Distributionism in the Modern Era

[RCIAGraduate]

“may mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.” Jude 1:2

Could Distributionism be applied in the 21st century? And if yes how so(would it be similar to a Social Democratic or Welfare State for instance)?

Are there any modern examples of Distributionism in the 20th or 21st centuries? And how is Distribution related to Catholic Social Teaching(came across the former on this forum)?

Thank you for your time and have a good day

 

[godisgood77]

Interested in this discussion… thought it might be helpful to provide a definition to kick off the discussion…

Distributism (also known as distributionism[1] or distributivism[2]) is an economic philosophy that developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno.[3]

According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right[4] and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or of accomplished individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). Distributism therefore advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership[5] and, according to co-operative economist Race Mathews, maintains that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.[6]

Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism,[7][8] which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative.[9] Thomas Storck argues that “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”.[10]

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 cooperatives and small family businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism.[11] Particularly influential in the development of distributist theory were Catholic authors G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc,[9]the Chesterbelloc, two of distributism’s earliest and strongest proponents.[12][13]

From wikipedia so take it for what it’s worth…

 

[lerapt78]

Have a look at this website; there’s loads of information on the topic.

distributist.blogspot.com/2007/01/distributism-how-to-parallel-economy-by.html

(Bolding and snipping mine. There is more detailed information for each subject on the link.)

A) Guilds
The first step in the organization of such a microeconomic system is the organization of guilds. . . . . . .By their very nature, guilds demand a labor force divided according to certain specialties. For our purposes, since we are dealing with a relatively small labor pool, we ought to establish guilds each dedicated to the satisfaction of one of the basic needs mentioned earlier (i.e., food, housing, clothing, and medical care).

B) **Guild and Family-Owned Businesses **
By organizing labor in the form of a guild system, financial resources can also be more easily pooled, making the takeover of operational businesses in the area in which most of the community lives more likely. A grocery store, farmers’ cooperative, or a clothing store which has as its aim the service of the community rather than pure profit, should be a goal for the relevant guilds. It is these types of businesses, either guild or family owned, which could make the Church’s demand for a just and affordable price a reality. Establishing affordable prices and providing just wages for the employees could be rendered economically feasible by a steady clientele and a high volume of sales.

C)** Homesteading**
As increasing numbers of young families realize that their children need the benefits of an education at a traditional Catholic school, they will necessarily consider migrating to a traditional Catholic community which is formed around an operational educational institution., normally one which can provide an education for all the years up to and including high school. One of the concerted efforts which must be made is to provide affordable housing for these new and growing families. Affordable housing is only possible when there is affordable land upon which to put a house. It would be most probable then that the communities which could attract such new or large families would be situated in rural or semi-rural areas. In these areas, tracts of land could be bought outright, without needing to ask for the “services” of the local branch of international usury.

D) **Apprenticeships **
On of the aims of the proposed guild-system must be the initiation of an apprenticeship system. Apprenticeships have always been the future of any guild. They have also been a source of hope for the young. The essence of the apprentice system is the existence of a master or master-craftsman and a disciple or apprentice. The relationship between master and disciple is the fundament of all true educational systems of any sort.

E) Barter and Credit Unions
One of the most obvious problems encountered by the head of a household in his attempt to gain real property for his family is the fact that wages are not high enough to meet the demands made upon him to provide the primary goods necessary for his family’s survival in our contemporary society. Our style of life cannot be maintained without going into debt to one or another of the financial institutions which, through usury and by exploiting an economic system based upon wants and whims, have gained a hold on the money supply and have somehow received “permission” to create “money,” backed by nothing but the word of the institution itself.

. . . . . . . . there are two other ways I would suggest for avoidance of indebtedness by our fellow co-religionists. They are a prudent and restricted use of the barter system, and the establishment of non-usurious credit unions. By the “barter system,” I simply mean the exchange of service for service, rather than the exchange of service for dollar.

F) **Not Treating Brothers Like Strangers **
The above proposals are based on a cold and hard fact. It is that, in the near future, on the geo-political scene and on the macroeconomic level, there is little hope that the ideas put forward by the Distributists in the early part of the twentieth century will be implemented.

Since, however, they are part and parcel of a full Catholic vision of the rightly ordered human society and since, according to Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, they are part of the full realization of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we must attempt to implement these ideas on the local level and community level. We need communities for this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“may mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.” Jude 1:2

Could Distributionism be applied in the 21st century? And if yes how so(would it be similar to a Social Democratic or Welfare State for instance)?

Are there any modern examples of Distributionism in the 20th or 21st centuries? And how is Distribution related to Catholic Social Teaching(came across the former on this forum)?

Thank you for your time and have a good day

As others have pointed out, “Distributism” is not well defined in our era.

But just taking the widespread individual and family ownership of productive assets, some examples of that are:
-Family farms.
-Family businesses, full or part time.
-IRA and 401K accounts.
-ESOPs.
-Simple family savings and investment, as on the stock market, bonds, or rentals.

along with any societal programs that encourage them. As to farms, we can point to FSA. As to some businesses SBA. As to IRAs, 401Ks and ESOPs, governmental tax breaks.

 

[Reep]

Have a look at this website; there’s loads of information on the topic.
distributist.blogspot.com/2007/01/distributism-how-to-parallel-economy-by.html

A) Guilds
The first step in the organization of such a microeconomic system is the organization of guilds. . . . . . .By their very nature, guilds demand a labor force divided according to certain specialties. For our purposes, since we are dealing with a relatively small labor pool, we ought to establish guilds each dedicated to the satisfaction of one of the basic needs mentioned earlier (i.e., food, housing, clothing, and medical care).

I find distributism to be very appealing in its goals, but I do not see how it can be made to work without invoking certain evils of the current system. Of course, distributism can be encouraged as a cultural norm. The more people that see the value in owning the means/tools of their own livelihood, the more likely people will voluntarily move in that direction. I encourage everyone I meet to consider that option.

The trouble starts if distributive utopians decide that shareholder-owned business must be punished or destroyed through governmental force. I do not care for the theft and violence that such a move would involve. Right now, our crony-capitalist system favors the corporate behemoths that can afford to buy the favors that keep them on top. I would remove all state benefits/subsidies for such businesses and watch the equilibrium change.

I am troubled by these guilds proposals if it means using the government to enforce guild rules in a way similar to present-day occupational licensing schemes (e.g. lawyers, doctors, hairdressers, cosmetologists, morticians, etc). Such a system masquerades as a public service to insure the health, safety and welfare of the people. The trouble is that occupational licensing is mostly a monopoly racket which eliminates competition and raises prices. There are voluntary mechanisms that could protect the public without relying on government enforcement.

There are further problems with distributsim, but my bottom line is this: figure out a **way **to distributism that does not depend on government aggression to make it work and I’m on board.

Disclosure: I have my own business, so I have the pleasure of a “distributist” vocation. Unfortunately, I work in a licensed profession and are compelled by the state to: 1) comply with all their rules and pay them money for the privilege of having them order me around; or 2) give up working in my trained profession.]

 

[lerapt78]

I find distributism to be very appealing in its goals, but I do not see how it can be made to work without invoking certain evils of the current system.

No doubt it would be difficult, specifically the almost absolute need for credit. I think the idea would necessitate starting small; that is, opening a shop that sells only a limited number of items instead of trying to compete with a corporation like Walmart or Target, which sells everything. (less need for leasing space, etc)

The most difficult challenge is getting people to willfully support the mom-and-pop stores instead of the chains. This type of distributism would only be feasible in a small community that has a very strong community spirit.

The trouble starts if distributive utopians decide that shareholder-owned business must be punished or destroyed through governmental force.

What do you mean by this? I would assume that if a community did organize around such methods, those citizens would be *least *likely to want to involve more government. On the other hand, I think the government would probably place obstacles in the path of small-business success on its own, via corporate-bribed politicians. Only the will of the townsfolk could prevent it.

I would remove all state benefits/subsidies for such businesses and watch the equilibrium change.

That would be a start - most especially preventing tax loopholes that make it profitable for corporations to outsource production.

I am troubled by these guilds proposals if it means using the government to enforce guild rules in a way similar to present-day occupational licensing schemes (e.g. lawyers, doctors, hairdressers, cosmetologists, morticians, etc). Such a system masquerades as a public service to insure the health, safety and welfare of the people. The trouble is that occupational licensing is mostly a monopoly racket which eliminates competition and raises prices. There are voluntary mechanisms that could protect the public without relying on government enforcement.

One possible problem I thought of was that guilds would become union-like.

You make a good point about licensing, and all the fees and regulations that go along with it. What kinds of solutions could be proposed?

There are further problems with distributsim, but my bottom line is this: figure out a **way **to distributism that does not depend on government aggression to make it work and I’m on board.

I agree that the government is always the biggest obstacle. These plans can only be successful if the community is on board and puts pressure on government officials. It would have to start as a typical grass-roots movement, and would necessitate citizens voting wisely for local councilmen who support their endeavors. I think a major problem in Americans’ general voting patterns is that they think *big *(doing nothing until election day every four years), instead of doing what really can make a difference, which is thinking and voting *small *- at the local level.

Disclosure: I have my own business, so I have the pleasure of a “distributist” vocation. Unfortunately, I work in a licensed profession and are compelled by the state to: 1) comply with all their rules and pay them money for the privilege of having them order me around; or 2) give up working in my trained profession.]

And this is indeed a shame - we are becoming more crippled and more enslaved to bureaucracy. In a way, I’m less disturbed by strict regulations in certain professions, such as those within the medical/healthcare fields. But I have trouble seeing the need for licensing in so many other fields.

Thanks for the commentaries - this is a good discussion.

 

[ishii]

Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism,[7][8] which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative.[9] Thomas Storck argues that "both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces.
From wikipedia so take it for what it’s worth…

Capitalism is the product of the Enlightenment? There was free market Capitalism going on in Venice long before the Enlightenment?

The problem I have with Distributism is who would enforce the limits on, say, wealth accumulation that Distributism calls for? Who is going to tell the businessman, “no, you’ve made enough - hand the money over.” Any entity with the power to do that, is the start of the same old problem: power corrupts.

The arguments I see from believers in Distributism are basically that it would be enlightened leaders calling the shots - Catholic and orthodox Christians acting according to the faith. Well. If that was the case, plain old free-market capitalism wouldn’t be bad either would it? If it were run by enlightened, virtuous people?

Ishii

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Distributism is my ideal society but it seems that most distributists, at least of the Distributist Review types, operate under willful ignorance of economic science. They especially have a strange axe to grind with the humanistic, scholastically inspired Austrian School.

 

[Abu]

godisgood77 #2
Thomas Storck argues that "both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces.

Such a flawed view can lead only to further errors.

It is only the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason, from the 14th to the 17th century which enabled the enrichment of untold millions from the poverty before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”. As with any new developments, unfortunately civil laws can be slow to follow, especially where reason and faith are confused or lacking.

Against Storck, the acknowledged St John Paul II emphasises the importance of free enterprise in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Thomas Storck is an extremely ignorant ideologue. He has a bizarre obsession with German historicist economics, who were mainly shills for the anti-Catholic Bismarck, which teaches that absolutely no economic laws exist. Unfortunately, this **** was very influential to 19th century Catholic social thought. I wouldn’t recommend his writing at all.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The problem I have with Distributism is who would enforce the limits on, say, wealth accumulation that Distributism calls for? Who is going to tell the businessman, “no, you’ve made enough - hand the money over.” Any entity with the power to do that, is the start of the same old problem: power corrupts.

Actually, the enforcer of limits on wealth accumulation is death. We usually don’t think of it that way, but it’s true.

 

[manualman]

People constantly make the wrong assumption that Distributism involves outright government seizure of property and handing it out. Far from the truth.

What Distributism really wants is a free market system that most heavily favors the entrepenuer, rather than our current system that most heavily favors the capitalist (i.e. the guy who STARTS the fiscal year with the most money). It desires a system where hard work and good ideas are more important than who you were in a fraternity with and how much you contributed to the latest election campaign…

Some Distributist ideas:

1. Stepped corporate tax rates that increase the total tax rate according to total company revenue. It’s pretty well known that larger companies have more dehumanizing impulses than small ones. Why not alter the economic gravity to give competitive advantage to smaller companies instead of mega-corps?
2. Significant estate tax. Taxes are a fact of life since government can’t be free. Why not take more of the tax load from unearned income so that less can be taken from the direct fruit of one’s own labor. You didn’t earn your Daddy’s fortune. Keep enough to enable you to make your own, but pay up to help pay for the burden of government.
3. Sweeping prohibitions on special tax breaks. No more free stadiums for team-owning billionaires or free real estate taxes to attract a big factory. That’s a race to the bottom and a giveaway to the rich. Level playing field whether you’re a lawnmower repair shop or John Deere, Inc.
4. Capital gains and wages are both income. Treat them the same in tax policy (yes, there are plenty of details to be massaged here, but it is absurd that investors should shoulder less tax burden than actual producers. Distributism must favor the entrepenuer, not the investor).

Notice that in none of these cases does the government own any companies or have a bigger employee payroll than today!

 

[Abu]

Manualman #12
a free market system that most heavily favors the entrepenuer, rather than our current system that most heavily favors the capitalist

The muddled thinking is without end, for this ridicules the insights of the acknowledged St John Paul II who strongly recommends the “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”, and who recognises the confusion created by Karl Marx’s “capitalism” syndrome.

The “current system” in most “democracies” has thoroughly decimated free enterprise with socialist style handouts, foolish stimuli, and has precipitated many banking fiascoes.

No wonder there is so little understanding, because economists follow multitudinous theories and until the governmental finagling resulting in the Great Depression is understood little progress will be made.

In the U.S., unlike the very sharp depression of 1920-21 which was short because it was sensibly handled with virtually no intervention, the Great Depression was caused by pumping money into the economy.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The muddled thinking is without end, for this ridicules the insights of the acknowledged St John Paul II who strongly recommends the “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”, and who recognises the confusion created by Karl Marx’s “capitalism” syndrome.

The “current system” in most “democracies” has thoroughly decimated free enterprise with socialist style handouts, foolish stimuli, and has precipitated many banking fiascoes.

No wonder there is so little understanding, because economists follow multitudinous theories and until the governmental finagling resulting in the Great Depression is understood little progress will be made.

In the U.S., unlike the very sharp depression of 1920-21 which was short because it was sensibly handled with virtually no intervention, the Great Depression was caused by pumping money into the economy.

Why do you express such ridicule towards posters?

 

[Reep]

Some Distributist ideas:

1. Stepped corporate tax rates that increase the total tax rate according to total company revenue. It’s pretty well known that larger companies have more dehumanizing impulses than small ones. Why not alter the economic gravity to give competitive advantage to smaller companies instead of mega-corps?
2. Significant estate tax. Taxes are a fact of life since government can’t be free. Why not take more of the tax load from unearned income so that less can be taken from the direct fruit of one’s own labor. You didn’t earn your Daddy’s fortune. Keep enough to enable you to make your own, but pay up to help pay for the burden of government.
3. Sweeping prohibitions on special tax breaks. No more free stadiums for team-owning billionaires or free real estate taxes to attract a big factory. That’s a race to the bottom and a giveaway to the rich. Level playing field whether you’re a lawnmower repair shop or John Deere, Inc.
4. Capital gains and wages are both income. Treat them the same in tax policy (yes, there are plenty of details to be massaged here, but it is absurd that investors should shoulder less tax burden than actual producers. Distributism must favor the entrepenuer, not the investor).

Do you have any distributist ideas that do not depend on government coercion?

 

[StudentMI]

Do you have any distributist ideas that do not depend on government coercion?

Not all governmental involvement in the economy is against Catholic social teaching. Read Rerum Novarum, Quadragiesmo Anno, or Caritas in Veritate for example. The first two speak of the role unions can play. The problem with unions in recent years is that they have become vastly influenced by leftist and liberal ideas, but the old school of thinking as expressed in those first two Encyclicals is that they can play a positive role in protecting the rights of workers. Given the right conditions, Catholic social teaching says it it legitimate for the government to intervene to stimulate the economy, aid the third world, assist small businesses, and so on. Subsidiarity doesn’t mean the government can never intervene. It just means certain conditions must be present for it to do so legitimately.

 

[StudentMI]

Do you have any distributist ideas that do not depend on government coercion?

Not all government involvement is wrong according to Catholic social teaching. Read Quadragesimo Anno and Caritas in Veritate, for instance. Catholic teaching on unions, for example, is that they can be a safeguard of worker rights. The problem is that in recent years they have been taken over by liberals and leftists. But read Rerum Novarum, which espouses a positive view of unions. Catholic social teaching also teaches that governments can intervene to aid small businesses, stimulate the economy in times of crisis, aid the third world world. The key is subsidiarity. If the situation calls for it, government can intervene legitimately.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Catholic social doctrine assumes a just social order. You can’t pick and choose random elements of it, force them onto the world, and insist you’ve created a Catholic society. The only morally consistent worldview is voluntarism. Consent of the governed is an ancient tenant of Catholic political thought, and thus should be assumed in social encyclicals. (That said, considering the state is behind much poverty today, it is morally responsible to give back what it stole.)

The idea that anyone should be permitted to rob from families and businesses in order to centrally plan a just society is a disgusting idea. Especially income tax. Depriving a worker of his wages is a sin that cries out to heaven.

If we really believe what the Church teaches, if subsidiarity really means what we say it means, and if God meant what He said by “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not kill”, there is no need nor justification for government through coercive monopoly.

 

[StudentMI]

Catholic social doctrine assumes a just social order. You can’t pick and choose random elements of it, force them onto the world, and insist you’ve created a Catholic society. The only morally consistent worldview is voluntarism. Consent of the governed is an ancient tenant of Catholic political thought, and thus should be assumed in social encyclicals. (That said, considering the state is behind much poverty today, it is morally responsible to give back what it stole.)

The idea that anyone should be permitted to rob from families and businesses in order to centrally plan a just society is a disgusting idea. Especially income tax. Depriving a worker of his wages is a sin that cries out to heaven.

If we really believe what the Church teaches, if subsidiarity really means what we say it means, and if God meant what He said by “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not kill”, there is no need nor justification for government through coercive monopoly.

Popes Leo XIII, Pius IX, Benedict XVI and others understood the social implications of Catholic moral teaching.

 

[Jozefo]

“may mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.” Jude 1:2

Could Distributionism be applied in the 21st century? And if yes how so(would it be similar to a Social Democratic or Welfare State for instance)?

Are there any modern examples of Distributionism in the 20th or 21st centuries? And how is Distribution related to Catholic Social Teaching(came across the former on this forum)?

Thank you for your time and have a good day

Look at the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain.

The rest of the discussion is pointless unless people are willing to forego using the debt currency that currently has the world by the throat.