Distributionism

What does Sup Forums think of pic related
Sounds pretty flawless to me
Fuck both capitalism and communism there is a better Catholic approved way

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xKFXnoIjhTA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Bump for actual politics

Nothing improves if you put everyone in one place.

>upper and elite classes cease to exist
Wrong
t. Distributist

That would in turn drive down innovation.

There's always a lower class. Simply giving them money doesn't change their mindset. It just gives them even more to piss away.

So this is the new shill agenda? Push communism by a different name? Fuck off kike

It improves for the lower classes for sure and society could advance as a collective the remaining "middle class" Could still become more wealthy as long as we grow together

>parallel r&d of same exact things under capitalism doesnt

Yes, I way prefer the Catholic distributionism than all the social justice nonsense. The old Catholic societal thinkers (pre 1960) were often spot on. Also aware of the threat of Islam and the JQ too (Hillare Belloc, etc.). Check out here on that aspect: youtube.com/watch?v=xKFXnoIjhTA

There is no lower class nor upper class.
Therefore nothing improved.

Elaborate my friend
There would be more innovation as the lower classes would have a better chance to excel
Some will always lag behind but many will thrive on the opportunity
You are an idiot
>Private property
>communism
Pick one you dolt

I like the odea of Distributism alot, but I think the forces of political economy would ever let it occur or would destroy it pretty quickly

This is how you know you're dealing with an idiot. I've only seen this argument recently and it is the stupidest most pathetic last ditch criticism I've ever seen.

>upper and elite classes cease to exist due to their excess captial being redistributed
What's stopping them from hiring a few private security groups and NOT giving away all of their money, and instead just running a private army for a few million a year.

>specific government approved monopolies
See 1990's Russia with their oligarchs

>Weath redistribution beyond an arbitrary threshold
Could work, but could end up causing a feedback loop of people lacking capital for large scale projects like infrastructure in favor of small scale projects

I'd be interested in seeing this trialed on a subsovereign level

Forgive the lad. He's only read the fucking Wikipedia and isn't representing it correctly.

>you can own things unless we want them goy

>law restricting business size to allow fair competition
Say goodbye to personal computing.

coups, most likely.
there's no external regulatory body to deter such behavior

It's the most humane socioeconomic system that's pretty much against everything that's known to be bullshit by everyone with common sense.

Or in other words it will never be implemented anywhere.

Meant for

it's naive

Nice idea you have there.
Too bad that, like communism and anarchism, it's unfeasible.

>distributionism
>capital outflow, all people who will not benefit from the system transfer all their money abroad and emigrate
>all corporations with headquarters in the country flee and all the jobs they provided are displaced. All mobile assets are transferred abroad. Foreign investment ceases.
>total chaos as hundreds of thousands of people have no jobs, no money
>get rekt by mob

too much government

Well how do you define how much capital is allowed for someone to have "a happy life", what if I require millions of dollars to own a yacht, a fleet of jet skis, and various other unfeasible items, what right does the government have to deny me my happiness under these new rules?

fucking traitors

WRONG
the military
this implies they will be allowed to leave the redistribution will have to be quick and forceful
it is feasible you just have to use force where needed to prevent chaos
the transition wont be comfy but the result will be a fair society without an economic caste system or plutocrats and communists

There isn't a fucking cap. The idiot starts a thread and poisons the well of discussion right from the start

Remember that there's nothing quicker than multinational banks moving virtual currency abroad for a small fee.

neighbouring Jew nations and communist blocs would quickly subvert it using human greed and lust for power or just outcompete it using more effective mass production of military and just invade.

Capitalism has a past not a future we most adapt a new third way for economics or prepare for international socialism

Aren't you Turks big Erdogan big gov enthusiasts?

FUCK OFF LEFTIST STOP TRYING TO SLANDER MY IDEOLOGY

>are you retarded?
yes :--DDD

>this implies they will be allowed to leave the redistribution will have to be quick and forceful
Huh, but doesn't that sound a little too much like communism?

so we should surrender to the banks? we may be forced to suffer temporary poverty but it will be worth it to have a liberated Godly society free of usury
A strong nation will survive and our ideology can spread beyond our borders
>using the left right politics meme
someone supporting a third way ideology should know better
I'm not sorry if my different strain of distributionism offends you, but you have yet to explain your side so please do and try to convert me

So do you like big government or what?

Damn you roaches are beyond retarded.

You can pry my wealth from my cold dead hands you fucking communist. That's all your plan is, quasi communism.

No private property is allowed and the middle class will not be under threat

>being allowed to own things, make money
>redistribution of capital

pick one commie

babies first politic, do you even know what communism is? chances are you aren't part of the upper classes that will have their wealth redistributed

>the result will be a fair society without an economic caste system or plutocrats and communists
What about the leader of the Energy, Banking, Medical and Infrastructure sectors, along with the top generals of the Army (who are apparently strong enough to defeat privately contracted armies) , They're quite literally heads of monopolies, and you just stripped resources away from anyone who could say anything against them.

Sounds like they're the new plutocrats.

>so we should surrender to the banks
You said it yourself, banks get a monopoly. So trying to strip them of their wealth is quite clearly going against the prestated guidelines.

So let's see what will happen

>no corporations
>currency loses all value because it gets sold and/or moved abroad
>big job loss
>small firms have no incentive to actually grow or reach economies of scale
>gov owned monopolies become fascist era like monsters of inefficiency because of no competition
>human capital outflow as 20-30% of people flee abroad to save family wealth
>banks close
>foreign investment ceases

Now man, if you want this it's cool, but poverty won't be anywhere near temporary, just a new normal.

>there's this t*rk who voted in favor of being forever cucked by their gov that only exist to destroy personal liberties
>wow! all turks must be like that!
ok

explain how taking wealth from millionaires and billionaires will stop you from owning a house, if your poor it might even give you a house

>no you see we will force people to stay in because its good!

OP actually thinks his utopia wont have people risking life and limb to get the fuck out. When you need to force people to stay you know youve hit peak utopia

you are not a distributist
stop using the label

If a business reaches the size limit, it will have no incentive to grow, it will just stagnate. That means no more money to be redistributed to the poor, and a huge decrease in production, therefore a lower quality of life for everyone.
Also, how much capital is exactly too much? Is it a million dollars? Is it a billion? Could be anything, based on your pic alone.

like I said they wont be allowed to go abroad and the rest seems speculative either way it is better to be poor on earth and rich in heaven, regardless it will not work out like that as the mass of new landowners will create new wealth

land developers and construction company chiefs earn millions a year. if they're taxed at some ridiculous rate that doesn't warrant the effort needed to sustain the company why bother owning it at all- after all the govt. will take care of me.

Thus, nobody builds my house

>take all the worth from every billionaire in america
>each american gets a $10k payout

nice

>won't be allowed to go abroad
Dunno user your plan is 100% Castro's Cuba. Practically communism. Forcing people to stay 'in' will cause mass massacres as hordes of people try to flee the country illegally. Just like Cuba.

>Define middle class
>Define what will be considered "excess"
>Define what govt. Controlled healthcare means (keeping in mind difference between healthcare and health I surance)
>who get to define these
>why work and do an objectively more difficult task that requires more of your time if any added benefit is just going to be taken and given to someone else
>why are the lower class entitled to the fruits of my labor

Saying "private property is allowed" doesn't actually hold any water when you follow it with "unless it is deemed excess, then it is taken and given to others." This is just another soft communism, in the end the govt. will be in charge of what people can and cannot own by definition of what they decide is excess. You still end up with a working class forever anchored down by a parasitic lower class who no longer strive to advance their own position because they will be brought up to everyone else's status for less work.

>inb4 "private property is allowed and you can amass it to live a comfortable life"

Bullshit, "comfortable" will be defined by those in power. They will define it by the wishes of whoever keeps them in power. According to your own words the end goal is the removal of lower and upper classes leaving only the middle class, ie: upper class work for middle class life, lower class work for middle class life.

Why would anyone work if they're just given what the need to survive?
How are you going to convince people to do septic work, how are you going to convince people they need to build houses they won't be living in, there's no incentive because the magically government will just swoop in and take any advantages they have.

Its as if he thinks companies having had all their shit taken and then capped in size and over burdened with government regulations will continue to operate as they did and products will not change.

>wont be allowed
If your system is so good why do you need to control the people so much? If it is so good why would they not do it on their own? Could it be that you believe people too stupid in their own nature and require guidance and control from someone who understands better? What makes you think you can do it better than all those who have attempted it before you? What sets apart your system from all others? Do you think tweaking a tiny bit of the formula and adding "private property" is going to make it work?

The sad part is eventually this might be tried and when it crashes and burns decades from now some other great kindhearted leader who sees all the worlds ills like yourself but just a fraction smarter (the tiny fraction edge you have over those before you) will attempt it again but with another tweak (maybe theyll allow telecoms to be private, who knows what wonderous tweak to the old formula awaits!) and we all go down that path again.

explain what you think distributionism is then
the amount of capital that is too much will depend on the time, the size limit is not small they will only be broken up when they interfere with the success of other business to prevent private monopoly
I'm trying to answer you all but I cant keep up

but user private property was allowed in communism too! You had your own toothbrush and underwear which you didnt have to share with the comrades because the state deemed them to be protected and "private property" like our friend here is saying. He clearly wants to take it a step further and allow the ownership of a single bedroom apartment for all (subject to random government confiscation and reallocation when deemed necessary)

OP is probably underage idealist who has no clue how the world works

>the amount of capital that is too much will depend on the time, the size limit is not small they will only be broken up when they interfere with the success of other business to prevent private monopoly

Do you think you would be buying cheap cars now if we had told henry ford to stop? Do you think cheap affordable locomotive transport would be within the reach of nearly all american citizens if we had gimped industry like you say?

Still communism, how can anyone fail to see that?

>the rest is redistributed to the state and those in poverty
Only part I disagree with, and I lean very libertarian. This is too arbitrary and abusable. How is it determined what the cap is?

It might be workable if everyone, government employees included, was affected by it, but that's never how these things work out.

>I lean very libertarian
>disagree only with that part

I wish this were still the 1980s and we had some failing communists state to point to. The failure of communism seems to have led more to a movement looking to bring it back rather than acting as a perfect example of a fuck up

Seriously let's try this again
>Private property
>communism
No
Cap would be determined by economic needs it would be raised and lowered as needed
If they don't work they get nothing
People will want to leave in the transition due to Jewish economic backlash but society needs them and they and their children will benefit in the long run after a bumpy transition

The only other substantial part of the OP pic is a limit to the size of a business, and in my opinion once a company gets sufficiently large it tends to be a net drain on our economy as it tends to pay next to nothing in taxes and in the case of companies like Apple they actually remove a lot of wealth from the country to do so.

We have Venezuela. Anyway you probably already know the endless commie trick

>the [x] people had been liberated from capitalism! Our great leaders [y1,y2,...yn] led us! Horray comrades!
>...
>it wasn't real communism! [y1] betrayed communism and his comrades [y2...yn]! This is not real communism, its state capitalism!
>repeat somewhere else

They can't acknowledge this. Arguing has become impossible.

My bet on the next commie failure is Kurdistan.

I'm not a communist

Again, who determines economic needs? Who raises and lowers it? Does it affect everyone? How does it account for differences in cost of living?

I also agree with a lot of other posts ITT that this would result in a mass exodus of wealth. Any attempt to use force against that many people for the purpose of retaining wealth would end up just like Cuba or Russia or Venezuela, i.e. instead of some people being poor, everyone's poor.

>Seriously let's try this again
>>Private property
>>communism
>No
You are dumb. Read my picture, read my essay and realise how fucking hard it is to understand the world. Realise what you are proposing is communism and it has failed time and time again.
Everything you wrote in this thread has been utter shit, from start to finish. What you are proposing is communism, and you are a fucking idiot if you can't see that.

>>Again, who determines economic needs? Who raises and lowers it?
And who does it now?

Why not just answer his question?
>>>Again, who determines economic needs? Who raises and lowers it?
No one.

From his reply youre on the money, young idealist for sure who thinks he can cure the worlds ills via central planning and control. Adamant that his brand of communism not be branded communism. Its merely the initial stepping stone to total government control guys, we do communism + private property that we dictate = not communism.


Venezuela is sad because its not even in the news as they eat flamingos from the zoo to survive. From being praised by every left wing party in every country to lining up for 8hrs for bread then spending the rest of the day dumpster diving its amazing how anyone can support it but youre right. The old switcheroo; wasnt real communism etc will be played by folks like op and we do it all over again.

>pay nothing in taxes
Getting hit with 43 layers of tax and deciding fuck that im going to ireland doesnt = companies bad. To cap the size of a business is absurd and youd be crippling yourself and your industry `

>middle class
>no upper or lower class

really made me almond activate

An elected council of landowners and an unelected council of government officals would debate and come to a comproise on those things

>An elected council of landowners and an unelected council of government officals would debate and come to a comproise on those things

>Its communism!
>even though it's opposed to core communist principles!
>Everything I don't like is communism you poopyhead!

No one, because it doesn't need to be determined.

This doesn't take into account IQ differences, work ethic and culture.

A society benefits the most when resources are distributed into the hands of those that will make the most productive use of them. Giving a mentally unstable, lazy man and a creative entrepreneur both 50K will lead to overall increase in suffering because you are limiting how much good the entrepreneur can do to make the lazy man feel better.

Also, how will you enforce this. The biggest problem communism has had in the past is the only way to enforce it is by giving the gov't absolute power (dictatorship). I see this policy falling into the same trap.

Nice argument

You belong in a gulag.

And what if I disagree with their decision? Are they going to use force/violence to make me comply?

It would be a dictatorship but more fascist then communist
I support racial hierarchy and segregation the government would be white and Christian and segregation would be enforced though those of other races would be given equal oppurtrinity outside of government
We whites don't need help we will prosper on their own

This. I dont do capitalism, but you need a fair market to ensure that innovation continues. "Redistributing wealth" isn't the end goal of communism. The idea that "wealth" is even garnered is contradictory to Marxist communism in its entirety, as the fullness of communism sees the abolition of the state, the only means to redistribute, and wealth itself.

Is there a form of government that won't?

And what if the people elected thinks your idea is fucking retarded?
I have a feeling the landowners might disagree with your idiotic little homemade utopia, although I own no land so can't even speak for myself.
>unelected council of government officals
Like who? Most men in the military and police in the USA lean liberterian. So it it the judges? Who? You need to be precise you fucking imbecil. When the USA was created, the founders looked at other systems that worked in the past. Rome. Fucking hundred thousands of manhours across millenia have been spent on trying to figure out how to optimize the system. And you can't answer the most simple questions.
And then, when it all comes down to it.That is called democracy you fuckface. Unless you want to use force, if they don't agree to your utopia, in which case, your a communist.

your ideas have been countered by so many in this thread yet you are adamant that this system of governmental control of industry/telecoms/healthcare/banking/etc and not allowing people to leave and then forcing people to work is not communism by the silver lining of private property still being allowed (but only to a certain extent, any more and we seize it).

Now your proposing unelected officials to sit aorund determining how much soap a man needs and how much grain to produce. Its almost as if youre actively trying to ignore past attempts at this and the absolute famine and suffering these things brought.

A state that has the power to give all that you need to you is a state that has the power to take it all away

>b-b-but my system would never devolve into a tyrannical mess! concentrating power like so never leads to bad things

Yeah thats usually how it works when you break the law lad

lol

He'll end up there eventually when his system is implemented. Folks like him always imagine theyll be the unelected officials determining all when they propose the system. OP wont be some poor sod plowing the field, he'll be a card carrying member who one day says the wrong thing and is sent to a gulag and his existence wiped from history

3 potential criticisms: 1. Restricting business size would prevent us from exploiting economies of scale. 2. giving the government a monopoly on those key sectors would remove competition as an incentive to cut costs and innovate. 3. Taxing excess capital away removes the incentive to save and invest, which would lead to a smaller stock of capital goods, which would likely make everyone poorer.

>Elaborate my friend
No, just part of the middle class who is having their wealth redistributed. Fuck redistribution. We need a purge.

I wouldn't mind just working in a factory or field. Running a state and being responsible for millions being fed sounds stressful.

Yea... umm those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Fascism has failed enough times for us to know it doesn't work.

If lets say, Stefan Molyneux or Jordan Peterson were made our leader than it would be great but Hillary Clinton or Justin Trudeau could just as easily take over then we are all fucked.

A weak gov't is important because that is the only safe guard we have against evil gov'ts.

>stressful

This implies that there is a result for failure. Millions starve but you will keep your job in the glorious non communist utopia. You just shuffled around to another department; now youre in charge of production of red automobiles.

>bank monopoly
fuck off

>Own no land myself
>I hate the idea of a system designed to help me
If they don't like it they can make an argument and it will likely be meant half way
This is all theory and I posted it to work these thoughts out in my head so I can touch them up and make them better and more workable
I posted this for criticism friend I want to make my ideas more workable
It's also not communist because its nationalist and religious and it has nothing to do with fucking soap m8 it's about making sure rich Marxists and Jews can't use capitalism to corrupt society or communism to control it you all keep comparing my ideas to communism when I took more from fascism

I know, you are correct. And this is why having a gov't as small as possible is the only way to keep the use of force/violence as low as possible. The more you want your gov't to do is the more violence against your fellow citizens that you want.

>it has nothing to do with fucking soap m8

ah not yet my friend. Soon enough it will. It always does

If your take way a person's "excess capital" how do they invest, innovate, grow their business, create a new business etc

>If we just give the poor enough free shit, they'll stop being poor!

Congratulations you're retarded