Your opinion of Distributivism?

[Scam of God]

Link

Much of my economic thinking has run along these lines recently, though I reject its Catholic social teachings; I find this to be very much in line with my emphasis on personal liberty, as it liberates men simultaneously from Big Government and Big Business.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It's a pretty good idea. If everyone produces their own products, monopolistic & oligopolistic industries will naturally give way to perfectly competitive industries.

     However, I do not see why it would necessarily be opposed to capitalism, as many people seem to have suggested. After all, the people that produce their goods would do so on a for-profit basis & through privately-owned means of production, both of which are critical aspects of capitalism. They also are still selling their labor, but merely cutting out the middle man of the employer in the process.

[Scam of God]

     It's a pretty good idea. If everyone produces their own products, monopolistic & oligopolistic industries will naturally give way to perfectly competitive industries.

Quite. I don't think that some libertarians understand that Big Business often encourages the government to extend its regulatory powers, to get a heads-up on the competition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly my point. If this ideology can be 'capitalized' (and though I understand the need for it electorally, removed of its socially conservative biases), then it could very well form the basis in a few years for a political arrangement the equivalent of the New Deal in the 1930s or the Reagan coalition of the 1980s.

However, it's also possible to go beyond this: we could have what the New Deal tried and failed to do - a workable combination of capitalism and socialism, depending on whether one wanted to voluntarily enter into a co-operative or not. There could be no possible objection to that.

[Gustaf]

I read the opening summary and we already have that.

[Scam of God]

I read the opening summary and we already have that.

Not quite. Soon, though.

[Gustaf]

I read the opening summary and we already have that.

Not quite. Soon, though.

That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to private stock ownership.

[Scam of God]

I read the opening summary and we already have that.

Not quite. Soon, though.

That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to private stock ownership.

That's not Distributivism. Distributivism is when you own the tools you use to make things - like a person owning a machine that can create a stereo, rather than working at a factory where stereo equipment is produced. Currently emerging technologies are allowing us to approach this goal at a rapid clip.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Reading more about it, I'm starting to see why it was touted as a rival ideology to capitalism & socialism. Still, if you strip it of its socially collectivistic ideas, it should function just fine within both capitalistic & socialistic paradigms.

[Gustaf]

I read the opening summary and we already have that.

Not quite. Soon, though.

That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to private stock ownership.

That's not Distributivism. Distributivism is when you own the tools you use to make things - like a person owning a machine that can create a stereo, rather than working at a factory where stereo equipment is produced. Currently emerging technologies are allowing us to approach this goal at a rapid clip.

Eh. And what's the point of owning the tools you use? Why would anyone care about that? You think technology will erase economies of scale completely?

[Scam of God]

I read the opening summary and we already have that.

Not quite. Soon, though.

That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to private stock ownership.

That's not Distributivism. Distributivism is when you own the tools you use to make things - like a person owning a machine that can create a stereo, rather than working at a factory where stereo equipment is produced. Currently emerging technologies are allowing us to approach this goal at a rapid clip.

Eh. And what's the point of owning the tools you use? Why would anyone care about that? You think technology will erase economies of scale completely?

Oh, I don't know. Being free to set the standards of your own working conditions, your salary rate, your preferred type of product, reconnecting with your local economy of scale, minimizing the environmental impact of production, and working at your own leisure is - shall we say, irrelevant? Factory work is infinitely preferable to entrepreneurship; being told what to do is comforting.

[Mechaman]

Uber yay.

This pretty much sums up my economic philosophy, minus the religious aspect.

[Lief 🗽]

I would prefer good old fashioned socialism, though I suppose this is preferable to capitalism.

[Torie]

The conception does not seem to understand the economics of economies of scale. And there is no detail as to how folks would be induced/forced to work in small rather than large units. Finally, there is nothing provided to explain just why this would lead to a greater equality of wealth, which I think is the goal when all the circumlocutious  rhetoric is scraped away.  In a word, it's woolly headed.

[Scam of God]

The conception does not seem to understand the economics of economies of scale.

Because the emphasis is on economies of scope, as opposed to scale; the ultimate goal is to shift to a localized version of capitalism in which one no longer needs to try for a national monopoly, because one fills a natural monopoly within a local niche.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One wouldn't be. The idea, I think, is that these smaller units would arise naturally, as the corporate model that has dominated since the nineteenth century is slowly and surely undermined.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it would allow the individual to keep a greater portion of the wealth he creates, which would inevitably find its way back into circulation within the local economy; it would also make it easier for individuals with a bit of initiative to start their own companies, when they no longer need to fear a government-backed monopoly over their chosen form of production.

[Torie]

You are suggesting Eingize that all of this will just naturally happen over time?  I have nothing against it if not coerced, but I don't think it is realistic, and it won't happen. Sure, there are probably more jobs in smaller units now, and more self employed jobs, but the idea that everyone will have their own spinning wheel (i.e., the modern equivalent thereof, like their own computer off of which everyone can earn a living at home), just isn't going to happen.

And if it happens naturally without coercion, then voila, it is capitalism, which is about making your own choices about what you want to do, and freedom of contract, and if folks are able and prefer making a living going solo, more power to them.

As I said, to me it is all a bunch of very woolly thinking.

[Scam of God]

You are suggesting Eingize that all of this will just naturally happen over time?

It will require a political push, but yes, it can be done. But this is why we, as libertarians, must get back into touch with our origins on the Left: there is such a thing as class warfare. The CEOs and executives, with their pawns in the ranks of the lobbyists and Big Government generally, will not go gently into that good night, will not sacrifice their merger with the State, because it would have a profoundly negative effect on their bottom line. Do you think that business was opposed to the New Deal? Business wanted the New Deal!

Read this to understand my position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the contrary: it's already happening. Just as the advent of the television after World War II gave rise to the information age, three dimensional printing (and its industrial counterpart, rapid fabrication) will cement in place a radical change in the relations of production. Our job - not as libertarians but as anarchists, through-and-through - is to tie this new technology into an ideology that is profoundly liberatory.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't trust the corporate model now in place. I fully expect that as these new technologies mature that it will resort to coercive methods to keep them out of the hands of the people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So was capitalism when it first came into conflict with the mercantilist order of the 17th century.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You can't produce airplanes with a 3 dimensional printer.  Or a sewer system.  Or transportation infrastructure.  Or power lines.  Or power itself.

I agree that the means of production should be spread out to encourage competition, but the market itself should be free in the most basic sense. 

We need to take a multi-faceted approach to this:

Some things are best left run by the public (schools, roads, rails, etc.)

Some are best run with a mix of cooperatives or private interests (food production, distribution)

And some things are best run privately (things like electronics)

The government should invest heavily in research and make that research public.  Let different companies use that knowledge and may the best and most efficient producer win.

[Gustaf]

I read the opening summary and we already have that.

Not quite. Soon, though.

That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to private stock ownership.

That's not Distributivism. Distributivism is when you own the tools you use to make things - like a person owning a machine that can create a stereo, rather than working at a factory where stereo equipment is produced. Currently emerging technologies are allowing us to approach this goal at a rapid clip.

Eh. And what's the point of owning the tools you use? Why would anyone care about that? You think technology will erase economies of scale completely?

Oh, I don't know. Being free to set the standards of your own working conditions, your salary rate, your preferred type of product, reconnecting with your local economy of scale, minimizing the environmental impact of production, and working at your own leisure is - shall we say, irrelevant? Factory work is infinitely preferable to entrepreneurship; being told what to do is comforting.

None of the things you mention are necessarily contingent on owning your own tools. I could start my own company and then rent the tools I use for my job and magically I would have every benefit you mention.

As usual, you are more engaged in rethoric than in thinking. You seem to have trouble with engaging in proper intellectual debate.

And you are going to have to explain what one's local economy of scale is. It sounds like something you just blurted out to have something to say in response to the question you failed to answer - do you think economies of scale will disappear?

And much of the rest you say is nonsensical. You seem to have bought into the old marxist idea that workers get exploited by capitalists, a notion that has rather weak support in economic theory and empirical studies. There is no reason why individual workers would necessarily get more money.

You also don't explain why this new technology would mean that people would be safe from government monopolies. The tecnology doesn't bring that about by itself, and capitalism as an ideology is also opposed to it.

[Torie]

This is Robin Dunn writing on my uncle's account - apologies in advance for any confusion!

What the heck is a three dimensional printer?

It strikes me as fascinating that the merging of useful human technologies with human emotions on a broad scale would lead us to a new distributed order of the kind we're describing.

Just as Leiden in the 16th/17th century benefited from its open door policy of welcoming all new ideas, radical and otherwise, and then going out and ACTING on them, we too can initiate discussions and action on a community basis to reestablish local networks of trust, and then renegotiate the long-term consequences of globalization for the sake of moving towards a truly global State.

Maybe terrifying?  Maybe insane?  Inevitable?  I think we can go forwards and backwards at the same time:  reestablish neighborliness the way it used to exist in this country, as well as integrate changing economic systems that have some pullback from the global control systems currently in place.

It's kind of like those Chinese finger traps - both your fingers are in there in the same loop, and they can't get out unless you relax.

Move backwards by being neighborly, move forwards by initiating a new form of Globalization that is less about markets and more about empathy.

An empathy market. 

Whaddya think?

Cheers to all the totally awesome thinking on this site-
RD

[k-onmmunist]

Not bad, but I prefer pure capitalism.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

These days, I would still consider myself a distributist. The problem is that today's world is overpopulated, and to suddenly revert to such a system could result in mass-starvation. Also implementing such a system would be an issue. It would be best to allow such a system to develop at the grassroots level within a free market framework, rather than trying (and failing) to force it from the top-down with government force.

Still, distributism is an explicitly Catholic system with its ideological origins traced to mediæval Europe, so its a bit surprising to see who's signed on to it here.