Would this work as Distributism?

[RCIAGraduate]

“may mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.”

Hello everyone.

Previously I made another thread about this topic but then it kinda got a bit divisive and well it kinda died. So here’s a new one.

From what I get(which is limited) Distributism aims to expand the “means of production” or in practical terms basically giving many people property in order to promote a humane economy and dignified livelihoods for all.

This kinda appears like a medieval idea(since it was more agrarian back then).

Could this is a way of applying Distributions in the 21st Century.

Instead of aiming to provide land to everyone,wouldn’t it be a better idea if we could instead policies that promote education,skills training and asset development among the masses or especially the economically disadvantaged poor and working class.

In a way,isn’t education and capital assets(i.e savings,stocks etc) alternative forms of “property”?

Have a wonderful week.
Pax Christi

 

[prometheus1]

“may mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.”

Hello everyone.

Previously I made another thread about this topic but then it kinda got a bit divisive and well it kinda died. So here’s a new one.

From what I get(which is limited) Distributism aims to expand the “means of production” or in practical terms basically giving many people property in order to promote a humane economy and dignified livelihoods for all.

This kinda appears like a medieval idea(since it was more agrarian back then).

Could this is a way of applying Distributions in the 21st Century.

Instead of aiming to provide land to everyone,wouldn’t it be a better idea if we could instead policies that promote education,skills training and asset development among the masses or especially the economically disadvantaged poor and working class.

In a way,isn’t education and capital assets(i.e savings,stocks etc) alternative forms of “property”?

Have a wonderful week.
Pax Christi

What a great idea…get into politics and make some laws that benefit the poorer and more disadvantaged…unfortunately, if you are indeed American, the policies sound a little too socialist…and most Americans I have met equate socialism with communism!
In the UK we do have those sort of policies…although some tend to be either misused (free housing medical care for people who have contributed nothing to society) or abused (the Government decided the unemployed would benefit from working for large employers for nothing! In the vain hope that it would lead to their full time employment…instead it gave the unscrupulous employers a steady stream of slaves).

I do strive for a fairer society…and if enough people think like you it will be achieved…eventually.

 

[St_Francis]

We used to have this: we had vo-tech schools and the like.

Now we have out-sourced a lot of working-class work, so those fields are limited.

However, we now have many programs for those who are less fortunate to be able to attend college. Lots of places allow high school students to combine high school with community college so they get a good start. And a lot of colleges have programs for students from poor families.

 

[SuperLuigi]

1. What is meant by “education”. Today in many places getting an education means getting awashed in propaganda, a lot of which seems to undermine the Catholic faith.
2. There’s a lot of reasons why the free market system brings about prosperity versus a government that forces things onto people. Distribution of goods as means of private enterprise is fine, but once government gets involved things get really messy.

Catholics need to stop trying to find all of these excuses to stand with whatever happens to be and awesome today.

 

[St_Francis]

“may mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.”

Hello everyone.

Previously I made another thread about this topic but then it kinda got a bit divisive and well it kinda died. So here’s a new one.

**From what I get(which is limited) Distributism aims to expand the “means of production” or in practical terms basically giving many people property in order to promote a humane economy and dignified livelihoods for all. **

This kinda appears like a medieval idea(since it was more agrarian back then).

Could this is a way of applying Distributions in the 21st Century.

Instead of aiming to provide land to everyone,wouldn’t it be a better idea if we could instead policies that promote education,skills training and asset development among the masses or especially the economically disadvantaged poor and working class.

In a way,isn’t education and capital assets(i.e savings,stocks etc) alternative forms of “property”?

Have a wonderful week.
Pax Christi

WRT your point which I bolded above, no, no one is advocating giving anything away; they are advocating an economic framework in which many people could own and run their own small businesses instead of the current system of corporations, which, even tho they allow partial ownership, aren’t really under the control of a single owner or partnership.

As an example of some things that Distributists would probably like to change are zoning systems in which people are not permitted to start businesses from their homes, “barriers to entry” such as needed an inspected commercial kitchen in order to sell any amount of food greater than a bake sale, the necessity for specialized training in some areas, etc.

 

[St_Francis]

1. What is meant by “education”. Today in many places getting an education means getting awashed in propaganda, a lot of which seems to undermine the Catholic faith.
2. There’s a lot of reasons why the free market system brings about prosperity versus a government that forces things onto people. Distribution of goods as means of private enterprise is fine, but once government gets involved things get really messy.

Catholics need to stop trying to find all of these excuses to stand with whatever happens to be and awesome today.

Distributism is an attempt by Catholics to advocate economic structures which would align more closely with the writings of popes and others on *Catholic *social justice. Altho the Catholic phrase “social justice” has been co-opted, it doesn’t mean that the economic system in the US is the perfect system for all.

Distributism is a free market system which allows more people to be involved in owning and running their own businesses.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“may mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.”

Hello everyone.

Previously I made another thread about this topic but then it kinda got a bit divisive and well it kinda died. So here’s a new one.

From what I get(which is limited) Distributism aims to expand the “means of production” or in practical terms basically giving many people property in order to promote a humane economy and dignified livelihoods for all.

This kinda appears like a medieval idea(since it was more agrarian back then).

Could this is a way of applying Distributions in the 21st Century.

Instead of aiming to provide land to everyone,wouldn’t it be a better idea if we could instead policies that promote education,skills training and asset development among the masses or especially the economically disadvantaged poor and working class.

In a way,isn’t education and capital assets(i.e savings,stocks etc) alternative forms of “property”?

Have a wonderful week.
Pax Christi

Pope John Paul II said essentially the same thing. He endorsed the principle which some now call “distributism”, but said it would require other forms now that small scale agriculture is not really a viable option or the fundamental economic basis of the economy, either one.

In addition to education and things like 401Ks, allowing small “side” businesses or even primary businesses might help. So, for example, if I want to start a landscaping business and learn how to do it, and scrape up enough money to make a down payment on a skid steerer and various useful attachments, am I going to be able to go out and do it, or am I going to be unduly restricted by governmental licensure, environmental regulations, labor regulations, etc?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Distributism was founded by G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. These men were poets, historians and philosophers. They were strong defenders of the Roman Catholic faith.
They were not economists and knew nothing about socioeconomic systems.

Distributism is nothing more that a kinder, gentler, form of socialism.

Like socialism, that fails every time it is introduced, Distributism is failing.

The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation of Spain is the largest company based on Distributism in the world. It’s flagship cooperative FAGOR, has just filed for bankruptcy.
FAGOR manufactured appliances (Washers & dryers etc) and just could not operate efficiently as a cooperative.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Distributism was founded by G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. These men were poets, historians and philosophers. They were strong defenders of the Roman Catholic faith.
They were not economists and knew nothing about socioeconomic systems.

Distributism is nothing more that a kinder, gentler, form of socialism.

Like socialism, that fails every time it is introduced, Distributism is failing.

The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation of Spain is the largest company based on Distributism in the world. It’s flagship cooperative FAGOR, has just filed for bankruptcy.
FAGOR manufactured appliances (Washers & dryers etc) and just could not operate efficiently as a cooperative.

I think there is a distinction between: The Popes who wrote the Social Encyclicals and the laymen like Chesterton and Belloc, on one hand, and the “socialist cooperative” types on the other.

FAGOR is of the latter sort.

To me, Distributism is as much in the mind of the individual as it is in formal economic structures. Do we embrace secular “government as savior” and “consumerism”, or do we see to our own financial structure as a servant to Faith?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think there is a distinction between: The Popes who wrote the Social Encyclicals and the laymen like Chesterton and Belloc, on one hand, and the “socialist cooperative” types on the other.

FAGOR is of the latter sort.

To me, Distributism is as much in the mind of the individual as it is in formal economic structures. Do we embrace secular “government as savior” and “consumerism”, or do we see to our own financial structure as a servant to Faith?

I believe that a proper financial structure (economic system) could, very well, be a servant to Faith.

 

[St_Francis]

Distributism was founded by G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. These men were poets, historians and philosophers. They were strong defenders of the Roman Catholic faith.
They were not economists and knew nothing about socioeconomic systems.

Distributism is nothing more that a kinder, gentler, form of socialism.

Like socialism, that fails every time it is introduced, Distributism is failing.

The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation of Spain is the largest company based on Distributism in the world. It’s flagship cooperative FAGOR, has just filed for bankruptcy.
FAGOR manufactured appliances (Washers & dryers etc) and just could not operate efficiently as a cooperative.

There is a *huge *difference between a cooperative and socialism. A cooperative is a venture in which all the “employees” are part-owners and help run the organization. It is entered into voluntarily by a relative few people.

Socialism, however, is forcibly imposed by the government on everyone.

Additionally, what you are saying is illogical. You imply that in a free market system or a system such as ours, no one ever goes bankrupt?

The fact that one cooperative in the Mondragon group, the flagship enterprise founded in the mid-50s, is having financial difficulties in the middle of a national financial crisis, after 60 years of operation, is no slur against *distributism. *In fact, Mondragon grew from this first cooperative into a network of over 150 business cooperatives and a university.

 

[St_Francis]

“may mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.”

Hello everyone.

Previously I made another thread about this topic but then it kinda got a bit divisive and well it kinda died. So here’s a new one.

From what I get(which is limited) Distributism aims to expand the “means of production” or in practical terms basically giving many people property in order to promote a humane economy and dignified livelihoods for all.

This kinda appears like a medieval idea(since it was more agrarian back then).

Could this is a way of applying Distributions in the 21st Century.

Instead of aiming to provide land to everyone,wouldn’t it be a better idea if we could instead policies that promote education,skills training and asset development among the masses or especially the economically disadvantaged poor and working class.

In a way,isn’t education and capital assets(i.e savings,stocks etc) alternative forms of “property”?

Have a wonderful week.
Pax Christi

A short article based on a linked NYT article about the difficulties encountered in the $3B fed/state job-training program.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There is a *huge *difference between a cooperative and socialism. A cooperative is a venture in which all the “employees” are part-owners and help run the organization. It is entered into voluntarily by a relative few people.

That concept is what caused FODOR to fail. It grew too big to support cooperative owners.
It EMPLOYED over 5500 people. They were EMPLOYEES, not part owners.

Socialism, however, is forcibly imposed by the government on everyone.

To create a distributist society, private property (the means of production) would have to be taken from certain individuals and redistributed to others.

Land and capital from certain individuals would have to be FORCIBLY confiscated and redistributed to other individuals. Currently, there is very little land that we could find that is not owned by some person. If we wished to make land more spread out in its distribution, we would have to take it from those who have it and divide it up among the masses. In principle, there is no difference between socialism and distributism. In the final analysis, both of them advocate the confiscation and redistribution of certain individuals’ private property.

Additionally, what you are saying is illogical. You imply that in a free market system or a system such as ours, no one ever goes bankrupt?

Sorry you took it that way. My intention was to imply that distributism is not the cure-all and has many problems.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That concept is what caused FODOR to fail. It grew too big to support cooperative owners.
It EMPLOYED over 5500 people. They were EMPLOYEES, not part owners.

To create a distributist society, private property (the means of production) would have to be taken from certain individuals and redistributed to others.

Land and capital from certain individuals would have to be FORCIBLY confiscated and redistributed to other individuals. Currently, there is very little land that we could find that is not owned by some person. If we wished to make land more spread out in its distribution, we would have to take it from those who have it and divide it up among the masses. In principle, there is no difference between socialism and distributism. In the final analysis, both of them advocate the confiscation and redistribution of certain individuals’ private property.

Sorry you took it that way. My intention was to imply that distributism is not the cure-all and has many problems.

Depends on how one conceives of Distributism. I suppose one could conceive of it as asset seizure and redistribution. It would ultimately fail, of course. One could also conceive of it in terms of facilitating ownership of productive assets by other means, by persons willing to do what it takes.

I am not wealthy, but I have acquired some assets by being careful about my spending and by studying various earning assets. Also by the relative ease of borrowing over the last few decades. Of all the borrowers bankers love most, their favorite is a guy who has a reasonable amount of equity in an asset that more than generates its own debt service.

But Distributism isn’t worth anything if it is not accompanied by a mindset on the part of those who wish to participate in it. If you took away, let’s say, the Warner Ranch, all 500,000 acres of it, split it up and gave acreages to various individuals, it would mostly concentrate again because lots of recipients would a) not know what to do with their parcel, or b) Not want to work on the land, or c) would rather have a Corvette and other consumer goodies. And those three would sell and be right back where they started.

If you ask me, Distributism in our time is the economic system we have now, combined with a guy who is willing to live below his means so he can acquire productive, inheritable assets.

 

[johnmann]

Distributism has failed and for a very fundamental reason. Ownership requires risk-taking. Those who are risk-adverse would rather earn a steady paycheck than a percentage of profits.

That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t lower barriers to entry but capitalism also wants lower barriers to entry. Distributism doesn’t add anything.

 

[decatholic]

1. What is meant by “education”. Today in many places getting an education means getting awashed in propaganda, a lot of which seems to undermine the Catholic faith.
2. There’s a lot of reasons why the free market system brings about prosperity versus a government that forces things onto people. Distribution of goods as means of private enterprise is fine, but once government gets involved things get really messy.

Catholics need to stop trying to find all of these excuses to stand with whatever happens to be and awesome today.

SuperLuigi: I don’t understand your closing quote.
Free market does bring prosperity; government involvement via regulations and laws hamper freedom of the people. When the government tell private citizen what to make, they by default force you to consume what is made. That is not freedom.

 

[decatholic]

Distributism was founded by G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. These men were poets, historians and philosophers. They were strong defenders of the Roman Catholic faith.
They were not economists and knew nothing about socioeconomic systems.

Distributism is nothing more that a kinder, gentler, form of socialism.

Like socialism, that fails every time it is introduced, Distributism is failing.

The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation of Spain is the largest company based on Distributism in the world. It’s flagship cooperative FAGOR, has just filed for bankruptcy.
FAGOR manufactured appliances (Washers & dryers etc) and just could not operate efficiently as a cooperative.

Well stated! Here is a book recommendation: Papal Economics
The Catholic Church on Democratic Capitalism, from Rerum Novarum to Caritas in Veritate
by Maciej Zięba, O.P.
It is very “collegiate” in style which means it is a challenging read.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Well stated! Here is a book recommendation: Papal Economics
The Catholic Church on Democratic Capitalism, from Rerum Novarum to Caritas in Veritate
by Maciej Zięba, O.P.
It is very “collegiate” in style which means it is a challenging read.

Thank you, Decatholic, for the compliment and the book recommendation. This is the second time I have heard of that book…I guess I better get it.

I should mention that I blindly agree with any papal writings on faith and morals…but take papal writings about economics and politics with a grain of salt.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well stated! Here is a book recommendation: Papal Economics
The Catholic Church on Democratic Capitalism, from Rerum Novarum to Caritas in Veritate
by Maciej Zięba, O.P.
It is very “collegiate” in style which means it is a challenging read.

I’ll look for that book.

I will add my recommendation of “Redeeming Economics” by John Mueller. Some of the graphs and such are tough to decipher, and some of the economist equations are hard to keep in one’s head. However, the word text tells what the more technical stuff means, and it’s very readable.

Basically what Mueller does is examine the viability of principles derived from St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Papal Social Encyclicals, while demonstrating that most economic theories don’t work out, either formulaically or practically.

 

[manualman]

Distributism has failed and for a very fundamental reason. Ownership requires risk-taking. Those who are risk-adverse would rather earn a steady paycheck than a percentage of profits.
.

This sentence indicates you don’t understand the word. Distributism is 100% compatible with free market economics. It just calls for a recognition of the fact that massive consolidation of wealth ownership creates dehumanizing conditions not present when wealth is more evenly spread. Lots of ways to address this if we really tried at it.

For example, why not tax capital gains at the same rate as wages? The system we have now structurally accelerates the concentration of wealth in the hands of those who already have lots to invest. I refuse to believe that Bill Gates is going to stuff his money into mattresses if he has to pay the same tax rate as Joe the Plumber. I call Baloney.

Here’s another idea: Why not enact legal reforms that offset some of the economic bully power corporations like Walmart have over Fred’s corner market? We’ve all heard the stories of how Walmart (for example) runs up sales for its suppliers and gets them addicted to the volume, then demands successive cuts in cost that the supplier makes almost nothing and charges Walmart far less than it does other retailers for the same thing. That could be stopped with some sensible legislation on open book pricing for large volume products and requirements that suppliers decide what they will charge and then charge everybody the same. Wouldn’t YOU shop at Fred’s corner store if the prices were the same as Walmart’s? I would!

I’d like to see an outright ban on ALL tax breaks governments often use to entice sports teams and big corporations to relocate to their jurisdiction. This is always a give-away of local small guy taxpayer money to the already rich and powerful. Ban it and make the jerks pay their own way.

My most controversial idea is simply the estate tax. Dead guys own nothing by definition. They’re dead. You both enter and leave this world with nothing. Given that governments DO require funding to do the things we all want them to, the best way for taxes to be levied is in an equitable manner and one that puts the least damper on growth. Estate taxes fit that perfectly. The guy that earned it pays nothing. The guy that otherwise stood to inherit it did nothing to earn it. Set a minimum threshold, abolish the trust loophole and put a hefty tax on the rest of inheritances. I refuse to believe that people will be discouraged from working hard because their estate will be taxed heavily after they are dead. Only the most brainwashed dittohead could believe such a thing.

The above are samples only. They show how would could keep our free market system in a manner that did more to reward the guy who works hard, takes risks and innovates rather than the guy who simply already had a ton of money to invest (virtually the definition of capitalism).