Quote of the Day
Benedict XVI continues his catechesis on economics and social responsibility, this time in an address yesterday to the Confederation of Italian Cooperatives. Cooperatives, a form of business organization marked by member-ownership, take the form of credit unions, guilds, worker and farming co-ops, ESOP’s, etc. As the name implies, cooperatives are social enterprises based on multi-stakeholder cooperation rather than the kind of zer0-sum competition that characterizes Darwinian capitalism. Cooperatives are at the heart of distributism, the alternative economic system described in and implied by Catholic Social Teaching. Here’s what Benedict had to say:
“The heart of cooperative efforts has always lain in the search for harmony between the individual and community dimensions. This is a concrete expression of the complementarity and subsidiarity which Church social doctrine has always sought to promote between citizens and the State, a balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and promoting the common good, in order to develop a local economy capable of responding to community needs. Cooperative activities are likewise characterised by their great concern for solidarity, while still respecting the due autonomy of the individual”.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
Ah, shucks. And here I thought I was being subversive in my post just below. Turns out the pontiff agrees with me. Smart man.
And, of course, if the common good is promoted, individual good improves…
Preach it Papa!
Is this what is described in Acts? Are you one of them hippie socialists?
related to this is the Catholic inspired policy of co-determination in Germany, modestly expanded to Sweden, where even in for-profit corporations, workers, managers and shareholders participate in company decision making.
I would caution that ESOPs are not like the other things on your list. If my understanding is correct, ESOPs allow “ownership” and “control” to be divorced. So under these plans employees own a chunk of their company, but it can be rigged so that their ownership gives them no control: i.e., they cannot vote the stock they own at company meetings. I don’t remember more details, and would be happy to be pointed to something more definite.
Yes, it depends on how an ESOP is structured, David. But the original intent of the ESOP model was to eventually transfer ownership – and control, via voting shares – to employees. Of course, American corporations are expert at co-opting and rigging a good thing.