T
tomarin
Guest
I came across the accusation recently that distributism is utopian and unworkable. Do you think distributism is utopian? If so should it be rejected on that basis?
- Status
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
We need to give more power to large corporations, not limit it. It’s large corporations that know how to produce efficiently. We need them more than they need us. Based on these observations, distributism is indeed unworkable.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I do not think that distributism is utopian or unworkable.
When I look at socialism, communism, free-market anarchy, and other ideas stemming from so-called Enlightenment thinking, I see systems which propose setting up a system which will lead people to ethical dealings as the result of the proposed structure. Their have as foundational beliefs the ideas that people are inherently good, that people’s environment is what makes them bad, and that in the correct structure, people will maintain the goodness they were born with, and all will be perfect. Those on the left (don’t know about those on the right) couple these beliefs with a progressive view of history which claims that humanity is on a path to an inevitable perfection.
This all leads to utopian ideals, because it is all imaginary. These people bave a vision of a perfect society which cannot exist because it is founded upon erroneous ideas of human nature.
Distributism, however, is different in its foundational beliefs and in its claims. Those who first wrote about it were very clear-headed Catholics who understood full well the results of original sin. They also did not claim that the system would perfect people.
Their aim was to consider what the Popes had written about social justice and what the Church teaches about society and mankind, and propose certain economic ideas in line with those teachings.
C
chipeto
Guest
I have to point out that different people have different ideas on what Distributism is.
I like what Belloc has to say in An Essay on the Restoration of Property: that what we seek is not perfection, but proportion. The underlying philosophy is one that readily admits of exceptions, but insists that those things which matter the most (e.g. family) are the things that should set the tone of society.
N
Nate13
Guest
This is completely false. The good of the American people who are purchasing the products should be the number one factor. Large corporations are not always the best solution for producing products efficiently and to the public’s liking. A balance is needed between large and small businesses and it should be the people that bring about change through demand for goods. The government should not attempt to bring about any change by themselves but rather establish enough regulations to allow for the free market system to actually work and enable competition. Thus if someone sets up a monopoly and corners the market, that is probably going to be a bad thing for American’s purchasing that product and limits the choices we have. Large and small businesses should be able to compete and the American people should be able to decide which is more capable of providing them the product best suited to their needs.
I think the current system we now have is pretty close to being where it should. I would like to see more small businesses being made possible, but that is the whole point. If the American people want more small businesses you have to actually make that point when you decide where to spend your money. There are people out there who hate companies like Wal-mart but in my mind they fill a very important corner of the market. Providing cheap goods that are not always the best quality is necessary and is something only a large corporation can provide in many cases. Small business can find their niche by providing slightly higher cost products that are higher quality or have the personal touch than many people prefer. When people become utilitarian though and don’t care what the fork they buy looks like as long as it works, or the shoes they buy as long as they protect their feet, small businesses are going to suffer and we shouldn’t blame the large companies for that. They suffer because of the attitude of the American people and the consumer.
The point of distributism is that if a collection of smaller companies is capable of doing the exact same job as a larger corporation with the same quality and at the same price or better then it should be done by the smaller companies. This is in line with what I mentioned above. In my opinion distributism is not something that a government enforces though but rather something the American people demand. The government is merely there to protect the American people and make sure they are allowed to actually make such a choice.
M
manualman
Guest
This has GOT to be sarcasm. Please say it is so.
Does anybody really think we need more Bank of America and fewer local independent banks? Are we really better with massive health care bureacracies than we were when doctors had their own practices?
It would indeed be difficult for a local Joe to produce a competitive car or consumer electronic. But an awful lot of what goes into the economy is NOT improved by the involvement of corporate bureacracy and profit taking. Do you really want to have to call IBM to have your laptop upgraded or Halliburton to have your home plumbing fixed? (shudders).
But that IS the direction we are going in this country with excessive regulation and bureacratization. Contrary to much populist political rhetoric, these things do NOT spread the wealth, they concentrate it and create an economic environment where only the ‘big boys’ are able to play.
Distributism, properly implemented is not repackaged socialism. Property and productive assets remain in private hands. The system would just be set up differently so that larger corporations would have to pay MORE in taxes, would grant corporations LESS rights than individuals and other incentives to offset the dehumanizing aspects of corporate capitalism. When the owner of a company LIVES in the community where his workers live, he has skin in the game to make sure that his company is an overall force for good in the community. When faceless stockholders hire a manager and require him to produce profits at all costs, he does so, regardless of how the community is impacted or he is replaced by someone who will.
This isn’t utopianism, it’s simply about recognizing human nature and trying to establish non-personal systemic offsets that make the economy work for all instead of just some.
T
tomarin
Guest
With due respect, corporations do need human beings if only as consumers of their products. And the picture you draw of a world in which human beings exist to serve the needs of impersonal, profit-driven economic entities sounds rather nightmarish.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Hey All,
Don’t get carried away by Mr Sock. In another thread he was promoting communism. I don’t know if he is a contrarian or just trying to promote communism by lauding an out-of-control corporatism, but I don’t think he’s serious.
Don’t get carried away by Mr Sock. In another thread he was promoting communism. I don’t know if he is a contrarian or just trying to promote communism by lauding an out-of-control corporatism, but I don’t think he’s serious.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Large business enterprises certainly can be destructive of Distributionist goals, but in my view, big government is much more so.
Large business may well control production of what it produces best. Not always true, and to the extent that it imports goods that may be produced here at reasonably comparable costs, it should be viewed as problematic.
It can, and does, incite excessive consumerism by such means as exploitation of sex, status seeking, utilization of psychologists to compel buyers to buy, and encouraging financing of things people really can’t afford.
But it can’t force us to do much of anything unless we work for one of them, and even then we can quit even though we might earn less if we did.
But excessive and expansive government is much worse because it has the power to compel. I might CHOOSE to squander on big business what resources might otherwise be used to build family-owned productive asset, but I have no CHOICE but to pay the government that which it decides to exact from me.
Government is the greater threat in that way. it is also the greater threat to family moral formation. Corporations can try to get us to pay attention to promotion of immorality, but only government can compel it.
Finally, by continuing to run huge deficits, the government encourages foreign competition for American resources. Big corporations contribute to it, but it still wouldn’t happen if the government spent within its means. (kind of a long subject that one)
Large business may well control production of what it produces best. Not always true, and to the extent that it imports goods that may be produced here at reasonably comparable costs, it should be viewed as problematic.
It can, and does, incite excessive consumerism by such means as exploitation of sex, status seeking, utilization of psychologists to compel buyers to buy, and encouraging financing of things people really can’t afford.
But it can’t force us to do much of anything unless we work for one of them, and even then we can quit even though we might earn less if we did.
But excessive and expansive government is much worse because it has the power to compel. I might CHOOSE to squander on big business what resources might otherwise be used to build family-owned productive asset, but I have no CHOICE but to pay the government that which it decides to exact from me.
Government is the greater threat in that way. it is also the greater threat to family moral formation. Corporations can try to get us to pay attention to promotion of immorality, but only government can compel it.
Finally, by continuing to run huge deficits, the government encourages foreign competition for American resources. Big corporations contribute to it, but it still wouldn’t happen if the government spent within its means. (kind of a long subject that one)
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I never endorsed communism, as in the state of communistic movements of the past. I did say that in order for “communism” to be successful, there would have to be a religious revolution, like in the Second-Coming. Do beware of St Francis; he’s out to bite me for some strange reason. Probably because I hold a slightly different view than (s)he.
S
St_Francis
Guest
She, thank you.
And I’m not out to “bite you,” whatever that may mean, it’s just that first you waxed lyrical for communism, then you started cheerleading big corporations. And I don’t even have a problem with what you said, but it seemed that consideration of what you had said was drawing attention away from the original topic.
I have discussed many topics with people who disagreed with me without having been accused of being out to get them because of it.
And I must say that what you wrote in your post did not really match what you are saying here. It may just be because I have heard that sort of thing for 40+ years from people who were speaking very seriously and so took you more seriously than you meant to be taken.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Again, I believe that corporations can easily lend themselves to a futuristic socialism/communism that this world has never seen. I’m not talking about a socialism/communism that engages in murder or religious repression, but a society where socialism/communism is brought to perfection.
S
St_Francis
Guest
What I have been thinking about lately is that when you have a chain store in a community, the profits leave the community and are spent elsewhere. This bothers me, but I don’t know much about it. Does anyone else?
W
white_sheep
Guest
It has a long history of success. The problem is determining what to do to get something resembling a distributist economy.
S
St_Francis
Guest
You paint a pcture of a perfect society, but that will not happen in this fallen world. Why do you advocate systems which have been condemned by the Church?
N
Nate13
Guest
I think advertising has a lot to do with why chain stores are prominent. We could have a million different taco shops or a majority of them brand into a few different groups. By creating a brand and drawing people to the brand they are able to drum up more success for all the businesses as opposed to if they all stayed separate. Of course there are some independent places still, but they have to fight tooth and nail to establish themselves in their locality.
C
chuckfrmvalyfrg
Guest
Excuse me , but where do I find this " free market anarchy " you make reference to here in the USA ? Where is this unrestricted , unregulated free market you appear to be alluding to ?
Which system provides more goods and services to more people : A. Socialism
B. Communism
C. Capitalism ???
S
St_Francis
Guest
Free-market anarchy, also known as anarcho-capitalism, is a system proposed by vaeiois people since the 1840’s but currently by Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian school of economics.
The idea is that rather than having a government, everyone simply hires people to do the work of the government. So if someone stole from you, you would hire a detective to find the guy, a lawyer to prosecute him, etc. I think they assume that people will have insurance to cover all these eventualities.
There have apparently been societies who lived like this, but they were almost on islands with relatively small populations (and I am not sure that all of them truly were free-market anachies).
C
carn
Guest
Since when is Austrian school only anarcho-capitalism?
Mises (“founder of the school”) considered the existence of a state necessary for at least for fighting or protecting against internal (crime) and external enemies.
Hayek as far as i know as well. Only Rothbard was anarchio-capitalist.
Besides why should not there be something between anarcho-capitalism and distributsm?
And chucks questions is important, before one claims that free market/capitalism is bad, one should think about how one can know, as the last state with minimal state interference ended roughly 100 years ago. (Around 1905 state part of GDP in US was 5%, since WW1 it was always above 15%. In large parts of europe its above 35% since 40 years.)
S
St_Francis
Guest
I’m so sorry, I seem to have misunderstood the relationship between Hayek and FMA. Thanks for the correction!
[quoye]Besides why should not there be something between anarcho-capitalism and distributsm?
What do you mean by this? I only mentioned FMA because I was listing utopian ideas. I don’t think distributism is a utopian idea.
I think pure FMA is utopian as I defined it earlier. I don’t think reducing government involvement (now, in the US) is a bad idea, but I also don’t think it would lead to FMA.
- Status