Is Distributism utopian?

[St_Francis]

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.

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.

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.)

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.

 

[carn]

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.

Ok, no difference there, except maybe for the reasons leading to that opinion - i think the mongols prove that FMA is wrong. (Its about not being able to effictively defend against invasions and invasions cannot be excluded, even if no neighbors is provocated, as the mongols prove that invasions can happen from enemies one never heard about much less provocated in any way, and even if gurellia warfare is used in defense, as guerilla warfare is only effective against enemies which have compunctions about massacering entire cities, as the mongols also had that quality.)

 

[Robert_Sock]

Distributism at the world-wide level is to be condoned. This is the only way to get help for the innocent, and needy, third-world countries. This seems to be the recent mind-set of the Vatican.

 

[carn]

Distributism at the world-wide level is to be condoned. This is the only way to get help for the innocent, and needy, third-world countries. This seems to be the recent mind-set of the Vatican.

You are aware that the cause for the plight of many third world countries is the lack of insight and resolve what to with a rope and your current ruler?

Take for example ethopia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Economy

“Historically, Ethiopia’s feudal and communist economic structure has always kept it one rainless season away from devastating droughts. Ethiopia has great potential to be a producer, as it is one of the most fertile countries in Africa. According to the New York Times, Ethiopia “could easily become the breadbasket for much of Europe if her agriculture were better organized.””

“The Ethiopian constitution defines the right to own land as belonging only to “the state and the people”, but citizens may only lease land (up to 99 years), and are unable to mortgage or sell. Renting of land for a maximum of twenty years is allowed and this is expected to ensure that land goes to the most productive user.”

K, maybe not a rope, as that is quite drastic. But if the cause of poverty is the government outside help can only do so much, as regime changing wars are of dubious moral quality. So a redistributive world would still have a poor ethopia.

 

[manualman]

…But if the cause of poverty is the government outside help can only do so much, as regime changing wars are of dubious moral quality. So a redistributive world would still have a poor ethopia.

Just checking, you aren’t defining “Distrubutism” to include state seizure of assets and redistribution according to the political decisions of the state, are you? Distributism has NOTHING to do with overt seizures of wealth or assets. Instead, it consists of recognizing that local ownership of the means of production is better for the local community than remote, disinterested investors are and so it consists of creating a legal and tax environment friendlier to sole proprietorships and partnerships than it is to stockholding corporations. It seeks to place burdens on massive companies commensurate with the advantages such size imposes so as to level the playing field and create opportunity for the most people possible.

On the one hand, you might have to pay more for your Lipitor if Walmart’s tax burden was high enough to offset its buying power compared to Fred the corner pharmacist. But Fred’s going to need to buy insurance for his cars. If you’re an insurance agent, that’s MUCH better news for you than if 50,000 share holders somewhere far away get an extra penny in dividends that year! And Fred’s more likely to care if his cashier can’t afford a dentist for her toothache than the CEO of Wally’s is.

 

[St_Francis]

Speaking here for myself and not for distributism (as I do not know their stance on this), I would personally like to see large publically-owned companies broken up and sold. The stock holders would thus be reimbursed, and the parts of the company would then be locally owned smaller companies, which would be owned by very small groups of people or by a cooperative of the employees.

This would not be a government seizure per se, but probably governments at the various levels would be needed to oversee everything.

 

[manualman]

Speaking here for myself and not for distributism (as I do not know their stance on this), I would personally like to see large publically-owned companies broken up and sold.

Then write your Congressman and ask him why the Federal government is doing everything they can to consolidate the banking industry into “too big to fail” monstrosities and eliminating local banking. Ask what ever happened to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

 

[carn]

Just checking, you aren’t defining “Distrubutism” to include state seizure of assets and redistribution according to the political decisions of the state, are you?

Ok, i misunderstood what distributism is.

Distributism has NOTHING to do with overt seizures of wealth or assets. Instead, it consists of recognizing that local ownership of the means of production is better for the local community than remote, disinterested investors are and so it consists of creating a legal and tax environment friendlier to sole proprietorships and partnerships than it is to stockholding corporations. It seeks to place burdens on massive companies commensurate with the advantages such size imposes so as to level the playing field and create opportunity for the most people possible.

But this contradictory. Taxing is seizing of assets. So if some companies (e.g. the big) are taxed more than others, their assets are seized to a larger extent.

Furthermore distributionism seems not to be comparable to communism or capitalism. Both, at least in their extremes, are not defined by result, but by law, communism forbidding the private ownership of production means while capitalism forbids (nearly) any intrusion into private property unless other people rights make it unavoidable (e.g. restitution in case of accidents would provide justification to take some property of the one responsible to the victims).

Distributism only defines an end goal, that means of production should be owned locally, but does not define any laws.

Furthermore, that local ownership is preferable to human well being is an assumption, that maybe right or wrong. That in china hundreds of millions of people are no longer extremly poor is in part thanks to “evil”, “greedy” and “foreign” investors. If too much laws against ownership by foreigners would have been in effect, those investors might never have come along and poverty in china would be larger.

On the one hand, you might have to pay more for your Lipitor if Walmart’s tax burden was high enough to offset its buying power compared to Fred the corner pharmacist. But Fred’s going to need to buy insurance for his cars. If you’re an insurance agent, that’s MUCH better news for you than if 50,000 share holders somewhere far away get an extra penny in dividends that year! And Fred’s more likely to care if his cashier can’t afford a dentist for her toothache than the CEO of Wally’s is.

That are all assumptions about economic effects of certain policies.
Assuming they are wrong, you would on wrong assumptions so in lack of justification take away property of walmarts share holders and damage general welfare.
And even if they are right, why do you think the positive effects are large enough to justify taking away the property of walmart shareholders?
Does it meet the requirements that must be met to prevent this taking of property be a violation of “You shall not steal!”?

In my eyes a lot of political economic activities go along the lines “Hey, that might help the gommon good, i cannot be certain, but who cares, lets change laws so group X has to pay more taxes and if they do not want to, we put them in jail, its justified we have some blurry and not thought through idea, that it might benefit the common good - wait,better say, we know that its for the common good.”

 

[carn]

Thinking more about it, some form of distributism could be advocated by aiming at the formal regulation of property independent of size. What might not be wrong is to say, that if someone owns something he is responsible for it. And for that it must be possible to trace that responsiblity from “it” to a certain “him” in a way. It must be at least in theory possible to know the owner of something and understand in what way the owner might have abused his property.

In theory that is also true for large corporations. The CEOs are elected by the share holders and try to take care of their property.

But in reality it is much more blurred. At a shareholder assembly normally a set of CEOs is presented for the jobs with no alternatives. (That is not immiediately a problem.) Then due to custom some of that “potential” CEOs outline their plans for the company, which in theory should be part of the information the shareholders base their decision on, whether they want that person as CEO. But what happens is, that during the speech thousands of shares are changing owner. So part of people the would-be CEO adresses at start are no longer among those the information is aimed at. Instead people now in theory decide about the CEO position, who might not have had the idea to buy those company shares, when the would-be CEO started to describe his plans.

So the current system allows for ownership without the ability to control what happens to the property, which logically means ownership without any responsibility. Furthermore if only a part of the owners can actually enact control regarding their property, the property is in part uncontrolled. And it is somewhat opinion, that unclaimed property is no longer property of the former owner.

Now, i have so far no idea, what law changes this could imply, but it allows to influence large company setup without reverting to assumptions about what is more efficient. Instead it would be an argument from basic laws.

What in this light might make sense, would be to limitthe trade frequency and especially put and call trading regarding shares, as these things are not realy compatible with the ability of the owner to control his property, which is a prerequisite for the thing being property.

 

[chipeto]

But this contradictory. Taxing is seizing of assets. So if some companies (e.g. the big) are taxed more than others, their assets are seized to a larger extent.

This is one way to conceive of taxation. One could also think of it as a means of discouraging certain behaviors.

Furthermore distributionism seems not to be comparable to communism or capitalism. Both, at least in their extremes, are not defined by result, but by law, communism forbidding the private ownership of production means while capitalism forbids (nearly) any intrusion into private property unless other people rights make it unavoidable (e.g. restitution in case of accidents would provide justification to take some property of the one responsible to the victims).

This is too narrow a definition of capitalism, I think, for general use. I regard distributism as a form of capitalism.

Distributism only defines an end goal, that means of production should be owned locally, but does not define any laws.

I would caution against too narrow a definition of distributism. The Wikipedia page is a decent place to start.

Furthermore, that local ownership is preferable to human well being is an assumption, that maybe right or wrong. That in china hundreds of millions of people are no longer extremly poor is in part thanks to “evil”, “greedy” and “foreign” investors.

If this is true, it does not mean that this is the only way such a result could be brought about. I don’t believe that it is impossible for the Chinese, or any people for that matter, to prosper without foreign investment.

If too much laws against ownership by foreigners would have been in effect, those investors might never have come along and poverty in china would be larger.

Hypothesis contrary to fact.

Assuming they are wrong, you would on wrong assumptions so in lack of justification take away property of walmarts share holders and damage general welfare.
And even if they are right, why do you think the positive effects are large enough to justify taking away the property of walmart shareholders?
Does it meet the requirements that must be met to prevent this taking of property be a violation of “You shall not steal!”?

The Church does not hold that the right to private property is absolute. At any rate, I think you will find that most distributists do not advocate outright confiscation.

In my eyes a lot of political economic activities go along the lines “Hey, that might help the gommon good, i cannot be certain, but who cares, lets change laws so group X has to pay more taxes and if they do not want to, we put them in jail, its justified we have some blurry and not thought through idea, that it might benefit the common good - wait,better say, we know that its for the common good.”

What can we be certain of, under the sun? If we follow this way of thinking, we would not be able to implement any policy whatsoever; we would be paralyzed. Now, for a libertarian that might be ideal, but it is distributism we are discussing.

Certainly, if you believe that taxation and regulation are inherently wrong, then you will not be comfortable with distributism. I would recommend An Essay on the Restoration of Property for a balancing view.

 

[carn]

This is one way to conceive of taxation. One could also think of it as a means of discouraging certain behaviors.

But shouldn’t one, before one decides to discourage certain behavior by taxing it and enforcing this taxiation by threat of imprisonement, carefully think and check with reality whether there is ample reason to discourage that behavior?

This is too narrow a definition of capitalism, I think, for general use. I regard distributism as a form of capitalism.

I think only meaningful definitions are those regarding the laws that are set in place. Because in any other definition the proponents/opponents will always just describe in many words that the results is much better/much worse than the rest.

Take this definition of communism from wiki:
“Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.”
Useless definition, it doesn’t matter what communism aims for, it matters what laws communists will enforce, when they acquire power. (though the last part implies they might reduce private ownership of means of production, but that is left open as it is just listed as an aim.)
This definition of capitalism:
“Karl Marx described the economic system where people sell their labouring-power to a buyer, not to satisfy the personal needs of the buyer, but to augment the buyer’s capital.”
is also useless, it says only something about the motives of some economic actors, but absolutely nothing what a capitalist government might do or not do.

But this definition:
“Theorists such as Mises, Rand, and Rothbard define capitalism as a market system with no interference by states, or laissez faire.” is sensible, it gives a rough idea what a capitalistic government is likely to do (or more precisely what it won’t do).

I would caution against too narrow a definition of distributism. The Wikipedia page is a decent place to start.

Therefore i am a bit unhappy about the definition of distributionism.
E.g.:
" In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life."
Thats a goal description, not a definition that allows to understand what such a government would do.

If this is true, it does not mean that this is the only way such a result could be brought about. I don’t believe that it is impossible for the Chinese, or any people for that matter, to prosper without foreign investment.

Of course its not the only way. But remeber we discuss whether some things should be forbidden or discourage via taxiation enforced by threat of imprisonement. It does not make much sense to discourage behavior that has vastly positive side effects. No small company invested in 1980s and 90s in China.

Hypothesis contrary to fact.

The rise of china started with small enclaves where the government allowed foreign investments.

The Church does not hold that the right to private property is absolute. At any rate, I think you will find that most distributists do not advocate outright confiscation.

You will find very few, who hold the right to private property absolute. The only i know of is Rothbard (anarcho-capitalism) and he only holds that position because he assumes that any slight limitation of private property will open a slippery slope towards socialism and slavery.

What can we be certain of, under the sun? If we follow this way of thinking, we would not be able to implement any policy whatsoever; we would be paralyzed. Now, for a libertarian that might be ideal, but it is distributism we are discussing.

If you find a seriously injured person, have no car, but see one whose owner is absent and are capable of starting it without having the keys, are you allowed to take the car to bring the injured to the hospital?
Even few anarcho-capitalist would answer with no.
If youre car brakes down and you have some freezer food, which will spoil if you walk home, because walking home takes to long, are you then allowed to take a car with absent owner based on the thought, that very likely the loss due to the food spoiling is larger than the loss you might cause by taking the car?
No. And i guess i won’t find anybody disagreeing.

Thats all i would like to see, politicians before spending, regulating or outlawing anything contemplating seriously beforehand upon what exactly they try to achieve, what the damages might be, what the probability of sucess and failure might be and then decide whether its worth it or not. From my impression most skip this part. Its ok to take cars to save life. Its not ok to avoid spoiling of food unless its about survival.

Certainly, if you believe that taxation and regulation are inherently wrong, then you will not be comfortable with distributism. I would recommend An Essay on the Restoration of Property for a balancing view.

Not inherently wrong. Wrong is the attitude of many arguing about taxes as they shield their mind from what taxes realy are - they are not taking a car in absence of the owner, they are drawing a gun and aiming at the owner and demanding him to drive you somewhere. Whatever one thinks when this is moral to do, it should be employed with restrain.

 

[chipeto]

But shouldn’t one, before one decides to discourage certain behavior by taxing it and enforcing this taxiation by threat of imprisonement, carefully think and check with reality whether there is ample reason to discourage that behavior?

Why do you think that this hasn’t been done in regard to distributism? Some very, very insightful people have had rather a lot to say on the subject.

I think only meaningful definitions are those regarding the laws that are set in place. Because in any other definition the proponents/opponents will always just describe in many words that the results is much better/much worse than the rest.

I cannot imagine why you would think that the only meaningful definitions for terms are ‘those regarding the laws that are set in place’, but perhaps I simply do not understand you. Finding definitions for terms is not about proponents or opponents. Since we are both reasonable people searching for truth, we don’t have to think of each other in such antagonistic terms. We simply have to find a definition that encapsulates what is commonly meant by the term. Unless, of course, it is a stipulative definition that is wanted.

But this definition:
“Theorists such as Mises, Rand, and Rothbard define capitalism as a market system with no interference by states, or laissez faire.” is sensible, it gives a rough idea what a capitalistic government is likely to do (or more precisely what it won’t do).

That is indeed what they mean by the term capitalism but I do not agree that that is what most people mean by it.

Therefore i am a bit unhappy about the definition of distributionism.
E.g.:
" In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life."
Thats a goal description, not a definition that allows to understand what such a government would do.

I don’t know why you insist on having a definition of distributism from the vantage of government. Distributism is first and foremost, frankly, about things more important than government, which is why distributists can have different ideas on government and yet share the same distributist ideal. Some believe that substantial law and tax changes are unnecessary, that distributism can be achieved via hearts and minds, e.g. convincing people to support cottage industries and local businesses. Others follow Belloc in believing that it will positively necessary to invoke the powers of the state. Again, I would recommend his book An Essay on the Restoration of Property for an explanation. It is a quick read.

Of course its not the only way. But remeber we discuss whether some things should be forbidden or discourage via taxiation enforced by threat of imprisonement. It does not make much sense to discourage behavior that has vastly positive side effects. No small company invested in 1980s and 90s in China.
…
The rise of china started with small enclaves where the government allowed foreign investments.

A few points: I was pointing out the fallacy in your argument. The enactment of any law implies the threat of punishment. It can make sense to discourage such behavior if the cumulative effects are negative. Once again: surely you don’t contend that it is impossible for the people of China to prosper without this sort of investment? I happen to think far too highly of the Chinese to believe so.

You will find very few, who hold the right to private property absolute. The only i know of is Rothbard (anarcho-capitalism) and he only holds that position because he assumes that any slight limitation of private property will open a slippery slope towards socialism and slavery.

I’m glad that we agree on something.

Thats all i would like to see, politicians before spending, regulating or outlawing anything contemplating seriously beforehand upon what exactly they try to achieve, what the damages might be, what the probability of sucess and failure might be and then decide whether its worth it or not. From my impression most skip this part.

OK. But the people behind distributism and subsidiarity did think quite a lot about it.

Not inherently wrong. Wrong is the attitude of many arguing about taxes as they shield their mind from what taxes realy are - they are not taking a car in absence of the owner, they are drawing a gun and aiming at the owner and demanding him to drive you somewhere. Whatever one thinks when this is moral to do, it should be employed with restrain.

Sorry, but I can’t follow you here, I think this is simply sensational.

 

[tomarin]

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.

shortened by Tomarin

Ridgerunner, if the goal of distributism is economic decentralization, then the existence of big companies is not merely inimical to distributism but its antithesis. To the mind of the distributist, the existence of big business and big government are both equally grave existential threats to the autonomy of local communities, the first because it usurps their political autonomy, the second because it usurps their economic autonomy. Do you disagree or simply think that’s not how reality works?

 

[David_Castlen]

Can someone define Distributism? In five sentences or less, please And how does if differ from socialism?

 

[tomarin]

Can someone define Distributism? In five sentences or less, please And how does if differ from socialism?

From Wikipedia:

Distributism (also known as distributionism, distributivism) is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic social teaching articulated by the 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]

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 the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”[3]

Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of wealth). While socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers’ control), distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property.

 

[JRRTFAN]

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.

I’ll take this as a “tongue in cheek” response as it is sso profoundly adverse to Catholic economic teaching, but would refer everyone to the website for the Mondragon Corporation. They make, through affiliates, everything from pharmaceuticals to bicycles and it is all quite Distributist.

 

[carn]

Can someone define Distributism? In five sentences or less, please And how does if differ from socialism?

As a contrast i try to define capitalism and socialism both in less than 5 sentences:

capitalism:
Rule of law with basic human rights, wherein the right to own property is not limited by type of property and wherein any interference into property rights is like the interference into any other human right (e.g. life,liberty) is only possible according to laws and such laws are only valid if there is sufficient reason for the interference, which can only arise from the human rights.

socialism:
Rule of law with basic human rights, wherein the right to own property does not cover the owning of “means of production” (undefined and undefinable term, therefore parenthesises) and any ownership or even use of “means of production” by citizens is only valid if a law or permission exists allowing the citizen to own or use the “means of production”.

From these definitions one can already see, why capitalism is more moral than socialism, because it tries to limit interference in basic human rights to the necessary minimum (assuming the formulated human rights and their interpretation is in accordance with morals). While limiting interference in human rights might go too far and thereby produce harmful consequences (e.g. “evil” multinational corporations), its morally still not that despicable, because it would be similar to using not enough force vs an attacker - using only as much force as necessary to stop an attacker is moral and misjudging the amount and using too litte, while being an error, is not automatically morally wrong.

For socialism the choices are also visible, as the products of “means of production” are normally the property of the owner of the “means of production”, any citizen producing something without state permission in socialism is suspect of being a criminal, because if he produced something, he probably used some “means of production”, which were state property and not his. Therefore the citizens will either not produce much or keep silent about what they produce outside the state allowed terms. Thereby production will plummet. Alternatively (and all socialistic states took that root, none sticked with pure socialism) the state will allow some very limited and specific owner ship of “means of production”.
In both cases the state must control his citizens carefully, because any abuse of “means of production” is theft vs the state. Therefore every socialistic state must have an effective and large sized “police” force.
Furthermore as the human body and brain can be productive (e.g. a human brain+body fed with information about medicine can produce “healthy patients” with ingoing material “ill patients” to some extent.), the socialistic state might also be inclined to limit the freedom to leave the country, as deriving the state of the output one can produce would also be considered to be illegal.

Thats the nice thing about definitions regarding the legal basics or setup, you can already conclude a lot without any practical tests.

And no, its not hindsight. In 1891 a german liberal politician published a booklet called “Letters from a socialistic future” with fictive diary entries of a socialist describing the rise of socialism in then germany. In one he describes his happiness about the government finally deciding to gather forces at the swiss border and on the maritime borders (in the fiction switzerland and GB were not socialistic) to stop all those criminals, who had a good education but now want to leave without permission. I think he even uses the word “Republikflüchtlinge”, 70 years before the socialistic government of east germany build a wall and installed automatic firing weapons to stop and kill real “Republikflüchtlinge”. With many other things he is also not too far of, although no socialistic state existed in that time. He just concluded it by looking at socialistic principles.

Therefore looking at the actual legal “mindset” or principles is important.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

From Wikipedia:

Distributism (also known as distributionism, distributivism) is …

OK, so using that definition of Distributism, in order to answer the original question that you posed (Is Distributism utopian?) we only need a definition of utopian. And relying again on Wikipedia we find:

*an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system
*

Well, one may wonder if such a concept as utopian could apply to any ___-ism. Take for example capitalism. One can envision a capitalistic utopia where the principles of capitalism are perfectly realized, and people prosper. Or one can envision an imperfect capitalism where only some of the principles of capitalism are properly applied, or are applied imperfectly. I used capitalism as an example, but it is clear that any __-ism could also be seen in both utopian and non-utopian terms. So I would say that the __-ism under consideration is in itself neither utopian or non-utopian. It is the various implementations of the __-ism that are utopian or non-utopian.

So in particular, distributism would be utopian if it is implemented in a way that achieves perfect compliance with all the principles of distributism. I guess that means the means of production are distributed as widely as possible. On the other hand you could just as well have non-utopian distributism where the means of production are distributed fairly widely (let’s say down to the level of a small town) but not so widely that each individual person owns a tiny factory. Therefore the direct answer to the topic question would be “it depends on the implementation”.

Then there is the secondary question “should distributism be rejected”? In other words, “is distributism good”? Here again it depends on the implementation. One can envision an implementation of distributism where the principles take priority over all other competing goods, including religion. One might argue that the Church is an over-centralized means of producing salvation, and that local autonomous little churches would be more in line with ideal distributism. That should clearly be rejected. On the other hand, one can also envision an implementation of distributism where the principles are followed, but only so far as they can go while taking into account the other values that we as a society or as individuals might have. This might mean, for instance, favoring local banks instead of nationwide chains like Bank of America. (But not favoring the local banks so much as to make nationwide chains impossible)

So it looks like the answer to the second question is also “it depends”. The two questions seem to be linked because utopian implementations of distributism probably should be rejected, but non-utopian implementations may be just fine and desireable.

 

[St_Francis]

OK, so using that definition of Distributism, in order to a
nswer the original question that you posed (Is Distributism utopian?) we only need a definition of utopian. *And relying again on Wikipedia we find:

**an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system
*

Why use Wikipedia for a definition? There the entries can be continually modified by people with an agenda. I find the dictionary definitions to be more likely to be accurate.

utopia: An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. The word was first used in the book Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More.

utopian: Modeled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic.

idealism: The act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal form

The Wikipedia definition glosses over the imaginary or envisioned aspect which is the downfall of utopian thinking.

Well, one may wonder if such a concept as utopian could apply to any ___-ism. *Take for example capitalism. *One can envision a capitalistic utopia where the principles of capitalism are perfectly realized, and people prosper. *Or one can envision an imperfect capitalism where only some of the principles of capitalism are properly applied, or are applied imperfectly. *I used capitalism as an example, but it is clear that any __-ism could also be seen in both utopian and non-utopian terms. *So I would say that the __-ism under consideration is in itself neither utopian or non-utopian. *It is the various implementations of the __-ism that are utopian or non-utopian.

I would say that some proposed systems take into account human nature as it really is and some do not. Any system may be imperfectly implemented, but not every system has an idealized, ie, imaginary, goal.

So in particular, distributism would be utopian if it is implemented in a way that achieves perfect compliance with all the principles of distributism. *I guess that means the means of production are distributed as widely as possible. *On the other hand you could just as well have non-utopian distributism where the means of production are distributed fairly widely (let’s say down to the level of a small town) but not so widely that each individual person owns a tiny factory. *Therefore the direct answer to the topic question would be “it depends on the implementation”.

Since the goal of distributism is in accord with human nature, it is not utopian in its goals.

Then there is the secondary question “should distributism be rejected”? In other words, “is distributism good”? * Here again it depends on the implementation. *One can envision an implementation of distributism where the principles take priority over all other competing goods, including religion. *One might argue that the Church is an over-centralized means of producing salvation, and that local autonomous little churches would be more in line with ideal distributism. *That should clearly be rejected. On the other hand, one can also envision an implementation of distributism where the principles are followed, but only so far as they can go while taking into account the other values that we as a society or as individuals might have.

The goal of distributism is to take into account these other values.

This might mean, for instance, favoring local banks instead of nationwide chains like Bank of America. *(But not favoring the local banks so much as to make nationwide chains impossible)

What is the need for a nation-wide bank? The convenience could easily be handled by a coalition of local banks.

 

[tomarin]

OK, so using that definition of Distributism, in order to answer the original question that you posed (Is Distributism utopian?) we only need a definition of utopian. And relying again on Wikipedia we find:

*an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system
*

Well, one may wonder if such a concept as utopian could apply to any ___-ism. Take for example capitalism. One can envision a capitalistic utopia where the principles of capitalism are perfectly realized, and people prosper. Or one can envision an imperfect capitalism where only some of the principles of capitalism are properly applied, or are applied imperfectly. I used capitalism as an example, but it is clear that any __-ism could also be seen in both utopian and non-utopian terms. So I would say that the __-ism under consideration is in itself neither utopian or non-utopian. It is the various implementations of the __-ism that are utopian or non-utopian.

shortened by Tomarin

Perhaps I should give some context as to why I asked the question in the first place. It’s because I’m interested in distributism, but I want to be a consistent thinker, and since I do reject, to name one -ism, libertarianism because it is utopian and therefore incompatible, I believe, with true conservatism and more importantly Christianity – then if distributism is equally utopian as libertarianism is, that is to say, if it is founded upon an idealistic view of human nature, then there are many reasons not least of which being consistency for rejecting it.

Thank you for taking the question seriously and applying some thought to the matter.