Distributism

Any thoughts on distributism? It's an economic theory from the christian democrat/catholic school of thought that emphasizes small business holdings and widespread property ownership to an extreme degree, stating that citizens owning the means of production AND being able to control them is what fosters economic growth. It is both anti-state owned means of production (socialism) and anti-oligarchical ownership of the means of production (corporate capitalism). It's not quite libertarian because it seems to want to disallow certain outcomes such as strong corporate power. It advocates for guild systems, mutual funds, and credit unions where members are in control.

Thoughts, Sup Forums? I'm new to it, so correct if needed

Sounds nice

It's pretty cool overall, I feel like the only thing it suffers from is inherent inefficiencies due to a lack of economies of scaling or vertical integration due to decentralized and distributed small businesses, although at the same time this prevents monopolies and complete corporate domination of a country. Still, its comparative inefficiency means that it will eventually develop into something like Fascism or Italian-style Corporatism due to the efficiency of large centralized economic entities.

Sounds nice

I agree that it seems inefficient, but the inefficiencies seem worth it to an extent. I think it depends on what a "small business" is. Theoretically you could allow for business to grow to several states and allow for some of the advantages of economies of scale. I think preventing massive globalist corporations is the true goal.

bump for actual political discussion

Sounds nice but how do you prevent a successful small business from turning in a global corporation? Or finance large infrastructure or research projects? How is a small business going to launch satellites or build a moonbase and shit?

It isn't worth it though when you consider the benefits of large collective funding pooling or taxation bases, large collective national-scale or international programs are responsible for doing amazing things like the Space Program, large-scale efficient rail transport, nuclear fusion programs, the Large Hadron Collider, etc. Fascism or Corporatism (the actual Fascist corporatism, not the meme term used now) is basically superior in these terms even if you sacrifice some freedoms.

>guild systems
We have examples of this working. The medieval Cathedrals were built by masons organized into guilds. It emphasized accrual of skill and only truly competent masons rise up the ranks. The cathedrals were the tallest structures for hundreds of years, only being surpassed during 19th c modern construction. Apprentices weren't paid monetarily, but in knowledge. The guild and master would provide, and it was a system of surrogacy for children perhaps as young as 11 or 12. The journeyman would later take his skills and travel to new places looking for opportunity, and with success would lead a guild himself as a master mason.

Honestly just start a Distributism general if you want serious discussion and want to learn about the topic.

It's a great idea. Very similar to syndicalism/left-libertarianism.

The problem is getting a government that isn't dominated by the aristocracy. Once you do that, you'll see things naturally go this way in a real free market.

Large businesses have inherent dis-economies of scale. Only a few large firms that have actual economies of scale (railroads, shipping companies, etc.) would be able to compete as large firms.

A true free market would turn into something approaching distributivism over time.

You were right up until Fascism. Fascism doesn't do those things. It's an evil aristocracy, just like absolute monarchy, Bolshevik communism, etc.

Co-ops and credit unions are nice, guilds aren't because they monopolize markets

Yeah, free-market labor unions are good. But no guilds should be allowed to restrict people's right to contract.

my grandfather formed a confederacy of similar independent businesses to buy en masse from distribution companies. In this way, his confederacy successfully fended off multinational corporations from taking over. Economies of scale are absolutely possible with this type of philosophy.

This is not what evidence tells you. In most sectors, having a big company helps you due to the increased importance of capital.

Guild monopolies might be less of a problem for something like healthcare where registration with a single regulating body is already part of the landscape.

I've been wondering how you'd work public health into distributism - worker share ownership-style syndicalism is obviously not terribly useful.

>allowed to restrict people's right to contract.
We already have this now with engineering, legal, and medical licences. You can't do many things without permission from those already in the profession. The only difference is people go into debt to learn from a university instead of the guild. What's really fucked up is in the case of architecture, there's uni debt and license, but the schools don't actually teach any skills. University is a pre-requisite that does nothing but scam students. It's a real shame.

sounds cozy but belongs to the past. We must find a way to give automatization a chance to benefit to all mankind. The welfare state might just be the best option.

>public health into distributism
It would allocate doctors more efficiently. Local town doctors could train other doctors and keep the cost of heath care low, as the supply of doctors goes up. If insurance was also distributed, then locals could create and manage these too for the benefit of those in the municipality/region/county.