Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[nmgauss]

What is distributism?

Distributism calls for each individual producer owning or controlling his own means of production. The idea here is that if a producer is working for himself instead of somebody else, he will do a better job. To enable producers to be more efficient, they could combine into partnerships where co-owners could manage a factory, for example. Hiring workers would be opposite to what was proposed here because workers would not be working for themselves.

We already have this in small owner-operated farms where the work is done by the owner and his family. Under Mao Tze-tung China had many so-called cottage industries in which people produced things in their back yards.

In days past, it was common to see small stores (bodegas), and craftsmen in individual shops making such things as shoes, clothing, cookware, furniture, etc. Today, bodegas are still around, especially in the poorer neighborhoods, but individual owner-operated shops have just about disappeared.

How does one run a railroad or a shipping enterprise with only the owner doing the work?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Here’s what the Church basically thinks about the sharing of resources throughout the world:

CAFOD and Catholic Social Teaching (CST)

CST is founded in scripture and includes statements and letters written by popes and bishops. It shows how Catholic faith can guide our responses to modern day issues.

Our world so often seems ruled by greed and corruption. But CST undermines self-interest. Gaudium et Spes #69 states that “God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples…goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.” In even more strident terms, it reminds us to “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him”. We have a clear duty actively to share resources and strive for justice for our brothers and sisters. Neutrality is not enough.

Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio quotes St Ambrose: “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his…The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.”

This vision is key to CST and to our work. Since we believe each person is made in the image and likeness of God and has inherent dignity, we work with those living in poverty to have access to food, water, housing and other basic amenities which many of us can often take for granted.

cafod.org.uk/About-Us/CAFOD-Catholicism

Whenever I speak of socialism, this is what I mean. My using the word socialism was probably errant.

 

[minkymurph]

Please don’t go away…

My attempts at Irish humor fails sometimes. I am Hungarian. My wife is Irish. After 48 years. when she is serious I think she is joking. When joking I take her seriously…

It’s not your sense of humour. I was worried about being the subject of an issue.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What is distributism?

This is a difficult question to answer because its seminal document didn’t call it that, and the secular and Church versions have diverged over time.

In Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Rerum Novarum” he greatly encouraged the idea of wide ownership of productive, inheritable assets. In his day, that pretty much meant farm land. He supported that because, he taught, it was conducive to the freedom of individuals and families to adopt the moralities of religion as opposed to the ideologies of consumerism or government. Later writers like Chesterton, Belloc and Lewis expanded that to include small shops and manufactories. The views of the secular writers later took on a sort of collectivist overlay that was very much a departure from the teachings of Pope Leo XIII.

Later Popes wrote about the same thing, but noted the change in economies from the widespread small farm model, and said it would need to take on different forms today. But never did they ever really call it “distributism”. Nor did they embrace the collectivst or cooperative model that the successors of Chesterton, Belloc and Lewis embraced.

So, there are a lot of versions of what “Distributism” is, most of them at odds with the original encyclical that can be said to have given birth to it.

So, if we want to think of it in terms of the Social Encyclicals, we need to think about the main principles and see how they can have application in our own lives.

First, rejection of consumerism inasmuch as it’s possible to do it. Excessive consumerism tightens the grip employers, particularly large ones, have on us. It causes us to be cogs in a wheel of work and consumption that we can’t easily escape.

Second, and coupled with the first, investment of family resources in productive assets. This will vary tremendously from person to person. For one it might indeed be land. For another it might be renovating houses on the side. For another it might be a 401K. But always there are the characteristics of ownership, productivity and inheritability. A quite smallish example I can cite is a young woman i know who works at a regular job, but has saved her money to buy a tractor, a tedder and a baler. She does custom work for farmers with her own equipment on weekends and long summer evenings. Those modest assets are productive, she owns them, and they’re inheritable. The more she does what she does, the more she will acquire and the more independent she will become.

Nowadays, except in a few commune-like communities, that’s what it is. It’s more conceptual and personal than it is an external system.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes, job satisfaction, feeling valued, and benefits are important considerations. But I want you to see the other side.

Can you see the other side? I have already said that even Lenin realized the need for capitalism for the sake of the economy.

A business is not created to give people jobs. It is not started to make employees feel valued. It is started to make a profit. The “rich industrialists” are few and far between. I know of many small business where, after expenses and payroll, the owner’s share of the profits are less than the employee.

It may sound hard, but an employer cannot be concerned with “basic human needs” or social problems". His concern is PROFIT…so he can pay his employees a fair wage so THEY can settle their basic needs and social problems…on their own.

Now we are getting down to it. The OP asked which was more humanitarian - capitalism or socialism? So what is the answer? Is the answer capitalism or socialism?

The answer is socialism - you yourself have said that here because you have said capitalism is not about creating jobs or making people valued. It is about profit.

I don’t know if you have heard of or considered Rawl’s ‘veil of ignorance.’ I’m not a great fan of it but what I would say is from behind the veil of ignorance, no one would pick what you describe as ‘real’ capitalism. The reason they would not pick it is because your theory only benefits those with property/business rights. It doesn’t benefit anyone else. If it doesn’t benefit all of society it cannot be described as more humanitarian than socialism. You are free to argue that, but your argument will not stand up under scrutiny because it is not true.

Explain to me how ‘real capitalism’ is more humanitarian with examples of a ‘real’ capitalist society and the application in contemporary society. If one does not exist then you have no evidence. If you can’t relate it to contemporary society, it is impracticable.

Do you see the weaknesses of ‘real’ capitalism?’ If so, what are they?

In all the debate these are the issues. We can argue that capitalism is more efficient than central planning and produces a stronger economy. On that point there is no contest - it is. But - here you say a business is not created to give people jobs. It is not started to make employees feel valued. It is started to make a profit. In which case this supports my argument capitalism makes no room for a welfare (humanitarian) principle. You can argue it does not need it. I argue it does. Why? Because it is people who create profit. If you use people to create profit, then I argue one must have a welfare principle, yet you say one is not needed. The only thing that is needed is for governments not to interfere. I can’t say I blame you if you are the one making the profit but, are you going to tell me the government would never need to interfere in a business for humanitarian reasons? Argue that if you like but I’m ready for you.

I know this may sound aggressive, but we have now established were each other stands, so it is now time for critical analysis, and I want to win the argument. The question was which is more humanitarian, socialism or capitalism? I say socialism because you have said capitalism is not about people or welfare but profit.

 

[Brigid34]

Thank you nmgauss and ridgerunner, for the descriptions of distributism. That gives me a better idea of what you’re talking about. How is distributism then different than capitalism other than there are no large companies? Or is that the difference?

 

[freeRadical]

Here’s what the Church basically thinks about the sharing of resources throughout the world:

CAFOD and Catholic Social Teaching (CST)

CST is founded in scripture and includes statements and letters written by popes and bishops. It shows how Catholic faith can guide our responses to modern day issues.

Our world so often seems ruled by greed and corruption. But CST undermines self-interest. Gaudium et Spes #69 states that “God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples…goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.” In even more strident terms, it reminds us to “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him”. We have a clear duty actively to share resources and strive for justice for our brothers and sisters. Neutrality is not enough.

Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio quotes St Ambrose: “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his…The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.”

This vision is key to CST and to our work. Since we believe each person is made in the image and likeness of God and has inherent dignity, we work with those living in poverty to have access to food, water, housing and other basic amenities which many of us can often take for granted.

cafod.org.uk/About-Us/CAFOD-Catholicism

Whenever I speak of socialism, this is what I mean. My using the word socialism was probably errant.

Well, that’s not Socialism.

 

[nmgauss]

Minkymurph:
Capitalism encourages the accumulation of wealth to invest in the means of production so that the poor will have more jobs to create more wealth for the wealthy so that they can employ more people. On the other hand, socialism encourages transfer payments from the wealthy to the poor (i.e. confiscation) even before it can be invested in the means of production. Thus the poor receive more money than their productivity warrants. How does this help to invest in the means of production so that more jobs can be created.

Transfer payments are confiscatory and discourage economic growth. Capitalism encourages economic growth through the incentive of profit which can then be plowed back into further enhancing the means of production.

 

[nmgauss]

Gaudium et Spes #69 states that “God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples…goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.”

Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio quotes St Ambrose: “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his…The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.”

This vision is key to CST and to our work. Since we believe each person is made in the image and likeness of God and has inherent dignity, we work with those living in poverty to have access to food, water, housing and other basic amenities which many of us can often take for granted.

If God really intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples…goods should be in abundance for all in like manner, why didn’t he create an earth that was paradise for all humans? Some humans live in deserts and others live in arctic regions. I would hardly call these places of abundance. The Amazon rainforest is sparsely populated and has little natural abundance to provide food for humans. If the forests are cut down for farms, the soil quickly loses its fertility. The same holds true for the humid portions of Africa. There is an economy called “Slash and burn” where the natives clear an area, farm it for two or three years when the soil becomes exhausted, and then move on to another forested plot and do it all over again.

Before the sod was plowed in the Ukraine and in the U.S. prairie & great plains, these were semi-deserts. There were few fruit trees, and few naturally occurring food plants. Native animals had to be hunted for humans to survive. There was no abundance. Now these places have become breadbaskets. This did not happen because of God, but because a human invented the bow-and-arrow, and the plow and domesticated a horse or mule to pull it.

California’s Central Valley had a low abundance because of the lack of rainfall. Now after irrigation from the adjacent mountains, it has become the most productive area in the nation. Where is all this abundance that God was supposed to have provided? It depended on humans to invent ways to get mountain water to the fields. God did not provide this. Humans with profit motive did this with their own ingenuity.

Why is 75% of the earth covered with water? Humans cannot live there. Most of this vast amount of water does not have much to offer in the way of food. Instead, ocean going vessels which were invented by humans, not God, have to go out and gather whatever food they can catch.

Earth was not created for humans. Humans found a way to thrive on this planet in spite of many of its shortcomings.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thank you nmgauss and ridgerunner, for the descriptions of distributism. That gives me a better idea of what you’re talking about. How is distributism then different than capitalism other than there are no large companies? Or is that the difference?

Since Distributism is so variously defined, it’s difficult to answer this. However, and based on my understanding of the Social Encyclicals, particularly Rerum Novarum which was the base document for the concept of it as an “ism”, I’ll say the following.

Distributism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Distributism without Capitalism cannot exist, because all acquisition of productive, inheritable assets requires capital. Nor does Distributism preclude large companies. As I understand it (as expressed, but not so named in the Social Encyclicals) the two can coexist. But one’s own individual or family “company” becomes less dependent on big companies or government over time.

So, for example, one might be acting in a perfectly Distributist way in today’s world by working for a big company as a source of one’s capital, but not spending it all on consumer spending (which large corporations mightily encourage), and investing it in whatever productive asset best fits one’s own capabilities. As one does that, one becomes more independent over time, almost no matter how he does it.

Therefore, even investing heavily in one’s 401K or a profit sharing plan is “Distributist”. That’s all on the “micro” level. On the “macro” level, any society can be Distributist if the economy provides a reasonably decent means of individuals and families acquiring productive assets. Both are necessary. Both can be present in our economy if the individual has the proper mindset for it.

“Redistribution” isn’t it. It does nobody any good if, say, in Pope Leo XIII’s day the world was re-divided into individual farms, but then everybody sold up his farm, lived it up for awhile and then worked for wages and spent all of that as well.

 

[nmgauss]

So, for example, one might be acting in a perfectly Distributist way in today’s world by working for a big company as a source of one’s capital, but not spending it all on consumer spending (which large corporations mightily encourage), and investing it in whatever productive asset best fits one’s own capabilities. As one does that, one becomes more independent over time, almost no matter how he does it.

On the “macro” level, any society can be Distributist if the economy provides a reasonably decent means of individuals and families acquiring productive assets. Both are necessary. Both can be present in our economy if the individual has the proper mindset for it.

Does owning shares of a corporation qualify as distributism. How about buying insurance from a mutual insurance company? I own shares of several mutual funds. Does this qualify as distributism?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Well, that’s not Socialism.

Socialism is probably the best in achieving the CST goals!

 

[Robert_Sock]

If God really intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples…goods should be in abundance for all in like manner, why didn’t he create an earth that was paradise for all humans? Some humans live in deserts and others live in arctic regions. I would hardly call these places of abundance. The Amazon rainforest is sparsely populated and has little natural abundance to provide food for humans. If the forests are cut down for farms, the soil quickly loses its fertility. The same holds true for the humid portions of Africa. There is an economy called “Slash and burn” where the natives clear an area, farm it for two or three years when the soil becomes exhausted, and then move on to another forested plot and do it all over again.

Before the sod was plowed in the Ukraine and in the U.S. prairie & great plains, these were semi-deserts. There were few fruit trees, and few naturally occurring food plants. Native animals had to be hunted for humans to survive. There was no abundance. Now these places have become breadbaskets. This did not happen because of God, but because a human invented the bow-and-arrow, and the plow and domesticated a horse or mule to pull it.

California’s Central Valley had a low abundance because of the lack of rainfall. Now after irrigation from the adjacent mountains, it has become the most productive area in the nation. Where is all this abundance that God was supposed to have provided? It depended on humans to invent ways to get mountain water to the fields. God did not provide this. Humans with profit motive did this with their own ingenuity.

Why is 75% of the earth covered with water? Humans cannot live there. Most of this vast amount of water does not have much to offer in the way of food. Instead, ocean going vessels which were invented by humans, not God, have to go out and gather whatever food they can catch.

Earth was not created for humans. Humans found a way to thrive on this planet in spite of many of its shortcomings.

Are you suggesting that the world is over populated and that there is not enough resources to go around? Are you supporting the view that starvation and poverty are necessary? (It’s greed, and not that there are not enough resources to go around.)

LOVE!

 

[freeRadical]

Socialism is probably the best in achieving the CST goals!

Well, the Church disagrees with you. I think they know better then you what is best at achieving CST goals.

 

[freeRadical]

Are you suggesting that the world is over populated and that there is not enough resources to go around? Are you supporting the view that starvation and poverty are necessary? (It’s greed, and not that there are not enough resources to go around.)

LOVE!

Where are the majority of people who are starving and in poverty live? Hint: it’s not in Western developed nations. Why are people in third world countries starving and living in poverty? Because they don’t have free markets, free enterprise, economic freedom, private property rights, and political freedom. Those bring people out of abject poverty. Not wealth redistribution, not welfare, not government handouts, not Socialism, and not Communism. The government cannot cure poverty. Only economic freedom can and the Church agrees with me on that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Does owning shares of a corporation qualify as distributism. How about buying insurance from a mutual insurance company? I own shares of several mutual funds. Does this qualify as distributism?

Again, I think we need to depart from what “Distributism” is variously defined as nowadays. There are too many versions to make real sense out of the term, let alone look at any particular application.

Because the original source of the concept (though not the term) was “Rerum Novarum”, and because every Pope since then has revisited the matter, what I can do is refer to the fact that Pope John Paul II said that Pope Leo XIII’s emphasis on farm land as the foundation for widespread individual and family ownership of productive, inheritable, assets had limited application in our own era. He said that it would need, now, to take other forms. He did not specify what other forms it might take.

But since corporate shares do (in the main) qualify as “productive, inheritable assets”, I would think they would qualify. Buying insurance from a mutual insurance company is “consumption”. Necessary consumption it might be, but it is consumption nonetheless. If corporate shares qualify, then necessarily so would mutual funds.

Such things have to take forms that fit individual lives. If I live in a rural area and know how to farm or ranch, and if I can raise sufficient capital to do it, then perhaps that’s the optimal thing for me, particularly if I don’t have the skill to distinguish one stock or fund from another. If I’m a particularly skittish person, perhaps savings accounts or government bonds are all I can really deal with. If I am particularly energetic and know my city well, perhaps buying “fixer-upper” homes and renovating them is the right thing for me.

But again, returning to the “macro” level, the Popes would support an economy in which people are actually able to do such things. Some people live “hand to mouth” because there is no alternative at this moment for them. Some live “hand to mouth” because they spend up everything they make on things they don’t really need.

It’s difficult (more so now than in Pope Leo XIII’s day) for people to see that. It’s also difficult for them to see how dependence on big business (combined with consumerism) or government, either one, frustrates independence of thought and maturing of mores, and tends to impose the habits of thought that suit the business or governmental purposes.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I strongly sense that people will naturally embrace a deeper brotherly LOVE if primed with empathy and love that can easily be planted from within the mass media. I also sense that deeper loving people will gravitate toward socialism. It’s just a matter of time before these things get implemented.

LOVE!

 

[JimG]

I strongly sense that people will naturally embrace a deeper brotherly LOVE if primed with empathy and love that can easily be planted from within the mass media. I also sense that deeper loving people will gravitate toward socialism. It’s just a matter of time before these things get implemented.

LOVE!

Okay, this made my chuckle. Deeply loving people will gravitate toward socialism? The whole of the 20th century was taken up with experiments with various types of socialism, from Lenin to Stalin to Pol Pot, to Hitler, to Ho Chi Minh, to Castro, to the Great Leap Forward in China, to the continuing disaster of North Korea, to the religious oppressions of Vietnam, and on and on. The result has been starvation, oppression, poverty, and death. And you want more socialism?

 

[nmgauss]

Are you suggesting that the world is over populated and that there is not enough resources to go around? Are you supporting the view that starvation and poverty are necessary? (It’s greed, and not that there are not enough resources to go around.)
LOVE!

Resources need to be tapped into. In order to be efficient in this endeavor, capital is needed (oil, hard-rock mining, irrigation, railroads). Resources are not uniform in their distribution. People in the middle of the Sahara cannot take advantage of the fisheries in Senegal. Lots of grazing land is available in north Africa (northern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia). However, farther east is Libya and Egypt that have very little grazing land. The Negev Desert in Israel has few resources for the support of humanity, but in the North of the country there is Galilee. How does one enable the people of the Negev to be as prosperous as those in Galilee?

Starvation and poverty are one end of the economic spectrum. In most cases, these are the result of people electing to stay in their poor villages rather than moving to where economic opportunity lies. Why does one insist in living in a poor region when prosperity can be seen in the distance? Mexico is a case in point. Mexicans can see prosperity across the border and those who are adventurous enough migrate there. Those who are tied to their village or family choose to stay in poverty. This is seen in India and China, where huge numbers of people are abandoning their villages and moving to the cities. It makes sense: If you can do better elsewhere, move there.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Okay, this made my chuckle. Deeply loving people will gravitate toward socialism? The whole of the 20th century was taken up with experiments with various types of socialism, from Lenin to Stalin to Pol Pot, to Hitler, to Ho Chi Minh, to Castro, to the Great Leap Forward in China, to the continuing disaster of North Korea, to the religious oppressions of Vietnam, and on and on. The result has been starvation, oppression, poverty, and death. And you want more socialism?

All you did was list a bunch of dictatorships who failed miserably; they never even thought of implanting LOVE within society. I’m in no way promoting societies governed by dictatorships or promotes atheism.

LOVE!