Is Distributism utopian?

[frankpearson]

I only became introduced the term Distributism recently. I understand it as a sydtem of capitalism in the true sense. ie that of the local greengrocer or small business being able to compete fairly as opposed to the monopoly capitalism which is so oftewn mistaken for the Free Market. I’m sure that many people who claim to be critics of capitalism are really critics of the latter rather than the former.

Many who support distributism, such as John Medaille agree with you. I linked his talk at google to his name. Distributism is really just capitalism done right.

In the physical world, man organized societies in a structured manner in order to ensure justice. Intrinsic in justice is freedom.

Just as in the physical world, in the economic order man needs to set up relations within a framework that protects contracts, protects children, and the basis of a free economy, the right to property of even the less fortunate in society. This, like in man’s physical environment, protects freedom, in this case economic freedom.

The distributist believes the best way to ensure a free market is to check government’s collusion with the owners of land and capital and, in addition, to disallow usurious and exploitative practice that develop naturally in economies.

Hope you join the cause, become vocal, make videos, blog and debate! We need more committed people.

 

[frankpearson]

I wish somebody would come up with another name for Distributism rather than Distributism. The modern mind is not capable of analytical thought or research and the sound bite word “Distributism” gets the pro-Enron crowd excited beyond measure, creating the idea that the local plumber had to steal something from somebody else in order to be self employed. Sad but true. There lies the measure of the exchange of ideas, a Panera Bread conversation by people who have no background. Oh well.

I agree entirely. The hardest part is that you can have long debates with people who seem like they really are interested in their economics (generally Laissez Faire), and they just don’t get it. page after page of debate and all they see is this all-encompassing government, and all the standard arguments against communism come out.

 

[frankpearson]

This concept of “distributism” is against God’s design of individualism for human beings. This is a basic denial of God’s action in the world. When government controls the means of production God is given a back seat. God wants to bless us and has given each person talents and abilities. The answer is for governemnt to protect the rights of citizens to pursue opportunity and have equal opportunities. For example, if government builds a beautiful marketplace with nice buildings and pretty streets, but doesn’t let anyone in to trade, how much business do you think will happen? People need to be really free. Communism, Marxism, Socialism are forms of deceit that have tricked people throughout times of recent history. The answer is for Christians to promote and support individualism so that people can pursue God’s direction for their individual lives. If we let government control then we have tyranny of man. Government should protect freedoms and that should be government’s job.

You need to step back and realize this is tantamount to saying that it is against God’s will to come together to form a city or a state for mutual protection. That it somehow opposes the natural way the jungle works.

God gave us hearts for compassion and minds to reason. Freedom is only possible when the human person is sovereign. Man is sovereign when he has access to property.

God bless.

 

[David_Castlen]

This concept of “distributism” is against God’s design of individualism for human beings. This is a basic denial of God’s action in the world. When government controls the means of production God is given a back seat.

**Well, from what I have been able to descipher Distributism is an idea that desires that the means of production be “distributed” so that “not” big organizations provide goods and services. The problem is three-fold:

1. they do not address how to establish this system. I (myselft) can not see how it can be done without interference from society; i.e., government. This is stealing a man’s freedom. Now when government steals from businesses’ that is wrong and to rehash it out again and again as we have done here is not fruitful.
2. They do not see the value in allowing a provider to get large: prices of goods decline, availability of goods and services increases, jobs rise, cost of living goes down.
3. They fail to understand that some products can not be distributed or manufactured by the few because the cost of resources and man power are overwhelmingly prohibitive for a lot of small individuals providing a particular good. For example, the space industry, steele production, and mining. There can be a lot of these but not one in every neighborhood.
   So you are making a mistake calling distributism against God’s design; - what it is, is a incorhernt, touchy feely “I am not progressive”, confusing program, that gets a lot of attention from us Catholics.******

God wants to bless us and has given each person talents and abilities. The answer is for governemnt to protect the rights of citizens to pursue opportunity and have equal opportunities. For example, if government builds a beautiful marketplace with nice buildings and pretty streets, but doesn’t let anyone in to trade, how much business do you think will happen? People need to be really free. Communism, Marxism, Socialism are forms of deceit that have tricked people throughout times of recent history. The answer is for Christians to promote and support individualism so that people can pursue God’s direction for their individual lives. If we let government control then we have tyranny of man. Government should protect freedoms and that should be government’s job.

 

[Cho]

I wish somebody would come up with another name for Distributism rather than Distributism. The modern mind is not capable of analytical thought or research and the sound bite word “Distributism” gets the pro-Enron crowd excited beyond measure, creating the idea that the local plumber had to steal something from somebody else in order to be self employed. Sad but true. There lies the measure of the exchange of ideas, a Panera Bread conversation by people who have no background. Oh well.

You mean kind of like the way some on this board “gasp” in horror at the word “anarchy”?? LOL!

 

[je333]

1. They fail to understand that some products can not be distributed or manufactured by the few because the cost of resources and man power are overwhelmingly prohibitive for a lot of small individuals providing a particular good. For example, the space industry, steele production, and mining. There can be a lot of these but not one in every neighborhood.
   So you are making a mistake calling distributism against God’s design; - what it is, is a incorhernt, touchy feely “I am not progressive”, confusing program, that gets a lot of attention from us Catholics.

 

[uni_embrace]

Many who support distributism, such as John Medaille agree with you. I linked his talk at google to his name. Distributism is really just capitalism done right.

In the physical world, man organized societies in a structured manner in order to ensure justice. Intrinsic in justice is freedom.

Just as in the physical world, in the economic order man needs to set up relations within a framework that protects contracts, protects children, and the basis of a free economy, the right to property of even the less fortunate in society. This, like in man’s physical environment, protects freedom, in this case economic freedom.

The distributist believes the best way to ensure a free market is to check government’s collusion with the owners of land and capital and, in addition, to disallow usurious and exploitative practice that develop naturally in economies.

Hope you join the cause, become vocal, make videos, blog and debate! We need more committed people.

Great post and thanks for the link.

 

[frankpearson]

** And you will provide the rules, yes? and what kind of limits? where have you EVER seen a free economy that was 'locked-up" and a free market that created a "dictatorial government??? Please provide the data? This would help me buy into your program; albeit, everytime I read its definition it becomes vaguer and vaguer to me. It doesn’t seem to be a system but a desire. never the less, what free mar?ket every created a “locked-up” economy? and a dictatorial government? data, data**

Germany - you really need data?

 

[David_Castlen]

Germany - you really need data?

My goodness, if you are referring to the Germany of Hitler, the free-market was not the seed for Nazism. Read Von Mises “Socialism”. Germany was playing with Socialism long before Hitler came on the seen. Any other examples?

yes please more examples

 

[David_Castlen]

 

[frankpearson]

My goodness, if you are referring to the Germany of Hitler, the free-market was not the seed for Nazism. Read Von Mises “Socialism”. Germany was playing with Socialism long before Hitler came on the seen. Any other examples?

yes please more examples

That’s exactly it. You obviously need some level of socialism in the state in order to have it devolve into a dictatorship. The problem is that capitalism does just that, it breeds the socialist state which then turns into the servile state, according to Belloc. German capitalsim in the 19th century led to the outrage of the populace, who in turn steered the state more and more into power. This tendency devolved into dictatorship. The answer is not to go back to Laissez Faire concentrated capital, that’s part of the disease.

Belloc’s Servile State

So to the distributist, it’s restrict the size of the state and concentrated capital. Safeguarding freedom requires the restriction of land and capital ownership under both the state and state-sized private interest.

 

[je333]

 

[je333]

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.

Your statement rocks!!!

 

[David_Castlen]

That’s exactly it. You obviously need some level of socialism in the state in order to have it devolve into a dictatorship.

The problem is that capitalism does just that,

**God bless you frankenperson, no no no no… you obviously need some level of immorality in the state in order to have it devolve into dictatorship… How in the world can a free market “devolve” into capitalism? That is like saying black will devolve into white. Socialism is the product of a successful campaign by (take your pick) an individual (Hitler) a big group (DNC) or a small group (UAW). Their effot slowly takes away capitalism giving the appearance that capitallism has some part in socialism’s formation. No way! Your failure in undertanding the birth of socialism is due to your view of a strong capitalist society that became socialist. From that you think, well it was A it became B, so A will cause B. Poor logic. **
**No no no no **

it breeds the socialist state

How can a dog breed and create a chicken? There might be a change in plans by farmer Jones and when he brings more chickens in, the neighbor city slicker sees the rise in chicken population and concludes to he wife, “See, Hilda, dogs breeding lead to chickens”.

which then turns into the servile state, according to Belloc.

German capitalsim in the 19th century led to the outrage of the populace, who in turn steered the state more and more into power.

No, german capitisim was not capitalism but nothing but interference in the market… which is no capitalism at all.

This tendency devolved into dictatorship.

The tendency to devolve into dictatorship is due to 1. an immoral society 2. powerful immoral people who are able to make people envious. Capitalism is the solution, - it is the best way to distibute goods and services and to create an enviroment to invent better ways of life. No society will last with a majority of people who are immoral: Democracy, Republic, Republic- Deomocracy, Philospher-King etc. Your mistake is that you are chasing after the familty dog when it was the fox in the forest that ate the chickens.

The answer is not to go back to Laissez Faire concentrated capital,

The answer is 1. Get back to Christ be a virtuous nation 2. Trust God; "Fear the Lord your God and lean not on your own Socialist program be it Distributist or Nazism.

that’s part of the disease.

Belloc’s Servile State

So to the distributist, it’s restrict the size of the state

**Who will have that job of determining how and who is to have just so much - what gods are out there that can know more than the market who is to produce and what is to produce and where it is to be produced and when a new product should be introduced. Is it OK if I invent a water running engine and get VCs together and produce all the water engines and you pay 2 cent per mile and the cost of a car goes to $4,000, or must I give up my business size and only be allowed to make 1/3 of them? And who decides the percentage? **

and concentrated capital.

It is a must in an effective economy for certain products/commodities that capital MUST be concentrated. Do you think that there should be a Copper miner on every corner, or an auto maker in every neighborhood. And if so, who decides who can make cars … I have read all except one recommendations regarding Distributism from this blog, and I still find no answer to these quesions. It appears to me that the bonnum, the goal of Distributism, is to keep production in the hands of many; but they never say how or give an adequate answer why production should be in the hands of a “many”.

Safeguarding freedom requires the restriction of land

One requirment of taking freedom is restricting one’s use of his land then next comes taking it.

and capital ownership
So, who will decide what and how much capital I can own? It was done often at the turn of the century and it created a higher cost to the consumer and lower employment. One book with the data: Thomas Woods’ Catholism and the Free Market

under both the state and state-sized private interest.

This sounds so Nationalistic. The good old state will take care of us, next thing you know they will be teaching our children how to contracept in order to make sure the distribution of children is at correct levels. And I wouldn’t be surprised if some Catholics buy into it. Mother church is who we should go to, let the state be the state.

 

[David_Castlen]

:X 6

 

[je333]

:X 6

:hug3::hug3::hug3:

 

[Abu]

David Castlen has made valid points.

Catholic Social Teaching condemns Communism, Socialism and the Welfare State.

“Capitalism” is a derogatory term coined by Karl Marx, and that’s perhaps why Bl John Paul II dislikes it, as he makes clear as he affirms free enterprise in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

Free enterprise is affirmed also here: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

 

[frankpearson]

So, who will decide what and how much capital I can own?

This is just futile. You obviously haven’t been listening. Did you notice I referenced a book?

You don’t get that the distributist believes in a free market, a true “capitalism,” as you understand the term. The distributist simply removes the distinction between grossly concentrated land and capital in the state and grossly concentrated land and capital under private interest. It works toward a free market, free from all who would work to monopolize the market. There is no one who decides who gets how much property and there is no great bureaucracy.

The rule that a distributist works for is that the person who labors at land and capital own that land and capital.

This ripping apart comments so you can rant on each peace and usually take each piece out of context hardly contributes to an honest and intellectual debate.

I have a feeling I have not been understood and I will get the same socialist verses Laissez Faire drivel all over again…

 

[Abu]

Frankpearson #339
The distributist believes the best way to ensure a free market is to check government’s collusion with the owners of land and capital and, in addition, to disallow usurious and exploitative practice that develop naturally in economies.

The fundamental economic laws which enable great productivity increases and wealth creation, were discovered by the Catholic Late Scholastics and endorsed by the Catholic Church, and economics involves the activities of fallen individuals who need the moral teaching of Christ’s Church. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value. For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them “as the first real economists.” (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).The free enterprise economy consists of voluntary property exchanges.

As Fr James V Schall, S.J., in Does Catholicism Still Exist?, Alba House 1994, p 184-185, explains:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

It is people, not free enterprise, that engage in immoral practices. That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to prevent monopolies. That’s why we have the Catholic Church to guide us – She who invented charity in the West.

#356
The rule that a distributist works for is that the person who labors at land and capital own that land and capital.

“Those who care to support locally based and smaller-scale agriculture have already been doing so for two decades now by means of community-supported agriculture, which is booming. On a purely voluntary basis, people who wish to support local agriculture pay several hundred dollars at the beginning of the year to provide the farmer with the capital he needs; they then receive locally grown produce for the rest of the year. The organizers of this movement, rather than wasting their time and ours complaining about the need for state intervention, actually did something: they put together a voluntary program that has enjoyed considerable success across the country. Perhaps, if distributists feel as strongly about their position as they claim, this example can provide a model of how their time might be better spent.”
*What’s Wrong with “Distributism” *
Mises Daily: Sunday, October 06, 2002 by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
mises.org/daily/1062

Free enterprise has enabled untold millions to rise above the poverty level and enjoy a far higher standard of living.

 

[David_Castlen]

This is just futile. You obviously haven’t been listening. Did you notice I referenced a book?

You don’t get that the distributist believes in a free market, a true “capitalism,” as you understand the term. The distributist simply removes the distinction between grossly concentrated land and capital in the state and grossly concentrated land and capital under private interest. It works toward a free market, free from all who would work to monopolize the market.

What is wrong with a monopoly; particularly, if it provides a lower cost, greater distribution of a product? and entry into the market is not blocked?
What if it was only possible for one company to make a drug that cures a deadly sickness, would a Distributist tell them to break up and let others do it; albeit,
“others” don’t have sufficient capital and currently only one company can do it? It seems to me, Distributism is against anyting big.

There is no one who decides who gets how much property and there is no great bureaucracy.

But you propose keeping the size of production in a large population; not allowing a concentration of production. How can that be accomplished without someone “deciding” who get how much… Will you allow me to produce ALL the milk in the country if I can sell it for 1 cent per gallon? The doors will remain open for anyone else who wants in to sell milk. Or do you prefer to keep it at $4.00 a gallon but the means of production remains in many hands?

The rule that a distributist works for is that the person who labors at land and capital own that land and capital.
** Are you sure you want to stand by that statement?! Surely, you are not saying that if I work for Jones, I own some of Jones’ property; do you?.. smells like big time communisim to me.**

This ripping [Bapart comments so you can rant on each peace and usually take each piece out of context hardly contributes to an honest and intellectual debate.

**I have taken nothing out of context… I have left all your comments within the discussion

I have a feeling I have not been understood

Well, answer: who is going to make the decisions regarding who can own so much ?? This is huge!

and I will get the same socialist verses Laissez Faire drivel all over again…

Well, Laissez Faire implies that there is no contract law, that if one lies to another there is no way to ameliorate the issue. Is that what you understand? LF can or can not be a part of a Free Market. When you have a Distributist, Socialist, Communist, etc. system there is only one method to address issues like this: agency control. Want a good job. Get in one of these agencies (eg EPA) big money, no way you will loose your job, just pester some people from time to time and all is well. And in the process you may be lucky enough to bring down one of these immoral low life people who have their own business and was lucky enough to make it big. Ok, so a few jobs were loss but he got his come-up ens.