Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: I think I've misrepresented distributism 20
My own left and right wing tendencies have been allowed to infect distributism in these journals. It's both far more fair (for the freedom lovers) and far more equitable (for the socialist lovers) than I have described.
Here's an excellent article on the subject, written NOT by a Roman Catholic (it's the first pro-distributist, Christian theological tract that I've read that isn't based on _Rerum Novarum_ and deserves archiving for that purpose alone) written by an Orthodox Theologian. Likely not enough difference for the American Protestants in my ring- but worth reading *just for the descriptions and comparisons of the other three economic systems that are commonly used*.
The best quote in FTA (Score:2)
Maybe the reason... (Score:1)
...that distributism as a system and followed philosophy is so unheard of is that it's because it really satisfies no one. The Right would hate it if they heard about it because we're for leaving things to fate. The Left would hate if they heard about it because they're for forcing outcomes. It's as if the distributionist is saying to the socialist, "yes, we hate capitalism too, for all the reasons you do [TFA including seemingly all of the Left-wing talking points against capitalism], but we propose a neve
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like this could only appeal to those who (illogically) like to assume that if both sides are about equally against something that that somehow means there must be something curiously right about it.
I think you just explained to me why it was Roman Catholics who came up with this- as I've used that very description a hundred times for why I follow the Pope.
But I think there is another very significant reason why it was Chesterton and Belloc who came up with this based on their stud
Re: (Score:1)
So you've outgrown your Leftist utopian idealism then. Where the Leftist, like a foolish teenager, thinks he has all the answers and if only he or like-mindeds could attain the power to install it upon everyone then everyone would see. Par
Re: (Score:2)
In the modern era a civilization needs a professional military, and largish spending for technologically-advanced weaponry and defenses, and a proactive defense strategy to keep many threats from becoming serious. A nation of farmboys with hunting rifles trained to fight by themselves is not going to be able to oppose much of anything.
And yet- it's worked to a large extent for Switzerland. Possibly because they go hunting with their government issued machine guns though.
Re: (Score:2)
In the modern era a civilization needs a professional military, and largish spending for technologically-advanced weaponry and defenses, and a proactive defense strategy to keep many threats from becoming serious. A nation of farmboys with hunting rifles trained to fight by themselves is not going to be able to oppose much of anything.
And yet- it's worked to a large extent for Switzerland. Possibly because they go hunting with their government issued machine guns though.
How quickly we forget just how much technology goes into things... Schweiz is not a nation of "farmboy" but of reserve Army personnel, and they're not using hunting rifles, they're using technologically engineered and advanced-factory built assault rifles that would be impossible to engineer without computer-aided drafting and robotic precision.
Well, if you're arguing against a strawman... (Score:2)
Its most famous proponent was Karl Marx. The essence of socialism is that the government of a state owns and controls all or almost all of the means of production and distribution.
No. Karl Marx held that there would be no need for government in a true socialist system. And there's nothing about socialism that the government need be involved at all. The idea behind socialism is that the means of production should be owned by the WORKERS, not a class of people who designate themselves as superior and produce the jobs for workers to fill.
As an example, I'll draw up a real world analogy. I was dating a guy for awhile, and he rented a house. Now, after having rented the house, he found th
Re: (Score:2)
It would be like me claiming that the capitalism system is run by rich people... it's just not a fair argument, because it's not what the system actually purposes. (Note to Bill Dog, you're getting better, but you're still arguing against strawmen as well.)
And reading further:
While capitalism believes in private ownership, it also believes that only a few people should own what really matters, that is, the ways of producing money and goods.
That's exactly what the article argues... awesome... let's just throw up a phalanx of strawmen and mow them down with machine guns...
Re: (Score:2)
the state does not permit plutocrats and corporations to usurp its authority, as they ceaselessly attempt to do in capitalist countries.
The guy prior referred to Adam Smith, but apparently, the guy only read the wingnut cliff notes, and failed to actually read the whole argument... Adam Smith expressed explicit disdain for corporations being involved in government drafting of laws, because they will bend legal rules to cement their position, and batter competitors.
And capitalists and free marketeers oft malign people for suggesting that government has largely stayed out of industry, because they haven't... a lot of regulation that gets pass
Re: (Score:2)
The point was more that- it's unavoidable. Just as trying to put communism into practice yielded, in effect, a single owner and a servile state; capitalism in practice yields crony corporatism when practiced without INDEPENDENT oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
The point was more that- it's unavoidable. Just as trying to put communism into practice yielded, in effect, a single owner and a servile state; capitalism in practice yields crony corporatism when practiced without INDEPENDENT oversight.
And there are unavoidable consequences of distributism... like an average decrease in quality of life. I cannot afford to build a computer from scratch, build all the OS, then the apps, then the Internet. The very existence of an Internet is defied and anathema to distributism.
The whole article you posted is a rose-colored look back on more perfect earlier times, without a realization of what that actually means. Medicine and technology would be decimated and pretty much come to an end. And the worst part?
Re: (Score:2)
And there are unavoidable consequences of distributism... like an average decrease in quality of life
Yes, to a certain minimum. But that minimum is higher than *most* of the 7 billion human beings on this planet are living with now. And pockets of human beings can have more, merely by studying history and being inventive.
I cannot afford to build a computer from scratch, build all the OS, then the apps, then the Internet.
And yet, in essence, that's how this entire industr
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, in essence, that's how this entire industry got started- by hobiests building computers, OS, apps, and the internet, all from scratch. Maybe you're too young to remember?
I'm well aware of the history of all that stuff... and it was started (keyword there: STARTED) by hobbyists because companies didn't see any value in it. Apple was able to make so much money because HP declined the rights to the work that the Woz and Jobs did.
But who do you think constructed the microprocessors? Do you really think the Woz set up a chemolithograph setup at his home? No. He used off the shelf microprocessors produced by: du-dun-na-NA! huge corporations.
You're living in a fantasy world where
Re: (Score:2)
Even a short life can be a good life Such as this six year old [dailymail.co.uk].
And yes, that's why small distributionist governments have to be strong.
Re: (Score:1)
You've made a lot of excellent points in this thread. But there's a few I will pick at from this post.
By my (uneducated) reading of Wikipedia, I think you meant communism. Where socialism is the penultimate step, of the state owning everything, on the path to communism, the final step, where the society is (classless and) stateless. Socialism, at least according to classical definitions maybe, seems to be "to each according to t
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference between that form of socialism and distributism is this: In socialism the means of production is owned by the workers collectively. In distributism, each man takes his own tools home at night, because the tools of production are owned *individually*.
Crony corporatism is a lot more like socialism than it is like distributism- because the corporation owns the means of production and the workers are just more resources to manage.
Re: (Score:1)
In capitalism [I don't know what the or your exact definition of crony capitalism is, or corporatism] the workers have their 401K's invested in their and other (public) corporations, so we also have some ownership of the means of production, just indirectly. This way I can have ownership without having to manage it, as a choice.
At my first job there was a guy who had some space in our parking garage for a little car wash/detailing business. Then it got broken into and his power buffer and all his other equi
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in your mythical capitalism, but in reality 401ks are so low on the hedge fund list that they're just ponzi schemes like the rest of the publicly traded stock market.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know what this means. All I believe is that without govt. socially engineering citizens thru the tax code into putting their life's savings (after a house) into mutual funds and stocks etc., Wall St. wouldn't have near as much of other peoples' money to gamble with. They'd have to risk their own.
I guess you're saying
Re: (Score:2)
I long ago learned that no matter how smart I think I am, con artists are smarter.
Wall Street would find a way.
"I guess you're saying that if communities are economically divided small enough, that episodes of voluntary socialism will occur, as needed, without being forced by an overlord."
A Catholic friend of mine called it "communionism", but yes. And I would argue, in a small enough community, such episodes of voluntary capitalism would be enough to prevent the need for:
"So you would still need a strong