Breaking the Left-Right and better than Capitalism and Socialism - - Distributism

Distributism is a 19th and 20th Century economic thought based around certain economic and social positions which are heavily based upon Catholic Social teaching. It has a staunch opposition to Socialism while maintaining an opposition to Liassez-faire Capitalism as well.

The core of the Distributist ideology is that the means of production should be spread through society as much as possible. The elimination of the concentration of production in both government hands and a few large businesses or wealthy individuals also known as State Socialism and Plutarchic Capitalism, respectively, and the famous Distributist thinker G. K. Chesterton coined this statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”

What separates Distributism from Socialism is that they oppose the distribution of property. Socialism believes that no person should own productive private property while Distributists are the opposite believing that the more people own productive private property the better off society will be. This has led to Hilaire Belloc to say about the Distributist state: “an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greatest number of private owners of the means of production.”

The distribution of all land is not the goal but rather the distribution of productive land to as many people in society as possible.

"Both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life." ~ Thomas Storck

Two of the key principles of Distributism besides the actual Distribution is Subsidiarity; a belief that matters ought to be handle at the smallest and least centralized authority. Alongside Solidarity; an integration of society which binds people together for a common goal.

Those two principles are crucial in forming the Economic Theory of Distributism. Two running currents within Distributism are Traditionalism and Agrarianism which form the social thought for the basis of the theory.

Overall the key concept and basis they (Distributists) are trying to form is that no one has to rely on the property of anyone else and that all people own as much productive property as they can. Some examples include farmers who own their own land and thus create their own wealth and plumbers who own their own productive property (tools) to generate their wealth and software developers who own their own computers. Co-operatives are also an example of shared productive property which would fit into the Distributist theory.

According to Leo XIII people are more likely to work hard and be more satisfied with their work if they are allowed to gain the full capital from that work and know that it is truly theirs, that they own it. He proposes that when men (and women) have the opportunity to own property and work on it that they will, “learn to love the very soil which yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of the good things for themselves and those that are dear to them.” He also claims that owning property is a right from god.

Distributists oppose Unions as they see them as a force for division of workers and producers, creating a class warfare system which does not benefit society. Instead they see Guilds as a better example for how workers and producers should organize for a common goal. This allows all people regardless of class to cooperate and organize to benefit their particular trade.

Private for-profit banking is also opposed by Distributists as they generally oppose nationalized banking as well since that is a concentration of power in the hands of government. Credit Unions are seen as an ideal alternative to the banking system.

Distributists have been the champions of Anti-trust laws and have been very influential in America and Europe in establishing strong Anti-trust laws. As they are opposed to the concentration of productive property they see excessive power within the hands of a few large companies as too dangerous and as counterproductive.

"Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do." ~ Pope Pius XI

Subsidiarity is very important to Distributism as it is the belief that everything should be done at the lowest possible level with the belief that things should start with the family and work their way up instead of starting with government and working its way down.

It also has a strong promotion of Artisans and Culture seeking to an emphasis on Small Business, local culture and favoring small production over mass production. Artisan thus replicates the values of Distributists as they own their production of labor and they are close to their work. Distributists still enjoy industrial society but believe in a more local ownership of industries rather than more centralized and larger ownership. For example food and clothing would preferably be produced closer to the local community rather than mass produced further away.

(I personally disagree with this point but it is supported by most Distributists)

The opposition to Social Security because they believe it tears down the family and community by building up the large centralized government to manage to life of the citizens through Social Security payments. They oppose such a dependence on the government.

As for war they prefer the ‘Just War’ theory which advocates before a war can be initiated there must be just cause for the war:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

I personally really enjoy the Distributist School of Economics as a real alternative to the damages of Socialism and the negative effects of Capitalism. Although it still maintains the capitalist system it allows for me people to be their own boss, make their own income and be more productive in society and thus more self-sufficient.

Let me know what you think!




en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I never knew I was Catholic!

Seriously that sums it up. I've been preaching this ideal for years not knowing it already existed. It's almost air tight as a working system. The only problem I see with it would be leading to way too many small businesses at first. Workers would be hard to persuade to not be their own bosses. You wouldn't have anyone unemployed, but competition kicks in and suddenly the demand for services is reduced by a huge supply of providers. It's shaky, but if you could convince people to ride out the extreme up and down fluctuations until everything found it's nice medium, you'd be golden. It would eventually make customer service and product quality soar. Something this country hasn't seen in a very long time.

Good post!

I really think this could work if we wanted to, but the transition from where we are now to this system would be a long and hard one, and will probably take atleast a decade to accomplish properly even if all noses point the same way.

This system sounds sound like the alien world which Stef van den aerde experienced,the Dutchman who in the `50s allegedly had a close encounter with some aliens who let him view their world via some holographic device and came to know a great deal about this society.

He actually wrote a book about it in which he describes in detail how this society works and with nice drawings of the infrastructure involved, its very convincing imo and this man was very crediible and had a high ranking job in a big dutch firm in that time..

Could be that distributism was the base for his fabricated story though, or maybe not, could be the next logical
step for a young civilization to take.

Here the link to a summary of his experience:
hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl...

reply to post by PayMeh


I never Knew I was Catholic either!

It's not Utopian but it as close to perfect as I have ever seen. Glad you enjoyed.

Spread the word.

reply to post by Senser


Maybe that guy was trying to tell us about that supposedly alien idea which worked very well in an effort to guide us into Distributism?

BUMP

reply to post by Misoir


Great post Misoir, you explained it perfectly.

I'm glad to see that you've done the research into what IMO is probably the best economic model for a civilized society out there. This is an economic system which breeds freedom for the common man, not slavery to the state or some soulless corporation.


If you want to learn more, I recommend:

The Distributist Review

The Church and the Libertarian.
A Defense of Catholic Teaching on Man, Economy and State

reply to post by FortAnthem


I was for a long time a Social Democrat but I was reluctantly in favor of redistribution of wealth I just wanted everyone have the power and tools to succeed so when I cam across this about a month ago I dived into it to learn as much as possible and I really like the ideals.

If you have anything else to add, like elaborate more, I would be very thankful.

Also thanks for the links!

Some good ideas in there but not in my opinion the best/compleate system, thanks for bringing it to my attention I'll have to investigate further.

It sounds like laissez-faire to me. How is it any different than Capitalism?

I understand that the means of production should be spread out as much as possible, but I didn't really see you propose any mechanism that could make it happen. Can you explain that for me? How does one create Distributism? What kind of policies are Distributist in nature?

reply to post by BobbinHood


Just as people proposed to break down the banks that is exactly what Distributists would do in a sense. They would set a certain limit for the size of a single entity and then hand over its new smaller branches to local private owners for starters.

There were many policies in the UK during the 19th Century which were Distributist in nature such as the land reform programs which gave farmers more land and programs which encouraged farming and entrepreneurship. The quickest and simplest way to enact Distributism is to break down the size of corporations so that the jobs they were doing could then be translated into smaller businesses. Much like Roosevelt’s Trust-Busting.

Pat Buchanan is a Paleoconservative which their economic theory is almost the same as Distributism so if you know about Buchanan you would see Distributism in the 21st Century. Generally it supports tariffs, opposes federalism, encourages small business and families. Basically it would take a decade of policies aimed at breaking down concentrated business which would allow for families and private citizens to take the place that these former corporations owned. Thus Distributing the means of production around society.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Senser

 

Maybe that guy was trying to tell us about that supposedly alien idea which worked very well in an effort to guide us into Distributism?

Yes , that very well could be, on the other hand it sounds like a very logical step to take for a society after capitalism, which doesn`t work obviously.

reply to post by Misoir


That actually sounds pretty reasonable. I'm a libertarian, but I've never been sure just how to prevent monopolies or limit the size of banks.

As a libertarian, its kind of hard for me to accept the idea of government saying how much you're allowed to make, but I'm coming to think it might be a necessary evil. At least for the huge corporations.

Nice thread

reply to post by BobbinHood


Most Distributists were Classical Liberals (Libertarians) who split from Liberalism in the mid 19th Century when they seen it become increasingly individualistic and materialistic. They said it was not the Liberalism they originally believed in at the beginning of the Enlightenment era which believed heavily in tradition, culture, community and religion. So as being a Libertarian it is understandable that you like the theory of Distributism because it was founded by Classical liberals (Libertarians).

In addition they argued that the individualism and materialism which was espoused from the enlightenment era beliefs would only allow for a new form of aristocrats to form which would pledge no loyalty or responsibility to the country or the community and would instead be set on increasing their personal wealth at the expense of everyone else. They believed this is what Liberalism turned into and so they began to reject it.

I agree. Pure unregulated capitalism will not work, because it brings exploiting monopolies even in important areas and essential services. Reasonably regulated capitalism with government alternatives for all essential services and good form of progressive welfare (redistribution of wealth from very rich to very poor) works BETTER in the long run than pure anarcho-capitalism.

reply to post by Maslo


I don’t think you understood this very well. Distributism is opposed to Socialism on the grounds that it believes in the redistribution of wealth, Distributists believe in the redistribution of the means of production. This means not taking from Peter to give to Paul. Quite a large difference between the two on both philosophical and economic grounds which are key components when forming a political ideology like Socialism, Distributism does not believe the same as Socialism or they would not be two different ideologies.

Distributism is found in Traditionalist Conservatism (Paleoconservatism in the United States).

One important aspect of distributism is the Guild system; this is the system used in the pre-capitalist days to distribute the work among laborers.

Members of different trades would all belong to a guild which represented their trade. The guild would set standards for its members, ensuring that the tradesmen had the skills necessary to do the work so that the quality of the work for the customer would be assured. Anyone who did not make the grade could still work in the trade as an apprentice for another tradesman until they became sufficiently proficient in the trade to go out on their own. A tradesman who employed an apprentice was responsible for providing that apprentice with a living wage and the training necessary to advance in the trade.

Tradesmen would not advertize their services; this was seen as unseemly and unethical. If a customer required the services of a tradesman, he would go to the guild and the guild would assign a tradesman of sufficient skill to get the job done to the customer. The guild's job was to ensure that all of its members would get an equal amount of work. Guilds were always local organizations so that the system would not get too big and possibly corrupted. If one thought that they were being treated unfairly by the guild, they knew where the guild masters lived and could go directly to their homes to confront them if necessary.

The moder day labor union is a perversion of the old guild system. The union system puts the workers at odds with their employers competing for a company's profits and often shields its workers from the consequences of sloppy or inadequate work. The guild system held its members strictly responsible for the quality of their work; if you put out shoddy work, the guild would not assign other jobs to you until you could prove to them that you were capable of doing the work. The guild also enabled workers to become their own bosses and ensured that any apprentices they took on were well treated and paid a living wage. There was no animosity between employers and employees because the guild members were all their own bosses or working their way to becoming their own boss.

This system worked well for people skilled in trades but, it may have to be adapted to the modern industrial workforce.

reply to post by Misoir


I cannot say I had ever heard of "Distributism", before your thread, Misoir.

It is a form of economics I am completely unfamiliar with but then again economics bores me.

At least in the sense of philosophy goes towards society and economic structuring of the state.

Having not been familiar with it, originally it sounds like Socialism, and redistribution of property.

Further within your post I see the subtle differences between the two and as well Laissez-faire.

Personally, I have nothing against Capitalism, providing the "state" (Federal Government) treats citizens fairly.

Which is not something I see as ever happening, due to tax increases all the time, mis-appropriation of funds, mis-allocation of funds, pork-barrel spending, earmark spending, all of these things abuse the populace and due to a lack of political knowledge most citizens miss it completely due to being distracted by the bread and circuses of society and a short attention span due to politics being expressed in high-minded and idealistic versions of long-winded robbery schemes.

This is not to say I can back Laissez-faire, Socialism, or any other described form of economics either.

I just see far too much room for abuse or a loss of funds due to greed on all sides.

And of course due to the lobbyist groups and special interest groups I do not see we are fairly represented.

Our country was formed due to abusive behaviors in Europe upon the citizens yet we are repeating history.

The original Boston Tea Party was pulled off, essentially a Colonial False-Flag Operation, due to taxation without representation, under King George, just prior to our declaring independence from Britain, and if our current politicians do not tread lightly, they will see a second American Revolution, and this time it will be all of the people standing against the tyranny of the entire system, one united people against one abusive Government for the high taxation, lack of representation, unfair practices through a depression which we are currently within, not a recession, due to stolen money through the many "Bailout's" which is nothing more than high-stakes bank robbery of the citizens tax money which does not belong to the Government but to the people who elected them to use in an appropriate manner towards our goals.

Not the Federal Government's goals.

When I say economics bores me, I am referring to the civilized formation of an economic structure.

However, when it comes to the whole system, and rampant corruption, conspiracy, and collusion, this interests me, as well as the abuses of the Military Industrial Complex and the pushing of the war-machine agenda towards creating war to justify expenditures which are not needed, and projections of future needs which are inflated, and as well padded to increase the cost of an imaginary $700 hammer or $1,000 toilet seat, which is nothing more than a corporation assisting and or being complicit with either the Federal Government in embezzling funds, or multiple corporations double and triple dipping for funds they have no right to, just because they can rely upon the bureaucracy to shield their corporate raiding of funds.

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

As well as the abuses of the quasi-Governmental Federal Reseve interest me because it fascinates me.

But only because of the complexity of how they pull of their scams not because I want to see it done.

I enjoy untangling the lies, the conspiracies, and the mazes of corruption.

Apparently I have gotten quite good at spotting fraud on a large scale.

Because every time I turn on the television all I see is huge fraud going on from Washington D.C.

Which only pisses me the Hell off due to Americans sitting back and letting it happen.

This is why I do not support overly large Government but medium and strongly moderated Government.

By the American people, for the American people, and through the American people.

I am a registered Independent and a Centrist wholly walking down the middle.

And seeing corruption on all sides reported by all of the watchdog groups.

Here is an excerpt from the writings of Hilaire Belloc, another early 20th proponent of Distributism, in which he discusses the problems with capitalism;

To the question “Why do men suffer thus?” the common answer is that the cause of all the evil is “Capitalism:” that is, the exploitation of the destitute many by the few who control the means of livelihood. That answer is misleading. It states a fact but does not explain it. It is also a half truth, and half truths are the most dangerous falsehoods. If it were true that Capitalism was the source of our evils, the destruction of Capitalism, no matter how, would suffice as a remedy. But it should be evident that an attempt to destroy Capitalism by a wrong method is no remedy. To a man with the toothache the whole cause of his troubles seems to be the teeth in his head, but it is no remedy to cut off his head. The real cause of our troubles is not Capitalism but the condition on which Capitalism depends: the destitution of the money.

Yes! What is too learnedly called “The Proletariat,” but what our fathers more simply and rightly called “General Destitution,” is the root evil. If we must have long words and “isms,” then let us talk less of Capitalism and more of “Proletarianism.”

Men cannot live as free citizens, capable of free contract, enjoying economic liberty, feeling their lives secure, unless they have property. By such laws as shall put property into many hands, until at least a determining number of citizens own, can society be saved, unless we call a return to slavery salvation.

The family is the true unit of the State, and is more important than the State. The State exists for the family, not the family for the State. In a proletarian society the family decays. Property is necessary for its normal and healthy being.

Men labor for sustenance and produce sustenance with certain instruments. Over those instruments they who labor should have control, that is, property.

Some activities function best—or can only function—in large groups. In these cases there may be shareholding—but the shares held as property. When monopoly is inevitable, by all means let it be controlled by the State, but first be certain that it is inevitable, and if you find it rising as an artificial growth, cut it down at once. A society built on ownership, and therefore on freedom, with ownership safeguarded by corporate rules, will restore to us our “Daily Bread” which we have lost. Immediate necessities must be relieved for the moment; but our aim should be a stable society in a contented world.

Distributist Review