causticus: trees (Default)
The very basics, compiled from Wiki copypasta:
Distributism is an economic ideology asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated. It was developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching. It views both capitalism and socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, and it favors economic mechanisms such as small-scale cooperatives and family businesses, and large-scale anti-trust regulations.

Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, carpenters and plumbers who own their own tools, etc. The "cooperative" approach advances beyond this perspective to recognise that such property and equipment may be "co-owned" by local communities larger than a family, e.g., partners in a business.

According to Hilaire Belloc, the distributive state (the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production". This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, and so on. Distributism allows for society to have public goods such as parks and transit systems.

Distributism promotes a society of artisans and culture. This is influenced by an emphasis on small business, promotion of local culture, and favoring of small production over capitalistic mass production. A society of artisans promotes the distributist ideal of the unification of capital, ownership, and production rather than what distributism sees as an alienation of man from work.

This does not, however, suggest that distributism necessarily favors a technological regression to a pre-Industrial Revolution lifestyle, but a more local ownership of factories and other industrial centers. Products such as food and clothing would be preferably returned to local producers and artisans instead of being mass-produced overseas.


In essence, it's a decentralized free-enterprise system. And it's based on a Natural Law ethos, with the Catholic interpretation being:
In Rerum novarum, Leo XIII states that people are likely to work harder and with greater commitment if they themselves possess the land on which they labour, which in turn will benefit them and their families, as workers will be able to provide for themselves and their household. He puts forward the idea that when men have the opportunity to possess property and work on it, they will "learn to love the very soil which yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of the good things for themselves and those that are dear to them". He states also that owning property is not only beneficial for a person and their family, but is in fact a right, due to God having "...given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race".

Similar views are presented by G. K. Chesterton in his 1910 book What’s Wrong with the World. Chesterton believes that whilst God has limitless capabilities, man has limited abilities in terms of creation. As such, man therefore is entitled to own property and to treat it as he sees fit. He states "Property is merely the art of the democracy. It means that every man should have something that he can shape in his own image, as he is shaped in the image of heaven. But because he is not God, but only a graven image of God, his self-expression must deal with limits; properly with limits that are strict and even small." Chesterton summed up his distributist views in the phrase "Three acres and a cow".

In the future, I'll will be outlining my own version of distributism based on my own "Traditonal Gnosis" spiritual beliefs. As I'm not a Catholic (nor Christian in general) and thus I don't believe in Catholic dogma and theology, I cannot in good faith fully endorse the Catholic ethical justifications for this system; for example, I don't believe humans have a "God-given right" to use, abuse and trash the planet; nor I I support any appeals to democratic rhetoric which might suggest that every man is equally capable (and thus justified) of practicing responsible land stewardship. However, despite these objections, my general understanding of the spiritual underpinnings of distributism is largely in agreement with the Catholic teachings.

To wrap this up, I'll briefly outline the other features of distributism which I'll probably go over in more detail whenever I get around to doing so:

  • Return to a Guild System

  • Economic Focus on Family and Community

  • Banking/Lending without Usury

  • Anti-trust legislation

  • Social Credit

Finally, the family focused aspect is central to the main ethos of this system. However I have a slightly different concept of the family; one that deviates a bit from the rigid nuclear family definition; this would include communities, religious congregations and civic fraternities. Atomized nuclear families constitute the stepping stone to atomized individuals.
causticus: trees (Default)
Just some notes I've been jotting down:

First off, we have to distinguish capitalism from a mere "free enterprise" system. The latter simply denotes the existence of a market economy. Whereas, Capitalism is a system whereby an investor class of Capitalists effectively run the entire economy; and by extension, the entire social order of the society in question.

1. The most obvious flaw of Capitalism is the fact that Capital always ends up grossly overcompensated, as compared to labor. Obviously, a certain degree of earnings inequality between the two is both just and natural. But a stable system cannot persist when Capital is earning many hundreds of times more than that of reasonably-skilled labor.

2. A Capitalist system produces an intellectual culture that has a tendency to reduce people to little more than soulless economic units; i.e. atomized individuals that have no purpose except to produce and consume goods and services. From the perspective of my own spiritual worldview (and anyone else who had a spiritual worldview), the Capitalist analysis of human affairs is hyper-materialist and anti-life; and it always ends up championing quantity over quality.

3. As mentioned above, Capitalism means that the Capitalists, the super-wealthy investor class, ends up calling the shots and running the show. Referring back to the Social Threefolding model I mentioned in the last few posts, this means that the Economic sphere ends up with a disproportionate degree of power, which makes the other two spheres (Politics and Culture) subordinate to the dictates and whims of the Economic powers. The Economic sphere is that which is most closely oriented toward Matter and thus the most distant from Spirit, of the three. The Culture sphere has the greatest potential to be the most infused with Spiritual qualities. Of course a debased Culture sphere will contain very little of that, but that overall pattern I above still stands. The ideal Political sphere is an intermingling of both Material and Spiritual concerns; a political system that's nothing more than an appendage of Capital, is wholly a slave of Material imperatives. And thus any system where the Economic sphere is the most powerful, is one which turns the people away from Spiritual aspirations. Such a system is "demonic" ... if we're to use such crude descriptors.

4. From the perspective of social class and personality type, Capitalism is a system where the Merchant/Producer/Vaishya order is the ruling class. In all traditional, metaphysics-based social doctrines, natural law dictates that the Merchant class should always be subordinate to both the Warrior and Priestly classes. If we're to look at this from the perspective of personality types, the Merchant class will be comprised largely of Hylic (matter-bound) and some Psychic (mixed) types, and entirely bereft of Pneumatic (Spiritual) people. And thus in Capitalism we get a social order run by people who are lacking in innate Spiritual facilities. Spiritually-oriented people must first and foremost prove their "worth" to the system on wholly materialist, quantity-based terms. The honor-seeking Warrior type must also serve the marketplace before all other concerns. In the Platonic schema, a society run by Capital is what Plato would have called Oligarchy, and thus we can say that Capitalists are a type of Oligarch. In The Republic, Plato calls the collective character temperament of the public under Oligarch rule, "Oligarchic Man." In many Hindu writings, a society where the lower orders are in charge is one that's in the dark age, or Kali Yuga.

5. Last but not least, I need to reiterate the quantity problem inherent in Capitalism. It's a system that, by-design, (1) demands infinite growth, (2) reduces human interactions to the state of mere exchange, and (3) promotes greed as a virtue (as opposed to the vice it is) above all others. On the growth problem, it's quite clear that the investors who own a Capitalist enterprise will always demand that the business keeps growing and growing and growing, and consuming more and more and more resources; and driving wages more and more and more downward, in a race-to-the-bottom sort of way. A Capitalist enterprise becomes a mindless eating machine. And because of this inherent expansionist nature, the most successful enterprise will actively work to snuff out any serious competition, often through buying up the weaker competitor. And thus what always results is a grand consolidation of like businesses into an ever-shrinking inventory of monolithic, monopolistic behemoths. When this process is nearly complete, we get the classical Oligarchy found in historical city-states, whereby a tiny clique of owners/investors colludes with one another to run the entire state and maintain their collective power in perpetuity. States like Sybaris, Carthage and Venice come to mind. However, in our modern system, we have complex systems of government intervention to mitigate the worst aspects of what I'm getting at here. Though government and the black-box credit system, we get boom/bust cycles in the modern age. The infinite growth never happens because too much growth always results in bubbles divorced from the reality of what consumer can actually afford; when supply (or simply hype) vastly outpaces demand, the whole thing goes bust.

6. As in later be talking about, decentralization is the only way to go if we're to avoid the pitfalls of both Capitalism and its false solution, Socialism. Distributism and Syndicalism (both are quite similar) will be alternatives I'll be looking at.
Page generated Jun. 18th, 2025 11:12 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios