Opinions on Distributism?

[jacobin1949]

Anyone here have any opinions on Distributism? Basically its an egalitarian capitalism in which there is private property and markets but goods are fairly evenly distributed. I don't think anyone else has used the example - but I see strong parallels with the French Revolution. They were for dividing up the land more equally but had no concept of state property.

Anyway heres some quotes from the wikipedia article

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

Distributism, also known as distributionism and distributivism, is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Roman Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of social justice articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum[1] and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno[2] and Pope John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus Annus.[3] According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of a few state bureaucrats (some forms of socialism) or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton's statement: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."[4]

Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property. Distributism holds that, while socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Hilaire Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number owners of the means of production."[5] This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.[6]

Distributism has often been described as a third way of economic order besides socialism and capitalism. However, some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local co-operatives).

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:20 pm
Anyone here have any opinions on Distributism?
Well, yes I do. It's a load.

Capitalism does not exist to be egalitarian, that's contrary to it's nature.

The CPUSA probably is fine with it though. :rolleyes:

[Zurdito]

much the same as any other keynesianism or reformism: a diversion away from revolution in times of crisis, which will then roll over to be replaced by a more aggressive capitalism once the bourgeoisie have recovered.

[RevSkeptic]

"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."

Or in other words, oligarchy.

A monetary system with private competition will make oligarchy inevitable because how are you going to start a business without being first loaned the money to invest which the lender would inevitably want back with interest?

There's an incentive to loan to already established business to make them even bigger because they have more collateral to give the lender in case they flop. For small business even if they flop the collateral might not be even worth the risk of lending assuming you can even get the money back if the owners become totally bankrupt.


Distributism has often been described as a third way of economic order besides socialism and capitalism. However, some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local co-operatives).

Orthodox Socialism is simply state owned Capitalism with nationalization turning every productive asset into state assets of one super corporation runned by government bureaucrats. Very equal, but there's no way to deal with people who are incompetent or lazy or have cozy connections with party members other than state sponsored "punishment".

With Capitalism there is competitive markets so if you don't like working with people you don't agree with another firm can be started assuming the market isn't already dominated by oligopolies, but as said before oligopolies are inevitable after several rounds of competition, overproduction and recession.


Capitalism does not exist to be egalitarian, that's contrary to it's nature.

True, but the competitive market feature of Capitalism does give some semblance of fulfilling end consumer desires if there is enough firms competing to produce the most desired product. Markets are bad for other things like consumer protection and environmental protection, but they are not bad in making the customer happy.

[RevSkeptic]

a diversion away from revolution in times of crisis, which will then roll over to be replaced by a more aggressive capitalism once the bourgeoisie have recovered.

State socialism or more accurately described state owned Capitalism has been tried many times before, but what Socialists seem to get wrong is that the "people" are not one monolithic group who are hard working, altruistic, uncorruptable, atheists. There will inevitably be those in power who will be corrupted and those who are without power who will be unmotivated and uninspired to work. Tragedy of the commons is one lesson that should have been learned long ago.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by RevSkeptic+December 04, 2007 04:08 pm--> (RevSkeptic @ December 04, 2007 04:08 pm)
ME
Capitalism does not exist to be egalitarian, that's contrary to it's nature.

True, but the competitive market feature of Capitalism does give some semblance of fulfilling end consumer desires if there is enough firms competing to produce the most desired product. Markets are bad for other things like consumer protection and environmental protection, but they are not bad in making the customer happy. [/b]
Well they make consumers happy with shoddy products of deteriorating quality, but those consumers would definitely benefit from a fairer economy rather than a reform of the current system.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:16 pm

a diversion away from revolution in times of crisis, which will then roll over to be replaced by a more aggressive capitalism once the bourgeoisie have recovered.

State socialism or more accurately described state owned Capitalism has been tried many times before, but what Socialists seem to get wrong is that the "people" are not one monolithic group who are hard working, altruistic, uncorruptable, atheists. There will inevitably be those in power who will be corrupted and those who are without power who will be unmotivated and uninspired to work. Tragedy of the commons is one lesson that should have been learned long ago.
I know the right-wing criticisms of them, however they get into power when the people are turning towards questioning the system. Capitalism can't survive without keynesians: if it hadn't been for FDR in the US or the fascists in Europe for example both would have erupted into civil war. Or do you think the working class would have quietly put up with Hooverite solutions to the Wall St. crash or free market solutions to the Weimar inflation crisis?

You are not engaging with the un-ideological, pragamtic, shifting, short-term adaptions by the ruling class to make as much profit as possible. When capitalism is threatened, demagoguery is cheaper than civil war (which will only arise once demagoguery fails). So your idealistic criticisms of the Keynesians are all well and good, but they don't apply to real situations: it's not an ideology which rulers employ because it's the "optimal" system for running a society but a tool to avoid all out class war. A real living capitalist rather than a text-book robot will therefore tend to back keynesian regimes in times of crisis: and they'll tell whiny libertarians to go fuck themselves, because they couldn't care less about some technocratic number-crunching wet dream. They only want to make as much money as possible right now. Theoretically perfect models which in practice get their businesses crushed by strikes and riots will therefore not interest them.

[RevSkeptic]

I know the right-wing criticisms of them, however they get into power when the people are turning towards questioning the system. Capitalism can't survive without keynesians: if it hadn't been for FDR in the US or the fascists in Europe for example both would have erupted into civil war. Or do you think the working class would have quietly put up with Hooverite solutions to the Wall St. crash or free market solutions to the Weimar inflation crisis?

Oh, I'm sure that there will be civil war when society breaks down and those at the top are useless, greedy plutocrats with more idle money than can be spent in 100 lifetimes. This is the most obvious conclusion that anybody with half a brain can arrive at.

I'm just worried about the military dictatorship called state Socialism that will take it's place and what program it has to solve the problems that the old order couldn't.


A real living capitalist rather than a text-book robot will therefore tend to back keynesian regimes in times of crisis: and they'll tell whiny libertarians to go fuck themselves, because they couldn't care less about some technocratic number-crunching wet dream.

Yes, they couldn't care less about that because they're useless, greedy plutocrats much like the Roman senators were near the end of their empire.

What's your program other than the program of the rebel slave Spartacus to loot and pillage what remains of the dying empire and then establish a utopian egalitarianism ruled over by an "uncorruptable" party.

My point is that a flawed system makes corruption and waste inevitable. Is a centrally managed system of state monopoly flawless with no openings for the shrewd to take advantage of it?

What if different teams of engineers have competing designs of a product? With a centrally managed economy runned by the party, who's going to decide which design is the best. What if the designs aren't competing, but serve different purpose? Why would the boss of a state monopoly institute competing designs if it "rocks the boat" by taking risks that may upset the unskilled workers who aren't inspired by change?

Unless people can equally participate in an economy by being knowledgeable skilled workers who's going to welcome change? Not all competition is bad. Competition that leaves you broke and homeless is bad, but that's really a cultural and social system thing. Perhaps it's also human nature to view your rival as someone to be destroyed.

An elderly architect like this guy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1gZxmIDKw) has more of a visionary program than most Socialists.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:42 pm
Is a centrally managed system of state monopoly flawless with no openings for the shrewd to take advantage of it?

in lots of communal, colelctive societies, the whole thing could simply fall apart if everyone just animalistically tried to get as much for themselves short-term, however, they do not. read some anthropology or something, I don't know what to suggest. people are capable of putting aside short-term gain if they believe in the efficacy of a system overall to make their lives good. For example under capitalism, workers could instantly withdraw their labour together and demand a 100% pay-rise, and to get it. However they don't, because many of them believe the economy needs to work as a whole, and that resulting from a well-functioning system, they get overall benefits. The few who are seen as a threat to this are kept down not just by the law but also by the masses co-operation with it. In communal societies, possible destructive selfishness (as opposed to enlgihtened self-interest) is defeated by popular pressure. A communst society would be the same.

Humans are naturally co-operative. Communal socieities have existed before, stille xist in some remote areas, and even under capitalism workers co-operate to make the market work.

[RedKnight]

The Catholic_Worker_Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Worker_Movement) supports it. Dorothy Day used to be a Marxist, before she converted to Roman Catholicism.