Distributism General

[JagerIV]

Its come to my attention that several people seem to self identify as a Distributist. I think it would be useful to have a thread then to discuss it, and maybe some principles to it.

First question of discussion: how necessary is Catholicism to distributism in general? The two seem very closely tied in practical terms, especially historically, but I'm not sure its a necessary component.

Edit:

actually, should this go in this forum, or the other politics one?

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

The short answer, in my opinion, would be no. Its most influential proponents historically have been Catholic, but distributism gets as much from Cobbett-style ruralism as it does from the Roman Church. Today, I see no reason why people of any other church, or indeed any other faith or none, would not be able to be distributist.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Distributivism is the preferred economic position of Filianya, reflecting a Thamelic and healthy civilisation’s idea of the natural reflection of society in the distribution of wealth. Historically it was as much a formalisation of the Arts and Crafts Movement as something strictly related to Catholicism per say.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Distributivism is the preferred economic position of Filianya, reflecting a Thamelic and healthy civilisation’s idea of the natural reflection of society in the distribution of wealth. Historically it was as much a formalisation of the Arts and Crafts Movement as something strictly related to Catholicism per say.

That sounds pretty neat to me. I would say I am more inclined to Distributist philosophy due to following the tradition of Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, and into many of the thinkers claimed by the classical liberals, who really weren't.

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

Distributivism is the preferred economic position of Filianya, reflecting a Thamelic and healthy civilisation’s idea of the natural reflection of society in the distribution of wealth. Historically it was as much a formalisation of the Arts and Crafts Movement as something strictly related to Catholicism per say.

Oh? That sounds intriguing - what's the relationship between distributism and Goddess-worship, for you?

That sounds pretty neat to me. I would say I am more inclined to Distributist philosophy due to following the tradition of Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, and into many of the thinkers claimed by the classical liberals, who really weren't.

What elements of distributist thought do you see in those thinkers?

I find the look backwards here interesting, because I would have thought that distributism is very much an early-twentieth-century movement, reflecting early-twentieth-century concerns about class and capital.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Our Mother God (we never use “Goddess” to refer to Her, Blessed is She) created the material world from the divine order of her own existence as Mother and Creator. Distributivism is simply a practical writing down, in the 20th century systematic way, of what a Maid of time immemorial would have found the natural and regular order of the economic sphere. For our belief religion and society are inseparable.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

What elements of distributist thought do you see in those thinkers?

I find the look backwards here interesting, because I would have thought that distributism is very much an early-twentieth-century movement, reflecting early-twentieth-century concerns about class and capital.

Well, it is more that of the idea, that I see society as there so that we can live together, but not just live together, live together finely, and live by ourselves finely. To be able to pursue the good life, and failing that an adequate to half decent life. Further society exists so that everyone can be self sufficient, in a way we cannot be self sufficient on our own. Pretty sure I see distributism as a way that everyone, can be self sufficient or have the proper capacity/chance to be, and would allow more people to have the capacity for the good life. Does this make any sense? Not so much anything particular on the authors, but the logical conclusions/connections that I can make.

Though off the top of my head, if it were any author, it would probably be Aristotle where I could best find such elements, such as his aversion to money lending, support for forms of supplement so the poor can take part in civil society, etc. Would have to really re-read his work closely and with a still mind to suss out more.

 

[FriedCFour]

First question of discussion: how necessary is Catholicism to distributism in general?

Not at all. Catholicism has grown on me but its not. My leanings into that are mostly because of seeing just how easily corporations have been stripping freedom and how freedom of speech doesnt mean so much if a few companies coming from one cultural center control the public square, are all identical in belief, all donate to the same party extensively, and all see a need to shape society to their world view, even if it means lying or manipulating what information the general public even gets access to and arbitrarily deciding who gets to have a voice. Also, that a strong economy is not the salvation of all our social ills. Even though things have gotten undoubtably materially better for people, crime is still high, unrest is high, suicide is high, drug abuse is high.

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

Our Mother God (we never use “Goddess” to refer to Her, Blessed is She) created the material world from the divine order of her own existence as Mother and Creator. Distributivism is simply a practical writing down, in the 20th century systematic way, of what a Maid of time immemorial would have found the natural and regular order of the economic sphere. For our belief religion and society are inseparable.

So you'd argue that for most of history, a de facto distributist system was in place? You might need to clarify what 'time immemorial' means for me. Distributism seems incompatible with, for example, slavery or serfdom, and those certainly endured a long time.

In what specific way does your belief lead to distributism? The Catholic argument would probably be made in terms of natural rights and the subordination of the economic sphere to human ends - would you tend to agree with that?

Well, it is more that of the idea, that I see society as there so that we can live together, but not just live together, live together finely, and live by ourselves finely. To be able to pursue the good life, and failing that an adequate to half decent life. Further society exists so that everyone can be self sufficient, in a way we cannot be self sufficient on our own. Pretty sure I see distributism as a way that everyone, can be self sufficient or have the proper capacity/chance to be, and would allow more people to have the capacity for the good life. Does this make any sense?

Are you positing a particular model of the good life here?

One weakness with distributism, I would argue, is that Chesterton et al sometimes seem to suppose that the common man generally only has one set of interests or desires, and distributism can satisfy them. One of Chesterton's general problems, actually, is that while he says a great deal about ordinary people, he often seems to be substituting his picture of what an ordinary person is like for what they really are like. In the real world, though, we notice that people tend to disagree about what the good life is, and they often have conflicting ambitions.

So one argument against the three-acres-and-a-cow model is that you'll just get people who don't particularly want to live in a quaint little farming cottage (or whatever your distributist equivalent is), and so they sell this private property in order to do something else. Maybe you sell your three acres of land to a big farming collective, get yourself a little apartment in the city instead, and invest the rest of the profits in your lifelong dream of becoming an artist or investing in the stock market or founding an import business or becoming a politician or whatever else you might be into. A certain proportion of people are likely to do this, and over time big capital firms are likely to evolve again. If everyone wanted to live G. K. Chesterton's imagined rural idyll, that might work, but most people don't. Arguably even Chesterton didn't want to: he was a journalist and author, after all.

Well, a modern distributism would almost certainly not work by giving everyone a little tract of land in the country. I think the point remains, though - if you give everyone a certain allotment of property, that property is going to change hands over time and you might eventually find it concentrated again. This is likely to just be a result of people having very different priorities in life. How does the distributist system cope with this? Do you ban people from selling or trading their distribution? Do you have some sort of periodic Jubilee where you re-distribute everything?

Anyway, to come back to your suggestion - what would you do in the case of people with very different ideas about what it means to live well? Would this cause any issues for you?

 

[FriedCFour]

Well, a modern distributism would almost certainly not work by giving everyone a little tract of land in the country. I think the point remains, though - if you give everyone a certain allotment of property, that property is going to change hands over time and you might eventually find it concentrated again. This is likely to just be a result of people having very different priorities in life. How does the distributist system cope with this? Do you ban people from selling or trading their distribution? Do you have some sort of periodic Jubilee where you re-distribute everything?

Like I said, I lean that way and see it as an ideal. The best way of getting more distributist isnt to just make everyone by force become a property owner with a little farm and actually regulate everything, its to make it so that it takes less starting capital, less regulative redtape to jump through at your own cost, less taxes et all to own a small business, and stop subsidizing and favoring giant ones. The idea of actually distributing wealth in equalized allotments by force is kind of appalling to me.

 

[Deleted member 1]

So you'd argue that for most of history, a de facto distributist system was in place? You might need to clarify what 'time immemorial' means for me. Distributism seems incompatible with, for example, slavery or serfdom, and those certainly endured a long time.

In what specific way does your belief lead to distributism? The Catholic argument would probably be made in terms of natural rights and the subordination of the economic sphere to human ends - would you tend to agree ?

Yes, actually. Natural Rights and the subordination of the economic sphere to the Sattvic principle (spiritual ends, even, not merely human) are inherent and part of a Thamelic society. I can try to explain in more detail, but suffice that in this almost any religion agrees at some philosophical level. Really only certain strains of Protestantism and of course modern “liberal” religions don’t have a point pf agreement at some level.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Like I said, I lean that way and see it as an ideal. The best way of getting more distributist isnt to just make everyone by force become a property owner with a little farm and actually regulate everything, its to make it so that it takes less starting capital, less regulative redtape to jump through at your own cost, less taxes et all to own a small business, and stop subsidizing and favoring giant ones. The idea of actually distributing wealth in equalized allotments by force is kind of appalling to me.

I would add that it includes a certain measure of support for local businesses by having government do things they don’t have the scale to. The old Postal Monopoly before FedEx and UPS is a great example of how you do that in a capitalist society.

The Mondragon cooperative is an excellent example of how you handle large industry, being founded in Carlist Integralist conceits by some priests. It has deformed under the pressure of neo-capitalism in the past decades, but is still a very good example.

As for slavery, in most of history slaves had rights. Chattel slavery specifically relates to a very limited number of societies, all in the Kali Yuga.

 

[S'task]

The old Postal Monopoly before FedEx and UPS is a great example of how you do that in a capitalist society.

Perhaps before UPS, which focused on bulk package delivery, but services like FedEx have long existed alongside the Postal Service and arguably predate the concept of a postal service. FedEx is just a larger version of a private express courier after all, which have been around since pretty much it became important for private people to communicate directly with each other between city-states... so likely originating sometime in the Bronze Age if not earlier...

 

[Deleted member 1]

I would say the delineation between the Railway Express Agency and USPS was the right one. Really, it’s about control of Common Carriers in general. Integrated logistics and deregulated shipping help destroy small businesses.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Are you positing a particular model of the good life here?

One weakness with distributism, I would argue, is that Chesterton et al sometimes seem to suppose that the common man generally only has one set of interests or desires, and distributism can satisfy them. One of Chesterton's general problems, actually, is that while he says a great deal about ordinary people, he often seems to be substituting his picture of what an ordinary person is like for what they really are like. In the real world, though, we notice that people tend to disagree about what the good life is, and they often have conflicting ambitions.

So one argument against the three-acres-and-a-cow model is that you'll just get people who don't particularly want to live in a quaint little farming cottage (or whatever your distributist equivalent is), and so they sell this private property in order to do something else. Maybe you sell your three acres of land to a big farming collective, get yourself a little apartment in the city instead, and invest the rest of the profits in your lifelong dream of becoming an artist or investing in the stock market or founding an import business or becoming a politician or whatever else you might be into. A certain proportion of people are likely to do this, and over time big capital firms are likely to evolve again. If everyone wanted to live G. K. Chesterton's imagined rural idyll, that might work, but most people don't. Arguably even Chesterton didn't want to: he was a journalist and author, after all.

Well, a modern distributism would almost certainly not work by giving everyone a little tract of land in the country. I think the point remains, though - if you give everyone a certain allotment of property, that property is going to change hands over time and you might eventually find it concentrated again. This is likely to just be a result of people having very different priorities in life. How does the distributist system cope with this? Do you ban people from selling or trading their distribution? Do you have some sort of periodic Jubilee where you re-distribute everything?

Anyway, to come back to your suggestion - what would you do in the case of people with very different ideas about what it means to live well? Would this cause any issues for you?

Sorry for not replying to you sooner, I do have one in mind, which tends towards living a decently comfortable life of contemplation. Though that is a simplification. And I would say the three-acres and a cow model is utterly insufficient, for some people it might be good, for others it is not.

Well, I would guess you would try to accommodate them. One idea could be a national dividend as proposed by the SoCreds, but that runs into the same sort of problems as BIG, though perhaps less so since there is an incentive to work. What I would aim towards is encouraging self-sufficiency so people can have the capacity to strive towards their own end. Though I would support a society of yeomen farmers, since it sounds like an appealing one. A more realistic version for me, would be that everyone ought to have a vegetable garden, or some way of putting food on their own table in addition to what their income brings. But that would be up to each individual.

 

[JagerIV]

Would you say something that might set Distributism apart from other, political programs? Is that maybe the right word? Is a focus on the family as the unit, rather than the individual per say?

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Would you say something that might set Distributism apart from other, political programs? Is that maybe the right word? Is a focus on the family as the unit, rather than the individual per say?

It seems to be the case in general, but I don't think it is the truth with all distributist ideologies/sub-ideologies. Social Credit seems to be more individual focused, though I would say that even if a particular distributist or ideology/movement does not follow this, there would be greater concern for the family.

*Apparently Social Creditism is not distributist, but a parallel movement. Could be grouped in the same category though.