Find Your Tribe and Build It Up

"Neither capitalism nor socialism can save you when all hell breaks loose. People—your family, friends, neighbors and sometimes, total strangers—can."

Read about the civic synergy program on our website:https://t.co/UD5rUmtQYk

— Schumacher Center for a New Economics (@Center4NewEcon) July 15, 2021

Find and Build Your Tribe

“This is no true Democracy. Here is no solidarity such as existed in the ancient tribes and primaeval society, but only disintegration and a dust-heap” - Edward Carpenterhttps://t.co/73iKpd8qO1https://t.co/ajStwVRl1W pic.twitter.com/hD2ogr28bN

— Winter Oak (@WinterOakPress) November 30, 2020

Solidarity

Except: there can be no solidarism unless there is first a people and a natural community. The application of principles must be accompanied by the right judgment of particulars. Jumping into a discussion of legal remedies without a correct consideration of the particulars is a mistake.

"Economic Solidarism: A Political Economy for the Family" by Joseph Paul Barnas (@BarnasJoe) https://t.co/5WJzywQAeA

— Athwart (@Athwart_Mag) November 18, 2020

The Sort of Solidarity that the State Can Endorse

Read @PeterMommsen’s beautiful letter for @PloughBooks on the pandemic, the quest for racial justice, and the need for true solidarity — solidarity in forgivenesshttps://t.co/9BtL1niZK5

— Patrick Tomassi (@patricktomassi) August 20, 2020

Plough

The alternative Mommsen offers is just as false as the "false solidarities of today’s identity politics on both the right and the left" he decries (erroneously). His appropriation of John Paul II's Sollicitudo rei socialis is also incorrect. Mommsen's version of solidarity is no threat to the state and is just more ineffectual utopian liberalism disguised as "Christianity." That all are called to be children of God is insufficient by itself to erase all legitimate ethnic and cultural differences that exist, and those differences are only strengthened through identity politics and cannot be eliminated even by violence. Supernatural solidarity in Christ does not require or even logically entail political solidarity and unity under one political authority. Mommsen's proposal, in so far as he takes his political claims as an extension of Christianity as a moral necessity, is a counterfeit Gospel.

Solidarity

As a "principle" of Roman Catholic social teaching, solidarity by itself it is insufficient to elaborate a systematic moral theology. We should diligere all with caritas, but that doesn't entail that we should diligere all equally. An essay like this cannot be systematic, given the limits of length, nor should it have attempted to cursorily mention difficult moral problems as if solidarity (or caritas) could tell us what to do.

"Monastic life is not one lifestyle choice among others. It is a public statement about the truth of who God is and what human existence means. It says in living words that this world is not enough."

Sister Dominic Mary Heath, OP on solidarityhttps://t.co/hc3Tb4w8g4

— Leah Libresco Sargeant (@LeahLibresco) August 24, 2020

Solidarity Means Giving Yourself by Sister Dominic Mary Heath, OP
Can a cloistered nun help a hurting world?

There Is No Human Solution to Sin

Reductive nationalism can only be tamed by linking it to a universal that does not attack the natural human solidarity of place & people. If liberalism is allowed to be the only universal then it will win - paradoxically nationalism needs a non-ethnic internationalism of the good

— Phillip Blond (@Phillip_Blond) May 16, 2020

Nationalism is not the primary problem; the primary problem is still the state. But even if the state were to fragment into republics organized on a human scale, there would always be the tendency for some to attempt to consolidate and centralize again because of disordered self-love and pride, whether it be in the name of ethnic unity or defense from outsiders or the "common good." At best we can achieve an international order based on mutual respect, or at least the desire not to get entangled with the affairs of others, and that is only if everyone is converted to Christ. Until then, there will be strife and no non-ethnic internationalism is going to prevent that without accumulating power to the few.

How Are You Going to Create Solidarity?

I agree that in urban mass population areas at least, there is no social cohesiveness and no community for reasons I've gone over before on the blog. But what is the remedy to this? Coercion? Forcing people to act like a community? Human nature doesn't work that way, and identity politics should be an indication of this to intellectuals who care.

I’m shocked that an aggregate of consumer-citizens, whose relationship to the state is defined solely in abstract juridical terms, can’t act with a common purpose https://t.co/lxzbmOiUm5

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 14, 2020

Yes, let's follow the High-School Libertarian. pic.twitter.com/IFjJmg7dYr

— Rafael de Arízaga (@RafaeldeArizaga) May 14, 2020

Civic Nationalism Doesn't Engender Mutual Loyalties

When any such loyalties have been frayed by agitation and identity politics.

This is only possible in a polity (community, tribe, nation) characterized by strong bonds of mutual loyalty between competing factions.

When the mutual loyalty is shot, the risk you take in siding with "the other side" becomes too great. https://t.co/emrWHkryk5

— Yoram Hazony (@yhazony) May 7, 2020

I Don't Think He Knows What Solidarity Requires

CNA/CWR: Vatican diplomat: Solidarity must be at the heart of the European project

More Academic Nonsense

Church Life: Remedies for American Catholic Polarization by Robert G. Christian III

Reducing Catholic polarization will almost certainly require reducing overall political polarization in the country, a difficult challenge. At the same time, the Church can and should try to convince more American Catholics to embrace Catholic ideals and support the countercultural approach of Catholic Social Teaching.

A version of [Roman] Catholic Social Teaching more akin to a SJW version of liberalism/statism? A statist counterfeit of the common good is no replacement for the authentic common good and community, which requires that the right to association be respected.

Step one in confronting Catholic political polarization should be to unite against all forms of bigotry and those seeking to undermine our democratic system. We must not forget the lessons of the 1930’s and allow brutal ideologies to become mainstream among American Catholics. Essentially, this is about preventing a new political pole to emerge—one more toxic and antithetical to Christian values than the existing poles. A failure to arrest rising Alt-Catholicism would make Catholic polarization far worse—creating new obstacles to communion, jeopardizing souls, pulling the American Church away from the global Church, and badly damaging Christian witness. It is perhaps the gravest threat to Catholicism in the United States.

Actually, the gravest threat to Catholicism in the United States are SJW bishops and academics such as the author of this piece, who fail to realize that their advocacy is in opposition to the Natural Law.

One critical way to reduce enmity is for American Catholics who are publicly dissenting from Church teaching to be honest about their dissent. Catholics should not overstate their knowledge of Church teaching or their commitment to it. They should not distort it—intentionally or through neglect. And they should never downplay it or undermine it by making it seem optional by twisting concepts like intrinsic evil or the need for prudential reasoning. They should describe Church teaching in a way that is clear and fair, having examined it with the desire to fully understand and accept it. If ultimately, having looked at Church teaching in its best light, they feel that core Catholic principles and factual reality point to a different conclusion than what the Church teaches and they wish to discuss this publicly, they should be honest and clear about it and explain precisely why.

While the author postures as being fair in asking "dissenters" to explain their reasons, he is actually indulging in the worst of Latin positivism in assuming that the teaching of the Patriarchate of Rome is identical to Tradition. The burden of proof is on those who have "developed" Church teaching so that it sounds like liberalism to show that their teaching is grounded within Tradition or the Natural Law.

Solidarity

Tilting at windmills? Cal Catholic Daily has an article on the American Solidarity Party.

First Things: The Politics of Solidarity

FB
Group: Christian Democracy USA

Mere Orthodoxy article
Aleteia


A Different Conservatism
The American Solidarity Party makes the case for community and subsidiarity.
By Malloy Owen •

"The Solidarists also diverge sharply from Trump on a number of his signature issues. One is immigration: the ASP platform calls unabashedly for amnesty, takes a jab at border walls, and implies that global inequality makes immigration “a necessity” for many workers."

What is the party's stance on feminism? Is American Solidarity Party a true Christian Democrat Party? Or churchian Democrat Party? It seems to be trying to replace the Democratic party but I don't think it will go anywhere because it does not acknowledge the concerns that what's left of white America has with its culture, identity, and nation.

Solidarity Hall promotes a similar "third option" and seems to involve more Catholics.

Who else will stand for economic liberty? Or distributism or some other economic "third way"? People associated with Solidarity Hall seem to be communitarians who value the common good and solidarity, but without any knowledge of how communities come into being, and often without any concern for proper scale. Solidarity is mentioned as a principle of Roman Catholic Social Teaching and is not really distinct from legal justice or political friendship, but seems to be an amalgam of the two. But these Christian "solidarists" like to moralize on certain issues (immigration, social justice) and are probably leftists in that respect. They assume that community exists but they do not understand that it doesn't, nor do they understand how it originates. For this reason they will continue to be ignored while ethnonationalism continues to rise.

Related:
America Magazine on Solidarity Hall
FB and Twitter

Whither Solidarity?

Is solidarity a thing of the past? by Kurt Cobb (EB)

In Bottleneck Catton explains that the late 19th century French sociologist Emile Durkheim believed that the division of labor in society which resulted in heightened interdependence among humans also led inevitably to greater solidarity. Catton counters with the views of American sociologist E. A. Ross who believed that that same interdependence was leading to far more vulnerability among humans to predatory behavior from other humans. Catton leans toward Ross's view for a very important reason: Humans now labor in narrow occupational niches within our highly complex society in the same way that species occupy ecological niches in nature. This specialization leads to competition within each niche for the limited number of positions available.

Consequently, the harder the economic times, the more intense the competition for the reduced number of positions within each niche. This leads to anxiety among those already holding a job since they are often not skilled enough to find work in other niches. The employee often asks himself or herself, "What could I possibly do if I were no longer able to do this kind of work?" Naturally, this concern also creates anxiety among those who are unemployed and seeking jobs within a particular niche.

I wasn't expecting Mr. Cobb to adopt Catton's analysis, though he may be making use of it as one explanation of our present situation. I don't think interdependence is, in se, the problem. It and (over-)specialization accompany wage slavery and a highly developed "capitalistic" system. It's not just economic competition that affects solidarity, but the lack of rootedness and the size of the "communities" that are involved. So Catton's analysis may be useful in looking at one factor, but it is incomplete. While those in France, for example, may be better able to unite for a common interest because of a social safety net which alleviates the risk of reprisals, aren't they stuck in a capitalistic paradigm? While seeking their economic good they, at the same time, cling to their form of political economy, from which they derive their government benefits. How can they wholly reform the system? It seems to me that such a thorough reform would be necessary if it is to be sustainable and to induce humane communities. Otherwise, we are stuck with wealth pumps and centralization and all that entails, as Damien Perrotin notes.