Shire Economics: Capitalism, Distributism, or Something in Between

As discussions are taking place over the politics of Middle-earth, thanks to Politico’s article on J. D. Vance, I thought it might be a good time to share a small excerpt from my dissertation. For context, my dissertation focused on the history of that economic theory of Distributism, an economic third way that falls somewhere between capitalism and socialism. While I was explaining perhaps some of the appeal of Distributism, I suggested that perhaps it appeals to us because portions of it seems to be brought into Tolkien’s world. This is a controversial claim for some, and I tried to discuss that as well. Obviously this is one part of my dissertation, so it would not typically stand independently, but I thought it might be relevant.

Tolkien never says that hobbits are Distributists, and he never even said that he himself was a believer in Distributism. That being said, the similarities, although debated by some, are rather striking, and when thinking about the great impact that Chesterton and Belloc had, perhaps the fact that their ideas may have gotten into a cultural icon like Tolkien's story certainly increases the audience that have been exposed to Distributism without even knowing it.

This claim is controversial for some. Specifically, Jay Wesley Richards and Jonathan Witt acknowledge, "The connection to the Shire is easy enough to recognize. The hobbits live an idyllic life uncluttered by the excesses of modern big city capitalism, a life with the qualities that distributists hope to cultivate in contemporary life. But concluding that Tolkien was a distributist is unwarranted."[1] However, the problem with their main critique is that it becomes a critique of Distributism itself rather than the fact that Tolkien was perhaps trying to present the Shire as Distributist. Most of their early evidence against this interpretation hinges on two particular quotes.

Tolkien emphasized that the preindustrial life of the Shire hobbits was not meant to function as “a Utopian vision” or to encourage us to return to preindustrialism and freeze in time a particular historical moment. This, he explained, was the “weakness” of the elves, who “regret the past”, and “become unwilling to face change: as if a man were to hate a very long book still going on, and wished to settle down in a favourite chapter. Hence they fell in a measure to Sauron’s deceits: they desired . . . to make their particular will to preservation effective: to arrest change, and keep things always fresh and fair.[2]

Pointing to the first piece of evidence, the claim about hobbits not being "a Utopian vision" refers to a letter Tolkien wrote to Naomi Mitchison. In context, Tolkien is not so much saying that hobbit society is bad or even inappropriate for them. In fact, it is good for them. Tolkien wrote:

But hobbits are not a Utopian vision, or recommended as an ideal in their own or any age. They, as all peoples and their situations, are an historical accident – as the Elves point out to Frodo – and an impermanent one in the long view. I am not a reformer nor an ‘embalmer’! I am not a ‘reformer’ (by exercise of power) since it seems doomed to Sarumanism. But ‘embalming’ has its own punishments.[3]

In context, it does not seem that Tolkien was putting down anything about the economy in the Shire. Instead, he was recognizing the economic reality that certain ways of life are not cut out for every culture all the time. Early on the paragraph, he provides a simple example of this. He writes:

Gondor has sufficient ‘townlands’ and fiefs with a good water and road approach to provide for its population; and clearly has many industries though these are hardly alluded to. The Shire is placed in a water and mountain situation and a distance from the sea and a latitude that would give it a natural fertility, quite apart from the stated fact that it was a well-tended region when they took it     over.[4]

Consequently, it does not seem to be the case that Tolkien was even commenting on whether or not Shire economics should be applied in every situation or not. Rather, he is commenting on the reality that they were geographically situated to be an agrarian society. Gondor was organized differently and had different resources, so they developed in a different fashion. He is by no means condemning Shire economics as impractical or Utopian in the sense that he thought Shire economics were impossible. Rather, he is simply commenting that an economy needs to suit the people and resources that are there.

The passage Witt and Richards cite regarding the weakness of the Elves comes from a draft of a letter written to Michael Straight. It seems as if Richards and Witt are using this to explain why Tolkien would not want to reach back to a preindustrial past. This takes the text somewhere that Tolkien never intended it to go. Immediately before the passage they cite, Tolkien writes:

They are therefore ‘immortal’. Not ‘eternally’, but to endure with and within the created world, while its story lasts. When ‘killed’, by the injury or destruction of their incarnate form, they do not escape from time, but remain in the world, either discarnate, or being re-born. This becomes a great burden as the ages lengthen, especially in a world in which there is malice and destruction (I have left out the mythological form which Malice or the Fall of the Angels takes in this fable). Mere change as such is not represented as ‘evil’: it is the unfolding of the story and to refuse this is of course against the design of God.[5]

Surely, the passage that Richards and Witt pull can be seen exemplified in The Lord of the Rings. The Elves do occasionally tend to live in the past and idolize those things that have come before. However, it is a major stretch from this passage in context to say that Tolkien consequently rejects preindustrial society. In fact, it does not really comment on preindustrial society at all. Rather, it is a sociological exploration of his subcreated Elves, and he is explaining why they have a tendency to embrace the past. They do so because of the burden that they have on them from all they have seen. Their immortality causes them to view the world in a different way which causes them to resist all change. This is naturally a weakness, and Tolkien rightfully calls it such, but at the same time, it is a significant stretch by Richards and Witt.

The section that immediately follows this interpretation of Tolkien proceeds to economically critique Distributism. That's entirely fair. Obviously, it is a theory that is open to criticism and there are many valid criticisms to be made against it, especially from such a free-market perspective. Clearly, they understand their own perspective on Distributism, but they are imposing that on Tolkien. This becomes even more prominent a little bit later on when they make assumptions about what Tolkien would or would not do. They write:

In short, Tolkien surely knew of the writings of distributists of his day and frequently commented on matters political and economic. This is why it is so significant that no endorsement of the distributist program has ever been discovered in Tolkien’s writings. It’s akin to the Sherlock Holmes story involving a stolen racehorse and a dead trainer. A crucial key to unraveling the case is a dog not barking when he might have been expected to bark. Sometimes the absence of evidence is evidence.[6]

Perhaps this is a valid argument. Perhaps it would be surprising to see Tolkien never mention anywhere in his published writings that he was a Distributist. However, the other side of this is that he never identified himself as anything economically. In some of his letters, he does talk about politics and religion, but using this type of argument really is not all that strong.

Finally, they run into a few other claims that they say prove that Tolkien did not just fail to outright affirm Distributism but was actually opposed to some of its main tenets. For example, they write, "Guilds, like any cartel, need coercion to be sustained. In modern societies, this means the state would need to enforce the guild rules—essentially corporatism, or what we have already called cronyism—unfit men bossing other men around, to borrow Tolkien’s description."[7] This, indeed, seems to be the greatest stretch of them all. There is a footnote that points the reader to the letter that Tolkien wrote to his son Christopher on November 29, 1943. This is perhaps one of the most famous letters that Tolkien wrote, and it begins in what some would say is a very controversial way. He writes, "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy."[8]

Clearly, the tone of the rest of the letter does not affiliate Tolkien with what is commonly known as anarchy, but he does show a strong resistance to anyone having control over anyone else. This is what Richards and Witt are reaching for, but the actual passage is simply speaking to what they want to believe, implying that it somehow shows that Tolkien would resist Distributism. He wrote:

Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop.[9]

Clearly, Tolkien had strong feelings about this issue, and Richards and Witt are not wrong when they say, "Tolkien articulated — clearly and on several occasions — a deep and wide-ranging hostility to plans that would further empower government bureaucrats to reform society, however nobly intentioned."[10] What does not follow from this is that Tolkien was not a Distributist. Richards and Witt are imposing criteria, perhaps right or wrong, onto what it means to be a Distributist. They necessitate that the Distributist must believe in a high degree of state control. Whether or not they are right regarding the practical way that Distributism would have to be implemented is not necessarily the point here. Chesterton and Belloc were anti-centralized power. Belloc wrote a book about the state running amok after driving people into slavery. That was what started the entire Distributist movement. Therefore, if you would have asked any of them, or hypothetically Tolkien if he was a Distributist, whether or not Distributism entailed a great deal of state involvement, they would have denied that absolutely, much in the style Tolkien does here.

Richards and Witt might be right. It may be necessary for massive state intervention in order for any type of Distributist agenda to be enacted, but that seems to unfortunately cloud their vision regarding whether or not Tolkien himself was a Distributist. They do reference Belloc in his writing where he says, "The effort at restoring property will certainly fail if it is hampered by a superstition against the use of force as the handmaid of Justice. All the powers of the State have been invoked by Capitalism to restore servile conditions; we shall not react against servile conditions unless we avail ourselves of the same methods."[11] The problem is that Richards and Witt only mentioned the first sentence of this quote. It really was not a question of whether or not they wanted to use state power in principle. Rather, many Distributists felt that, as Belloc did here, that they might have to use the institutions that were already in place to make their vision a reality or else they would be doomed to failure. Earlier in the same paragraph, Belloc wrote, "The evil from which we are suffering today is not the evil of State interference but the evil of the loss of Freedom. State interference may have for its effect a loss of Freedom and certainly usually has for its object the loss of Freedom; but it always may be, and very often must be, invoked for the very purpose of restoring Freedom."[12] Unfortunately, it falls again into a misreading of what Distributists actually wanted. They did not want the intervention. They recognized the reality that they might have to use it. The mischaracterization goes further when they say of Tolkien, "He never recommended that the state make its regular and ongoing business to redistribute legally owned property in the pursuit of equality."[13] No Distributist would argue this either. It was not meant to be the state’s business to redistribute wealth. Instead, the state was meant to support freedom. Given the type of system that they were proposing, based on individual ownership, very few would become incredibly wealthy. That would probably be the reality, but they were not advocating for anything like this.

The case suggesting that Tolkien was opposed to Distributism as put forward by Richards and Witt is simply problematic on many levels. It rests on misreadings of Tolkien and misunderstandings of what Distributists actually said. Instead, they rely on what they believe would be the necessary consequences of a Distributist system. This is not to say that they are wrong, and they very well might be right in their outline of what would be necessary for a Distributist system to function. Perhaps it could never function with the freedom that Belloc suggested it would after the initial use of state intervention to put the system in place. Maybe that high level of governmental interference would always be necessary, undermining one of the chief Distributist aims of freedom. However, it is not responsible to impose a belief system on top of Tolkien based on a modern understanding of the shortcomings of Distributism. Instead, it is more responsible to look at what Tolkien said, in context, in order to understand if he really was in support of or opposed to Distributism.

Stratford Caldecott's perspective stands in stark contrast to Richards and Witt. He points to the lack of government intervention in the Shire as evidence of Tolkien's Distributism. "The ‘half republic half aristocracy’ of the Shire (L 183) has an elected mayor but seems to function most of the time well enough without government, and its police force of ‘Shirriffs’ has very little to do — that is, until Saruman’s influence is brought to bear. At that point Government with a capital G arrives with a vengeance."[14] The fascinating part is that he is looking at the same evidence as Richards and Witt, but the evidence leads him to support a different understanding of Tolkien as a Distributist.

These real-life political opinions, which lie behind his fictionalized portrayal of English country life in the Shire, place Tolkien within a tradition of Catholic social thought known as ‘Distributism,’ whose most eloquent exponents in the previous generation were Hilaire Belloc and Gilbert Keith Chesterton. As far as I know, he never referred to the Distributists or aligned himself with their cause.[15]

Far from silence signifying a lack of interest or approval from Tolkien regarding Distributism, Caldecott does not seem to be bothered by it in the way that Richards and Witt were. He explains:

Nevertheless, before the Second World War Distributism had been one of the two main Catholic movements in Britain basing itself upon the social teaching of the Church. Tolkien tended to avoid politics where he could, and refers to Chesterton mainly as a poet. Nevertheless, I cannot see any political “camp” that would have suited him better. He was certainly no “socialist” in any sense (see L 181). The other popular Catholic movement, the Catholic Social Guild, would have been more congenial to him, but after 1942 it was increasingly aligned with the Labour Party. In any case, Tolkien’s work and interests lay elsewhere.[16]

Caldecott is surmising as much as Richards and Witt were, and perhaps that is not wise, but he does support his supposition with historical evidence based on the state of the Catholic Church at the time in Great Britain. He also points to some truth about the Shire itself. "The Shire fits neatly into this tradition of social thought. It represents an agricultural, largely self-sufficient way of life, cut off from the rest of the world and happy to remain so, that was already almost dead in Tolkien’s time, killed by new methods of transport and communication."[17] His essay does not go into any further depth on this point which is unfortunate, but he does raise the question as to whether or not the ideas espoused in the Shire are consistent with Distributist thought. If they are, then perhaps this type of literary impact can help classify Chesterton and Belloc as Great Men. If they influenced the people who have influenced the world, then perhaps it is justifiable to call them Great Men. Socrates was a legendary philosopher in his own right, but the fact that he taught Plato who taught Aristotle who taught Alexander the Great only multiplies the impact he had on the world. In the same way, if Chesterton and Belloc were the ones who inspired even a small part of Tolkien's work, maybe they deserve to be considered in a Great Man conversation, even using Carlyle's higher standard of fame and impact.

The case to be made for Tolkien presenting Distributism in the Shire, not as some type of utopian ideal for all times and all places, but rather as a perfectly acceptable option and reasonable possibility for certain types of societies, is substantially stronger than the case that he actually rejected Distributism. Readers were first introduced to hobbits in, naturally, The Hobbit. Even from the first chapter, it is not hard to picture the ideals of Distributism coming right out of this description. For example, Tolkien writes of "one morning long ago in the quiet of the world, when there was less noise and more green, and the hobbits were still numerous and prosperous, and Bilbo Baggins was standing at his door after breakfast."[18] Hobbits thrived when the world was quiet. The narrator, perhaps Tolkien's own voice coming through, seems to imply that hobbits have a hard time in the chaos. He reemphasizes this fact by saying, "The Bagginses had lived in the neighbourhood of The Hill for time out of mind, and people considered them very respectable, not only because most of them were rich, but also because they never had any adventures or did anything unexpected: you could tell what a Baggins would say on any question without the bother of asking him."[19] Their respect is directly tied to their stability. Thinking about Tolkien's aversion to change for no reason and connecting to the natural skepticism towards progress shown by Chesterton and Belloc, it does seem like the Shire possesses the type of culture that values at least one chief tenet of Distributism.

The agrarian focus of the Shire is similarly tied to Distributist ideals anchored originally in Cobbett. Considering the way that Samwise Gamgee's father explains his own lot in life, it points toward how most hobbits within their culture viewed themselves. "Elves and Dragons! I says to him. Cabbages and potatoes are better for me and you. Don’t go getting mixed up in the business of your betters, or you’ll land in trouble too big for you, I says to him."[20] Similarly, Bilbo's monumental birthday party was largely supplied from within the Shire, or at least as much as possible. Tolkien says, "There might have been some grumbling about ‘dealing locally’, but that very week orders began to pour out of Bag End for every kind of provision, commodity, or luxury that could be obtained in Hobbiton or Bywater or anywhere in the neighbourhood."[21] This type of agrarian society and emphasis on dealing locally as much as possible is consistent with many of the Distributist ideas put forward by Chesterton and Belloc.

The emphasis on community also seems to echo many Distributist ideals. Again, referring to his birthday party, Bilbo was thinking about everyone around him, even if his memory was not perfect. "Practically everybody living near was invited. A very few were overlooked by accident, but as they turned up all the same, that did not matter. Many people from other parts of the Shire were also asked; and there were even a few from outside the borders."[22] Not only was Bilbo community-minded enough to invite so many people from his town and the surrounding area, but apparently it was not an incredible faux pas to show up uninvited at a birthday party you were not invited to. There is an undeniable emphasis on the fact that birthdays were something that were meant to be shared with others. Family and community were a few features that were emphasized by the Distributists, and that shines through in the opening passages of The Lord of the Rings.

Skipping to the end of the tale when the hobbits returned to the Shire following their great adventure, they have returned to a town that is almost unrecognizable. As Sam says, "It comes home to you, as they say; because it is home, and you remember it before it was all ruined."[23] The description of what the Shire had turned into is quite different than the agrarian land they began with.

The great chimney rose up before them; and as they drew near the old village across the Water, through rows of new mean houses along each side of the road, they saw the new mill in all its frowning and dirty ugliness: a great brick building straddling the stream, which it fouled with a steaming and stinking outflow. All along the Bywater Road every tree had been felled.

As they crossed the bridge and looked up the Hill they gasped. Even Sam’s vision in the Mirror had not prepared him for what they saw. The Old Grange on the west side had been knocked down, and its place taken by rows of tarred sheds. All the chestnuts were gone. The banks and hedgerows were broken. Great waggons were standing in disorder in a field beaten bare of grass. Bagshot Row was a yawning sand and gravel quarry. Bag End up beyond could not be seen for a clutter of large huts.[24]

The similarities remain striking. Clearly, there is the opposition to blanket industrialism being better for everyone all the time. It is actually quite interesting that Tolkien never condemns the dwarves for industrializing. Their greed drives them too deep into Moria, but their foundries and industry are not the problem. It is rather their personal, moral flaws that hurt them. Therefore, it seems a bit too simplistic to again conclude that Tolkien is absolutely opposed to any kind of industrialization and favors a return to the Middle Ages. Instead, this is further confirmation that industrialization was not right for the hobbits. As Caldecott points out, the Shire was not perfect.

The Shire has been described by critics as an “agrarian idyll,” an impossible paradise based on childhood memories, bathed in the rosy glow of sentimental nostalgia. This is not at all fair. Even before its infiltration and corruption by Saruman, the Shire has its flaws. The small-mindedness of its inhabitants, the unpleasantness of the Sackville-Bagginses and Ted Sandyman, are not there merely for comic effect, but to inject a genuine note of realism from the primary world.[25]

Because the Shire was not perfect, Tolkien perhaps developed a Distributist vision of his world as what worked for the Shire. He does not prescribe it for everyone, and he does not imply that everyone could operate in the same way that the Shire did since they were largely agrarian to begin with. Men never organized in this fashion, and Dwarves were far from agrarian, but they were not blamed for being such. Consequently, it does not seem irresponsible at all to consider Tolkien as putting forward a view, consciously or subconsciously, that was popular within Catholicism during his lifetime. He tied it to one specific race that had the characteristics consistent with the ideology.

Perhaps then it is reasonable to consider Chesterton and Belloc Great Men because their ideas have been read by millions of people around the world. Whatever Tolkien's ultimate motivation, and even though it seems that he built in several Distributist elements into his portrayal of the Shire despite the contentions made by some including Richards and Witt, the fact of the matter is that these ideas resonate with people.

[1] Jay W. Richards and Jonathan Witt, The Hobbit Party: The Vision of Freedom That Tolkien Got, and the West Forgot (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), Kindle Location 2772, Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid, Kindle Location 2783.

[3] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, eds. Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien (London: HarperCollins, 2012), Kindle Location 4175, Kindle Edition.

[4] Ibid., Kindle Location 4170.

[5] Ibid., Kindle Location 5030.

[6] Jay W. Richards and Jonathan Witt, The Hobbit Party: The Vision of Freedom That Tolkien Got, and the West Forgot (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), Kindle Location 2848, Kindle Edition.

[7] Ibid., Kindle Location 2855.

[8] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, eds. Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien (London: HarperCollins, 2012), Kindle Location 1340, Kindle Edition.

[9] Ibid., Kindle Location 1346.

[10] Jay W. Richards and Jonathan Witt, The Hobbit Party: The Vision of Freedom That Tolkien Got, and the West Forgot (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), Kindle Location 2862, Kindle Edition.

[11] Hilaire Belloc, An Essay on the Restoration of Property (Norfolk: IHS Press, 2009), 15, Kindle Edition.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Jay W. Richards and Jonathan Witt, The Hobbit Party: The Vision of Freedom That Tolkien Got, and the West Forgot (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), Kindle Location 2864, Kindle Edition.

[14] Stratford Caldecott, The Power of the Ring: The Spiritual Vision Behind the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit (Chestnut Ridge, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2012), Kindle Location 2181, Kindle Edition.

[15] Ibid., Kindle Location 2190.

[16] Ibid., Kindle Location 2195.

[17] Ibid., Kindle Location 2213.

[18] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Hobbit (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1995), 3, Kindle Edition.

[19] Ibid., 2.

[20] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002), 24, Kindle Edition.

[21] Ibid, 26.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 1018.

[24] Ibid., 1016-17.

[25] Stratford Caldecott, The Power of the Ring: The Spiritual Vision Behind the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit (Chestnut Ridge, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2012), Kindle Location 2171, Kindle Edition.