Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Distributism, not Capitalism or Soc

dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 7:50:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Everbody knows about Capitalism and Socialism. But how many have ever heard Distributism?

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[1] and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno[2] 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 (state 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."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org...
See also http://distributist.blogspot.com...

I suspect that if you stop to think about it, you will realize that you are familiar with a family-owned business. I'm familiar with many such businesses where the families were independent and well-supported for generations.

E. F. Schumacher was influenced by Distributist thought. His book, Small is Beautiful, is a classic and a must read for anyone interested in economics. http://www.amazon.com... I read the book in college as an assigned text in an philosophy (ethics) course.

In our current world-wide economic crisis involving "too big to fail" banks and car manufacturing companies, it seems fitting that we consider some alternative economic systems.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 7:54:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Distributism is a form of state controlled economy. The state is preventing corporations and monopolies from existence, and regulating where resources do and don't go, and in what quantities.

It's essentially perfect socialism. And like most forms of Socialism, it doesn't work.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:18:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 7:54:28 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

It's essentially perfect socialism. And like most forms of Socialism, it doesn't work.

BAM!

woah, I thought you were a socialist??
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:40:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 7:54:28 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Distributism is a form of state controlled economy. The state is preventing corporations and monopolies from existence, and regulating where resources do and don't go, and in what quantities.

It's essentially perfect socialism. And like most forms of Socialism, it doesn't work.

What if the state only temporaraly prevented corporations and monoplies, and temoraraly regulated the resource. Just until the smaller diverse means of production is formed, and then essentialy revert back to free-market without the state-control. After the diversity is extablished couldnt it hold its own without aid of government? For sure it would be neccesary initaily, but I'm not sure about later on.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:48:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:18:23 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/18/2010 7:54:28 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

It's essentially perfect socialism. And like most forms of Socialism, it doesn't work.

BAM!

woah, I thought you were a socialist??

I'm a Liberaltarian, for lack of a better term.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:50:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:40:22 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 2/18/2010 7:54:28 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Distributism is a form of state controlled economy. The state is preventing corporations and monopolies from existence, and regulating where resources do and don't go, and in what quantities.

It's essentially perfect socialism. And like most forms of Socialism, it doesn't work.

What if the state only temporaraly prevented corporations and monoplies, and temoraraly regulated the resource. Just until the smaller diverse means of production is formed, and then essentialy revert back to free-market without the state-control. After the diversity is extablished couldnt it hold its own without aid of government? For sure it would be neccesary initaily, but I'm not sure about later on.

It would be a pointless exercise, and an undemocratic one. The government is telling someone how much money they can have, before they take off the excess and give it to someone else. Sounds like socialism to me.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:50:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:48:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I'm a Liberaltarian, for lack of a better term.

You're definitely not anywhere close to a libertarian, lol.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 9:52:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:50:24 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/18/2010 9:48:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I'm a Liberaltarian, for lack of a better term.

You're definitely not anywhere close to a libertarian, lol.

Looking at what people actually write is fun
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:00:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 7:54:28 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Distributism is a form of state controlled economy.

Where did you get that idea?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:05:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 9:52:19 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/18/2010 9:50:24 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/18/2010 9:48:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I'm a Liberaltarian, for lack of a better term.

You're definitely not anywhere close to a libertarian, lol.

Looking at what people actually write is fun

Ano', right?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:14:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The problem I find with distributism and other forms of wide scale socialism is that the more "owners" a company has, the slower it gets things done. This is because information for any issues takes longer to get around to everyone, it takes longer to brainstorm solutions, it takes longer to vote or agree to a solution, and takes longer to implement the said solution. This will bring the economy to a freeze (meaning, that it is still producing, but not doing anything "new" and so not moving forward).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:16:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:14:57 AM, OreEle wrote:
The problem I find with distributism and other forms of wide scale socialism is that the more "owners" a company has, the slower it gets things done. This is because information for any issues takes longer to get around to everyone, it takes longer to brainstorm solutions, it takes longer to vote or agree to a solution, and takes longer to implement the said solution. This will bring the economy to a freeze (meaning, that it is still producing, but not doing anything "new" and so not moving forward).

People before profit.

Wow, I sound like such a hippy saying that. xD
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:20:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:16:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:

People before profit.

In my case that would be People (as in valuing Humanity, including: natural human rights) before Profit (as in utilitarian "benefit")
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:21:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:16:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:14:57 AM, OreEle wrote:
The problem I find with distributism and other forms of wide scale socialism is that the more "owners" a company has, the slower it gets things done. This is because information for any issues takes longer to get around to everyone, it takes longer to brainstorm solutions, it takes longer to vote or agree to a solution, and takes longer to implement the said solution. This will bring the economy to a freeze (meaning, that it is still producing, but not doing anything "new" and so not moving forward).

People before profit.

Wow, I sound like such a hippy saying that. xD

Yes, but one should suggest a system that allows for both. Since no profit, means no jobs, and as such the people will suffer because of it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:23:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:16:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:14:57 AM, OreEle wrote:
The problem I find with distributism and other forms of wide scale socialism is that the more "owners" a company has, the slower it gets things done. This is because information for any issues takes longer to get around to everyone, it takes longer to brainstorm solutions, it takes longer to vote or agree to a solution, and takes longer to implement the said solution. This will bring the economy to a freeze (meaning, that it is still producing, but not doing anything "new" and so not moving forward).

People before profit.

Wow, I sound like such a hippy saying that. xD

Yes, but one should suggest a system that allows for both. Since no profit, means no jobs, and as such the people will suffer because of it.

People can profit through small business. Big business just causes harm.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:26:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:23:27 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:16:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:14:57 AM, OreEle wrote:
The problem I find with distributism and other forms of wide scale socialism is that the more "owners" a company has, the slower it gets things done. This is because information for any issues takes longer to get around to everyone, it takes longer to brainstorm solutions, it takes longer to vote or agree to a solution, and takes longer to implement the said solution. This will bring the economy to a freeze (meaning, that it is still producing, but not doing anything "new" and so not moving forward).

People before profit.

Wow, I sound like such a hippy saying that. xD

Yes, but one should suggest a system that allows for both. Since no profit, means no jobs, and as such the people will suffer because of it.

People can profit through small business. Big business just causes harm.

Can't build many cars as a small business (as seeing as you have to build enough for safety testing and all).

Same applies to building planes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:28:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:26:37 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:23:27 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:16:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:14:57 AM, OreEle wrote:
The problem I find with distributism and other forms of wide scale socialism is that the more "owners" a company has, the slower it gets things done. This is because information for any issues takes longer to get around to everyone, it takes longer to brainstorm solutions, it takes longer to vote or agree to a solution, and takes longer to implement the said solution. This will bring the economy to a freeze (meaning, that it is still producing, but not doing anything "new" and so not moving forward).

People before profit.

Wow, I sound like such a hippy saying that. xD

Yes, but one should suggest a system that allows for both. Since no profit, means no jobs, and as such the people will suffer because of it.

People can profit through small business. Big business just causes harm.

Can't build many cars as a small business (as seeing as you have to build enough for safety testing and all).

Same applies to building planes.

Come talk to me when workers in big industry are treated more fairly.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:32:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:28:43 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:26:37 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:23:27 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:16:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:14:57 AM, OreEle wrote:
The problem I find with distributism and other forms of wide scale socialism is that the more "owners" a company has, the slower it gets things done. This is because information for any issues takes longer to get around to everyone, it takes longer to brainstorm solutions, it takes longer to vote or agree to a solution, and takes longer to implement the said solution. This will bring the economy to a freeze (meaning, that it is still producing, but not doing anything "new" and so not moving forward).

People before profit.

Wow, I sound like such a hippy saying that. xD

Yes, but one should suggest a system that allows for both. Since no profit, means no jobs, and as such the people will suffer because of it.

People can profit through small business. Big business just causes harm.

Can't build many cars as a small business (as seeing as you have to build enough for safety testing and all).

Same applies to building planes.

Come talk to me when workers in big industry are treated more fairly.

Average auto workers get paid $28 an hour with very good benefits. Better then I've ever been paid working for a small business.

http://answers.yahoo.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:34:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:32:49 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:28:43 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:26:37 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:23:27 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:16:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:14:57 AM, OreEle wrote:
The problem I find with distributism and other forms of wide scale socialism is that the more "owners" a company has, the slower it gets things done. This is because information for any issues takes longer to get around to everyone, it takes longer to brainstorm solutions, it takes longer to vote or agree to a solution, and takes longer to implement the said solution. This will bring the economy to a freeze (meaning, that it is still producing, but not doing anything "new" and so not moving forward).

People before profit.

Wow, I sound like such a hippy saying that. xD

Yes, but one should suggest a system that allows for both. Since no profit, means no jobs, and as such the people will suffer because of it.

People can profit through small business. Big business just causes harm.

Can't build many cars as a small business (as seeing as you have to build enough for safety testing and all).

Same applies to building planes.

Come talk to me when workers in big industry are treated more fairly.

Average auto workers get paid $28 an hour with very good benefits. Better then I've ever been paid working for a small business.

http://answers.yahoo.com...

Well what about corporations such as Wal-Mart and Nike which use sweatshop labour in third world countries? Or even here in North America, Wal-Mart employees are constantly abused and aren't even allowed to unionize.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:40:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:34:31 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:32:49 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:28:43 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:26:37 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:23:27 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:16:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:14:57 AM, OreEle wrote:
The problem I find with distributism and other forms of wide scale socialism is that the more "owners" a company has, the slower it gets things done. This is because information for any issues takes longer to get around to everyone, it takes longer to brainstorm solutions, it takes longer to vote or agree to a solution, and takes longer to implement the said solution. This will bring the economy to a freeze (meaning, that it is still producing, but not doing anything "new" and so not moving forward).

People before profit.

Wow, I sound like such a hippy saying that. xD

Yes, but one should suggest a system that allows for both. Since no profit, means no jobs, and as such the people will suffer because of it.

People can profit through small business. Big business just causes harm.

Can't build many cars as a small business (as seeing as you have to build enough for safety testing and all).

Same applies to building planes.

Come talk to me when workers in big industry are treated more fairly.

Average auto workers get paid $28 an hour with very good benefits. Better then I've ever been paid working for a small business.

http://answers.yahoo.com...

Well what about corporations such as Wal-Mart and Nike which use sweatshop labour in third world countries? Or even here in North America, Wal-Mart employees are constantly abused and aren't even allowed to unionize.

They can choose not to work there, they can choose to leave. I'm currently working for a company that doesn't allow unions and treats us like crap. But it is still better then having no job at all and so I come to work every day and look for better jobs every night. Once I find a better job, I'll get the joys of telling the boss how I really feel about him and get escorted off the property.

But because "some" big businesses treat employees like crap, doesn't mean that every big business is evil and must be destroyed. Out of every place that I've worked, Intel (the biggest company I ever worked for) treated me the best (and I wasn't a part of the union).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:41:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:34:31 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Wal-Mart employees are constantly abused and aren't even allowed to unionize.

Do you know *why* they're not allowed to unionize?

Ford. Chrysler. Stelco. That's why.

I don't defend Wal-Mart never allowing any employees to unionize, as it is their right, but I can see why management wants to avoid it. Unions in this modern age are little more than large bullies with a sense of entitlement. They had their place, but when it becomes clear that the non-unionized car companies can produce cars with stellar ratings, while the unionized companies are mistrusted and bankrupt because of the shoddy work they put out, there is a problem.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:49:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:41:01 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/18/2010 10:34:31 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Wal-Mart employees are constantly abused and aren't even allowed to unionize.

Do you know *why* they're not allowed to unionize?

Ford. Chrysler. Stelco. That's why.

I don't defend Wal-Mart never allowing any employees to unionize, as it is their right, but I can see why management wants to avoid it. Unions in this modern age are little more than large bullies with a sense of entitlement. They had their place, but when it becomes clear that the non-unionized car companies can produce cars with stellar ratings, while the unionized companies are mistrusted and bankrupt because of the shoddy work they put out, there is a problem.

It's actually not because of the "shoddy" work they do, it is because they (like I said) react too slowly to the changing economic environment. While Toyota and Honda were going green and efficient, as the customers wanted, the American companies were still pushing out big trucks and SUVs. It is only now that they are starting to turn around and make more fuel efficient cars.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 11:26:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The notion of distributing ownership is roughly analogous to distributing authorship. It's impossible. You can distribute possessions away from their owners, but doing so makes you a thief.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 11:32:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:00:43 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/18/2010 7:54:28 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Distributism is a form of state controlled economy.

Where did you get that idea?

The state controls where resources go, and how much of each resource goes where. Seems state controlled to me.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 11:34:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:23:27 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
People can profit through small business. Big business just causes harm.

Oh hai thar.

Big business does what small business do on a bigger scale. This is most of the time necessary.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 12:05:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 11:26:41 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The notion of distributing ownership is roughly analogous to distributing authorship. It's impossible. You can distribute possessions away from their owners, but doing so makes you a thief.

unless they agree to it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
trustalgoreandriveahybrid
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 12:08:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 12:05:57 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/18/2010 11:26:41 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The notion of distributing ownership is roughly analogous to distributing authorship. It's impossible. You can distribute possessions away from their owners, but doing so makes you a thief.

unless they agree to it.

"Sure come right in here you go Bob, now I know you've decided to laze around on your couch this week but here's 1500 dollars from the profits I earned working over time at my small family business have fun with it bro I gotta get back to work"

Oh yeah I can see people cheerfully agreeing to that.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 12:15:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/18/2010 10:49:32 AM, OreEle wrote:
It's actually not because of the "shoddy" work they do, it is because they (like I said) react too slowly to the changing economic environment. While Toyota and Honda were going green and efficient, as the customers wanted, the American companies were still pushing out big trucks and SUVs. It is only now that they are starting to turn around and make more fuel efficient cars.

No.. its the work, too. I live in the nexus of Ontario's manufacturing heartland, and I know people that either work with these manufacturers for parts, or work for them directly. North America's car industry sucks, yes, in part because they're slow to react, but also because they simply suck. They're inefficient, slow, lumbering beasts who don't bother to properly check their own parts, designs, and suppliers. Their safety ratings are horrid compared to foreign companies. All the while, their unions keep a stranglehold on the companies.

Face it - Ford, Chrysler, GM, and that entire bunch, are a bunch of perennial losers.