David Walsh, Toronto ON, and Hugh Williams, Debec, NB

INTRODUCTION
by Patrick Jamieson

Given the crisis in global politics, discussion in progressive Catholic circles centres around the different emphasis between progressive thinkers and prophetic advocates. David Walsh in Toronto and Hugh Williams in rural New Brunswick have entered into such a vivid discussion with reference to the social imperative writings of the late theologian Gregory Baum. Following is part of that respectful dialogue. Hugh Williams has taught philosophy at St. Thomas University in Fredericton and the University of New Brunswick in Saint John, he is also founder of Metapra, a social Sevice agency dedicated to providing services and employment for the disabled and disadvantaged in Central New Brunswick. David Walsh, a social entrepreneur, is founder of Community Counts, which provides housing opportunities for the low income in Toronto.

On 2026-07-01 1:47 p.m., David Walsh wrote:

Hugh – I obtained your email contact from Pat Jamieson a month ago, and I intended to write earlier, but other work got in my way.
I appreciate all the articles and authors who contribute to ICN, including yourself.
David

Hugh – I have appreciated your articles on Gregory Baum, published in ICN, and I have always valued Baum’s social analysis, particularly relating to his ideas on how the ‘false consciousness’ impacts our culture and our lives.
Since you often research Baum’s overall perspective, I would like to ask you about questions I have. In particular, I find it difficult when you translate his theories into socialism (or any ism) since this seems to limit his teachings. Also, he appeared to have moved away from ideology in his later writings. At the same time, we all have our own bias, and I am coming from a background of a social entrepreneur. I find that framing ‘the challenges’ around socialism does not seem to allow for the creative expression that is an important part of the entrepreneurial mind set. I agree that an entrepreneur can just as easily be susceptible to a false consciousness in all its aspects, but the way out of such an entanglement will often be different. There will be more of learning from one’s experience because the entrepreneur tends to react more easily to his or her call to change than for example, a worker in a factory who may be (but not always) a cog in the system that he or she is part of.

An entrepreneur is not only found in private business but also in non-profit organizations, co-ops, artistic, and others spheres of society that are important to shaping a culture. Using the framework of a socialist perspective may help many to liberate their thinking from our capitalist culture, but this perspective feels foreign to my own culture. I would likely be thinking of other aspects of the ‘false consciousness’ that are outside of the socialist box in dealing with the power of corporation to control capital and markets.

There is a saying that entrepreneurs are often different in their thinking – for example, rather than directly confronting a problem such as bureaucracy, their path is likely to look for a way to go around that problem. On the other hand, social entrepreneurs share the frustrations of living in the materialistic culture that pervades our society, but they often have more ways of addressing these challenges, particularly if they are conscious of the false consciousness that pervades our culture. For myself, I look at how to work with like-minded individuals to create new models of community business that incorporate the values and dimensions that I see as important from a moral perspective, such as profit sharing, ownership diversity, green projects, democratic ownership, and other principles that offer a different vision from the capitalist system.

To give you a concrete example, the following is a paragraph / note that I wrote recently about a social enterprise that I am involved with, called Carrot Common – www.carrotcommon.com.

“Carrot Common is a joint venture, and it is an example where individuals who are passionate about implementing more progressive business and community models have found a way to partner together. In this case it has involved members of The Big Carrot, a worker-owned business, as well as business entrepreneurs, David & Tom Walsh & Marty Donkervoort; and four non-profit organizations: One is Carrot Cache, a social enterprise that operates the Carrot green roof and has distributed over $3 million to support farm and food security projects. Then there are 3 ‘solidarity non-profits’ (St. Joseph Community Ventures, Carrot Social Justice Fund and Citizens for Public Justice – they have funded hundreds of community projects with funds received from their share of the Carrot Common profits. In addition, our lawyer Brian Iler has played an integral role in shaping the Carrot Common Joint Venture and its vision.”

It is important for those who share our values and are interested in the vision of Carrot Common to consider how different and diverse partners can offer positive community benefits as well as skills and expertise that benefit the whole enterprise. For example, the vision of The Big Carrot inspired the spirit and the energy of Carrot Common from the start, as was evident when the Big Carrot expanded to its much larger store in 1986-87. The business and legal partners brought skills to many facets of the enterprise, such as arranging financing, ensuring that the Common has been fully leased through some tough economic times, managing operating cost of the property, and addressing many legal matters that have arisen over the years. The vision of Carrot Common has been ‘locked in’ from the start making it difficult for any one partner to over-ride other partners, and this has also been important in facing challenges. For example, while the partners in Carrot Common came together as a loose-fitting partnership that has endured for 40 years, the partnership is currently grappling with how to adapt the organizational structure as individual partners age and their interests evolve.

Another person who asked questions similar to mine was my friend, Fr Greg Macleod (2017), and I am sure you are familiar with his writings and analysis. He learned from the experiences of Mondragon and other innovative models that speak to a different world view than the capitalist system. Greg did not talk about ‘isms’ and ideologies. His writings challenged us to go beyond existing thinking and forge new ways of integrating moral and systems change into efforts for organizing, as well as considering economic & institutional change with a moral vision. My own efforts have included challenging our federal government’s obscene spending on the military and defense sectors at the expense of spending on humanitarian causes, such as housing, education, the climate crisis, the health system, etc. Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians are captivated by the macho propaganda that supports military spending.

Another writer, Stephen Marche (Gloves Off) states: “we need to develop the instincts and the initiative to be on the front foot, actively creating the ‘post-American world’,” with the same energy and imagination that built a new world after WWII. If we don’t, that world will, once again, be created for us. And the slow, grinding decline of our democracies and economies will continue. My vision is different than that of Stephen Marche, but I appreciate the urgency he describes.

I am writing to share my observations and thinking as a way to reflect on your own analysis and research to integrate Gregory Baum’s principles into a vision that is more open to different perspectives and cultures?

In Peace, David

2

David et al,

Perhaps I’m not yet at the point of resolution for this good discussion with David Walsh.

In ‘listening carefully’ to David, I believe there still are things to say. Things that are important …

David’s direct work in ‘homelessness’ is very important for the discussion. I have some experience in this area but it is very limited. Listening to socialists-activists who work in this area, I’ve been told that there is what I’d call a complex ‘policy, program, and practice’ dynamic where at the high policy level there has been an almost a longstanding strategic avoidance of any robust investment in ‘public housing’.

Instead the focus is always shaped by this ‘value’ of ‘private home ownership’. It is said to be a ‘trickle down housing’ approach based upon a ‘supply and demand’ economic model which simply does not work for meeting the real situation in the housing/ homelessness crisis in the nation. I’ve heard people who have studied and worked in this area express real and deep frustration and even despair in the sense of becoming exhausted in trying to untangle this complex ‘policy, program, and practice’ matrix.

Old and wise analytical socialists are saying, as they have since the days of the CCF really, that in this country that now even the ‘social democratic’ politics of the 20thC is no longer a credible option. This is simply because even moderate and modest reforms, such as often proposed for this ‘housing crisis’, will inescapably require some form of direct confrontation with the owners of capital and the capitalist system. And this requires the building of a deep social base to be effective.

So, I believe, as important as ‘Greg McLeod’s analysis’ is or was for ‘(cooperative) community economic development’, history now demands an advance or furtherance in the analysis (… in both the theory and practice).

However, I’ll admit it is very difficult to discuss such an issue in detail partly because of my own limitations in this area of ‘housing and homelessness’ … except to say from the view of ‘practice’ that it is a foundational issue because for the ‘people’ so much of their/our ‘future and their/our ‘vision of the future’ is intimately tied to housing (and a home of some sort) … and if one does not have that one is affected deeply in both ‘body and soul’ …

Which leads me to ‘switch’ topics as David sort of does below … though there is some interrelationship, to that of ‘God’ and ‘God talk’. And if for the purposes of saying a little more on these things, we call to mind Pope Francis’ extraordinary encyclical Laudato Si where a few of us came to the severe conclusion that for the Christian Church and particularly its ‘diocesan-parish structures’ that ‘unless we restore and revitalize ourselves and the social order of our local Christian communities, we certainly will have little or no effect in dealing with the larger social-economic-environmental crises of our communities …’

And in this area of concern, I must say that in my own very recent experience within this institutional church and in its handling of the ‘synodal process’, and the exposure of the deep and abiding effects of ‘clericalism’, we have a situation which probably has resulted in further disaffection and disaffiliation for many, as it has for myself.

With all that being said, I still would want to say that the ‘synodal process’ as introduced and promoted by Pope Francis and his ‘synodal secretariat’, which in my view has done an outstanding job trying to make this process credible for many of us, … this ‘synodal process and its defined methodology’ is a profoundly revolutionary tool of wide social relevance and application that simply remains undeveloped and in other cases deliberately avoided. (It reminds me of the communist Chinese methodology of ‘from the masses – to the masses’.)

The problem or great challenge-opportunity, nonetheless, is very analogous to the problem of ‘capitalism’ in the secular social system, in that with clericalism there is a system of ‘spiritual domination for the sake of the appropriation of the spiritual surplus’. Francis in my view termed the fundamental problem ‘clericalism’ as the ‘abuse of power and lack of accountability’.

This is analogous to what is called the ‘logic of capital’ with its appropriation and accumulation of economic value. Many of us witnessed this analogous phenomenon firsthand in the ‘synodal process’. So that you still have this situation where it very much remains the case, in general and for the most part, that the vast majority of people and activists in the church, who are lay people and women, are excluded from meaningful leadership roles and left only with what is euphemistically called ‘consultation only’.

It was pointed out recently that though it is often said that the official church is ‘slow to change’ because of a widespread resistance to women deacons in certain African and Asian nations, the stark truth of the matter is that the real resistance remains centered in a little 150 acre state located in the center of Italy called the Vatican …

All this is to say how even in the institutional church we are faced with a revolutionary situation, where reform can only go so far and then it confronts entrenched power structures and an analogous ‘logic of capital’. But the ‘synodal process’ has a revolutionary dimension that is very real, and we who have experienced some of ‘this’ should hold firm to it as Pope Francis urged … saying that it should be studied and implemented throughout the ‘institution’ among both clergy and lay … easy to say but very hard to implement … so this is where ‘talk of God’ today leads me …

David did you have experience with this recent ‘synodal process’ and if so, can you say a little on your own views on this … ?

Thanks again

Hugh

3

On 2026-07-13 10:00 p.m., Hugh Williams wrote:

David,

I’m including Pat Jamieson in on this last exchange as it seems to be reaching some provisional ‘resolution’ for now …

It has been very good and I thank you again for your attention to this issue that I characterize with Baum as that of ‘Christianity and Socialism’.

I also believe you are absolutely right that this question of ‘God’ is fundamental and that there is some interplay between ‘the forgetting’ of God and the ‘worshipping of idols’.

Pat had suggested that perhaps some of our exchange might be of interest to some of ICN’s readers.

He also spoke of inviting one or two other perspectives on the topic. So we’ll have to see what the ‘editors’ want to do with our exchange.

Meanwhile keep up the good and important work …

thanks, Hugh

On 2026-07-13 12:05 a.m., David Walsh wrote:

Hugh – I support your analysis and critique of the capitalist systems, and the main questions for me revolve around the question of where and how will change come based on the visions we see as important. We know change will flow from many sources and streams; and it is important to remember this point in our ‘back and forth’ discussions – how are streams are part of a larger river.

I am involved in a lot of work around ‘ending homelessness’ and similar issues appear in this work. However, I am seeing it more and more as a spiritual question, where the Spirit is working in revealing ways.

I was reading an article on the weekend that caught my attention. The article by Mark Galli quoted Alexander Solzhenitsyn who said, when he received the Templeton Prize “We Have Forgotten God”.

Let’s keep in contact, and if you want to do an article for ICN on the earlier questions we were addressing, then I am open to it.

In Peace,

David

On July 10, 2026 Hugh Williams wrote to David Walsh and Patrick Jamieson – Island Catholic News.

Subject: Re: building on your analysis of Gregory Baum’s writing

David you make two important claims:

1) “I see the capitalist system as being the dominant system for ‘the ages’, but it will be upset now and then by forces of greed (such as the collapse of the condo market in big cities), by ego (such as Trump and his kind), by militarism, and by acts of God. Capitalism and its offspring will take hits but will bounce back as it has for the past 10,000 years – ever since gold & money were invented.”

2) “My issue is not with socialism per se, but with any ‘ism’ that purports to be an elixir for human foibles. I agree that we can learn from the teachings of Marxism, but this should be different than Christianity which has a whole different perspective and spirit. The point is often made that Jesus did not give us a blueprint of what to do. His teachings have a whole different way of looking at the world.”

Hugh’s commentary:

The reason I set ‘Christianity and Socialism’ in a dialectical relationship in my essay on Baum is because, in my view, Christianity to some significant degree has become an ideological captive of liberal capitalism where we, overtime, certainly over the past seventy five years (my life time), have been socialized and conditioned into these ahistorical presumptions (and even articles of faith) that a) capitalism can always be fixed, and b) capitalism has no alternative, because as a social formation it best reflects our human nature (and even in some cases it is held to be ordained by ‘God’). Baum made a special point to highlight and call to mind the committed work of ‘Christians for Socialism’ in South America where their primary purpose was to try and both clarify and denounce this ideological bias and content in mainline Christianity. Baum also is excellent in pointing to similar movements once very active in Canada, and in B.C. no less …

I’m afraid since Gregory Baum did his best work during the 70s and 80s, most serious socialists today also recognize how capitalism as a system, for it is a real-world system, along with the creation of an outrageous global and local economic inequality is actually destroying the Earth System as a place of ecological human habitability. It is recognized by most honest analysts that Climate Change is caused primarily by the capitalist system’s incessant dependence upon the burning of fossil fuels. And this Climate Change is now happening with an alarming speed. Accompanying this fact is the aberrant social-psychology of still way too many people, when push comes to shove, finding it easier to envision the end of the world than the end of this system of capitalism.

ICN’s important re-publication of Albert Einstein’’s famous 1950 essay “Why Socialism?” is relevant here … Einstein, in his own personal testimony as to why he became a socialist, was faced with a similar existential problematic, though the context for his time was not Climate Change but the risk of increasing militarized conflict, a World War where Nuclear Weapons would be used. Einstein believed that only a supra-national organization could protect humankind from this mortal danger. Some of his close friends, perhaps some who had provided the science underlying these weapons of mass destruction, responded to Einstein’s proposition by saying ‘why should one work so hard to oppose humanity’s disappearance?’. Einstein understood this response to be from people who strove in vain to attain some personal equilibrium within themselves and had lost hope, finding it easier to imagine the demise of our species than that of a viable alternative. We today are in a very similar situation for which, I’m of the view, it is becoming increasingly revolutionary in the sense that ‘reform’ of this system will not solve this problem of systematic capitalist accumulation and the self-deception of endless growth with its extraordinary waste and pollution.

In the U.S., technocratic capitalist elites have gained control of the U.S. climate movement. The social system we are up against is capitalism which has this underlying common denominator that must be understood – capital accumulation and economic growth. (From the Christian perspective there are two crucial encyclicals that tried in their own limited way to sensitize us to this alarming situation for modernity – JPII’s 1982 ‘Laborem Exercens’, for which Baum provided an important extensive commentary, and Pope Francis’ 2015 ‘Laudato Si’. It is ‘Laborem Exercens’ that, limited as it is, perhaps gives us the most in-depth Christian analysis of the ‘capital-labor’ dialectic and of the Christian Church’s complex and often misunderstood perspective on this fundamental social relationship.)

I’m afraid, in my own view, that this is a system that the ruling elites do not want to see changed. There simply is little interest among them in discussing the necessary changes in the underlying social relations. Instead, we are getting talk of a type of Green Keynesianism that proposes the creation of lots of green jobs as the solution for this ecological problem. But the problem is that this talk still assumes economic expansion, increased consumption, and an increase in the scale of human activity which simply is not realistic in physical, scientific, and ecological terms. Frankly, we are being lied to about the nature of the problem.

One source of hope according to many socialists is the rise of what we might call an environmental proletariat especially in the Global South. This proletariat, or working class, is becoming increasingly radical as it faces both degradation and exploitation in the workplace and the destruction of their environment both rural and urban.

Perhaps I’ve gone on long enough … and I’ll admit this analysis is largely based upon recent Marxist-socialist work which is very active and ongoing today and for me much more insightful and articulate on these matters than anything I can find from the Christian side. Thus, given the seriousness of our situation today, I see a revival needed of the Christian Left which, in my view, must involve serious engagement with the Marxist socialist tradition. Though I’m with you to the extent that it must be a socialism with Canadian characteristics which is yet to be worked out. (See https://truthout.org/articles/markets-and-technology-wont-solve-climate-crisis-we-must-end-capitalism)

And finally, it is, in my own view, to ICNs credit that it courageously is including, now and again in its diverse publication, articles that contribute to a Christian Left analysis and sensibility, and to the challenge these may pose to mainstream Christianity and its ideology, that often is both hidden and unconscious …

Hugh.

On 2026-07-09 6:27 p.m., David Walsh wrote:

Hugh – thanks for your thoughtful response.

Here are some brief responses to a few of the points you make.
My points below are more to clarify statements I made in my first email.

HW – “I believe you see this approach as an effort to develop an alternative to the ‘capitalist system’.

DW – it is going to take a lot more than “this approach” that I talk about, to develop an alternative to the ‘capitalist system’. I see the capitalist system as being the dominant system for ‘the ages’, but it will be upset now and then by forces of greed (such as the collapse of the condo market in big cities), by ego (such as Trump and his kind), by militarism, and by acts of God. Capitalism and its offspring will take hits but will bounce back as it has for the past 10,000 years – ever since gold & money were invented.

HW – “I think we are now at a stage in our theory and practice where the importance and relevance of these local endeavors depend upon whether or not the goal of fundamental social transformation is being consciously and intentionally fostered and cultivated in some serious manner.”

DW – I agreed that we need to always work together and encourage others to work with us on the goal of fundamental social transformation.

HW – “I in contrast would contend with Baum, Einstein, and Marx that socialism like Christianity is an honorable tradition.”

DW – My issue is not with socialism per se, but with any ‘ism’ that purports to be an elixir for human foibles. I agree that we can learn from the teachings of Marxism, but this should be different than Christianity which has a whole different perspective and spirit. The point is often made that Jesus did not give us a blueprint of what to do. His teachings have a whole different way of looking at the world.

In Peace, David

4

On July 6, 2026, Hugh Williams wrote to David Walsh

Subject: Re: building on your analysis of Gregory Baums writing

David,

Thanks for your very thoughtful letter. I’d like to approach your letter in the synodal way – i.e., that is ‘listening for the convergences and divergences while seeking out, in this exchange of letters’, some common ground in ‘theory and practice’.

I believe this type exchange has a long history within the Canadian Left which Gregory Baum wanted to articulate.

I read you as having difficulty with the term socialism’ and the attribution of socialist to Baum’s thought. You worry that this is a ‘framing’ or ‘theoretical orientation’ that can prevent or obstruct creative entrepreneurial initiatives. It is important that we be free to learn from our experience and that we be open to important and needed change.

You are willing to grant that a socialist perspective might help to liberate one’s thinking from ‘our capitalist culture’ but you personally feel it is a perspective alien or foreign to your own beliefs and sensitivities.

You then outline your own more practical focus on local innovations and initiatives with good examples. For example, rather than confronting state or corporate bureaucracies you would prefer to circumvent obstacles seeking out like-minded individuals to create and pursue ‘community economic and social development’ where ‘profit sharing, diversity in ownership structures, green projects, and democratic ownership’ are all attempted to be implemented in practical ways. I believe you see this approach as an effort to develop an alternative to the ‘capitalist system’.

You also cite the concrete example of the ‘Carrot Common’ and in doing so you note how there is a certain alternative vision that has been ‘locked in’ as constitutional in this practical project’s historical origins. You also acknowledge the real issue and challenge of maintaining this original vision through the natural transition of ownership succession.

You mention Greg MacLeod’s commitment to ‘community economic development’ and the deep influence of the ‘Mondragon Cooperative network’ on his own theory and practice.

You express your frustration with the Canadian government’s investment in the military and defense sectors while ignoring the needed investment for environmental and social programs, and how so many Canadians’ consciousness remains captive to a pervasive and sophisticated propaganda media system.

You end by saying you are sharing your own observations and analysis so that Baum’s principles can be integrated into an alternative vision that is more open and diverse than you feel the term ‘socialism’ connotes.

My response –

I agree that the use of the term ‘socialism’ or ‘socialist’ can be a challenge in the realm of discourse and communications. I sense we agree that ‘capitalism’ can be named as a pervasive historical social formation that is now a very serious problem socially, economically, and environmentally that needs to be both understood and actively resisted. Baum for one can aide in this important effort.

I also have the conviction that the cooperative and community economic development sections of the Canadian Left, which is where MacLeod’s formation lies, at least in as much as they are seriously trying to adhere to this tradition’s five foundational values MacLeod has articulated as 1) personal initiative and voluntary association, 2) real solidarity with the local community, 3) meaningful democratic process, 4) treating money as a means and never as an end and 5) cultivating and securing competent management capacities, will find themselves necessarily pursuing some significant alternative to the capitalist system, and that this would be very much in accord with socialism with Canadian characteristics.

And by the capitalist system, I mean the system that is now global in its reach and effect and that is based essentially on ‘social relations of domination for the purposes of the appropriation and accumulation of society’s surplus value’. This we now know, if we’ve been paying attention, means both gross social inequality and environmental disaster for our species and the planet.

And you are absolutely right that this level of analysis, as essential as I believe it to be today, is at a high theoretical level and there is this real work of implementation at the practical level which does require the capacity for diverse adaptive learning from our experience in freedom and in collaboration with others.

Nonetheless, I believe our theory and practice today have to have both a local and global reach because the forces that we are up against are having both a local and global impact. I know well the experience of local community economic and social development initiatives in Atlantic Canada. And I agree with MacLeod that these initiatives and enterprises often do have potential that remains undeveloped. We also, if we are realistic, have to acknowledge that historically participation in such local efforts do not necessarily on their own provoke or inspire further important questions about effective deeper and broader social change. I think now we are at a stage in our theory and practice where the importance and relevance of these local endeavors depend upon whether or not the goal of fundamental social transformation is being consciously and intentionally fostered and cultivated in some serious manner.

I’d end with this thought – that we are now in a time, in Canada at least, of what I’d call under Gregory Baum’s influence, the ‘Christian Left’s second chance’. I believe Pat and the ICN group have some clear sense of this also … And in saying this, we do have to recognize that there is a real ideological struggle that has been underway for some time, certainly going back to the first ‘Cold War’ after WWII, … this is a very serious ideological struggle having to do with the control of the people’s discourse, minds, and ultimately of their hearts (feelings) … (We need to be cognizant of the fact that another U.S. led Cold War against China is well underway … it is, in my view, extremely important that Canada be able to chart its own course in this regard.) It often comes down to what is or can be attended to by people, and to the permissible-acceptable use of language in our various media, discourses, and encounters.

And so yes, I along with Baum and some others would like to gradually re-introduce the term and notion of ‘socialism’ as we individually and collectively seek to resist capitalism and seek/explore alternatives. Much of people’s avoidance and evasion, I believe, has to do with deep set fears and ignorance deliberately cultivated by media propaganda over the course and conditioning of many many years. I in contrast would contend with Baum, Einstein, and Marx that socialism like Christianity is an honorable tradition in general and for the most part … and that, as Baum insisted, has distinctive, diverse, and important Canadian characteristics.

And yet it is in good exchanges like this … that can help us overcome ‘false consciousness’ which, by the way, is a good Marxist term, as I understand it, having to do with the oppressed’s tendency to take on the viewpoint of their oppressors …Einstein, and Marx that socialism like Christianity is an honorable tradition in general and for the most part … and that, as Baum insisted, has distinctive, diverse, and important Canadian characteristics.

In solidarity

Hugh