How to convince a communist friend of distribuism

[ialsop]

Do all you catholics realize that distributism is literally based off of catholic papal social encyclicals? It is literally Catholicism applied to ecnomy, and is church teching? Not dogma or doctrine, but it IS Catholic social teaching?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Do all you catholics realize that distributism is literally based off of catholic papal social encyclicals? It is literally Catholicism applied to ecnomy, and is church teching? Not dogma or doctrine, but it IS Catholic social teaching?

You are correct. It is not dogma or doctrine and has nothing to do with faith and morals. The Church does not teach economics or politics.

 

[ialsop]

You are correct. It is not dogma or doctrine and has nothing to do with faith and morals. The Church does not teach economics or politics.

True, which means you COULD go against church teaching on this, but capitalism and communism are the other two prominent options, and communism is evil, we all agree on that, and capitalism is based too much on capital. Money. Wealth. Materialism.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

True, which means you COULD go against church teaching on this, but capitalism and communism are the other two prominent options, and communism is evil, we all agree on that, and capitalism is based too much on capital. Money. Wealth. Materialism.

Actually Capitalism is based on freedom, liberty, and justice.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. People are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.

Capitalism demands the best of every one and rewards them accordingly. It leaves every one free to choose the work they like, to specialize in it, to trade their products for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as their ability and ambition will carry them. Success depends on the objective value of our work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value.

 

[ialsop]

Actually Capitalism is based on freedom, liberty, and justice.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. People are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.

Capitalism demands the best of every one and rewards them accordingly. It leaves every one free to choose the work they like, to specialize in it, to trade their products for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as their ability and ambition will carry them. Success depends on the objective value of our work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value.

That is the goal of capitalism, yes. but in practice, soon consumerism and greed take hold of a culture, as it has done here in America. It fosters the idea of having whatever you want whenever you want if you work for somebody else. TRUE, it is better than capitalism, but it just doesnt seem to be the best option either.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That is the goal of capitalism, yes. but in practice, soon consumerism and greed take hold of a culture, as it has done here in America. It fosters the idea of having whatever you want whenever you want if you work for somebody else. TRUE, it is better than capitalism, but it just doesnt seem to be the best option either.

The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about capitalism is such that you young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature.

The proletarian is a materially-minded and impatient man. He constantly refuses to live within his means. Rather than buying a $5,000 used car, he will take out a loan for a brand new $40,000 car. Rather than buying a $200,000 home, he will take out a 30-year mortgage on a $500,000 home. The proletarians themselves are to blame for consumerism…not Capitalism.

I encourage you to learn the difference between greed (evil) and SELF INTEREST (Good) Capitalism encourages Self Interest.

 

[ialsop]

The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about capitalism is such that you young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature.

The proletarian is a materially-minded and impatient man. He constantly refuses to live within his means. Rather than buying a $5,000 used car, he will take out a loan for a brand new $40,000 car. Rather than buying a $200,000 home, he will take out a 30-year mortgage on a $500,000 home. The proletarians themselves are to blame for consumerism…not Capitalism.

I encourage you to learn the difference between greed (evil) and SELF INTEREST (Good) Capitalism encourages Self Interest.

A-I find it interesting that you say “us young people” have no idea about capitalism. what is funny is that all my peers are EXACTLY the examples of GREED(bad) that I am talking about. I mean have you seen my generation? We are greedy, rude, immoral, un faithful, godless, and ignorant and rebellious and GREEDY GLUTTONOUS ENVIOUS people. We are children of a capitalist culture that just got too big.

B- And may I ask, who advertizes the new 40,000$ car? COMPANIES. Whould my peers want the latest iphone if Apple didnt convince them that it was worth the 600$? In your generation(not sure which one that is, but this is true for each one previous to mine), capitalism brought an end to communism, and prosperity and balance. BUT not so in MY generation. Now, we are a super sized consumerist culture. capitalism works great for awhile, but then it expands and gets far to corporatley imperialist.

C- And again, I do not believe in the “class wars”. That is not a distributist concept, but a communist concept. Do you beolieve in class wars, or are you just trying to appease what you wrongly assume my beliefs are by using the word “proletarian”?

D-We seem to agree that there is a problem with consumerism. The question is, what will address hat problem? I dont see how capitalism would change anything. What do you suggest?

 

[Paleocon]

I am convinced that distributism is the best system. HOWEVER, my friend is a communist. We are bound by common hatred of capitalism, but when it comes to theories of G.K. Chesterton and Karl Marx we are divided. He thinks North Korea is a free country that has just been demonized. That maybe true to an extent but he obsesses over it.
I just dont know how o convince him that communism is not the alternative to capitalism.
My personal opinion is that communism is capitalism on steroids. Capitalism is when powerful ruling classes clash for power over us. Communism is when one of those ruling groups wins over and achieves power.
But how do I convince him of that? How do I express Catholic social teaching to somebody who is not catholic? And he will not be catholic for awhile i think, because we are both 14 and his family is not catholic by any means. We often have deep philosophical, social, economic, political and even paranormal and sometimes religious discussions, if that gives you any idea of who your dealing with. not the typical 14 year olds…
THANKS!
Isaac

Perhaps simply ask him to look at history.

Distributism was the reigning system in medieval Europe (especially the towns). Ask him to consider whether medieval townsfolk, or people living in the Soviet Union were better off.

The same argument can be made to show why distributism is better than capitalism, but unfortunately most people are too mentally entrenched in it to see how bad capitalism is.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A-I find it interesting that you say “us young people” have no idea about capitalism. what is funny is that all my peers are EXACTLY the examples of GREED(bad) that I am talking about. I mean have you seen my generation? We are greedy, rude, immoral, un faithful, godless, and ignorant and rebellious and GREEDY GLUTTONOUS ENVIOUS people. We are children of a capitalist culture that just got too big.

Typical of your generation to blame an economic system on your short comings.

If you lived in a Distributist Utopia…you would still be greedy, rude, immoral, un faithful, godless, and ignorant and rebellious and GREEDY GLUTTONOUS ENVIOUS people. Of course you may not be able satisfy your greed as a distributist because you would be poor. Maybe that is a good thing???

B- And may I ask, who advertizes the new 40,000$ car? COMPANIES. Whould my peers want the latest iphone if Apple didnt convince them that it was worth the 600$? In your generation(not sure which one that is, but this is true for each one previous to mine), capitalism brought an end to communism, and prosperity and balance. BUT not so in MY generation. Now, we are a super sized consumerist culture. capitalism works great for awhile, but then it expands and gets far to corporatley imperialist.

This is exactly what I meant in my previous post when I said: “young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of the actual nature of Capitalism.”

The company that advertizes a $40,000 car also advertizes a $20,000 model. Take your pick but consider what you can afford. Your choice, Your decision, There is no evil Capitalist holding a gun to your head and forcing you to spend more than you can afford.

Apple Iphones…you have one. Why do you need it? If the DEMAND was not there Apple would be making more computers.

Capitalism did not destroy communism. Communism failed on its own just as socialism has failed anywhere it is tried,

Capitalism is far from imperialist. It is the only system that drew men to unite on a large scale into great countries, and peacefully cooperate across national boundaries, while all the collectivist, internationalist, One-World systems were splitting the world into “tribes.”
.

C- And again, I do not believe in the “class wars”. That is not a distributist concept, but a communist concept. Do you beolieve in class wars, or are you just trying to appease what you wrongly assume my beliefs are by using the word “proletarian”?

I don’t believe in class warfare. It exists. It is a favorite tactic of liberalism to pit one class against another.
I make no assumption about your beliefs. I only know what you have posted about yourself. I used the word “proletarian” because you claim to be discussing economic systems with a communist friend. Therefore I figured that you would be familiar with the word.

D-We seem to agree that there is a problem with consumerism. The question is, what will address hat problem? I dont see how capitalism would change anything. What do you suggest?

Simple parental authority. Parents should be responsible enough to tell their children…“we can’t afford that”. Soon the child learns the value of things and realizes that he will have to improve himself to afford better things. Only Capitalism offers him that opportunity.

 

[PolarGuy]

Ialsop, some points, please. I’ll post twice, on different subjects.

Before you decide how wonderful distributism is, you might want to consider some alternate views. This is just off the top of my head:

–Distributism does not allow for specialization, where people can study/work in/specialize in, that which they are good at, or which interests them.

–It requires constant and massive government intrusion to work, wherein prices are regulated, “jiggered,” and where the government itself makes all sort of arbitrary decisions which cannot be defended or at least are open to question, and which impair human freedom (for example, Belloc wanted massive subsidies for artisans; these would need to be generated from somewhere; and what if I think the subsidies should go to artists, not artisans?). Belloc initially really liked Mussolini because he thought Mussolini’s policies were great, until he realized that Mussolini’s policies were lip service to cover his love of state control.

–It fails to account for basic concepts like supply and demand.

–It’s “capitalism for losers,” in the sense that it rewards those who won’t take risks. No one who is very successful at just about anything would likely be a distributist.

–It completely fails to account for the global scale of world economies. If I need gas for my car I’m supposed to band together with some people and buy an oil well? Please. Exxon does it so much better, and cheaper than I ever could. In a distributist paradise, I can say goodbye to any project beyond the reach of small groups – which mean no new skyscrapers; no antibiotics; no new dams or bridges; no space program; no satellites; no cell phones, etc. In other words: Welcome to agrarian life, in this year 850.

–All models/utopias look good when they’ve never been successfully tried once in the real world. Have some country try distributism for 50-100 years and see how it works, and we can have this conversation.

 

[PolarGuy]

Now, unrelated to my above post:

Ialsop, I can tell you are about 14 because your views are those of a 14-year old. I’m not saying this as a put down, really, I’m not, and I’m actually quite impressed by some of what you write (I just happen to completely disagree with it). I think you appear a lot more on the ball than I was at 14.

That said, however, you also do a lot of shouting (writing IN ALL CAPS!); you tell people they know nothing about things, etc.

Now…you’re 14, and you’re going to tell us – some of whom are old enough to be your parents, that *we *know nothing? [Smile].

Your view of evil nasty corporations is, candidly, simplistic and really does not demonstrate any idea of how they operate. Take some college classes in business; better yet, work an internship in the corporate world for a summer; and your perspective will change – to say nothing of how it will change when you need to pay your own bills; see a bit more of the world, etc. I say this in all charity, because, despite some interesting reasoning you employ, I can’t show a 14 year old how great capitalism is (and it is great) any more than I can describe colors to one blind from birth: They just have no real frame of reference to understand.

But I have enjoyed this thread nonetheless. See you around!

 

[Paleocon]

Ialsop, some points, please. I’ll post twice, on different subjects.

Before you decide how wonderful distributism is, you might want to consider some alternate views. This is just off the top of my head:

1.Distributism does not allow for specialization, where people can study/work in/specialize in, that which they are good at, or which interests them.

2.It requires constant and massive government intrusion to work, wherein prices are regulated, “jiggered,” and where the government itself makes all sort of arbitrary decisions which cannot be defended or at least are open to question, and which impair human freedom (for example, Belloc wanted massive subsidies for artisans; these would need to be generated from somewhere; and what if I think the subsidies should go to artists, not artisans?). Belloc initially really liked Mussolini because he thought Mussolini’s policies were great, until he realized that Mussolini’s policies were lip service to cover his love of state control.

3.It fails to account for basic concepts like supply and demand.

4.It’s “capitalism for losers,” in the sense that it rewards those who won’t take risks. No one who is very successful at just about anything would likely be a distributist.

5.It completely fails to account for the global scale of world economies. If I need gas for my car I’m supposed to band together with some people and buy an oil well? Please. Exxon does it so much better, and cheaper than I ever could. In a distributist paradise, I can say goodbye to any project beyond the reach of small groups – which mean no new skyscrapers; no antibiotics; no new dams or bridges; no space program; no satellites; no cell phones, etc. In other words: Welcome to agrarian life, in this year 850.

6.All models/utopias look good when they’ve never been successfully tried once in the real world. Have some country try distributism for 50-100 years and see how it works, and we can have this conversation.

1. Incorrect.
2. Price would be regulated by intermediary (neither state not private) organizations.
3. How so?
4. No one who owns vast amounts of wealth would. Distributism does not impede success, although you are correct that it prefers orderly advancement to risk-taking, something which would indisputably be recognized as good in non-economic matters.
5. Individual oil-wells can sell to individual gas stations (rough overview of the process). I fail to see how antibiotics are dependent on capitalism. Doctors have been trying to figure out how to treat patients better since Hippocrates.
6. Medieval towns were effectively distributist. They got along fine for hundreds of years, and actually had greater practical opportunities for social advancement than the modern day.

 

[ialsop]

Typical of your generation to blame an economic system on your short comings.

If you lived in a Distributist Utopia…you would still be greedy, rude, immoral, un faithful, godless, and ignorant and rebellious and GREEDY GLUTTONOUS ENVIOUS people. Of course you may not be able satisfy your greed as a distributist because you would be poor. **Maybe that is a good thing??? **

This is exactly what I meant in my previous post when I said: “young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of the actual nature of Capitalism.”

The company that advertizes a $40,000 car also advertizes a $20,000 model. Take your pick but consider what you can afford. Your choice, Your decision, There is no evil Capitalist holding a gun to your head and forcing you to spend more than you can afford.

Apple Iphones…you have one. Why do you need it? If the DEMAND was not there Apple would be making more computers.

Capitalism did not destroy communism. Communism failed on its own just as socialism has failed anywhere it is tried,

Capitalism is far from imperialist. It is the only system that drew men to unite on a large scale into great countries, and peacefully cooperate across national boundaries, while all the collectivist, internationalist, One-World systems were splitting the world into “tribes.”
.

I don’t believe in class warfare. It exists. It is a favorite tactic of liberalism to pit one class against another.
I make no assumption about your beliefs. I only know what you have posted about yourself. I used the word “proletarian” because you claim to be discussing economic systems with a communist friend. Therefore I figured that you would be familiar with the word.

**
Simple parental authority. Parents should be responsible enough to tell their children…“we can’t afford that”. Soon the child learns the value of things and realizes that he will have to improve himself to afford better things. Only Capitalism offers him that opportunity.**

To you first statement: Typical for the youth to blame…? No. Stop right there. The youth today dont blame anybody or anything, they think greed and consumerism is just fine and dandy.

Bold-Yes, it would be.

Underline-True, but which one is glorified? You cant tell me that advertisements are fair. And, no , I actually do not have the latest iphone. I have a cheap little phone that nobody at Tmobile even knows how to work anymore. But i like it because it suits my purposes perfectly.

Bold and Underline-EXACTLY. In distributism, kids are raised by their families, their parents, rather than their peers. The focus of distributism is family units so I dont see how you can say “only in capitalism” does that happen. Does it happen? No.

 

[ialsop]

Now, unrelated to my above post:

Ialsop, I can tell you are about 14 because your views are those of a 14-year old. I’m not saying this as a put down, really, I’m not, and I’m actually quite impressed by some of what you write (I just happen to completely disagree with it). I think you appear a lot more on the ball than I was at 14.

That said, however, you also do a lot of shouting (writing IN ALL CAPS!); you tell people they know nothing about things, etc.

Now…you’re 14, and you’re going to tell us – some of whom are old enough to be your parents, that *we *know nothing? [Smile].

Your view of evil nasty corporations is, candidly, simplistic and really does not demonstrate any idea of how they operate. Take some college classes in business; better yet, work an internship in the corporate world for a summer; and your perspective will change – to say nothing of how it will change when you need to pay your own bills; see a bit more of the world, etc. I say this in all charity, because, despite some interesting reasoning you employ, I can’t show a 14 year old how great capitalism is (and it is great) any more than I can describe colors to one blind from birth: They just have no real frame of reference to understand.

But I have enjoyed this thread nonetheless. See you around!

Well, Id like to point out that I was the one who was rtold that I, as an ignorant youth, know “nothing and never will know anything about the true nature of capitalism” by one of you mature adults…
And to respond to your refutations of distributism, many of them I will consider, but some I would like to refute.
Mainly the one about lots of government intrusion.
Distributism is actually closer to anarchism than most theories, and in a truly distributist society, no government would necessarily have to exist.
And yes, freedom in economics is great. But that is called “liberty” not “capital”, as the word “capital” means money. Saying capitalism is not about money is a contradiction. And personally, id like to just own what I use or consume, and produce it too. Maybe for one who appreciates what globalism is doing to our world( i do not) capitalism is the best system. But to give youany idea of whereI come from, I am anti globalist thus anti capitalist. And to continue the analogy, I feel like I am explaining color to a blind person who THINKS they can see.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

1. Incorrect.

No…it IS true. See my response to #3

1. Price would be regulated by intermediary (neither state not private) organizations.

Price controls, that do not reflect supply and demand, whether imposed by government or intermediary, are dangerous and artificial. They lead to economic collapse.

1. How so?

“3.It (Distributism) fails to account for basic concepts like supply and demand.”

Let’s say that the happy little kingdom of Elbonia (A distributist economy) is home to three coo coo clock makers. They make the best coo coo clocks in the world and sell all they can make. One day a large company in China begins selling electric coo coo clocks at a much lower price. The Elbonian clock makers cannot compete. Their only alternative is to form a company, seek investment (Capitalism), build a factory and out produce the Chinese…or go broke.

Now the king of Elbonia will not allow a corporation to form in his country. Strictly distributist.remember. So the king or the intermediary offers the clock makers three nice little farms. Since the clock makers know nothing about farming they all fail to produce anything and are on the verge of starvation. Sadly, they leave Elbonia and move to the neighboring country of Alagash, where they take jobs with at a large service center that performs warranty repairs cheap Chinese coo coo clocks.

Distributism fails to consider supply and demand as well as specialization.

1. No one who owns vast amounts of wealth would. Distributism does not impede success, although you are correct that it prefers orderly advancement to risk-taking, something which would indisputably be recognized as good in non-economic matters.

The goal of distributism is equality.

Hilaire Belloc advocated a “differential tax” in order to progressively move towards a distributist society. (Socialistic)

Belloc goes so far as to say that “the aim of all sound social reform” should be “the wider distribution of property” and that the differential tax is “a tax specially aimed against excessive accumulation.” (Success)

I would point out that a differential tax stifles progress and holds society back. It may cause a more even distribution of property, but the “excessive accumulation” that Belloc wishes to prevent is the motivation of entrepreneurs.

1. Individual oil-wells can sell to individual gas stations (rough overview of the process). I fail to see how antibiotics are dependent on capitalism. Doctors have been trying to figure out how to treat patients better since Hippocrates.

Should not the doctor be rewarded for all his years of training and research work that leads to the discovery of an antibody?

Distributism says no.

The would-be innovator has two options:

1. he can put in a lot of effort and create some new thing that will benefit society, knowing that he will not be allowed to accumulate too much additional wealth as a result of his additional toil, or
2. he can continue in the labor that he already does without being an innovator and accumulate roughly the same amount of wealth that he would under the first choice as well.

Human nature being what it is…the would-be innovator will always choose the second option.

1. Medieval towns were effectively distributist. They got along fine for hundreds of years, and actually had greater practical opportunities for social advancement than the modern day.

I agree that in medieval times, distributism was successful. That lasted until the Industrial Revolution (and Capitalism) raised the standard of living for all…world wide.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

To you first statement: Typical for the youth to blame…? No. Stop right there. The youth today dont blame anybody or anything, they think greed and consumerism is just fine and dandy.

Then they are seriously lacking in the “common sense” department.

Bold-Yes, it would be.

So you lack the ambition to do better???

Underline-True, but which one is glorified? You cant tell me that advertisements are fair. And, no , I actually do not have the latest iphone. I have a cheap little phone that nobody at Tmobile even knows how to work anymore. But i like it because it suits my purposes perfectly.

Now I am beginning to like you…You are not a consumerist. Your phone fills your needs. that’s good.

A tenant of Capitalism says: The worker who has a modest savings account, and the millionaire who invests a fortune (and all the men in between), are those who finance the future. The man who consumes without producing is a parasite, whether he is a welfare recipient or a rich playboy.

Bold and Underline-EXACTLY. In distributism, kids are raised by their families, their parents, rather than their peers. The focus of distributism is family units so I dont see how you can say “only in capitalism” does that happen. Does it happen? No.

The focus of distributism is equality.

I said that Capitalism OFFERS THE OPPORTUNITY to better oneself and advance.

 

[ialsop]

Then they are seriously lacking in the “common sense” department.

So you lack the ambition to do better???

Now I am beginning to like you…You are not a consumerist. Your phone fills your needs. that’s good.

A tenant of Capitalism says: The worker who has a modest savings account, and the millionaire who invests a fortune (and all the men in between), are those who finance the future. The man who consumes without producing is a parasite, whether he is a welfare recipient or a rich playboy.

The focus of distributism is equality.

I said that Capitalism OFFERS THE OPPORTUNITY to better oneself and advance.

No, I have ambition to to do better, but most people do not. And I admit, I fail. Its hard to live frugally surrounded by so much stuff.
“The man who consumes without producing is a parasite”. EXACTLY. And in capitalism we have corporate owners who dont work in the factories, but they earn and consume endlessly. In distributism, families would produce all that they consume and consume all they produce, so that problem is solved.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

No, I have ambition to to do better, but most people do not. And I admit, I fail. Its hard to live frugally surrounded by so much stuff.
“The man who consumes without producing is a parasite”. EXACTLY. And in capitalism we have corporate owners who dont work in the factories, but they earn and consume endlessly. In distributism, families would produce all that they consume and consume all they produce, so that problem is solved.

Zoltan is right in that your posts reflect a lot of naivety; families will never produce exactly what they consume in everything.

I suggest you examine cooperatives which share a bit in common with one of the basic ideas of Distributism, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” Cooperatives help cause a deconcentration of capital and money. This deconcentration is beneficial to the economy as it means more people will be able to start up their own organizations and also that it helps increase the amount of consumption without the increasing of debt.

 

[Zipply]

Ahh, youth. In one country, ignorantly arguing distributism. In another, chopping off heads.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No, I have ambition to to do better, but most people do not. And I admit, I fail. Its hard to live frugally surrounded by so much stuff.

I agree. It is hard to resist temptation. But later you will live better and be able to afford more.

“The man who consumes without producing is a parasite”. EXACTLY. And in capitalism we have corporate owners who dont work in the factories, but they earn and consume endlessly.

Yes, corporate owners don’t work in factories and factory workers earn more than ditch diggers and airline pilots don’t wash their planes but earn more than the plane washers.

So what? In a Capitalist society you can be ANY of those things and lots more. Your choice. You can work a nice 8 hour shift job in a factory earn a top union wage and go home and take the weekend off. Or you can be a corporate executive (Like I was) and sit a big desk, smoke expensive cigars, put in 14 hour days, work lots of weekends, overstress, go to stupid meetings that you hate, fight with union bosses, schmooze with idiot politicians and have a heart attack. Sure I made big bucks but every Friday I would watch the workers leaving the plant and going home. I knew some were going fishing all weekend and I was going to be there until 9pm reading reports…I envied them.

In distributism, families would produce all that they consume and consume all they produce, so that problem is solved.

What if they need to consume something they can’t produce?