What's with Distributism ?

[BogdanV]

I don't know if it would better fit in Opposing Ideologies so please excuse me if I misplaced this thread.
Anyway, I came across this thing so I checked it on Wikipedia and from what I could gather (if I could say that I "gathered" something), in a nutshell, this system proposes the entire class system to be replaced with only the bourgeois class, or more likely, some sort of petit-bourgeois, the society being divided into families owning the means of production.
At small scale, this would sound feasible, but when it comes to large-scale factories and the like, how the hell would this thing function without the existence of a auxiliary, working class ? (which means that we go back to square one, aka capitalism).

Could someone explain to me what's this thing all about exactly (if there's anything logical to explain) ?

[CELMX]

yes, this needs to be in OI

in my opinion, this sounds like capitalism gone crazy

there's still profit, and with profit, there will be poor and rich. There can never be only bourgeois class. That's a contradiction. A bourgeois class needs the workers to survive and make profit, however, the workers don't need the bourgeois to survive. the rich will inevitably take control of the poorer "bourgeois." this splits back to capitalism, with a proletariat and ruling class. Or, this system might just collapse and turn into a feudal society.
i don't think this would work in a small or large scale.

doesn't sound very reasonable, and it seems people would be more isolated, even though they claim to support solidarity. Less work will be done, for everyone is separate, and owns their own business, tools, etc.
this ideology seems very backword, and will hinder (well obviously social growth) and technological growth.

sorry if i sound really unclear, i'm a rambly type of person:(;)

[Dejavu]

I don't know if it would better fit in Opposing Ideologies so please excuse me if I misplaced this thread.
Anyway, I came across this thing so I checked it on Wikipedia and from what I could gather (if I could say that I "gathered" something), in a nutshell, this system proposes the entire class system to be replaced with only the bourgeois class, or more likely, some sort of petit-bourgeois, the society being divided into families owning the means of production.
At small scale, this would sound feasible, but when it comes to large-scale factories and the like, how the hell would this thing function without the existence of a auxiliary, working class ? (which means that we go back to square one, aka capitalism).

Could someone explain to me what's this thing all about exactly (if there's anything logical to explain) ?

This is what some nationalists and fascists advocate as an alternate economy very similar to socialism but opposed to Marxist socialism or capitalism. This is a popular economic theory on *************** found here. (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=292649&highlight=Distributism)

If you still have questions , I'll explain to you why I think its bunk.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Distributism in a nutshell: Just like capitalism, but every person privately owns the means of production that they work with, and everyone is self-employed.

In other words, everyone is petty-bourgeois. Distributism is basically a petty-bourgeois utopia, which is why nationalists and fascists often support it (because those movements are usually based in the petty-bourgeoisie).

And, of course, distributism is completely unworkable. What would stop the small, self-employed business owners from accumulating capital and turning into capitalists? Absolutely nothing. What would guarantee that each person can privately own some means of production, so that no one is forced to become a proletarian? Absolutely nothing.

Distributism could maybe last for a couple of years, before it turns into capitalism.

[BogdanV]

This is a popular economic theory on *************** found here. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=292649&highlight=Distributism)

Sounds like a backward, retarded breed of capitalism to me. You're just turning the clock back.
I'm also stunned at their utter lack of basic knowledge regarding Socialism. State capitalism was never supported, or seen as a desirable goal by Marx. Even during the "proletarian dictatorship" period, you would still have democratic control, to prevent slipping again into a USSR clone.
If they'd really care for their people, a Communist economy would be the way to go.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Bogdan, Stormfront is the world's largest fascist website. Don't expect them to have real knowledge of history, or to hold any political views that make sense...

[BogdanV]

Well, I was expecting our enemies (at least some) to have a good understanding of our thinking, if they wish to defeat us. Guess they're just a bunch of brainwashed zealots.

[Comrade Gwydion]

This is what some nationalists and fascists advocate as an alternate economy very similar to socialism but opposed to Marxist socialism or capitalism. This is a popular economic theory on *************** found here. (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=292649&highlight=Distributism)

If you still have questions , I'll explain to you why I think its bunk.


Funny how I never visited a single page of scumfront untill I joined revleft....

Now, back on topic please!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Distributism in a nutshell: Just like capitalism, but every person privately owns the means of production that they work with, and everyone is self-employed.

In other words, everyone is petty-bourgeois. Distributism is basically a petty-bourgeois utopia, which is why nationalists and fascists often support it (because those movements are usually based in the petty-bourgeoisie).

And, of course, distributism is completely unworkable. What would stop the small, self-employed business owners from accumulating capital and turning into capitalists? Absolutely nothing. What would guarantee that each person can privately own some means of production, so that no one is forced to become a proletarian? Absolutely nothing.

Distributism could maybe last for a couple of years, before it turns into capitalism.

It's actually funny that the modern-day welfare state is in fact vulgar distributism. At least the original, Catholic-influenced version distributed the means of production themselves. I disagree with the "everyone is self-employed" part because of the maintenance of the economic family: the father figure would own the property, like a farm, and the wife and kids would provide free labour very similar to slave labour.

[Then there's the obvious problem of different means of production in different industries and the differing value of different services. :lol: ]