Where does Distributism fit in?

One thing that seems to confuse many people looking at distributism is that they really can’t imagine a society beyond our current conservative/liberal or right/left paradigm. I believe this is the source of a good deal of the criticism against us. If we’re not conservative, then we must be liberal. If not liberal, then conservative. If not capitalist, then socialist. We are not liberal in the modern sense, nor are we Classical Liberals. We are not Modernist, nor are we Post Modernists. We are not Libertarians and we are not totalitarians. I believe the root of the problem is that people don’t see the connecting thread between all of these views. They not only think several of these positions are fundamentally different things, but that these are essentially the only things that are. For myself, even though there are significant differences between these views, they are fundamentally the same, and the reason I say so is that they are all various forms of Liberalism. Distributism is not a product of Liberalism, so they really have a lot of difficulty understanding it. It just doesn’t fit into any of the neat little categorizations that have been the basis of their political and social arguments for more than a century.

What, exactly, is "proto-capitalism?"

Have you ever heard of the term, "proto-capitalism?" I have heard it from two groups. The first group are those Catholics who wholeheartedly accept capitalism. For this group, the proto-capitalism period is evidence that the capitalism under which we live today has its origins in Catholic teaching. The second group are other capitalists who say that the proto-capitalism period was a period of transition from economics being considered a sub-category of ethics, where it was subject to religion and philosophy, to its own separate field of study. There is one thing that is generally acknowledged by both of these groups, however. Whatever proto-capitalism was, it was not capitalism. It is the name given by these groups to a particular time that, according to them, was a transition in European economics to capitalism. This leaves some important questions. What was the preceding economic system? What changes separate proto-capitalism from the period that preceded it? What changes separate proto-capitalism from actual capitalism? Finally, is there possibly another name we in the current age can apply to what these groups call proto-capitalism? 

Is Distributism Socialism?

by Thomas Storck

 

References to or discussions of distributism on the internet are not hard to find. This is gratifying, for I would hazard a guess that fifty years ago almost no one had even heard of distributism. But even though the situation today is in most respects an improvement, these online references to distributism are not necessarily favorable. I have not attempted to count whether favorable or unfavorable mentions predominate, but there seem to be some ideas that are common to those critical of distributism. One is that distributism is simply a form of socialism. Now those who make this charge usually have little understanding of what socialism is, and especially of the great variety of economic programs that go by that name. Socialism is simply assumed to be state ownership of property, at least of productive property. That socialists often advocate for modes of ownership such as worker-owned enterprises or cooperatives seems to be largely unknown to the public.

Distributism at the Catholic Economics Roundtable

The following opening statement was given at the “Catholic Economics Roundtable” livestream hosted by Michael Lofton on 23 January 2021. It can be viewed on the Reason and Theology YouTube channel[1] and is available as a podcast on The Tradistae Podcast on Podbean.[2]
 

A Road Not Taken

by Thomas Storck

 

On Sunday May 8, 1949 The New York Times published a short article entitled "Vatican Paper Assails 'Atheism' in Capitalism." Consisting of only three short paragraphs the article refers to an article just published in the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, and written by that paper's editor-in-chief, Count Giuseppe Dalla Torre. The Times quotes Dalla Torre that "capitalism `is atheistic in its structure: gold is its God,'" and goes on to say that the article "defines capitalism as substantially greedy and says its aim is to dominate because it is never satisfied." 

Distributism Basics: Foundational Principles

I am happy to announce the publication of my new book, Distributism Basics: Foundational Principles. This is an exploration of some of the core principles underlying the distributist idea. 

Is Distributism the "official" Catholic economic system?

One accusation that is often made against distributists is that we claim distributism is the official economic system of the Catholic Church. This is because we frequently cite official Catholic teaching in support of our positions, and also because of the undeniable fact that Distributism started as a primarily Catholic movement, with a primarily Catholic leadership, in response to papal teaching. Distributism is, after all, the attempt to apply philosophical principles of ethics and morals to the economic and political spheres in a way that is specifically consistent with Catholic teaching. So, does that mean we claim it is the official economic system of the Catholic Church? In this article, I dare to give an authoritative answer to that question.

Is Distributism a Socialist Cult?

I know a lot of Catholics who really like the YouTube channel of Dr. Taylor Marshall. They view him as one of the few reliable commentators on the Faith and living it in today's world. That is why I was so disappointed when I watched "Against Catholic Distributism w Dr Jay Richards and #TnT (Dr Marshall #234)." I have to admit that it was an extreme struggle to watch this video because it was a one hour and ten minute, non-stop misrepresentation of Distributism and distributists. To be honest, the first time I saw it, I could only get through about six minutes before I was so frustrated that I stopped. I regret that I did not continue at that time and write this article before now.

Distributism: the Better Alternative to Capitalism and Socialism?

The following is the English version of an interview with Thomas Storck by Martin Bürger of Catholic News Agency, Germany, published with the title, Distributismus: Die bessere Alternative zu Kapitalismus und Sozialismus? Ein Gespräch mit Thomas Storck

George Weigel Shifts the Goalposts

by Thomas Storck

It can be tedious to untangle a web of misrepresentations, and I'm afraid that what I am about to write here may be tedious to some. But if we are to uncover the continuing misrepresentations made by George Weigel on Catholic social teaching, this will be necessary even if it is somewhat tiresome. Catholic social teaching, however, is important enough that a little tediousness is well worth enduring to reach the truth.

Witt and Richards on Belloc: Part 3

 by Patrick Toner

Continued from Part 2

In an exchange with Witt and Richards sort of on this topic (Pearce 1, W&R 1, Pearce 2, W&R 2), Joseph Pearce accused the pair of conflating Belloc’s views with socialism—an accusation they warmly denied.

Witt and Richards on Belloc: Part 2

by Patrick Toner

Continued from Part 1

Witt and Richards accuse Belloc of committing serious economic errors—errors also committed by Marx (horribile dictu).  The two central such errors are that both Marx and Belloc “failed to understand that free exchange benefits both parties,” and that “both held to what is called the labor theory of value, roughly the idea that something is worth economically just how much it cost to produce it.”  (Both passages from p. 160.) 

Belloc does not accept the labor theory of value.  This, at least, can be settled definitively.  In his explanation of the nature of economic wealth, Belloc considers the example of a farmer who owns a horse.  “…consider,” he says,

how the value [of the horse] changes while the horse remains the same.  On such and such a date any neighbor would have given the owner of the horse from 20 to 25 sacks of wheat for it, or, say, 10 sheep, or 50 loads of cut wood.  But suppose there comes a great mortality among horses, so that very few are left.  There is an eager desire to get hold of those that survive in order that the work may be done on the farms.  Then the neighbors will be willing to give the owner of the horse much more than 20 or 25 sacks of wheat for it.  They may offer as much as 50 sacks, or 20 sheep, or 100 loads of wood.  Yet the horse is exactly the same horse it was before.  The wealth of the master has increased.  His horse, as we say, is ‘worth more.’”  (Economics for Helen, p 33-4)

The Praise of Impracticality

by Maciek Wąs

One of the main – and the oldest – charges raised against distributism is that it is “impractical”; at least as far as I know the case. In my personal experience I have encountered this obstacle hundreds and hundreds of times. In most cases, when I try to convince somebody to become a distributist (or at least start taking serious interest in the problem), it all works great, and everybody agrees with me, and just when I start to gain the upper hand and get “this close” to finishing the case, my interlocutor hides behind the great wall of “impracticality.” “How to do it? Did this Chesterton of yours ever say exactly how to deconcentrate property? Did he propose a bill to the parliament, did he form a political party (etc…). No? Oh, I see; because it cannot be done. It’s nice and all, but it cannot be done.” And usually just after that, the grand hit: “Socialism in theory is nice too, but it just doesn’t work.”

And no; we are not going to talk about the “niceties” of socialism.

George Weigel - Yet Again

by Thomas Storck

In a recent column the publicist George Weigel has weighed in on some of the dubious shenanigans surrounding the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the document that, to say nothing further, by its lack of clarity has confused so many about Catholic moral doctrine on marriage and the reception of the sacraments. Weigel notes the recent statement by Pietro Cardinal Parolin, the Holy See's Secretary of State, that Amoris Laetitia constitutes a "paradigm shift" for Catholic thinking on marriage and the family.

Witt and Richards on Belloc: Part 1

by Patrick Toner

Part One—The Distributist Paradox and State Power

In The Hobbit Party (Ignatius, 2014), Jonathan Witt and Jay Richards cover some of what they take to be the political/social meanings in JRR Tolkien’s work.  In Chapter 8—“The Fellowship of the Localists”—they talk a bit about Walmart and Joel Salatin and other such matters.  All very interesting.  But not what this piece is about.  They also talk about whether Tolkien was a Distributist.  Also very interesting.  But not what this piece is about.

An Objection to Distributism That Just Doesn't Fly

For those of you who subscribe, Dale Ahlquist has an excellent article about Distributism and industries like airlines in the latest issue of Gilbert Magazine.

For those of you who don't subscribe, I recommend you head on over to The American Chesterton Society to rectify the situation.

Does Capitalism Work?

[Editor's note: This article was originally published as “Have Smith's Theories Been Proven to Work In Spite Of the Presence of Government Meddling in Economics?.” After further reflection, I determined that the original article was attempting to critique Smith's theories during time which, as demonstrated in the previous article, his theories were not even being tried. Therefore, this article has been rewritten to more accurately reflect what was intended.
- 6 April, 2016]

Has Smith's Capitalism Ever Been Tried?

by David W. Cooney

There is, in the vast realm of people calling themselves capitalists, a very peculiar group. While, like all capitalists, they claim that capitalism is responsible for every material advancement and new technology since they days of Adam Smith, they simultaneously claim that every economic problem that has occurred is not the result of capitalism. These are the true believers in Smith's "invisible hand," the individual self interest that will inevitably (and unintentionally) guide the overall market in a way that is best for all. They invariably blame every economic problem on government meddling. It is government meddling that causes Smith's invisible hand to veer off course. When confronted with any economic problem that has occurred, they counter that the government was meddling in the economy. They claim that capitalism cannot be blamed because the fact that the government was meddling proves that capitalism wasn't being used. If that is the case, if the existence of government meddling in things related to the economy means that capitalism is not being used, has Smith's capitalism ever actually been tried?

Distributism and Medieval Romanticism

With its emphasis on local economy, local markets, local farms, local government and, maybe most of all, guilds, would it be fair to say that distributists are longing for a return to the way things were in the medieval era? Are distributists merely a group of anachronistic dreamers with romantic views of medieval life, not only separated from the real world of today, but even from the realities of the medieval world?

Capitalist Monopolies vs. Distributist Guilds

This article was originally published by

The Distributist Review

on 11 April, 2011