Is Distributism utopian?

[meme1961]

Originally Posted by St Francis

For the sake of simplicity, let's say you have a community with a grocery store, a fabric shop, a shoe store, etc.

Walmart comes in with a grocery section, a fabric section, a shoe section, etc

The other stores end up closing down, and all the community is left with is WalMart.

The size of the community grows, because now Walmart is part of it, and Walmart is a very big community.

Before Walmart arrived, that grocery store sold many, many items that were not produced locally (bananas, coffee, orange juice, etc.). When the grocery store sold those items, was that bad, since the profits on the sale of those items left the community? If this is a farming community, some of the ingredients in the food sold may have been produced locally, but they were shipped out to be aggregated, resold, processed, packaged, then shipped back.

Was this trading with other locales a bad thing? Can you see how that trade made those in distant locales part of the community?

And now that Walmart is selling those items, has something bad happened solely by the fact that it is now Walmart doing the selling?

If the grocery store were an instance of a large corporation, such as a King Soopers or a Safeway, you had a large corporation in your town before, now you still have a large corporation in your town.

What has to change in this scenario is that those people who once worked for Safeway now work for Walmart, and the guy who used to manage the Safeway now manages the grocery department at Walmart.

As time passes, people change professions or start new businesses, or new workers arrive to start other businesses, some of which exist to trade with or supply Walmart, just as before people traded with or supplied the King Soopers (directly, or indirectly through other members of your extended community). Others to do things that Walmart does not do, by starting new businesses, or going to work for businesses that open up shop here because there is a ready labor supply.

It is a mistake to treat change as automatically bad. The heart of the capitalist system is creative destruction brought about by changes in the competitive environment. To prevent that change is a bad thing, in part because in the long term it simply makes the situation worse, and in part because the only way to prevent that change is to give away your personal liberties and rights to an entity big enough and powerful enough to temporarily and partially prevent said change until the power of that change can overwhelm even the most powerful temporal entity.

[meme1961]

Originally Posted by JRRTFAN

Socialism means that the government owns the means of production. Distributism finds that repugnant.

Your education is a bit stale. Political science now recognizes other forms of socialism, including regulatory socialism. The difference is that under regulatory socialism, you still "own" your means of production, but you don't control it. The socialist state controls it by means of regulatory or legislative power (in short, you own it but the state controls it).

Originally Posted by JRRTFAN

What distributism means is that society is structured in such a way that persons can own, and earn thorough their own work, the funds necessary to build their own means of support.

If that is all it means, then Distributism is a word with no discriminatory meaning, because that exists right now.

Originally Posted by JRRTFAN

It has nothing to do with siezure of property. It supports the local shoe store rather than the big box store.

Whoops! There is where you have to stop and explain HOW Distributism "supports the local shoe store" rather than the "big box store". Without the application of some kind of regulatory or legislative power, what would be different under Distributism than what we currently have?

Answer: license. See my other posts about this.

Originally Posted by JRRTFAN

In 1910 when some guy wanted to be a blacksmith the government did not sieze somebody else's anvil so that the guy could set up shop. So why do you guys think that it did? It didn't, pure and simple. Take that argument off the table it's ludicrous.

Excuse? You just argued against Distributism, not for it. That is what we have NOW, the right to set up shop and grow as big as the market allows you to do so.

Originally Posted by JRRTFAN

Whare are you guys coming from?

A little place I like to call "reality."

If Distributism does not already exist, it must be brought into existence by one of two methods: 1) People are taught what it means, and then adopt the tennets on their own absent coercion 2) A sufficiently powerful entity is created to enforce it.

If number 1, then what will you do with Walmart? Just preach against it, but nothing else? If so, then what will you do when people continue to prefer to shop at Walmart?

If number 2, then can you see how people would consider Distributism to be fundamentally evil, since it would further violate their personal rights and liberties?

Originally Posted by JRRTFAN

Have you any sense that money can be saved, and with that accumulation, small business can be started and then those supported by government hands off?

You mean, just like today, absent a decade or two of government overreach?

Originally Posted by JRRTFAN

Where do you get this siezure mentality? I'll say it again, I think a lot of posters here don't know what the concept is.

I think I do. Either you have a word that is a synonym for the free market, and thus this discussion is moot, or you are not discussing policy for some reason or another.

[meme1961]

Originally Posted by St Francis

I guess I was not entirely clear about the fact that those were my own ideas rather than those of distributism, I'm sorry about that.

But I want to make it really clear because I have no idea where distributists stand on this and do not want any criticism of my own personal ideas to fall on distributism because that would be really bad.

So, again, this is as far as I know not a fatal flaw of distributism, since those are my own personal ideas.

So now we are back to not knowing what Distributism is. But according to the Wikipedia page, and several other papers I've read, Distributism is a new spin on the old idea of Feudalism, specifically that part of Feudalism that includes the idea that all property, goods and services, whether or not the state actually owns it, lies under the the power and jurisdiction of said state, and that in order to do business, one must get a license from that state.

Originally Posted by St Francis

Distributists, at least some of them, advocate worker-owned cooperatives for large-scale operations. Mondragon in Spain is an example of this.

Such businesses already exist here in the United States, too. So again, I'm left to consider Distributism as a label with no meaning.

Most of the large corporations are "stock" companies, and thus are basically owned by both the workers (when I worked for a fortune 50 company, I bought a lot of the companies stock, and thus became a part owner in the company), and people who may or may not be a customer of the company. If your point is that "worker owned" is what Distributism is about, then we have a different conversation, though I would start by asking about its relationship to communism.

Originally Posted by St Francis

Additionally, a cooperative of separately owned companies could provide the same benefits of a large corporation.

That is how large corporations are structured: as an aggregate of smaller groups (sometimes referred to as "divisions").

Most of the fortune 50 are like big bags of smaller companies. That is why they report earnings both by market segment, AND "division". A large corporation is almost always a "collective", but with a legal umbrella of also being recognized as being part of a corporation. The advantage of being under that one umbrella is that of cooperative effort that can't be created or sustained across separate companies. This can have deleterious effects as well, of course.

Originally Posted by St Francis

The break-up of AT&T was accomplished by selling the many divisions of the company. It was not accomplished by selling the office equipment.

And instead of having single, state-sponsored mega-corporation, you have a small number of very large ones. Is this an advertisement for Distributism? If so, then "large" really applies to about 50 to 100 corporations in the US.

Originally Posted by St Francis

Apparently, the parts of computers are not manufactured by the named manufacturers but by other companies. So it really wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Your information is not complete. There are really only two manufacturers of CPUs in the US: AMD and Intel. Most of the core chips are also manufactured by Intel, or a small number of other large companies (such as the ICH5 and ICH7 series). The remainder of the chips are much smaller, much less complex, but even so are still manufactured by "large" corporations. The point I was trying to make is that there is a certain minimum size for corporations that are producing very capital intensive goods, such as chip manufacturing or large diagnostic medical devices.

But more importantly, such fragmentation is something that only occurs after market maturation. It works poorly, if at all, to produce new markets or revolutionary goods for existing markets. Such market fragmentation requires the existence of fairly long term, stable "standards", such as now exist in the telephony and computer industries today.

Originally Posted by St Francis

And now Ford parts are manufactured by lots of different companies all over the world.

See above.

Those companies you refer to have large capital requirements, and thus do constitute a "large" company. That said, you might want to do some research into why those companies are off shore, and very specifically why some of them are "separate" companies.

Originally Posted by St Francis

I remember travelling through Elizabeth NJ in the 60s and 70s. There was a lot of pollution spewing from those big factories.

I did say "modern", did I not?

Also, manufacturing has always and will always produce more effluent of all kinds than office work. The difference is that now, a large company can afford to conform to EPA regulation, while smaller ones have to move offshore to jurisdictions that have laxer ecological regulatory environments.

[meme1961]

Originally Posted by frankpearson

I have a question for you. Does having regulation on the market require a bureaucracy?

In this context? Yes. The concept of "self-regulating", while valid and important, does not apply to this conversation, unless by Distributism, you are referring to a purely voluntary choice.

Originally Posted by frankpearson

It seems to me we could have a nearly non-existent state under distributism, probably much closer than the libertarians will ever get without it. Laws don't require a whole government apparatus to manage. Let the market handle it. The party that is wronged can pursue any violation in the courts.

Oops. The "courts"? An arm of government, that requires a policing authority, that judges the applicability of the work of the legislative part of the government, and if applicable, applies it? Said application requiring a penalty system, ranging from prisons to authorities to levy and collect fines?

The straw man argument that is thrown at capitalists in regards to their desire to eliminate government is just that: a straw man. A free market requires a government in order to keep the playing field fair and just. Modern economics rarely, if ever talks about economic systems absent their political context, and often times uses the term "political economy" to indicate such.

The question always arises as to how much government, and how much power to grant it, and most importantly "What is fair?" (As Catholics, we can answer the "what is fair?" question by pointing out that, in large part, Western Civilization is a construct of Holy Mother Church), but it is never reasonable to talk about an economic system absent a governing authority.

Even in the so-called "pure capitalist state", government emerges, though it is of course so closely allied to the business entities that are created as to be somewhat difficult to spot.

Originally Posted by frankpearson

I am going to vote for Ron Paul because I think we are at the point where groups of capitalists are seeking more protection from the government and we need to roll back some of that corporate welfare. Anyway, he makes this argument regarding child protection laws, letting the market handle it. I just have to ask where one draws the line? Why is it alright to enforce child protection laws in the market, but not to ensure cartels and monopolies don't have a chance to form?

Well, we already have anti-monopoly statues, so I don't see Ron Paul as fixing that. I agree that the notion of a fair playing field obviates the concept of "too big to fail", or of a company getting preferential treatment to attract them to a given location, so I'm right there with you on that part of it.

But Ron Paul has very little chance of getting elected. Too much baggage, and too many off-the-wall crazy ideas to overcome.

[meme1961]

Originally Posted by carn

The state has the right through laws. If someone runs someone else deliberately over with his car, it is an abuse of property.
If some chem factory runs on lousy sadeft standards and explodes killing thousands of people, it is abuse of property.

Ah! I get it, you meant "the violation of the rights of another person with the support of property". I thought you were referring to what I do ON or WITH my property, such as deciding to drain a swap in order to create more usable farm land.

Yes, the state has the right to impose a certain level of inter-personal restrictions (don't murder each other being one of those impositions). I would agree with that.

Originally Posted by carn

Obviously removing corporate personhood and leaving nothing to sue against, is a bad idea. But corporate personhood is an artificial construct, as only humans have rights and the corporate personhood is an attempt to "combine" the actual rights of the owners so that they can be used into relation of their property. As it is artificial one could change it without unavoidable harm to the property rights of its owners. And the lack of clear ownership could provide sufficient reason to change something.

I'm always game to hear a proposition. What would you propose to replace the concept of "corporate personhood"?

My warning was to point out that a huge amount of jurisprudence is based on this concept, and that incautiously ripping it up might be worse than the problem you are trying to fix (though at this point, I'm still not certain what problem you perceive, nor why it needs to be fixed).

Consider, as a starting point, the concept of a suit at law. How does that apply to a corporation if that corporation is not a person? And what happens to the legal precedents and relationships that currently apply precisely because a corporation is a "person"?

[meme1961]

Originally Posted by St Francis

This is about as bad as elucidations of Catholic teachings written by anti-Catholic former Catholics.

You do realize that the strawman argument is a fallacy?

I'm happy to read any reasoning or argument that you might have to the contrary. You posted none, so my only recourse is to interpret what you did post as unsupported assertion.

Why, for example, do you say: "You do realize that the strawman argument is a fallacy?"

What fallacy? How so?

[meme1961]

Originally Posted by St Francis

Thank you very much for explaining why one should be against a free market system unbounded by any interference whatsoever.

Did I ever argue anything else?

[meme1961]

Originally Posted by St Francis

I have a lot of trouble with that because that causes a diffusion of moral responsibility coupled with the protection of corporate personhood which allows them to benefit when the managers make good decisions and not suffer when the management makes bad decisions.

When managers make bad decisions, the stock holders do indeed suffer. The value of their stock goes down, and if that stock normally paid dividends, the dividend per share goes down, possibly to zero.

Originally Posted by St Francis

Moreover, the separation of ownership and decision-making renders the focus of the entire enterprise to be in short-term profits, further withering what morality there may have been along with rendering long term planning less important than it should be.

No, it doesn't. (See, I can make bald assertions too!)

[frankpearson]

Originally Posted by meme1961

Did I ever argue anything else?

Ahh, then you are at least part distributist. You just don't know it.

[frankpearson]

Originally Posted by meme1961

In this context? Yes. The concept of "self-regulating", while valid and important, does not apply to this conversation, unless by Distributism, you are referring to a purely voluntary choice.



Oops. The "courts"? An arm of government, that requires a policing authority, that judges the applicability of the work of the legislative part of the government, and if applicable, applies it? Said application requiring a penalty system, ranging from prisons to authorities to levy and collect fines?

The straw man argument that is thrown at capitalists in regards to their desire to eliminate government is just that: a straw man. A free market requires a government in order to keep the playing field fair and just. Modern economics rarely, if ever talks about economic systems absent their political context, and often times uses the term "political economy" to indicate such.

The question always arises as to how much government, and how much power to grant it, and most importantly "What is fair?" (As Catholics, we can answer the "what is fair?" question by pointing out that, in large part, Western Civilization is a construct of Holy Mother Church), but it is never reasonable to talk about an economic system absent a governing authority.

Even in the so-called "pure capitalist state", government emerges, though it is of course so closely allied to the business entities that are created as to be somewhat difficult to spot.



Well, we already have anti-monopoly statues, so I don't see Ron Paul as fixing that. I agree that the notion of a fair playing field obviates the concept of "too big to fail", or of a company getting preferential treatment to attract them to a given location, so I'm right there with you on that part of it.

But Ron Paul has very little chance of getting elected. Too much baggage, and too many off-the-wall crazy ideas to overcome.

I think you are tending toward distributism. The division, in the abstract between the three systems is very clear to a distributist-

Capitalism (libertarian) - capital and land are owned by the free market, concentrated or not concentrated however that distribution of capital and land fall

Socialism - capital and land are controlled by the state

Distributism - capital and land are owned by the free market, concentrated according to the concentration of laborers.

The recognition of a need to regulate a pure laissez faire system relating to the distribution of property is a recognition, at least partially of the abstract idea of the economic philosophy of distributism.

I think differentiating ourselves from laissez faire capitalists who want to paint every business and every success in a free market as a "capitalist" success. Recognize that it is not the strong form capitalist that is successful in regard to both labor and capital, it is distributism, or to use Christopher Ferrara's definition, "Capitalism in the benign sense".

[meme1961]

Originally Posted by frankpearson

Ahh, then you are at least part distributist. You just don't know it.

No, not really. I'm a limited government, free market capitalist.

When ever somebody tries to nail the Distributists on the meaning of the term, and how it will be implemented, they go all vague, or retreat.

Until such time as someone can actually define it, Distributism is a null (meaningless) term.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by meme1961

So now we are back to not knowing what Distributism is. But according to the Wikipedia page, and several other papers I've read, Distributism is a new spin on the old idea of Feudalism, specifically that part of Feudalism that includes the idea that all property, goods and services, whether or not the state actually owns it, lies under the the power and jurisdiction of said state, and that in order to do business, one must get a license from that state.

I just re-read the Wikipedia article and could not find the part which said either of those things.

Perhaps you could let us know which paragraphs of which sections include these two bits of information, 1. the distributism holds that the state holds that power over everything and 2. that one has to get a license in order to do business.

Knowing that Wikipdia is subject to change, maybe you could point us to the papers you read in which that information was included.

[frankpearson]

Originally Posted by meme1961

No, not really. I'm a limited government, free market capitalist.

When ever somebody tries to nail the Distributists on the meaning of the term, and how it will be implemented, they go all vague, or retreat.

Until such time as someone can actually define it, Distributism is a null (meaningless) term.

Many like the concept behind distributism, and they have an understanding, but don't know a concise definition because not enough people give concise definitions. It is a failure on the part of popular distributists.

But as laid out by Belloc in Servile State, distributism is the following:

Distributism - capital and land are owned by the free market, concentrated according to the concentration of labor in the market.

That's what it is. It isn't vague. It is a quite solid definition Sure it is an abstract definition, but so is "capitalism" and "socialism", they all actually occur in the real world in a modified form.

I posted about implementation a few pages back. But one thing you should know, unlike capitalism and socialism, no distributist proposes violent revolution.

1) start and support distributist businesses
2) work for distributist legislation in the existing system
3) spread the message.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by meme1961

I'm happy to read any reasoning or argument that you might have to the contrary. You posted none, so my only recourse is to interpret what you did post as unsupported assertion.

Why, for example, do you say: "You do realize that the strawman argument is a fallacy?"

What fallacy? How so?

The strawman argument is the fallacy. It means re-wording the opponent's argument wrongly and then refuting the erroneous argument.

So I am saying that your description of distributism is wrong, and that the arguments you bring up against your erroneous description of distributism do not refute our arguments for distributism because your arguments are not directed against what we are arguing for but against something else altogether.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by meme1961

No, not really. I'm a limited government, free market capitalist.

When ever somebody tries to nail the Distributists on the meaning of the term, and how it will be implemented, they go all vague, or retreat.

Until such time as someone can actually define it, Distributism is a null (meaningless) term.

OK, what precisely is free market limited government and how do you propose to implement it?