Divide et impera (was: California elections & bilingual ed)

[Richard Marens]

> 
> In that, the new industrial aristocracy is not different from the old
> agrarian aristocracy. The old aristiocracy developed a system of alms
> giving and clientelism (the forerunner of modern 'philanthropy') on the one
> hand, and witch hunting and pogroms (the forerunner of modern culture wars)
> on the other.  The former served to give a token 'contribution' to peasant
> well-being, the latter - to relieve social tension by scapegoating and
> diversion.
> 
And the Catholic Church played a big role in the "contribution" side of
the equation.  I suspect alot of Catholic Social Thought, which derives
from the Thomistic notion that private property is fine as long as it is
used for moral purpose, is in part based on nostalgia for this
socio-economic role.  Rerum Novarum, corporativism, the "human relations"
school, Catholic unionism (which includes a good deal of American
unionism) all contain an element of this attitude: that the upper class
has responsibilities as well as rights, and the Church would be there to
mediate and counsel both sides to end conflict.

A great deal of the cooperative movement has a strong dose of this
neo-guildist attitude.  Hell, Mondragon was founded by a Jesuit.  The
great theorist of labor-managed firms, Jaroslav Vanek, wear's his
Catholicism on his sleeve.