S
In hard-hit Spain, bartering becomes a means of getting by [Distributism...]
- Status
A
Allegra
Guest
Take note in case things go south around here!
T
tabycat
Guest
According to some, things have aready has stared to go south here. 
A
Allegra
Guest
Not that south.According to some, things have aready has stared to go south here.
T
tomarin
Guest
What does bartering (when I first read the thread title I thought it said “bartending”) have to do with Distributism?
S
St_Francis
Guest
If you see what the Spanish are doing, it is all small-scale, local, neighbor-to-neighbor. What is saving these people? Working together, willing to be generous when they have very little; in effect, starting small businesses.
They were not protected from the vicissitudes of big enterprises; they are not being saved by socialistc government aid. Both together have devastated the Spanish economy, and now the people are coming together to keep themselves afloat.
T
tomarin
Guest
Oh, I see. That’s very interesting.
So if I encourage people I know to barter with me, I’m helping the cause of distributism?
M
manualman
Guest
In the USA, the IRS can put you in jail if you don’t report the value of goods and services received through bartering as income.
The MAN wants his pound of flesh either way. Wonder if Spain will go after them that way…
The MAN wants his pound of flesh either way. Wonder if Spain will go after them that way…
T
tomarin
Guest
So I give you a goat in exchange for a saxophone. Who gets taxed what in that exchange?
F
flameburns623
Guest
The idea is that within organic, primarily localised economies, most people would be small scale producers or providers of locally-needed services, for which there would often be a direct exchange rather than an indirect exchange negotiated using currency.
Distributism does ultimately involve more than simple barter though. There would be functioning guilds–professional associations of owner/producers, which would ensure that no single producer would become too large.
Although not integral to Distributism, most adherents seem to favor a different monetary system–usually based on gold or some similar standard–and a social-credit banking system, rather than one built around the concept of fractional reserves.
The whole effect would create a social culture which is traditional and conservative, rather than progressive, local and/or regional rather than multinational or globalistic.
So the mere use of barter in Spain may be a step in the direction of Distributism, but it is not the only defining characteristic thereof.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Co-operatives play a part in Distributive thought as well:
yesmagazine.org/issues/how-cooperatives-are-driving-the-new-economy/the-cooperative-way?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=socmed&utm_content=vanGelderS_CoopWaytoStrongerEconomy&utm_campaign=130222_65Coops
And here’s a link that perhaps explains things more clearly than I:
distributistreview.com/mag/2013/02/practical-distributism-and-the-zombie-apocalypse/
yesmagazine.org/issues/how-cooperatives-are-driving-the-new-economy/the-cooperative-way?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=socmed&utm_content=vanGelderS_CoopWaytoStrongerEconomy&utm_campaign=130222_65Coops
And here’s a link that perhaps explains things more clearly than I:
distributistreview.com/mag/2013/02/practical-distributism-and-the-zombie-apocalypse/
T
tomarin
Guest
I’ll check out the link but I think you’ve done an admirable job already.
My thoughts are that: 1. distributists have never impressed me as having everything – or even many things – worked out (until your post made me give it a second thought), 2. barter is usually a sign of an economy that has collapsed and 3. I suspect there are things about using paper money I would miss if I found myself living in a barter-only, distributist economy.
F
flameburns623
Guest
A Distributist economy would not be “cashless” though it’s encouragement of human interconnectedness due to barter would make it a society using less cash.
What would look very different, is that there would be huge impediments to developing most of the multinationals we all do business with and/or are employed by. Most people would be business owners or service providers to a local community. Those who would not be owners would be mostly younger people, often apprenticed to their employers if not related to them by family ties; whose expectations would be that they would BECOME owners or service-providers at some point.
No fast food restaurants. No chain convenience stores. Likely a less migratory population. The Internet and earlier forms of electronic entertainment probably would’ve been configured differently. An intrinsically “smaller-is-bigger” approach to ordering society, rather allergic to argescale urbanization.
A lot of this seems hippie/hipsterish in concept, and this probably is part of the reason the ideas don’t appeal to folks of more mainstream and conventional orientation.
The ideas are supposed to be a compromise between socialist/communist ideology–where weath is collectivised and (hypothetically) managed democratically; and laissez-faire capitalism, where wealth starts out distributed, albeit unevenly, and ends up increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer-and-fewer.
T
TEPO
Guest
The only problem with Distributism, is that it lacks the resources needed to protect the environment. It lacks the ‘green’ factor -which means that it would require hints of communism in order to fulfill UN guidelines.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Distributism would by no means be a barter-only society–for one thing, it would be totally impractical
The bartering occurring in Spain is indeed a sign that the economy has gone badly awry, but see that the people have hope and are finding ways of sustaining themselves which also are leading them to a local reliance. Spain was a very “backwards” nation within living memory of many people there (within my memory!), and it may be that these people, who have been betrayed by both socialism and by centralism in the form of the EU and in the form of large-scale capitalism, will develop a more sustainable for themselves.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I don’t think this would be so much of a problem, because the local areas would have so much more control and the businesses would be more responsive to local concerns. Right now, a large company has the economic respurces to impose its will on a locality, and those who run the company are far away and do not feel the effects of the problems they are causing. The owners of the company are even more removed. But this would be different in a distributist society, where $$$$$$ wouldn’t be the be-all and end-all of everything, where people would have to live with the people they are affecting, where people would not be so dependent on big business for their living, etc.
I mean, it’s one thing when you pollute a river across the country; it’s another when it’s the river your own children play in.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I would just like to clarify that Distributism is not a compromise between socialism and laissez-faire capitalism: distributism was built on the ideas expressed in Rerum Novarum about the need for extra-economic considerations.
T
TEPO
Guest
I’m not sure, really… Say in a Distributist society, the Smith family down the road melts down old rubber tires in their rubber mallet manufacturing garage 1/4 mile outside of town. They’ve contributed a lot to the community and are popular with the locals -but they’re polluting.
Within the same community, there are 6 other families with manufacturing garages who burn or bury their trash… Much of their excess profits go to local community charities.
One day, the local UN, environmental conservation officers perform an inspection on the area and impose heavy fines on the towns people. The community bands together to protect their local businesses. The UN demands that the community fix the problem before more fines are implemented, but the cost of making such repairs would take away from the whole community.
Widespread instances such as this cause the UN commission on environmental Stability to enact government lending to these small businesses, but as a result- the commission begins implementing more and more restrictions. As the restrictions increase, the UN gains more money to further other projects that they’ve been longing for. Eventually, the small garages decide to fold and do something completely different. All manufacturing of goods then eventually becomes the duty of a seperate UN division the “international Department of Manufacturing”, which eventually resembles a form of global communism.
T
TEPO
Guest
Ill admit that it is a nice idea, but it’s also very vulnerable to corruption -something that the good Church people usually fail taking account for. The Church people seem to never be able to predict the moves of negativity or corruption.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Hey TEPO,
For some reason, I can’t quote your post…
Anyway, we can postulate imaginary, non-existent problems occuring down the road, but what’s the option? If you are happy with the way things are, then that’s fine, but i am not. I don’t like that there are corporations with more money than some nations, that there are corporations who are not under anyone’s control because they are transnational, that we are all considered nothing more than economic units, good for nothing more than we can contribute to the GDP or vote, that everything is driven by money and the latest fad.
You know all that pristine green energy? While the Western nations are becoming paradises of cleanliness, China is becoming a cesspool due to the mining for the special metals needs for “green” equipment. So much for AGW mitigation–we’ve just spent massive amounts of other people’s money so some people can feel good about themselves.
The UN is not inspecting towns to check out their pollution, so why would you postulate something so outlandish? What is more likely to happen is that 1st, the people in the town will buy rubber mallets until they have enough, then stop buying them. So the Smiths will
then turn to some other line of work, one which does not involve burning rubber.
Altho now that I think about it, they would probably melt the rubber, not burn it…
For some reason, I can’t quote your post…
Anyway, we can postulate imaginary, non-existent problems occuring down the road, but what’s the option? If you are happy with the way things are, then that’s fine, but i am not. I don’t like that there are corporations with more money than some nations, that there are corporations who are not under anyone’s control because they are transnational, that we are all considered nothing more than economic units, good for nothing more than we can contribute to the GDP or vote, that everything is driven by money and the latest fad.
You know all that pristine green energy? While the Western nations are becoming paradises of cleanliness, China is becoming a cesspool due to the mining for the special metals needs for “green” equipment. So much for AGW mitigation–we’ve just spent massive amounts of other people’s money so some people can feel good about themselves.
The UN is not inspecting towns to check out their pollution, so why would you postulate something so outlandish? What is more likely to happen is that 1st, the people in the town will buy rubber mallets until they have enough, then stop buying them. So the Smiths will
then turn to some other line of work, one which does not involve burning rubber.
Altho now that I think about it, they would probably melt the rubber, not burn it…
- Status