I am not sure about the context in which he said that, but if I had to venture a guess it would be along the lines of the 20/80 model. 20% of people doing 80% of the work in society, contrasted with 20% of people collecting 80% of the fruits of the labor. And those 20% who do all the work and those 20% who collect all the fruit of the work not being nearly the same people. In other words, too many people who they reap what they don't sow.
Also, in the context of Distributism, I think he was of the view that everyone ought to have capital, at least enough upon which to survive. He was very upset at the thievery of the Reformation, in which the Monastery land was stolen by the aristocracy-this land was the English ‘social welfare system’ of the time. Also, the people’s commonage, on which they used to farm their necessities, was stolen by the aristocrats-hence More’s comment: ‘Sheep are eating men’. This all plunged the common people of England into a hopeless poverty from which they still suffer. What was done to the English was done worse to the Scots and was worse still done to the Irish. Through the Land League of the nineteenth century, the Irish broke the power of the aristocracy which Chesterton delighted in.
Yes, I've heard of this, very dirty. Communists did the exact same thing. Never heard of the land league before, thanks for informing me. It was clearly another class struggle. It seems like it has always been a class struggle. Certain people keep taking and taking until they go a step too far. It also doesn't surprise me at all that Aristocrats took the land from the poor. They are all too often part of the parasite class that collects the benefits of society but doesn't actually provide a service to society. I wonder what kind of fruit that creates in one's life. Jesus literally taught servant leadership. I guess PLXIV took his name partially because of Rerum Novarum. We will see what happens.
