Distributism

[metis]

One of my favorite scholars and authors is C. K. Chesterton, and he was a strong proponent of what's called "Distributism".

In brief, distributism is an economic/political approach that is neither capitalism nor socialism, and it's main gist is that economic ownership should ideally be in the hands of the most people possible. The enemies of this approach is both big government and big business.

Small businesses are more intimate between owner and laborer, thus they have more of a mutual drive to cooperate and care for each other. I've worked in both, and there is a vast difference between big and small businesses in terms of how employers and laborers tend to be treated.

This approach also was very much favored by Gandhi and also by numerous popes, including Pope Francis. I also have strongly advocated this over many years now, and my my wife's and my actions reflect where we do most of our shopping and eating.

Anyhow, here's a link to take it further if you'd like: Distributism - Wikipedia

Thoughts?

 

[BSM1]

Sooo...which Popes invited the great unwashed to share the vast Vatican wealth?

 

[stvdv]

Sooo...which Popes invited the great unwashed to share the vast Vatican wealth?

I guess you didn't receive "your Pope's birthday gift" yet?

 

[Nakosis]

One of my favorite scholars and authors is C. K. Chesterton, and he was a strong proponent of what's called "Distributism".

In brief, distributism is an economic/political approach that is neither capitalism nor socialism, and it's main gist is that economic ownership should ideally be in the hands of the most people possible. The enemies of this approach is both big government and big business.

Small businesses are more intimate between owner and laborer, thus they have more of a mutual drive to cooperate and care for each other. I've worked in both, and there is a vast difference between big and small businesses in terms of how employers and laborers tend to be treated.

This approach also was very much favored by Gandhi and also by numerous popes, including Pope Francis. I also have strongly advocated this over many years now, and my my wife's and my actions reflect where we do most of our shopping and eating.

Anyhow, here's a link to take it further if you'd like: Distributism - Wikipedia

Thoughts?

As long as risk can be distributed equally as well.
If risk is unequal then distributism is inherently unfair.
Just not sure how risk equality would be handled.

 

[Nakosis]

"It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchens and the children from their play. These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them, in the strict sense of the term, from starvation…. the fact remains that for the surplus population which the enclosure movement had reduced to dire wretchedness and for which there was literally no room left in the frame of the prevailing system of production, work in the factories was salvation. These people thronged into the plants for no reason other than the urge to improve their standard of living."

Distributism, in such a context, would have spelled certain doom for the proletariat it claims to defend.
What's Wrong with "Distributism" | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

I guess the idea here is that "working class" families would simply not have survived without the growth of capitalism.
Distributism assumes everyone is capable of being self sufficient. Capitalism provides a distribution of risk among those capable of handling risk.
We cannot all handle risk equally. Those that can would do well. Those that can't wouldn't survive in such a system.

 

[epronovost]

Capitalism provides a distribution of risk among those capable of handling risk.

Risks varies in nature depending on your position. A business owner risks his capital to make a lot of money. The miner who works for him risks his life and health for a meager salary. Thus risking capital is potentially highly rewarded while risking your life and health isn't.

 

[Nakosis]

Risks varies in nature depending on your position. A business owner risks his capital to make a lot of money. The miner who works for him risks his life and health for a meager salary. Thus risking capital is potentially highly rewarded while risking your life and health isn't.

Miners? That's about 1 a year in the US. About .00014% chance averaging about $68,000 a year. 300 die a year in my line of work or about .019%. Safer being a miner.

 

[epronovost]

Miners? That's about 1 a year in the US. About .00014% chance averaging about $68,000 a year. 300 die a year in my line of work or about .019%. Safer being a miner.

Wow, can I ask what's your occupation it seems incredibly dangerous just like that?

 

[Heyo]

Miners? That's about 1 a year in the US. About .00014% chance averaging about $68,000 a year. 300 die a year in my line of work or about .019%. Safer being a miner.

It's not only the risk of life and health the worker bears. When a business goes under, the owner loses money (which can be mitigated by choosing the right kind of business form). The worker loses his job and often the outstanding wages. Depending on circumstances the workers risk can be relatively higher than that of the owner.

 

[dfnj]

Anyhow, here's a link to take it further if you'd like: Distributism - Wikipedia
Thoughts?

Marx always said laissez faire capitalism is always followed by communism. This is because unfettered greed would result in ever greater concentrations of money and wealth into fewer and fewer hands. This would eventually result in the government's currency collapsing to be nothing of value. Paradoxically money is worth more when its in more hands and more people are greedy about it's value. As it becomes concentrated greed wanes and money loses value. As soon as the currency becomes worthless people in breadlines will demand MORE government not less. See you in the breadlines comrades!!!

Quandl

 

[Nakosis]

Wow, can I ask what's your occupation it seems incredibly dangerous just like that?

Honestly not so much, I deal with high current/high power, wind turbines/power grid stuff but I feel like I know what I'm doing. Still accidents do happen.

 

[Nakosis]

It's not only the risk of life and health the worker bears. When a business goes under, the owner loses money (which can be mitigated by choosing the right kind of business form). The worker loses his job and often the outstanding wages. Depending on circumstances the workers risk can be relatively higher than that of the owner.

Certainly, these "workers" depend a lot on owners. They are not as capable of handling risk. It's somewhat mitigated by the business owner but it's not perfect. Those more capable would probably strike out on their own anyway, least more likely to.

 

[Heyo]

Marx always said laissez faire capitalism is always followed by communism. This is because unfettered greed would result in ever greater concentrations of money and wealth into fewer and fewer hands. This would eventually result in the government's currency collapsing to be nothing of value. Paradoxically money is worth more when its in more hands and more people are greedy about it's value. As it becomes concentrated greed wanes and money loses value. As soon as the currency becomes worthless people in breadlines will demand MORE government not less. See you in the breadlines comrades!!!

Quandl

Interestingly that seems not to hold true in our current situation. We have an inflation when we only look at the value of money. (You don't get money for your money. Interest rates are way down, so far that they have become negative for banks that store their money in the European central bank.)
But that money is only book money and the banks and the rich are sitting on it or take it to the casino. (Casino capitalism) As long as this money stays in the hands of the few, prices stay stable and we don't get a runaway inflation.

 

[BSM1]

Risks varies in nature depending on your position. A business owner risks his capital to make a lot of money. The miner who works for him risks his life and health for a meager salary. Thus risking capital is potentially highly rewarded while risking your life and health isn't.

Both had a choice. The business owner was willing to risk his future, while the miner only chooses to risk today.

 

[epronovost]

Both had a choice. The business owner was willing to risk his future, while the miner only chooses to risk today.

I'm sorry, but if you risk your life and your health you risk your future and then some. A risk always imply problems in your future and last time I checked being dead was a bigger issue for people than loosing money.

 

[metis]

As long as risk can be distributed equally as well.
If risk is unequal then distributism is inherently unfair.
Just not sure how risk equality would be handled.

It's not socialistic but a different model altogether. The government's role is more of that of an encourager and partial coordinator for cottage industries to be created, matched with more power sharing within larger companies.

 

[metis]

"It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchens and the children from their play. These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them, in the strict sense of the term, from starvation…. the fact remains that for the surplus population which the enclosure movement had reduced to dire wretchedness and for which there was literally no room left in the frame of the prevailing system of production, work in the factories was salvation. These people thronged into the plants for no reason other than the urge to improve their standard of living."

Distributism, in such a context, would have spelled certain doom for the proletariat it claims to defend.
What's Wrong with "Distributism" | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

I guess the idea here is that "working class" families would simply not have survived without the growth of capitalism.
Distributism assumes everyone is capable of being self sufficient. Capitalism provides a distribution of risk among those capable of handling risk.
We cannot all handle risk equally. Those that can would do well. Those that can't wouldn't survive in such a system.

That quote is really a twisting from known history as children were being used as laborers, including in mines. Plus, it jumps to a simply unwarranted and illogical conclusion, especially since the governmental involvement logically would have to be flexible to achieve the end of higher employment based partially on the encouragement of cottage industries, but not limited to them. Under Gandhi, India made significant progress, although the high birth rate and extreme poverty there eventually took its toll as they gradually outstripped their resources.

To put it another way, the system would have to be quite flexible in order to handle the various eventualities that could show up.

 

[Nakosis]

That quote is really a twisting from known history as children were being used as laborers, including in mines. Plus, it jumps to a simply unwarranted and illogical conclusion, especially since the governmental involvement logically would have to be flexible to achieve the end of higher employment based partially on the encouragement of cottage industries, but not limited to them. Under Gandhi, India made significant progress, although the high birth rate and extreme poverty there eventually took its toll as they gradually outstripped their resources.

To put it another way, the system would have to be quite flexible in order to handle the various eventualities that could show up.

Sure, makes some assumptions and it is hard to be precise about the outcomes under different circumstances.

I actually think a problem would be the lack of need for many jobs now taken over by automation. This would affect any system. The future my hold a lack of need for many occupations. How would Distributism handle too many people and too few jobs?

 

[Nakosis]

It's not socialistic but a different model altogether. The government's role is more of that of an encourager and partial coordinator for cottage industries to be created, matched with more power sharing within larger companies.

Nothing really stopping this now if a person can find a needed niche in the market. Government is often encouraging small business creation. The bigger problem is capability. Success is just not a guarantee.

 

[metis]

I actually think a problem would be the lack of need for many jobs now taken over by automation. This would affect any system.

I witnessed myself back in the mid-60's whereas automation was taking over big-time, thus masses numbers of people losing their jobs. Instead of making life easier for all of us with this process, we laid people off, with a great many of them not being able to find new jobs because they lacked the new skills needed.

The future my hold a lack of need for many occupations. How would Distributism handle too many people and too few jobs?

Getting people help with retraining programs; reducing work hours and eliminating overtime if necessary; make-work projects, such as clean-up projects; encouraging more companies to hire more people with tax breaks if needed; more community development projects; etc.

No system is perfect, thus flexibility and the anticipation of problems and how to deal with them would be very important. There still would be the need of a good safety-net though, thus people laid off can help in this area as well. Just walking around in my area, one could easily come up with things that can and probably should be done.

And we should remember that money earned by low-wage earners tends to get spent mostly locally, which is where we want recovery to begin. When the wealthy make money, we have no clue as to how and where they'll spend it..