Capitalism Eating Itself

One of the criticisms that have been made about the distributist movement is that we make false characterizations about capitalism. We take selective examples of abusive behavior taking place within capitalism and use them to criticize capitalism as a whole. We use terms like calling average employees the proletariat and “wage slaves” to reflect how capitalists treat the working classes they claim to “lift up.” Our critics say that these are not the norm for capitalism; they are the exception and not the rule. However, what distributists actually say is that capitalism as a system is morally neutral because it is only about money and “what the market will bear.” Distributists respond that this is how capitalism really exists in the world, and that very fact is what ultimately makes it an unjust system. As I have mentioned many times, most capitalists will insist that everyone involved in business should act in a moral and ethical way, but many of them will also admit that capitalism as a system does not enforce that in any real way. The revelations of Steven Crowder and the Daily Wire over the last two days have shown how right we are.

Distributism and "Preppers"

Distributists emphasize personal and local economic independence as the foundation of personal, political, and economic freedom. For nearly one hundred years, we have been saying that society overall needs to move away from our dependence, not only dependence on big government, but also on big business. As long as we continue to accept these things, we will be in a state of dependence, which means that we will not truly be free. So, what does this have to do with the so-called “prepper” movement that has gained popularity in the last two years? 

The Breakdown of the Supply Chain

Not long ago, a cargo ship blocked a canal, causing international shipping to get backed up and a consequent shortage of supplies in many countries. As I write this, many cargo ships are gathered in the Pacific Ocean, waiting to get into the harbors for Los Angeles and Long Beach California. Apparently, there is a shortage of long distance truckers to take away the cargo already unloaded, which needs to be done to make room for the cargo on the ships that are waiting. There has been a lot of talk about the breakdown of the supply chain, but have these discussions actually addressed the real problem?

Get Woke, Go Broke?

The phrase “Get woke, go broke,” has been around for about three years. It generally refers to the idea that businesses which acquiesce to the demands of the self-identified advocates of “wokeness” will suffer financial losses because those views are not what sells. Those who use the phrase point to Gillette's disastrous “The Best A Man Can Be” campaign, or the failure of movie and other entertainment franchises when they change popular established characters to fit the woke view, or many other examples to support their claim that wokeness just doesn't sell. They will tell you that the marketing executives foisting these changes are out of touch with the pulse of the people, and that is why getting woke inevitably means going broke. Is this claim actually true?

They Don't Really Believe in the "Free Market!"

It might be assumed that those who believe in the "free market" would be happy and supportive when people engage in that market. You might think this would especially be the case when average people engaging in the market are successful and look like they are going to make a lot of money. After all, isn’t one of the claims in defense of capitalism that anyone can succeed and that it is supposedly the first economic system that allowed people to improve their state in life? Recent events make it clear this is not the case, at least not for those who are already “big players” in the market and who wield significant economic, and therefore political, power.

LOCALISM! My thoughts on a new name.

In December, the Society of Gilbert Keith Chesterton[1] revealed what they propose as the new name for Distributism: Localism. This reveal was made simultaneously in the society's magazine, Gilbert, and on its podcast, Uncommon Sense. Prior to its announcement, the society did reach out to other distributists for reaction and input regarding the proposed name change. Thomas Storck and I wrote reactions that were included in the same issue of Gilbert. Adrian Alquist and I also discussed the topic on a later episode of their Uncommon Sense program, which can be found on YouTube.[2] The problem with doing a live interview is that you can go into it with certain points and statements you intend to make, and then find that the course of the conversation went in a direction where you didn't actually say something you intended. In listening to the interview, I found that this was the case for me. I agree with everything I said, but there was one thing I intended to say, but didn't.

 

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. 

Reflections on the Quarantine

People all around the world have been in a quarantine lock down due to the Covid-19 virus outbreak for about a month. In some areas, families can go for walks, while in other areas people are only allowed to go outside for things like getting food. This crisis imposed isolation, called "social distancing," is raising certain questions about how our society is structured and what we value.

The Cost of Comparative Advantage

The advocates of Free Trade deals between countries frequently cite the fact that more products are made available at a lower cost to consumers as proof that their idea makes economic sense. Their explanation of how this works rests on the idea of Comparative Advantage,[1] the idea that one country can produce a good at a lower opportunity cost than other countries. Based on this idea, if the industries in one country focus on those products where they have the lowest opportunity cost, and import products where they don't, this provides an abundance of lower priced goods for everyone. For the advocates of Free Trade, price [2] appears to be the ultimate test of what is economically good. They scoff at opponents and critics of Free Trade as if their criticisms of it are completely without merit. Even some economists who have dared to question Free Trade, still try to uphold Comparative Advantage as a reasonable idea.[3] The reality is that the Free Trade ideology ultimately rests on Comparative Advantage. Therefore, it is prudent to examine the criticisms of it to see if they do, in fact, merit consideration. I believe that history has proven that they do.

Global Trade vs. Free Trade

Those who know the positions of distributists will understand that we are generally not in favor of modern "Free Trade" schemes. It seems, however, that some may misinterpret this and conclude that we are isolationists. After all, it is not unfair to say that we are not only in favor of localism, but that we put more emphasis on it than others who also favor that idea. This has led some to question what a distributist position on trade would be.

Three Questions on Distributism

by Joseph L. Grabowski

Practical Distributism would like to thank Joseph L. Grabowski for permission to republish the following article. It was originally published on his own blog, which can be found here.

What is an embedded economy?

by Thomas Storck

Probably nearly everyone would assent to the statement that the economy is meant to serve society, not the other way around. But despite the verbal acquiescence that would most likely be given to this statement, it is my contention that in fact for capitalist modernity most often the very opposite is true: society in fact serves the economy. As it has been expressed, "society itself becomes an `adjunct' of the market."[i] This claim applies most fully to the United States, the place where capitalism has been able to develop most freely and completely, where there are the fewest legal or cultural restraints on the operation of capitalism, and where capitalist ideals and motivations are most taken for granted and lauded.

Taking that First Step: an interview with Samantha Larson

Distributists desire the proliferation of small independently owned businesses. We also desire that larger businesses be cooperatively owned by those who do the work. While there will still be some form of employment even under a distributist system, people are more economically free when they own the means of their own living. Even employees would be more economically free if their opportunities for employment were from a large number of potential employers. Communities will also be better served if businesses are owned by those within the community. Finally, the local economy will be stronger because money spent in the local community will support the that community instead of being siphoned off to some far off corporate headquarters. If the collective resilience of local communities is strong, then the national economy will also be strong. However, in order for this to take place, people need to be willing to step out and take the risk of running their own businesses. In that light, I have interviewed a young woman who has recently done just that. Samantha Larson of BLT Beauty in Alpine, CA has been kind enough to share her experience with us.

Selling Out: The Perils of Capitalist Small Business

by Thomas Storck

Not too long ago it was announced that Wicked Weed Brewing in Asheville, North Carolina, which had been a craft brewery, was being sold to Anheuser-Busch, the gigantic beer corporation. The founders of Wicked Weed announced optimistically that

Partnering with Anheuser-Busch means great distribution opportunities, more resources, and connections to other breweries.... More opportunities for Wicked Weed means bringing craft beer to more people....

Distributism and Large-Scale Industry

Thomas Storck's recent article about the antagonistic relationship between owners and workers prevalent in capitalist enterprises included the following statement. "The activity of the Mondragon cooperatives in Spain proves that there is no reason why large-scale and highly technical industrial operations cannot be worker owned." This sentence prompted a reader to respond with a request.

"Please provide a follow up article showing how this system works for Mondragon, their profit, employee take home, growth, etc..."

This response to that request will address two things. I will first provide the information requested, then I will address the case of Mondragon and how it does, and does not, relate to distributism.

The Planned Dependent Community

"Walmart didn’t kill the once-vibrant cluster of shops next to a railroad and a creek in the faded old coal town of Kimball, W. Va. — the disappearance of the mines had pretty well taken care of that already. But now that Walmart’s leaving, too, as one of 154 U.S. stores the company closed in January, the town might be snuffed out for good."

This quote is from a Washington Post article on the circumstances some small towns were facing when Walmart recently decided to close 269 stores and lay off more than 16,000 employees. This prompted one reader of ours to ask how we can reach these types of communities. How can we present the idea of distributism to the people living in these situations as solution to their economic problems?

Distributism and the Local Organic Farm Community

The following is an article by Douglas R. Fox, director of the Center for Sustainability and Global Change at Unity College. This article is reprinted from the Fall 2013 edition of Maine Organic Farmer and Gardener. We thank Professor Fox and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association for their permission to reprint this for our readers.

Owners vs. Workers: An Eternal Law of Nature?

Thomas Storck

A few years ago (November 2, 2013) The Economist magazine, that reliable organ of neo-liberalism that makes few bones about its idolization of material growth as the summum bonum of human existence and its consequent dismissal of anything, such as family life or cultural traditions, that might get in the way of such material growth, ran some articles about labor's diminishing share of national income.

Over the past 30 years, the workers' take from the [economic] pie has shrunk across the globe. In America, their wages used to make up almost 70% of GDP; now the figure is 64%, according to the OECD. Some of the biggest declines have been egalitarian societies such as Norway (where labour's share has fallen from 64% in 1980 to 55% now) and Sweden (down from 74% in 1980 to 65% now). A drop has also occurred in many emerging markets, particularly in Asia.

Even these figures of 70% to 65% for the U.S. are misleading, for as the magazine notes in another article in the same issue, "among wage-earners the rich have done vastly better than the rest; the share of income earned by the top 1% of workers has increased since the 1990s even as the overall labour share has fallen." So that, "the share of national income going to the bottom 99% of workers has fallen from 60% before the 1980s to 50%." That is to say, the workers whose job title is CEO are gobbling up not just more money but a greater percentage of it.

Distributism and Labor Unions

by Thomas Storck

It has sometimes been said that distributism, the economic system that promotes widely distributed productive property - whether this is owned by a single proprietor, a family, or a worker cooperative - is hostile to labor unions and the labor movement. While I do not deny that there may have been someone who labels himself a distributist who at one time or another said something negative about the labor movement, the central distributist movement, exemplified by theorists such as Hilaire Belloc or G. K. Chesterton, and of late by organs such as Practical Distributism or The Distributist Review, has not embraced such a position. Any apparent hostility is based upon a misunderstanding of the differences between a capitalist economy and a distributist economy. For example, when Belloc wrote that a union "is a proletarian institution through and through and a proletariat and a proletarian spirit is exactly what we are aiming to destroy,"[1] he was simply noting that in a distributist society the labor market divide between owners and workers, which is the hallmark of capitalism, would not exist, or would hardly exist. Since distributists desire a proliferation of small economic units - workshops, stores, farms - it is obvious that in such entities there would be no labor movement because there would be no labor. Or to put it more precisely, the worker would be the owner, and the owner the worker. There would be no need for him to form a union to protect his interests against himself. Entities that of necessity required a large facility with a large workforce would, according to the distributist model, be employee owned and administered by the workers themselves. Again there would be no need for a union. Thus Belloc is not exhibiting any hostility toward workers but rather hopes that their status may be improved by making them owners.

Independent Publishing: An Interview with Matt Vancil

by David W. Cooney

In order for people to be able to see that distributism can actually work, to see that it is actually something practical instead of  some Utopian fantasy, we need to be able to provide practical alternatives for doing things in ways that are more in line with the distributist ideal than the currently prevailing methods. Fortunately, there are people out there who are already doing this. Many who would not call themselves distributists, who may have never heard of distributism, are already trying to accomplish things in ways that happen to be more in line with distributism. One person who is in this category is Matt Vancil. Mr. Vancil has written independent films like JourneyQuest and The Gamers, and is involved with the production team at Zombie Orpheus Entertainment. He recently published his first novel, PWNED, which is available through the Fan Supported Network and Amazon, and agreed to sit with me to discuss his experience as an independent publisher.