political philosophy is by definition, abstract. Please don’t attack people hiding behind a cartoon, it makes your own opinion ridiculous.
Distributism
Aiden Allen
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.*
Christopher Gomez
to translate
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.
John Barnes
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.