What "Distrubutism" Really Is

[MindOverMatter2]

My other thread got of to a bad start, things got heated and i lost sight of what i intended to achieve. I was asked to explain what distributism is. Lets talk about what distributism really is.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Distributism (also known as distributionism, distributivism) is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Roman 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 (plutarchic 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] (the irony is beautiful)

Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of capital that would be carried out by most socialist plans of governance). 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. As Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains “an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production.”[4] This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.[5]

Distributism has often been described as a “third way,” in opposition to both socialism and capitalism. Thomas Storck argues that “both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life”.[6]

Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realized in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local co-operatives and family owned, small businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism.[7]

 

[reggieM]

One way that more people can become owners of productive property is through profit-sharing which gives workers a chance to benefit from the success of their company.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Private property

Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer, etc. The “co-operative” approach advances beyond this perspective to recognise that such property and equipment may be “co-owned” by local communities larger than a family, e.g. partners in a business. Self-portrait of G. K. Chesterton based on the distributist slogan “Three acres and a cow”.

In Rerurm Novarurm, Leo XIII states that people are likely to work harder and with greater commitment if they themselves possess the land on which they labour, which in turn will benefit them and their families as workers will be able to provide for themselves and their household. He puts forward the idea that when men have the opportunity to possess property and work on it, they will “learn to love the very soil which yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of the good things for themselves and those that are dear to them.” [11] He states also that owning property is not only beneficial for a person and their family, but is in fact a right, due to God having “…given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race”.[12]

Similar views are presented by G. K. Chesterton in his 1910 Book What’s Wrong with the World. Chesterton believes that whilst God has limitless capabilities, man has limited abilities in terms of creation. As such, man therefore is entitled to own property and to treat it as he sees fit. He states “Property is merely the art of the democracy. It means that every man should have something that he can shape in his own image, as he is shaped in the image of heaven. But because he is not God, but only a graven image of God, his self-expression must deal with limits; properly with limits that are strict and even small.”[13] Chesterton summed up his distributist views in the phrase “Three acres and a cow”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

One way that more people can become owners of productive property is through profit-sharing which gives workers a chance to benefit from the success of their company.

That’s a good idea, but it still wouldn’t solve the unemployment problem; and it hardly going to help a great number of people if we are relying merely on the whim of the heads of some kind of business. I here that some business are actually taking this on board, but how many bosses are going to agree with this? And is it really responsible to leave the future dignity of human beings to the whim of big business as we see it today?

 

[inocente]

Although it hasn’t helped employment much, around 20% of workers in Spain are employed in co-operatives. For example, Eroski is one of the biggest hypermarket chains in my area. The 50,000 workers have equal ownership and 10% of profits goes to the Eroski Foundation, which creates/participates in/monitors social projects in Spain and the Third World. See wikipedia and consumer (both google translations). Is this kind of thing an example of distrubutism?

 

[reggieM]

That’s a good idea, but it still wouldn’t solve the unemployment problem; and it hardly going to help a great number of people if we are relying merely on the whim of the heads of some kind of business.

We do need bigger businesses (not monopolies) in many fields. If big businesses are more successful, then more people can be employed. If bigger businesses become more successful by allowing more worker ownership, profit sharing, and decision making about the future of the company – then that will help.

It won’t solve everything. But also, the Chesterton-Belloc model was built on two things (among others) that might have worked in the past, but are not as sensible now:

1. An agricultural economy. That would give everybody the chance to be farmers (productive property). But we don’t need only farmers and it also takes too much land. Small industries can employ a lot of people instead.
2. Control of land by a few (leftovers of European aristocracy). That’s changed now also because people can buy land. But I don’t think land is the problem. It’s having more smaller businesses. It’s also not having people replaced by machines. Automation puts a lot of people out of work – and what good is that? If machines take our jobs, then we’re slaves to the machines (and to the machine-owners).

The government could mandate that some businesses would not be permitted to automate labor. Non-competitive? Well, maybe not. If it was something produced by a local economy, for example, then that would be the only source for it. Like local beer manufacturers not being allowed to computerize – thus having to hire more people (and that product couldn’t be duplicated elsewhere).

I here that some business are actually taking this on board, but how many bosses are going to agree with this?

 

[lemondiesel]

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 (plutarchic capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement:

**Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property **(not to be confused with redistribution of capital that would be carried out by most socialist plans of governance).

The problem with distribution is that it comes into conflict with one of the ten commandments.

“Do not covet thy neighbors belongings.”

Perhaps a state socialism is being expressed by that commandment

 

[reggieM]

Although it hasn’t helped employment much, around 20% of workers in Spain are employed in co-operatives. For example, Eroski is one of the biggest hypermarket chains in my area. The 50,000 workers have equal ownership and 10% of profits goes to the Eroski Foundation, which creates/participates in/monitors social projects in Spain and the Third World. See wikipedia and consumer (both google translations). Is this kind of thing an example of distrubutism?

Yes, I think it’s a development of distributism. I’ve heard of other European companies doing this same kind of thing, where the employees actually own the company together and they invest profits in trying to hire more people.

One thing that I think goes against Catholic teaching is where the Executive Officers of big companies make enormous salaries, while many people are left out of work. Legislation against this would not be good, but it’s just a personal thing that shouldn’t be done, in my opinion.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The problem with distribution is that it comes into conflict with one of the ten commandments.

“Do not covet thy neighbors belongings.”

Perhaps a state socialism is being expressed by that commandment

It doesn’t. That would only be true if all property was an “absolute right” to anybody who happens to have it regardless of any concern for the common good. Property has to serve the common good as well as the individual in order to be legitimately owned in terms of natural moral law. Nobody truly owns anything; property is given to us by God, and having that property is conditional in that it is only morally justified if it also benefits and maintains the dignity and well being of the human community, or at least doesn’t function to the detriment of that community. Otherwise the use of that property is absolutely immoral. Individualism is not Catholic teaching in terms of natural law.

If a person is starving to death next to a superstore and there is no other practical means by which they can feed themselves, such a person would not be immoral for taking food without paying. Private property is not an absolute right.

 

[ishii]

1. It’s also not having people replaced by machines. Automation puts a lot of people out of work – and what good is that? If machines take our jobs, then we’re slaves to the machines (and to the machine-owners).

The government could mandate that some businesses would not be permitted to automate labor.
.

That’s a great idea! Let govt. bureaucrats decide what machines a business can/can’t have. Should we also outlaw automobiles ? - they put blacksmiths out of work. There are lots of workers who find themselves out of work or irrelevant because of automation. Perhaps a better response by govt, is to help provide job training for those workers who need to learn new skills to stay employable. Whether that would be govt provided, or the govt. could give tax credits to companies who re-train the workers. I would focus on the latter. One thing I’ve not heard mentioned is the Catholic principle of subsidiarity:

"The principle of subsidiarity holds that the functions of government should be performed at the lowest level possible, as long as they can be performed adequately. When the needs in question cannot adequately be met at the lower level, then it is not only necessary, but imperative that higher levels of government intervene"

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Here is an interesting critique of Distributism written by a Catholic scholar. (caution: if you think you have everything figured out and are not interested in other opinions, and don’t want to widen you understanding of the issue posed by Distributism, then you might want to avoid this article).

One of the points the author mentions is the lack of any formal training in economics by both Chesterton and Belloc. The lack of understanding of basic business and economics by posters on this forum is evident in sentences like this:

“The person in question either owns a business, which would make make perfect sense of why they are prone to willful ignorance, or they are brainwashed”

Translation: all business owners are prone to willful ignorance. I think this type of mindset - a detachment from reality and a quickness to judge others - calls into question the poster’s practical knowlege of the world around him/her, and it also exposes a lack of charity - which is required on these forums.

mises.org/daily/1062

Ishii

 

[Sonoran_Son]

1. Control of land by a few (leftovers of European aristocracy). That’s changed now also because people can buy land. But I don’t think land is the problem. It’s having more smaller businesses. It’s also not having people replaced by machines. Automation puts a lot of people out of work – and what good is that? If machines take our jobs, then we’re slaves to the machines (and to the machine-owners).

In regard to machines putting people out of work, the idea in economics is that those people will now be freed up to pursue other activities in which they can use their time.

 

[reggieM]

That’s a great idea! Let govt. bureaucrats decide what machines a business can/can’t have. Should we also outlaw automobiles ? - they put blacksmiths out of work.

Many automobiles are already outlawed for good reason. That’s a necessary correction to unbridled capitalism that would give us unsafe and polluting automobiles.

There are lots of workers who find themselves out of work or irrelevant because of automation. Perhaps a better response by govt, is to help provide job training for those workers who need to learn new skills to stay employable.

That sounds like a great idea to me. But again, that’s in line with the Catholic principles of distributism, not with unrestricted capitalism. The government intervenes in the market to provide more trained workers that way.

Whether that would be govt provided, or the govt. could give tax credits to companies who re-train the workers. I would focus on the latter. One thing I’ve not heard mentioned is the Catholic principle of subsidiarity:

"The principle of subsidiarity holds that the functions of government should be performed at the lowest level possible, as long as they can be performed adequately. When the needs in question cannot adequately be met at the lower level, then it is not only necessary, but imperative that higher levels of government intervene"

Ishii

Distributism is based on subsidiarity – which is why it is a corrective to monopoly domination of the market.

 

[lemondiesel]

It doesn’t. That would only be true if all property was an “absolute right” to anybody who happens to have it regardless of any concern for the common good. Property has to serve the common good as well as the individual in order to be legitimately owned in terms of natural moral law. Nobody truly owns anything; property is given to us by God, and having that property is conditional in that it is only morally justified if it also benefits and maintains the dignity and well being of the human community, or at least doesn’t function to the detriment of that community. Otherwise the use of that property is absolutely immoral. Individualism is not Catholic teaching in terms of natural law.

So basically, if Jesus was leader, everyone would have free health care?

Back on topic, I think the problem with “nobody truly owning anything” is that it provides no motivation to really obtain anything, because you are relying on your ‘neighbor.’ Individualism provides self worth, and without that, there is no reason to really cherish anything. Distribution seems much along the lines of Plato’s Republic, which to some, contains many flaws.

But believe, I truly understand the message you are trying to make. I agree with it, but it is a very idealistic vision in a world that is based on supply and demand, and essentially, profit.

In regard to machines putting people out of work, the idea in economics is that those people will now be freed up to pursue other activities in which they can use their time.

Perhaps this is the reason that it seems more and more people are paying attention and participating in politics recently.

 

[ishii]

Many automobiles are already outlawed for good reason. That’s a necessary correction to unbridled capitalism that would give us unsafe and polluting automobiles.

Maybe unsafe automobiles have been outlawed, but that wasn’t the point you were making! You said we should outlaw machines that displace or make obsolete certain workers. Earlier in the 20th century blacksmiths who were responsible for making shoes that fit on horses (a widely used method of transportation) were made obsolete by the invention of the automobile. Now you want to change it to " we should outlaw cars because they pollute". Should we outlaw computers because they displaced typewriter manufacturers?
That sounds like a great idea to me. But again, that’s in line with the Catholic principles of distributism, not with unrestricted capitalism. The government intervenes in the market to provide more trained workers that way.

Who is arguing in favor of “unrestricted capitalism”? We don’t have it in America and haven’t for probably 80 years or so depending on your definition of “unrestricted capitalism”. I would much prefer the govt. intervening by giving businesses an incentive to train workers who have been displaced.

Distributism is based on subsidiarity – which is why it is a corrective to monopoly domination of the market.

Ishii

 

[Abu]

Right Ishii. Of course there is “unrestricted capitalism” nowhere, and never has been – whatever that means!

The usual errors:

MindOverMatter2
Nobody truly owns anything; property is given to us by God, and having that property is conditional in that it is only morally justified if it also benefits and maintains the dignity and well being of the human community, or at least doesn’t function to the detriment of that community.
And is it really responsible to leave the future dignity of human beings to the whim of big business as we see it today?

Yes, ownership of property is fundamental to human nature, and anyone may choose to renounce it freely. The seventh commandment safeguards the right to private property.(CCC 2401).
The dignity of human beings is best served by free enterprise as developed by the late Catholic Scholastics. The serious problem economically is the emasculation of free enterprise by government intervention into the economic laws which are the warp and woof of its success, based on false economic theories and a penchant for government to control. Many examples have been given of the devastating effects of such finagling.

The serious cultural and moral problems in society are due to relativism, selfism and a disregard for the prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance which our human nature requires for a humane society which has to start with the individual and the family.

ReggieM
Distributism is based on subsidiarity – which is why it is a corrective to monopoly domination of the market

Distributism has never had wide-spread support. One of the reasons may be that “the market economy consists of voluntary property exchanges. There is no mechanism of ‘distribution’ whatsoever.” (Thomas E Woods, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 161, 201). While Distributism is unworkable as a societal norm, especially as Catholic social teaching recognises the tremendous benefits of free enterprise, condemns socialism, and proposes no “third way”, anyone is free to practise it.

The primary role of government is to support families, in solidarity and the role of the Church, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies.

 

[reggieM]

Maybe unsafe automobiles have been outlawed, but that wasn’t the point you were making! You said we should outlaw machines that displace or make obsolete certain workers.

I’m arguing in theory that there are higher values than efficiency and improved revenue or commerce. Let’s look at other examples. The wine industry in France forbid various practices in winemaking and mandate others. Why? That is to preserve the culture of French wine which has a high value to the nation. Less restriction on capitalism (free market) would destroy the culture.

In the city of Rome, real estate developers can make a fortune in purchasing properties and establishing restaurants (McDonald’s), parking lots or other things. But the government prohibits that because they would be purchasing and destroying ancient Catholic Churches.

Now it’s obvious that we protect the culture by restraining technology and unrestrained capitalism in those cases.

My suggestion (which is new, so there are no examples of it) is that we can equally protect the “culture of certain employments” by disallowing technological innovations which displace workers.

An example?

If a certain region had “hand-crafted cheese or furniture” or something like that, the government could take steps to preserve that economic culture rather than have workers lost to cheap imitations produced by technology.

Earlier in the 20th century blacksmiths who were responsible for making shoes that fit on horses (a widely used method of transportation) were made obsolete by the invention of the automobile. Now you want to change it to " we should outlaw cars because they pollute".

It’s the same concept. You’re arguing that government should not have a role in regulating such things, apparently. That’s unrestricted capitalism. So, why not sell cars that pollute?

Should we outlaw computers because they displaced typewriter manufacturers?

If you’re asking for specifics, see above. Why should a suggestion that requires some human ingenuity be reduced to a scientific law that must apply in every case? The economy and laws governing such requires flexibility and common sense. That is the danger with unrestricted capitalism – it’s a tendency to give unlimited power to the free market.

Who is arguing in favor of “unrestricted capitalism”?

Distributism is a response to unrestricted capitalism. The purest form of the free market is unrestricted. Many argue that the market is “self-correcting” and that government should have no involvement.

We don’t have it in America and haven’t for probably 80 years or so depending on your definition of “unrestricted capitalism”.

Again, these are not absolutes. “Unrestricted” is more or less to an extreme. In the same way, there is no “true socialism” today and perhaps never was. True socialism is one extreme and unrestricted capitalism the other. The excesses of capitalism are at the unrestricted point of the scale.

I would much prefer the govt. intervening by giving businesses an incentive to train workers who have been displaced.

Ok, that’s a distributive principle – a corrective to a “pure free market” idea. Once you have government involved, it’s no longer a matter of the ideological purity of principle on free market. It now relies on common sense, understanding culture and the value of human life.

In your case, that’s an arguable point, but you’re not making the point based on Free Market ideology. Again, I agree that the government should intervene by training workers with new skills.

What I don’t agree with is that technological advances are always, and in every case, a benefit to society and humanity or to the economy itself.

The forbidding of cell phones in certain places might be a good example of that.

 

[reggieM]

Right Ishii. Of course there is “unrestricted capitalism” nowhere, and never has been – whatever that means!

There is “true socialism” nowhere, never has been – whatever that means!

I hope this can help.

Yes, ownership of property is fundamental to human nature, and anyone may choose to renounce it freely.

Irrelevant comment, this has not been part of the debate.

The seventh commandment safeguards the right to private property.(CCC 2401).

Irrelevant to the topic of distributism.

The dignity of human beings is best served by free enterprise as developed by the late Catholic Scholastics.

Free enterprise does not exist - never has existed.

The serious problem economically is the emasculation of free enterprise by government intervention into the economic laws

Free enterprise does not exist, never has. Moreover, it is not a man so it cannot be emasculated.

Distributism has never had wide-spread support.

Irrelevant. Many evil ideas have had wide-spread support.

One of the reasons may be that “the market economy consists of voluntary property exchanges. There is no mechanism of ‘distribution’ whatsoever.” (Thomas E Woods, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 161, 201).

This suggests that there is no government involvement already distributing property, financing, employment opportunities, and various regulations – and that is obviously false.

While Distributism is unworkable as a societal norm, especially as Catholic social teaching recognises the tremendous benefits of free enterprise, condemns socialism, and proposes no “third way”, anyone is free to practise it.

Free enterprise does not exist – never has.

The primary role of government is to support families, in solidarity and the role of the Church, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies.

Your last phrase highlighted here … monopolies are 100% consistent with the so-called “free market” and government regulation (as a function of Distributist principles) intervened to regulate them.

 

[ishii]

I’m arguing in theory that there are higher values than efficiency and improved revenue or commerce. Let’s look at other examples. The wine industry in France forbid various practices in winemaking and mandate others. Why? That is to preserve the culture of French wine which has a high value to the nation.

Here is what you said originally: “It’s also not having people replaced by machines. Automation puts a lot of people out of work – and what good is that? If machines take our jobs, then we’re slaves to the machines (and to the machine-owners).” So now you’re saying that its to “preserve the culture” ? Sounds like you’re changing your story. I ask again, in a Distributist system, what is the safeguard against a powerful bureaucrat engaging in corruption - say, he has a buddy in the furniture business and he forbids a newer furniture manufacturer from opening up shop nearby because he want to protect his buddy from competition. He does this in the name of “preserving the culture”. His buddy slips him a few bucks under the table… So, one, how do you keep these powerful bureaucrats from becoming corrupt? And two, how do you keep these powerful bureaucrats from using their power to committ evil, maybe prevent a Catholic church from opening up in an area - “to preserve the Islamic culture” , e.g. What are the safeguards?

In the city of Rome, real estate developers can make a fortune in purchasing properties and establishing restaurants (McDonald’s), parking lots or other things. But the government prohibits that because they would be purchasing and destroying ancient Catholic Churches.

Yes, in our city, too, historical buildings are protected from greedy developers. But was does this have to do with “restraining technology” ??

Now it’s obvious that we protect the culture by restraining technology and unrestrained capitalism in those cases.

My suggestion is that we can equally protect the “culture of certain employments” by disallowing technological innovations which displace workers.

If a certain region had “hand-crafted cheese or furniture” or something like that, the government could take steps to preserve that economic culture rather than have workers lost to cheap imitations produced by technology.

Yes, in my city there are hand-crafted products and cheaply made ones. The handcrafted ones are more expensive, there are stores where you can get a cheap chair, if you don’t want a “hand-crafted” amish chair. Sometimes I buy Bridgeport pale ale, (handcrafted) and sometimes I buy cheap beer. (thankfully not often!). Both the artisan stuff thrives and the cheap stuff thrives: The free market works wonderfully, doesn’t it? The point is I am making this decision, not some bureaucrat who thinks he knows whats best for me.

It’s the same concept. You’re arguing that government should not have a role in regulating such things, apparently. That’s unrestricted capitalism. So, why not sell cars that pollute?

My friend, its not “unrestricted capitalism” when we allow obsolete industries to fall by the wayside. Do you still use an 8-track stereo? You have been throwing the “unrestricted capitalism” term around a lot, but we don’t have that. The govt. regulates business quite a bit. Too much, imo. However, there needs to be some regulation. An example: our city has building codes that require certain architectural styles in new construction and prohibit others. They also voted to keep Walmart out. !! Amazing, we did that without “Distributism”.

. That is the danger with unrestricted capitalism – it’s a tendency to give unlimited power to the free market.

Again, we don’t have “unrestricted capitalism”. That’s a straw man.

Distributism is a response to unrestricted capitalism. The purest form of the free market is unrestricted. Many argue that the market is “self-correcting” and that government should have no involvement.

Yes, the market is self-correcting: how many Edsels do you see on the streets?

Again, these are not absolutes. “Unrestricted” is more or less to an extreme. In the same way, there is no “true socialism” today and perhaps never was. True socialism is one extreme and unrestricted capitalism the other. The excesses of capitalism are at the unrestricted point of the scale.

Ok, that’s a distributive principle – a corrective to a “pure free market” idea. Once you have government involved, it’s no longer a matter of the ideological purity of principle on free market. It now relies on common sense, understanding culture and the value of human life.

In your case, that’s an arguable point, but you’re not making the point based on Free Market ideology. Again, I agree that the government should intervene by training workers with new skills.

What I don’t agree with is that technological advances are always, and in every case, a benefit to society and humanity or to the economy itself.

When did I say they were?

The forbidding of cell phones in certain places might be a good example of that.

Look, I also believe in common sense regulations to a market based economy. But right now, I think there are too many. Business is over-regulated. Even the left/liberal George McGovern realized that when he tried to start a hotel business. Its not a question of either completely unbridled, unrestricted capitalism or complete govt ownership. In America its a mix. Right now, I think the govt does too much. Others will disagree. We hash it out in the marketplace of ideas and vote to elect those who share our beliefs. I don’t see where distributism comes into play here. Interesting discussion, though.

Ishii

 

[reggieM]

Its not a question of either completely unbridled, unrestricted capitalism or complete govt ownership. In America its a mix. Right now, I think the govt does too much. Others will disagree. We hash it out in the marketplace of ideas and vote to elect those who share our beliefs. I don’t see where distributism comes into play here. Interesting discussion, though.

I agree with many of your points and disagree elsewhere (a Free Market is not self-correcting, for example, that’s why we have to have common sense regulation). I think you summarized it nicely here though.

True, there’s a lot to argue about and the end result is a mixture. An ideology one way or the other isn’t going to work. Some practical ideas have to be used – some things the government should do, some things should be left to the market.

Distributism offers some principles that should be part of the discussion.

Just as there is no pure, unbridled capitalism or socialism, there is no unmixed Distributism. It offers ideas on how to restrain the excesses of capitalism without promoting a Statist solution. It recommends more opportunities for business (and diversity) by having fewer monopoly corporations.