Jun 12 2009
Answering the “mental blockade” on Distributism
A number of times over on a well known Catholic Forum, I have answered the question “what is distributism?. Usually, I use a variation of the following from Wikipedia:
Distributism, also known as distributionism and distributivism, is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Roman Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic Social Teaching articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (indirect socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of capital that would be carried out by most socialist ideologies). Distributism holds that, while socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers’ control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Hilaire Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, 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, etc.
Distributism has often been described as a third way of economic order opposing both socialism and capitalism. Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local co-operatives and family owned, small businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism.
Invariably, I get a response like the following (which happened tonight):
Hmmm, this sounds rather like an endorsement of widespread stock ownership in corporations. That increases the number of capitalists, distributes corporate ownership widely, and avoids the concentration of power that one often found among 19th century “robber barons.”
In fact, most people in the U.S. today are stockholders of corporations, either directly, or indirectly through holding ownership interest by means of 401K’s, IRA’s, and pension plans and ESOP’s.
Knowing this is not the case, I responded with:
Not really. It is a common misconception that I have encountered before.
You may have “ownership” but no power. The real power is with the few big (majority) stock owners. Distributism is geared towards the family owned, co-op or (in some instances) small business. Essentially, pre-industrial revolution/protestant rebellion/Adam Smith/socialism eras where there was no real concentration of wealth/goods/production in a handful of powerful Global Corporations/Socialist Governments.
I would like to add that my economic philosophy is a combination of Distributism, Catholic Land Movement, and Catholic Workers Movement. I am still trying to get a synergy between them and other parts of my whole life philosophy.
I am still working on how I can change/add in the future to answer this “mental blockade”? I have ask my fellow Distributist brethren on another group for suggestions. Hopefully, they will come up with a “battering ram” to break the “mental blockade”.
