V
Vernik
Guest
Could it ever be accepted?
- Status
D
dmar198
Guest
It is my understanding that one of the ways distributism is unique is because it is impossible to impose by law. It largely comes from encouraging people to be entrepreneurs and helping them work for themselves and for their own family. The part the government plays is simply to allow this and to protect the right of people to do that. Our government in America already does this, the only problem is that people prefer to work for corporations, or they don’t know how to get started working for themselves.
Does that analysis seem fair to you? Or is it sort of incomplete?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Your post is a fair statement. To it, though, I might add that not only did Distributism as originally conceived encourage entreneurial enterprise, it encouraged avoidance of consumerism even for wage-earners.
I recently saw an article in a Catholic paper about a Catholic approach to family finances. Among other things, it greatly encouraged families to limit consumption and save in order to pay for charitable obligations, rearing and education of children, as well as providing for one’s own old age. That, too, is part of Distributism. The various popes’ encouraging the acquisition of productive, inheritable assets is not limited to the self-employed.
P
Paleocon
Guest
Many Distributist ideas were applied in Francoist Spain. Also, it was effectively the system of medieval European cities, so yes.
I
ialsop
Guest
Yes, and it is the system most in line with Catholic teaching. But, whereas capitalism and communism can be enacted by force, distributism will only happen if large amounts of people willingly band together.
P
Paleocon
Guest
Distributist could be implemented by law. Moreover it could only be fully implemented by law.
I
ialsop
Guest
Wrong. It is all about self reliance of families, and no law can force families to be self reliant…
P
Paleocon
Guest
Distributism and libertarianism are not compatible.
No law can force people to be self-reliant, but restricting economic activity to protect local economies from domination could only occur with the authorization of the state.
Be careful to avoid the false dichotomy between state and society.
I
ialsop
Guest
Well, that is true…
Now, the question, do you identify more strongly with distributism, libertarianism, or neither?
P
Paleocon
Guest
Distributism.
I
ialsop
Guest
Good, same.
Now, I had tried to take a more anarchist approach to it, but as you showed, it did not work. So, I have been thinking, should we go back to the Christian Monarch empowered by the Church system? That worked well for distributism.
P
Paleocon
Guest
Yes I think that would be a good idea.
C
CarmelJerome
Guest
It will develop as the world economy is sucked into the black hole created through the fraudulent instruments developed in the late '90s/early 2000s that led to the collapse of 2008. They managed to create a sort of international lean-to shelter which for the time being is preventing the final implosion. It won't come via elections or electioneering; it's already present in innumerable small communities and will go on from there as the illusions now holding things together dissipate.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Distributism is regularly flaunted as a “third way” between Capitalism and socialism, but it is actually just a quasi-socialist ideology. The goal of distributism is to eliminate any economic distinction between various classes in society by creating an equal distribution of the means of production.
Distributism MAY have worked if it was started from scratch in some agrarian kingdom. It would have ended when consumer demands and economic expansion created the need for more and larger production facilities (Companies)
Distributism fails because it tries to make men equal. It can’t… because we are not equal.
Assuming that, at the start, there was complete equality. All ranchers had an equal number of cattle and an equal amount of land. But one rancher is a clever breeder and his herd increases rapidly while his neighbor loses his cattle to disease. Now one has become rich and another poor. Distinctions in fortune quickly bring about class distinctions. The rancher who has lost all must now hire himself to the rich man and become dependent on him.
To prevent the rise of the hated economic class inequalities within a distributist society, the distributists would have to regulate the accumulation of things such as cattle and grain as well. They would have to redistribute cows and corn if one farmer did better than another with the land he was given. In the final analysis, socialism and distributism both advocate the confiscation and redistribution of certain individuals’ private property. We can’t have that in America.
Distributism MAY have worked if it was started from scratch in some agrarian kingdom. It would have ended when consumer demands and economic expansion created the need for more and larger production facilities (Companies)
Distributism fails because it tries to make men equal. It can’t… because we are not equal.
Assuming that, at the start, there was complete equality. All ranchers had an equal number of cattle and an equal amount of land. But one rancher is a clever breeder and his herd increases rapidly while his neighbor loses his cattle to disease. Now one has become rich and another poor. Distinctions in fortune quickly bring about class distinctions. The rancher who has lost all must now hire himself to the rich man and become dependent on him.
To prevent the rise of the hated economic class inequalities within a distributist society, the distributists would have to regulate the accumulation of things such as cattle and grain as well. They would have to redistribute cows and corn if one farmer did better than another with the land he was given. In the final analysis, socialism and distributism both advocate the confiscation and redistribution of certain individuals’ private property. We can’t have that in America.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Under distributism, I cannot imagine the invention of an MRI machine, or exploring Mars with robotic spacecraft. These things take teams of people committed to working together by more than a gentleman’s agreement. Essentially they take a large corporation.
M
manualman
Guest
Distributism fan here. To correct ZC’s inaccurate analogy, Distributism does not demand that every man’s ranch be the same. But it might levy a higher tax rate on the man with 50,000 acres than it does on the man with 100 acres. Gasp! 
Worse horror: The man with 50,000 acres might only be able to will 25,000 of it to his kids when he dies with the other half having to be sold to pay estate taxes while the man with under 1,000 acres might remain exempt from estate taxes when he dies so his kid can inherit the entire thing. These are only qualitative examples of course (I know nothing about ranching).
What this means is that if the son of the 100 acre rancher is better at it than the son of the 50,000 acre rancher, the son who is actually better at it will have a shot at picking up some of that land at the tax sale instead of never having a shot since the dynasty family of the rich guy will always protect itself (the situation under conventional capitalism).
Distributist policies are those that tend to reward and directly incentivize hard work. Capitalist policies are those that tend to reward and incentivize investment of existing capital. In my experience, humans need all the incentive to work hard we can give them. Also in my experience, very few rich people keep it in mattresses. They need little incentive to go looking for investments to make more.
Worse horror: The man with 50,000 acres might only be able to will 25,000 of it to his kids when he dies with the other half having to be sold to pay estate taxes while the man with under 1,000 acres might remain exempt from estate taxes when he dies so his kid can inherit the entire thing. These are only qualitative examples of course (I know nothing about ranching).
What this means is that if the son of the 100 acre rancher is better at it than the son of the 50,000 acre rancher, the son who is actually better at it will have a shot at picking up some of that land at the tax sale instead of never having a shot since the dynasty family of the rich guy will always protect itself (the situation under conventional capitalism).
Distributist policies are those that tend to reward and directly incentivize hard work. Capitalist policies are those that tend to reward and incentivize investment of existing capital. In my experience, humans need all the incentive to work hard we can give them. Also in my experience, very few rich people keep it in mattresses. They need little incentive to go looking for investments to make more.
M
manualman
Guest
This is the straw man you always build up before knocking it down. It’s untrue. Distributism is NOT a utopian idealistic scheme that seeks to create equality. It’s an idea for modifying the underlying basis of the tax and legal system in such a way that the resulting market forces TEND to create a more broad based distribution of ownership of those means of production than modern American - style capitalism does. (I say modern to differentiate today from the era of the USA’s Homestead Act which was possibly the greatest and most distributist government policy in the history of the planet. Unless you were an American Indian, of course - another subject).
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Ahh…so distributism is “out to soak the rich”. ???Distributism fan here. To correct ZC’s inaccurate analogy, Distributism does not demand that every man’s ranch be the same. But it might levy a higher tax rate on the man with 50,000 acres than it does on the man with 100 acres. Gasp!
Worse horror: The man with 50,000 acres might only be able to will 25,000 of it to his kids when he dies with the other half having to be sold to pay estate taxes while the man with under 1,000 acres might remain exempt from estate taxes when he dies so his kid can inherit the entire thing. These are only qualitative examples of course (I know nothing about ranching).
No wonder the socialists are so excited about the prospects of distributism.
Only if the son of the 100 acre rancher has enough CAPITAL to buy the land at the tax sale.
That’s a laugh. It will never work with a differential tax.
Hilaire Belloc (one of the inventors of distributism) advocates a “differential tax” in order to progressively move towards a distributist society. Isn‟t it peculiar that this distributist is advocating the exact same policy that was originally advocated by the socialists?
Belloc writes: “…the aim of all sound social reform should be the wider distribution of property and that the differential tax is a tax specially aimed against excessive accumulation.”
Excessive accumulation is exactly what provides the rewards and incentives
that you claim distributism provides.
Are we discussing two types of distributism… that of Belloc and Chesterton or that of Manualman???
I should mention the “excessive accumulation” that Belloc wishes to prevent is the motivation of entrepreneurs. The vast majority of things which have helped to better society and raise the living standards of all men were things the creation of which can be attributed to nothing but the motivation for “excessive accumulation.”
The entrepreneur or would-be innovator has two options:
- he can put in a lot of effort and create some new thing that will benefit society, knowing that he will not be allowed to accumulate too much additional wealth as a result of his additional toil, or
- he can continue in the labor that he already does without being an innovator and accumulate roughly the same amount of wealth that he would under the first choice as well.
That is an interesting statement. Who is the “we” that gives incentive to humans?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Gee, Manualman…that sounds a lot like “an equal distribution of the means of production.” to me.
I am very skeptical of any idea that needs to MODIFY our tax and legal system.
I
ialsop
Guest
- Status