distributism

[Black_Rose]

What do you think of distributism? I knew about distributism before I registered here. I do not find the ideology attractive at all and it does not seem to have the intellectual rigor and vitality of Marxism-Leninism.

I still believe in class consciousnesses and see it necessary to relieve the bourgeoisie of their political influence in current "liberal" democratic states (and replace the system with a socialist vanguard). [That is why I still consider myself a Marxist-Leninist despite my religiousity.] Distributism does not advocate revolutionary action against capitalism, and believes it is possible that just economic system can exist within capitalism

[Vorchev]

Distributism emphasizes how small is beautiful, so I'm not sure how it's a threat to communism unless you're a Stalinist who believes you need institutional hierarchy to ensure cooperation.

[ckaihatsu]

At the turn of the century, G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc drew together the disparate experiences of the various cooperatives and friendly societies in Northern England, Ireland and Northern Europe into a coherent political ideology which specifically advocated widespread private ownership of housing and control of industry through owner-operated small businesses and worker-controlled cooperatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism


As a "radical reform" this may be worthwhile as a way to cut against more-bourgeois and nationalist arguments for mere baby steps -- similarly to an argument for the nationalization of industry -- but it's flawed as a serious method since it implicitly ignores large-scale mass production.

If this kind of system was instituted I'd rather be the guy with the immense factory that can produce steel and do steel-machining operations -- (presumably to beat out my iron- and copper-based competitors)(grin).

While the argument can always be made that mass agreement can justify pretty much *any* arbitrary political setup, as long as it's consistent, the fact remains that the objective material world itself plays a role, too. A larger productive facility would be preferred by consumers for its faster production at lower costs, compared to small-scale enterprises. Material facts like this would always be there in the background, influencing whatever political culture happened to be adopted.

[trivas7]

I remember distributism as a pet peeve of G.K. Chesterton and more recently as a project of philosopher Mortimer Adler and someone called Kelso. It adheres to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which means making decisions at the lowest practical level by those affected.

[ed miliband]

Distributism emphasizes how small is beautiful, so I'm not sure how it's a threat to communism unless you're a Stalinist who believes you need institutional hierarchy to ensure cooperation.

i'm not a stalinist - far from it - and i don't think small is beautiful. ugh, little village communes - fuck that.

[Vorchev]

As a "radical reform" this may be worthwhile as a way to cut against more-bourgeois and nationalist arguments for mere baby steps -- similarly to an argument for the nationalization of industry -- but it's flawed as a serious method since it implicitly ignores large-scale mass production.

If this kind of system was instituted I'd rather be the guy with the immense factory that can produce steel and do steel-machining operations -- (presumably to beat out my iron- and copper-based competitors)(grin).

While the argument can always be made that mass agreement can justify pretty much *any* arbitrary political setup, as long as it's consistent, the fact remains that the objective material world itself plays a role, too. A larger productive facility would be preferred by consumers for its faster production at lower costs, compared to small-scale enterprises. Material facts like this would always be there in the background, influencing whatever political culture happened to be adopted.

Eh... this is the exact argument anti-communists use to prove why communism fails. By emphasizing economy of scale in itself and industrial goods, you're destroying people's motivation to get involved.

Maybe you should try to emulate the Soviet Union less.

[Book O'Dead]

I remember distributism as a pet peeve of G.K. Chesterton and more recently as a project of philosopher Mortimer Adler and someone called Kelso. It adheres to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which means making decisions at the lowest practical level by those affected.

Does it operate under the assumption that "the poor shall always be with us"?

[trivas7]

Does it operate under the assumption that "the poor shall always be with us"?
Not to my knowledge. Like Henry George's "single tax", it was another wacko third-way economic philosophy.

[ckaihatsu]

Eh... this is the exact argument anti-communists use to prove why communism fails. By emphasizing economy of scale in itself and industrial goods, you're destroying people's motivation to get involved.

Maybe you should try to emulate the Soviet Union less.


Hilarious -- this is the first I've ever been accused of 'bad political marketing'.... (Usually *I'm* the one pro-actively chiding others, using my diagrams....)(grin)

Being a graphics person I'm open to whatever you got, so feel free to let me know what's more effective.


x D

[l'Enfermé]

Intellectual rigor, vitality...wait, did you actually read anything written by Stalin?