  What I suggest, is accepting that the intermediate step of becoming rich is not a means of achieving happiness, and that the happiness of divine economics centers around the house and the fact that man is not capital.