Just got banned from Zig Forums for posting this so what does Zig Forums think of distributism?
Distributism is the economic ideology that most of the world's productive assets should be widely owned instead of concentrated in the hands of a few capitalist or in the hands of the state. It was developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). Distributism puts great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that no larger unit (whether social, economic, or political) should perform a function which can be performed by a smaller unit.
Distributism sees the family of two parents and their child or children as the central and primary social unit of human ordering and the principal unit of a functioning distributist society and civilization. This unit is also the basis of a multi-generational extended family, which is embedded in socially as well as genetically inter-related communities, nations, etc., and ultimately in the whole human family past, present and future. The economic system of a society should therefore be focused primarily on the flourishing of the family unit, but not in isolation: at the appropriate level of family context, as is intended in the principle of subsidiarity. Distributism reflects this doctrine most evidently by promoting the family, rather than the individual, as the basic type of owner; that is, distributism seeks to ensure that most families, rather than most individuals, will be owners of productive property. The family is, then, vitally important to the very core of distributist thought.
Distributism may be the best alternative to capitalism or socialism that we have. With the family at the center of society instead of the individual we remove the incentives for nations to self destruct with capitalism.
Companies can have more than one owner, so no, the incentive isn't really gone.
Lucas Cox
There's nothing wrong with socialism, we don't need meme ideologies
Joseph Jackson
It places too much power in the hands of the state. The workers aren't going to end up controlling the means of production in a socialist state; bureaucrats and politicians will.
Cooper Watson
It sounds good but is there any reason to choose this over socialism?
Ryder Allen
It places more power in the hands of the people and less power in the hands of the state.
Jaxon Ortiz
If everyone is a party member then everyone is part of the state, thus the workers DO control the means of production because the party controls the means of production and the workers are the vast majority of party members.
Isaiah Moore
if anything the problem it's the state doesn't have enough power, we're ruled by a global economy accountable to no one
Julian Taylor
Its just capitalism with extra steps. You'd need extreme power to implement it and you'd degenerate back to the current state of affairs within a few generations at best. Its a cowardly and pathetic excuse for an ideology which amount to nothing more giving the church plausible deniability in its endorsement of capitalism and ruling class interests. The fact that you have no idea what socialism is doesn't help your case.
Samuel Morris
Private property among Socialists means private appropriation.
I.e. someone else (private person; not you) gets to profit from whatever you create (as opposed to personal property - when it is you personally, or social - when it is society). In modern terms (last centuries; after Feudalism) - it means wage labour, i.e. working for someone else.
If your Distributism abolishes the practice of working for someone else, then it abolishes private property. This makes it Socialist.
You don't get "alternatives" (unless you intend to implement Feudalism or Slavery).
Description given is quite close to Market Socialism (ex. SFRY) or some kind of pre-Marxist "Socialism" (your idea had been discarded by the mid-19th century).
The people at the top of the party are going to have all of the power. Look at western republics everyone has a say in their elections, but I don't think we can say that the people hold any real power.
Zachary Wright
Like any "third pоsitionist" ideologies it tries to reinvent the wheel to desperately try and avoid admitting that Marx was right, and ultimately arrives at either capitalism with bells and whistles or a fanciful fantasy. I don't get it though, how are families supposed to run factories or anything more complex than a garden? Is distributism primitivist?
Also Wew, we truly do live in a society
Ryder Long
The State is not some metaphysical entity. We do not treat it like one.
James Hill
They told me to come here. Didn't think you guys would like it either.
Robert Gray
Socialism does away with the state entirely, do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Kevin Scott
Kek Can't make this up
Brody Rogers
Its the inevitable result of being both fervent capitalist shills and pseudo-pagan larpers
Thomas Ward
I guess not. I thought it was communism where the state was abolished and socialism was where the state controlled the means of production. The USSR was socialist they certainly had a state didn't they?
Easton Davis
You are missing the part when they are responsible before the general public. As in actually responsible
Controlled by Capitalists, who are not controlled by anyone. Bad example.
Owen Fisher
try /fascist/ you'll probably get a warmer welcome
Kevin Cruz
I thought pagans were disliked on Zig Forums, it's more likely orthodox larpers getting mad because "le commie pope" or somehing like that
Aaron Morales
It's Centrist.
For the love of …
Socialism is abolition of wage labour. If it is the movement, it sets it as a goal (ex. Anarchist movements, Communist movements). If it is economy, then wage labour is abolished in it (ex. post-NEP USSR).
Eli Green
He'll get banned there as well. IRL American Fascist larpers are closer to AnCaps than to NSDAP. Anarcho-Fascism, yes.
Isn't Zig Forums a global board now? What happened to the site admins saying it was now a free speech board?
Justin Gutierrez
What happened to the site admins saying it was now a free speech board? Obviously they are full of shit.
Sebastian Hill
Okay. Go post it there. Just don't forget to screencap new ban. I wish you luck.
Did they say anything like that? Also, when did Right-wingers became honest?
Anthony Green
The reason it is funny is that Zig Forums constantly pretends to be anti-capitalist in order to "redpill" us but in reality they will even ban Distributist posters for not being economically right enough, despite it being a very conservative ideology
Bentley Clark
...
Evan Ward
It's on the pinned Meta thread for the board. >>>Zig Forums11622450
Isaac Ramirez
On a more serious note, a few questions for OP because I really don't understand this ideology and want to know more
Thomas Reed
I would want CNC machines and 3d printers in every back yard.
There would probably be some kind of wealth cap to prevent anyone from accumulating too much.
I don't think capitalist will part with their property voluntarily. I'm sure other distributists have other answers but I see revolution as the only way.
Tyler Moore
I like the idea of swapping between capitalism and socialism due to resources. Say you are cooking for dinner, one day you have a bountiful wealth of resources to choose from. Maybe because of hard work, good negotiations, economic dividends, you are able to make a great meal. So does everyone around the table get to eat? The capitalist says no, they should cook their own meals. The socialist says yes, those people need your support. Now one day you are cooking, but there are no resources. Maybe your business failed, someone stole your revenue, or the market was bad, so you can barely scrap a meal. So does everyone around the table get to eat? No says the capitalist, I need to use this to create more wealth. Yes says the socialist, the majority should not suffer for the rights of the minority. The best option is to distribute when you have excess, and create when you are starved. Sow, then reap.
Julian Collins
/fascist/ is basically dead since the old BO left. He kept a lid on the quality and autism
Camden Peterson
Please refrain from having opinions until you understand what economics is. Its not abstract principles but concrete systems of concrete relations of production in the real world of factories, mines, farms and cities. Your views are inane and no one actually believes what you think they do.
Distributism is SuccDemism with Religious spooks, Falangism is much much edgier than that.
Jayden Moore
Even fascists understand capitalism and socialism better than this
Aiden Allen
political philosophy is by definition, abstract. Please don’t attack people hiding behind a cartoon, it makes your own opinion ridiculous.
Matthew Lewis
Modes of production are not abstract. Read a book
Parker Price
Socialism and capitalism concern political economy, but good attempt at salvaging your idealist idiocy
Camden Reed
I think the rigidity of those definitions are pointless. You might as well have insulted my grammar. Only by abstracting the goals of left and right, democratic and fascist, capitalist and socialist can we find common ground.
Sebastian James
Nice idealist nonsense. You should look into scientific socialism instead of this petty-bourgeois garbage you're spewing onto my screen. If you want to "balance interests" you should go to >>>/fascist/, where they masturbate about their mythical turd position scam all day
Jaxon Rivera
well feel free to continue ignoring reality and fantasising about how you imagine economic systems would be expressed within a family and what emotional states they embody but no one will take you seriously. Its about as sophisticated political debate as "Harry potter would oppose BDS and Trump is voldemort"
Tyler Walker
There’s nothing emotional about it. Politics is all about distribution. If you have too much of one thing, it is favorable to give it to the needy. Many perspectives disagree with this. Likewise if you don’t have enough of one thing, it is favorable to accept aid. Many perspectives disagree with this. However the two balance each other out. The perspectives that disagree are the short sighted ones that only see one side.
Robert Hernandez
Not OP but I share similar beliefs (Maurrasian Corporatism) so here are my hot takes, not sure how compatible with distributism they are. Distributism and associated ideologies put up the family unit as the basic building block of society but this doesn't mean anything beyond it stops existing. Rather it tries to implement pseudo-familial relations of dependency between the capitalist and working classes (the capitalist must make it so the worker has no reason to be discontent and vice versa), this is clearly outlined in Pope Leo's De Rerum Novarum (which I invite you to read, it's short, free and online). Of course this doesn't acknowledge the power imbalance between worker and capitalist, so additional measures must be taken.
a) The Corporation System: this is the bread and butter of distributism/corporatism. It essentially posits bringing back the widespread corporations that existed under feudalism as some kind of non-revolutionary trade unions that govern society. Corporations would be led and managed by the workers of a certain industry (ie bakers, steelers) and be responsible of the education, training of new labourers, arranging entry-level jobs, pursuing R&D in their field, blacklisting companies that abuse workers of a certain corporation as well as setting rules®ulations of their industry. Corporations aim to mainly unite working class and petit-bourgeois workers though big capitalist bosses would be given the essentially observer status, with of course many caveats and watchdogs to monitor them.
b) Workplace democracy: while the boss remains the owner of the MoP, like in a family he must listen to the other members, meaning every worker must have the right to have his voice heard - effectively meaning the factory would be under collective leadership, but still the property of the capitalist. (note that this is pretty radical distributism, many milquetoast catholics might squirm at this)
Ideally the Corporation System has a limited judicial authority to break up emerging trusts or monopolies (even though you could argue that the Corps are already monopolies in themselves). In Maurrasian thought, this is where the King intervenes. As ruler by right of God he has a royal prerogative to "defend the small from the big" To quote the *Royale*
*Tu n'étais pas un prolétaire Libre artisan des métiers de jadis, À l'atelier comme à la terre Le Roi seul fort protégeait les petits ! Abandonné, l'ouvrier peine, Esclave hier, forçat demain Entre les dictateurs de haine Et ceux du capital sans fin.*
You were no proletarian Free artisan of yesteryear, at the shop as at the field the King, only law protected the weak Abandoned the worker suffers Slave yesterday, servant tomorrow! Between the dictators of hate and endless capital.
Sure call it reactionary and steeped in the past, idk, I'm not here to proselytize, just to talk. Maurras talked about this in one of his many books "If the Coup is to be possible". It takes a very leftcomish approach to the problem by positing that a "coup" would only be possible if the majority of the population supported it, which is why the AF always betted big on propaganda. The coup itself is a general strike straight up lifted from Proudhon (which is fully acknowledged). Then the King would step in and rearrange society, by force if necessary, before handling back the reigns to the people.
Classical Distributism takes a more mellow approach of top-down and bottom-up evolution of society, but I've honestly never found any good theory on it. Much of distributist writings are more about recentering society around the family unit which is fine, but not nearly enough to make an ideology. I prefer the grounded doctrine of the AF, even if it's far out, at least it's a working plan they adhere to.
Funny you should say that because after that old hag Franco died, the Spanish Carlists, who were already heavily involved with right-wing trade unionism and the "white anarchism" of Sindicatos Libres in the 20's (the Carlist pretenders might be the only royals to ever join a union) went a level beyond in 1970 and adopted the Yugoslav model of market socialism as their economic platform, while keeping their social conservative policies. Here's an interesting .pdf that goes over the genesis of Carlist unionism.
It's going back to simpler ways of living, it's not primitivism but we can live without smartphones and video games.
Cooper Murphy
This sounds like left-NRx. And, also like NRx, seemingly suffers from betting all its cards on a perfectly rational, benevolent monarch. Even though a cursory examination of history proves that monarchs have never shied away from siding with the capital, or even being exploitative capitalists themselves.
Alexander Russell
Nice idea but there's no materijal force to actually make it happen. Distributism been around for a good while, but has it had any impact in economic policy?
Andrew Watson
It's only "left" when compared to the sweaty lolbert nerds of the anglo NRx scene. it's very much a far-right ideology. Honestly catholic economics are neither fascist nor liberal but so profoundly reactionary I don't really know what OP was thinking when he made this thread. Smaller nitpick, but it's a living movement and coherent ideology since 1894, I don't really think it's fair to label it as "N"Rx. NRx is also openly racist and stepped in romanticism, something you won't find here.
Isaiah Barnes
It's outdated. Could you imagine a family with a computer factory in their home? Distributism was thought up back when production was mostly hand made or used simple machinery. It's similar to Mutalism from what I am able to make out which is more plausible than this.
Nolan Ross
Distributism ignores economic reality and the existence of imperialism. The only thing it is good for is redpilling young catholics and forcing them to realize the moral hollowness of capitalism and turn them towards MTW and Liberation Theology.
Brandon Walker
LT usually turns them off since mainstream Christianity considers it to be heresy.
