What exactly is Distributism?

[Swiss_Guy]

IIRC one of the social encyclicals specifically says that redistribution of wealth through taxes may not only be appropriate, but the duty of the state in some cases.

I’m afraid I can’t remember which one though.

To some extent redistribution of wealth can work. But eventually it can lead you down the slippery slope to communism.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I hope that this thread won’t go completely unnoticed.

 

[Nate13]

To my knowledge, none of the Popes ever used the word “Distributism” in any of their Social Encyclicals, and you’re right that none purported to outline particular economic approaches.

Nevertheless, it is plain that Chesterton, Belloc and others had Rerum Novarum in mind when writing about “Distributism”. It is also plain that none of them really had concrete policies prepared specifically, e.g., legislative proposals or whatever.

But it is plain to me that the Popes did have at least principles in mind regarding government policies (like “subsidiarity”), and most definitely had concrete ideas about the social structures most conducive to spiritual development. (Emphasis on family independence, inheritability, localism, provision of charity through church structures, etc.)

Exactly. I feel distributism is really a movement among people and not something that attempts to change the government. I think certain government policies might be advocated for to allow more room for distributism to flourish, but it really comes down to people choosing to live in a non-materialist manner.

 

[white_sheep]

I’d say it is moderate. When favoring small businesses is considered liberal, and favoring private property is conservative, I’d say that balances out as moderate.

That’s a very strange scale. Liberalism supports centralized ownership of productive property, capitalism supports private ownership of the means of production and distributism supports having a greater number of people owning the means of production, so that would leave capitalism in the middle.

 

[Warrenton]

I hope that this thread won’t go completely unnoticed.

I noticed it!

I like distributism, however implementing it in accordance with Catholic principals will have to begin at the local level.

Othewise, William F. Buckley’s conclusion that distributism is “soft core” socialism would be correct.

The government is a legitimate arena to advance a distributist agenda, however. People can demand that the playing field be leveled to permit small producers to compete effectively.

The logic behind this is direct: individuals and corporations alike must pay taxes, and if the government unfairly favors corporations, this in effect denies individuals the equal protection of the law.

At present, I see the use of distributism as a guiding theory against which the government’s actions can be evaluated and critiqued.

 

[tomarin]

Othewise, William F. Buckley’s conclusion that distributism is “soft core” socialism would be correct.

shortened by Tomarin

Just curious – when and where did he say this? Can you give a citation?

 

[Jonatello]

To some extent redistribution of wealth can work. But eventually it can lead you down the slippery slope to communism.

well every point (B) is always a slippery slope to A from the perspective of C’s and a slippery slope to C’s from the perspective of A’s. Life is full of necessary nuance.

 

[Jonatello]

“Re-distributionism” assumes a zero-sum economy, in which one man’s gain is always another man’s loss. That’s a Marxist concept derived from earlier “labor theories of value”, not true in advanced economies. It’s entirely possible in advanced economies for individuals to acquire wealth without taking it away from someone else. But the conditions for its accumlation and use have to be there.

Many things that make an economy tick are in fact pretty much zero sum.

Every economy of any civilization (tribes to empires) ultimately boils down to control over the same fundamental, natural, God-given resources. As the saying goes “God made enough for everyone’s need, but not everyone’s greed”.

Things like land, forests, coasts, gulfs, rivers, springs, oil reserves, and other things that a child of God’s pursuit of basic needs will always revolve around are typically fairly fixed in abundance, and were made by God for His creatures/children.

If these God-given things that we all need are controlled by too few, generally the ones with the highest (read: unhealthiest) levels of ambition and force, thus leaving the rest to become subservient to them, redistribution is surely a moral thing.

We come from the same Father who created the same resources we all depend on.

Everything else in a more modern economy that seems less natural still largely spring from or are affected by the control of those basics, thus making them fair game as well.

Imagine 7 people arrive on a desert island with no food, and then God blesses them by sprouting Fruit trees of the most varied and nutritious kinds of fruit, many of which provide much needed excellent hydration as well (like heavenly coconuts). Imagine the first guy who notices them (Marcos) becomes so driven with ambition (coupled with some amazing God-given physical abilities) that before anyone else notices, he’s built a stone wall and a moat around the whole patch of fruit trees.

Now there’s 100 trees. 7 people. 1 owner.

Nothing but beach sand and salt water surrounding the trees, little to no room to grow new ones.

Marcos keeps 90 trees for himself and the cutest young lady on the island (who naturally agrees to be with him, since her future children will not only be extremely well fed, but will be able to enjoy the private beauty of all the extra trees in their “garden”).

That leaves 5 people and 10 trees left that Marcos will share (out of the good charity of his own heart) – with anyone willing to do his work.

He chooses the strongest 3 of that bunch to pick the trees and keep the other 2 in line.

He give 3 trees to each of his favored 3 (just enough to be on the edge of comfort and good health), and — out of the even greater charity of his heart – allows the last single remaining tree to be shared by the 2 “lazy stragglers” weakened on the beach.

He keeps all 5 from revolting against him by favoring the 3 and telling them to watch out for those other 2 who already have 1 of their trees and probably want more. Divide/Conquer.

By controlling the most important resource on the island, he is in charge of everyone else’s ability to meet their needs, and is thus able to gain control and power over everything else on the island, including sand, fish, behavior and rules.

If the 2 malnourished islanders were able to find a way to stealthily steal some extra fruits from Marcos’ 90 trees, would they be sinning?

If the 2 malnourished islanders were able to convince the other 3 of the injustice and greed that has taken control of their lives and community, and they were all able to force Marcos to give up 10 trees each for every person on the island (the upkeep/picking of which would still be up to each person so long as the were physically capable), would they be immoral for doing so?

 

[JRRTFAN]

I hate to label aspects of our faith, but in contrast to the Catholic teaching on abortion and homosexuality, that sounds very liberal.

It’s an absolutely horrific name for a wonderful concept. The idea is completely Catholic and in line with subsidiarity. The concept being that each person (family) should own the means of production to provide for itself. In other words, let’s say you’re in the auto body repair business (like my brother). You own the building(s), machinery and tools to repair the vehicles of others. If you do it well, you will be rewarded by economic prospertiy, if you don’t you won’t.

Now the problem for the distributist is that parties interfere with the relationship between him and his market. The guy paying for the repair (a Capitalist insurer) doesn’t have the best interest of the owner of the wrecked car or the repair company in mind, but it has the check book. Its interest is for its stockholders, who are not distributists. So the repair company, which may be the most superior in the market, and the vehicle owner, who wants the vehicle restored as best it can be, are at the mercy of the Capitalist who wants to pay as little as possible for whatever repair will be nominally acceptable so that its owners derive a profit from their investment in risk bearing.

I don’t think the concept works flawlessly on certain things, it would be hard for a Distributist to build a jumbo jet, but it is wonderful for the majority of social interaction and transaction.

 

[JRRTFAN]

shortened by Tomarin

Just curious – when and where did he say this? Can you give a citation?

I can’t imagine that he did. He was the ultimate Distributist making his entire living based on his own enterprise (originally funded, as it was, by Daddy Buckley’s distributist oil money). Personally, I think inherited wealth is wonderful, The Lord did not see fit to bless me with any however. But, I remain open to the concept should some long lost cousin in the Old Country see fit to include me in his largesse.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I noticed it!

I like distributism, however implementing it in accordance with Catholic principals will have to begin at the local level.

Othewise, William F. Buckley’s conclusion that distributism is “soft core” socialism would be correct.

The government is a legitimate arena to advance a distributist agenda, however. People can demand that the playing field be leveled to permit small producers to compete effectively.

The logic behind this is direct: individuals and corporations alike must pay taxes, and if the government unfairly favors corporations, this in effect denies individuals the equal protection of the law.

At present, I see the use of distributism as a guiding theory against which the government’s actions can be evaluated and critiqued.

On the assumption that Buckley said this, I would have to wonder whether he was talking about the Distributism of Chesterton and Belloc or the Distributism of the followers of Dorothy Day; a very different thing much akin to socialism.

I agree the concept can be used as a yardstick, both of government and of ourselves.

But (and I will draw fire for saying this) one of the first things government should be compelled to do is to take less of the product of peoples’ labor. At all levels it’s about half right now, at least among those who pay taxes. A lot of medieval lords were less rapacious than that toward their serfs. There is only so much you can take from people before making them incapable of acquring assets of any consequence.

But always, there is the other side of it. Are we, ourselves, acting in a Distributionist way? An interesting book is “The Millionaire Next Door”. Turns out the majority of millionaires inherited nothing, are not high earners, are mostly self-employed, tend to stay married for life, are religious and live well below their means. I’m not talking about the John Kerrys here. I’m talking about the guy with an insurance agency or the gal with a small window manufactory or health food store. Most millionaires in this country are like that. They’re not John Kerrys.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It’s an absolutely horrific name for a wonderful concept. .

liberal? There is nothing wrong with being liberal, as long as you aren’t going against church teaching. Liberal doesn’t equal bad or heretical.

 

[tomarin]

I can’t imagine that he did. He was the ultimate Distributist making his entire living based on his own enterprise (originally funded, as it was, by Daddy Buckley’s distributist oil money). Personally, I think inherited wealth is wonderful, The Lord did not see fit to bless me with any however. But, I remain open to the concept should some long lost cousin in the Old Country see fit to include me in his largesse.

Me either. But I comfort myself with something Dwight. D. Eisenhower said to Mamie when he retired from the military with very little to show for it in terms of lucre: “it’s fun to be poor!” It’s hard not to like Ike.

 

[Warrenton]

On the assumption that Buckley said this, I would have to wonder whether he was talking about the Distributism of Chesterton and Belloc or the Distributism of the followers of Dorothy Day; a very different thing much akin to socialism.

I wish I could remember where I read this - I think (very tentatively) it was in an essay by Dinesh Desouza; I seem to recall it was in National Review, but it might - just might - have been a comment in Buckley’s autobiogrpahy “Nearer, my God.” Otherwise, I would certainly send you a link. I know I read it more than two years ago.

But (and I will draw fire for saying this) one of the first things government should be compelled to do is to take less of the product of peoples’ labor. At all levels it’s about half right now, at least among those who pay taxes. A lot of medieval lords were less rapacious than that toward their serfs. There is only so much you can take from people before making them incapable of acquring assets of any consequence.

I totally agree. There are a number of very good studies on this.

The reality of the American system now is that most people are not “free” in the sense the Greeks and Romans understood the term. Most of us are “indentured,” that is, we hold our property at sufferance upon payment of a rent, be that in the form of a mortgage or consumer credit. It is very significant that the creditor often has the right to change the terms unilaterally, either to add fees, increase the rate of interest, or the conditions of accelleration.

You mentioned the “Millionaire Next Door.” It’s a good book. Don’t misunderstand me, our system is better than chattel slavery, but at bottom, our system is something like a gilded cage. Because the government taps - skims might be a better analogy, since they take it from the top - a quarter to a half of our earnings, most of us never get ahead. What we get for earning more is more credit. But most of us will die “owning” rather little.

What I like about Distributism is it offers an improvement on the present system. State run capitalism is so entrenched that it is surrounded by a nearly impenetrable kind of orthodoxy. There is no serious talk of socialism - all the democrats suggest is more welfare, which is little more than class bribery, like the ancient gladiator games. The republicans use the rhetoric of limited government, but by any fair measure, the effort has proved a massive failure for the past 70 years.

No one really knows how long the present system will last. In such a time, it’s smart to have a “Plan B.”

 

[Warrenton]

shortened by Tomarin

Just curious – when and where did he say this? Can you give a citation?

I really wish I could remember. Of course, Bill didn’t use the crude terms I did. I seem to recall it was in an essay and the writer was recalling a discussion he had about Catholicism and social justice with The Great Old Man. The writer asked him if he felt Distributism was just another form of socialism, with a Catholic veneer. Sadly, he said, Buckley said he thought so.

Hopefully that gives you enough to google the article! Let me know if you find it; it has been at least two years since I read it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I really wish I could remember. Of course, Bill didn’t use the crude terms I did. I seem to recall it was in an essay and the writer was recalling a discussion he had about Catholicism and social justice with The Great Old Man. The writer asked him if he felt Distributism was just another form of socialism, with a Catholic veneer. Sadly, he said, Buckley said he thought so.

Hopefully that gives you enough to google the article! Let me know if you find it; it has been at least two years since I read it.

This makes me think even more that he was talking about the Dorothy Day brand. Her followers hijacked the term.