It seems right up Sup Forums's alley.
What does Sup Forums think of Distributism?
sounds like something you just made up, faggot
it's generally ignored because it doesn't have any meme figureheads to shill for and it's largely based on church teaching
It's bretty good. We have a distributist party here in Australia (the Democratic Labour Party) and they manage to elect people from time to time
Their constitution and information is here if you want to read it: dlp.org.au
American educated here. Can you explain what distributism is?
proto-socialism
Non Marxian Guild Socialism in essence. Rooted in church teaching and social belief.
Distributism is an economic ideology that developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno.
It's pretty complicated, but basically it opposes both capitalism and socialism, both of which it sees as exploitative. The Wiki is pretty in depth.
Like a pre-socialism? I'm reading up on it. It's interesting that it differentiates itself from socialism and capitalism, and I guess judges them to be the same. Meme degree in Poli Sci and I've never heard of this shit.
Ill distribute my black pudding into ur mum's clam m80
Does it have to be rooted in Church teachings? Can it be secular?
Why is civic nationalism and libertardism meme ideologies in US, but I've never heard of this? Seems rad.
Yes, it would be similar to Mutualism at that point, although slightly different, and it's social teachings would be very different.
Yes but then it's harder to justify the socially conservative aspects.
Subsidiarity
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. Thus, any activity of production (which distributism holds to be the most important part of any economy) ought to be performed by the smallest possible unit. This helps support distributism’s argument that smaller units, families if possible, ought to be in control of the means of production, rather than the large units typical of modern economies.
The essence of subsidiarity is concisely inherent in the Chinese maxim ‘Give someone a fish and you feed him for a day; teach the person to fish and you feed him for a lifetime’.
Private Property
Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer, etc. The “cooperative” approach advances beyond this perspective to recognise that such property and equipment may be “co-owned” by local communities larger than a family, e.g., partners in a business.
Because America isn't a Catholic country nor does it have a high culture with stratified social classes which defined much of the old world and as such is completely removed from the sociopolitical and economic context that gave rise to Distributism.
It's heavily tied up with catholicism, in so far as the Catholic church has a political ideology this is it, so it's pretty unknown outside of Catholic circles
Society of Artisans
Distributism promotes a society of artisans and culture. This is influenced by an emphasis on small business, promotion of local culture, and favoring of small production over capitalistic mass production. A society of artisans promotes the distributist ideal of the unification of capital, ownership, and production rather than what distributism sees as an alienation of man from work.
This does not suggest that distributism favours a technological regression to a pre-Industrial Revolution lifestyle, but a more local ownership of factories and other industrial centers. Products such as food and clothing would be preferably returned to local producers and artisans instead of being mass produced overseas.
Guild System
The kind of economic order envisaged by the early distributist thinkers would involve the return to some sort of guild system. The present existence of labour unions does not constitute a realisation of this facet of distributist economic order, as labour unions are organized along class lines to promote class interests and frequently class struggle, whereas guilds are mixed class syndicates composed of both employers and employees cooperating for mutual benefit, thereby promoting class collaboration.
Banks
Distributism favors the dissolution of the current private bank system, or more specifically its profit-making basis in charging interest. Dorothy Day, for example, suggested abolishing legal enforcement of interest-rate contracts. It would not entail nationalisation but could involve government involvement of some sort. Distributists look favorably on credit unions as a preferable alternative to banks.
I meant to reply to you with
Distributism is an economic and political philosophy that is an alternative to both capitalism and socialism.
Opposed to laissez-faire capitalism, which distributists argue leads to a concentration of ownership in the hands of a few, and to state-socialism, in which private ownership is denied altogether, distributism was conceived as a genuine Third Way, opposing both the tyranny of the marketplace and the tyranny of the state, by means of a society of owners.
Distributism is an economic system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by as many private owners as possible for the purpose of self-reliance for its citizens.
Distributism is concerned with improving the material lot of the poorest and most disadvantaged. However, unlike socialism, which advocates state ownership of property and the means of production, distributism seeks to devolve or widely distribute that control to individuals within society, rejecting what it saw as the twin evils of plutocracy and bureaucracy.
The ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralised under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). As Chesterton said, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by a commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local cooperatives and small family businesses).
Naturally, it follows that Distributism favours the principles of industrial democracy and the cooperative model of business.
can it potentially progress to natsoc?
I think it essentially is natsoc already, in a broad sense
With the modern concern for genetics, of course.
based as fuck desu
No, it's very much different, if not diametrically opposed entirely.
How is it at all like NatSoc? NatSoc relies on an extremely powerful and centralized state and state-aligned businesses or syndicates, which is very much the opposite of what Distributism aims for.
Fundamentally inconsistent with reality. No wonder Catholics love it.
Ill-defined and abused by sunday-Catholic faggots to argue for Socialism and mass-migration against the will of the locals. (even though this is clearly against the subsidiarity principle)
Tha purge of the Catholic structure and the creation of a monarchy under distributism is the final red pill. Everything else is anti-aristotlean socialist bullshit in (((disguise))).
The state was powerful, but things were very much done by people at the local level; horizontal democracy, not vertical democracy. The family unit was the idealised foundation of the state and the local artisan very much the ideal of business
Furthermore there's nothing in NatSoc that requires a strong central state or business
>In Germany today Party and State are welded together in an indissoluble unity. The same idea finds various forms of expression in the various branches of organization. It is not that the Party serves the State or that the State serves the Party. Both serve the German nation as a whole, each in its own way. And so it comes about that National Socialism is the modern expression of the idea which was originally the inspiration of the democratic movement also but which the democratic movement departed from and even sometimes openly contradicted. This idea meant that the life of the State springs from the life of the people as a fountain from its source. All political and administrative organization, the constitution and even the State itself, are man's handiwork and will pass away and give place to others, as does the individual man himself. But the people is everlasting. To its welfare and its future all must be subordinated, the individual as well as the State.
If you're interested you might want to read a few pamphlets which were printed (in English) at the time which go into some detail about welfare, economic policy and the legal system in Germany
ia600201.us.archive.org
archive.org
archive.org
I think the system outlined there is quite compatible