Economic Personalism and Distributism, Part II: Analysis

    In last week’s posting on this subject, we briefly answered four questions posed by a professor about distributism and the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism: 1) What lead you to become a proponent of this economic system in the first place? 2) What are a few of the most important principles of this economic system? 3) What do you see as the major advantages of this system? 4) What are the major challenges?

Economic Personalism and Distributism, Part I: Questions and Answers

  Recently a genuine college professor got in touch with us and asked us if we would mind answering a few questions about the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism.  He wanted to know how it stacks up against “distributism.”  Yes, we are aware that some (former) distributists now insist on calling the system developed by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc “localism.”

Egocentrism, Tariffs, and the Single Tax, Part II

Last week we looked at how a distorted idea of one’s own importance can lead to treating anyone who opposes you as an enemy to be eliminated, and supporters as tools to be discarded once their utility is over.  This week we look at the implications of the Ricardian (as opposed to the Smithian) Labor Theory of Value.

Egocentrism, Tariffs, and the Single Tax, Part I

Understanding certain of today’s trade policies, while difficult, even baffling at times, is nevertheless possible once one identifies some basic assumptions and ascertains a possible approach to life.  Although he didn’t write it, The Art of the Deal (1987) under President Trump’s name exemplifies an orientation which appears widespread today, as do some of his otherwise incomprehensible actions, possibly accounting for his popularity.

Why It’s Not Distributism

A little backstory.  A few years ago, we were asked to prepare an explanation of what we mean by “the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism.”  Even though we are an interfaith group, the request came from an official at the Vatican (not the pope or anyone you know).  We wrote the explanation based on universal principles of natural law applicable to all “natural” faiths and philosophies (mostly based on or compatible with Aristotelian philosophy).

Is the Proletarian Condition “Normal”?

Last week we looked at the question whether the rich, as F. Scott Fitzgerald claimed, are different.  We concluded that today the rich are, indeed, different . . . but not as human beings.  Rather, what makes the rich different these days is access to money and credit which enables them to buy advanced technology which can and usually does outproduce human labor at a quantum level.

“Freedom is Not an Empty Sound”

In the previous posting on this subject, we looked at William Cobbett, to whom some have referred as “the Apostle of Distributism,” meaning a sort of proto advocate of small ownership.  Of course, in some cases, the people who attach such a label have little understanding of what ownership consists.  We can sum up what Cobbett was talking about by quoting American statesman Daniel Webster: “Power naturally and necessarily follows property.”

What’s Wrong with the World

Once upon a time G.K. Chesterton published a book he titled What’s Wrong with the World.  While the book was intended to oppose socialism and a bit of capitalism, it has been taken by many people as promoting the very thing it was primarily intended to counter: Fabian socialism.

Can Distributism Rebuild Ukraine?

 

The quick and easy answer to the question as to whether distributism can be used to rebuild Ukraine is yes — if the current keepers of the flame can either be convinced that their understanding of distributism might be a little off (or others can see it for themselves), some of the flaws in distributism as it has often been presented are corrected, and the authentic vision of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc is implemented.  To do that, of course, we need to know what distributism really is, not what it was transformed into even before Chesterton’s death.

The Road to Limited Liability

In the previous posting on this subject, we saw that even if ordinary people had sufficient savings during the Industrial Revolution, or even if they had gained access to the commercial and central banking system in England, broad-based ownership of the new industries would have been much too risky under the law of the time to allow it.

Full Participation

Say’s Law of Markets is usually summarized as “Production equals income, therefore, supply generates its own demand, and demand, its own supply.  Unless, however, you understand or even are just generally familiar with the full explanation of Say’s Law, it’s likely that you will either misunderstand it or reject it outright.

A Few Questions

As we may have mentioned once or twice, we like to get questions, if only because it saves us the labor of trying to think up ones ourselves.  The other day we got three questions that, slightly edited, we’ll post on today’s blog:  We were asked,

Corporatism versus Distributism

In “Do We Agree?”, their final debate in 1927, Gilbert Keith Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw — immoderately moderated by Joseph Hilaire Pierre René Belloc (“I am here to sneer”) — once again presented the things on which they couldn’t agree.

The Best Form of Government

     Possibly as a result of some people in the “distributist community” deciding on a name change for the concept (from “distributism” to “localism”), we recently got a question regarding the form of government that best conforms to the distributist ideal.  For reasons that we hope will become obvious, we won’t address whether the name change was good, bad, or indifferent.

An Alternative to the Servile State

In the previous posting on this subject, we criticized the so-called “Great Reset” on the grounds that it really wouldn’t do anything other than exaggerate the flaws in the current system.  In our opinion, the socialized capitalism (or capitalized socialism) of the Great Reset doesn’t do anything except accelerate the alienation of human persons from society.

What Do You Mean By “Distributism”?

Somewhat to our surprise, we seem to have become something of a “distributist guru.”  Of course, that could just be an impression, but if it’s true, it might be because we seem to be able to give consistent specifics instead of vague and contradictory generalities.  Not that G.K. Chesterton or Hilaire Belloc gave out anything contradictory, or at least, not that they intended to be contradictory, but that’s not our point.  Our point is where Chesterton and Belloc wanted to go, not necessarily how they thought it expedient to get there.

Citizens Land Cooperative

As we noted in the previous posting on this subject, distributism as presented by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc had the right idea: a wide distribution of private property in capital, by which they did NOT mean a redistribution of what belongs to someone else.  (See the final comment in What’s Wrong With the World (1910).

Feudalism v. Distributism

Someone asked us recently whether we thought distributism and feudalism are pretty much the same thing.  Off the top of our head (or is that “heads”?) our first response is “no.”  After all, feudalism meant that most (if not all) land was “public” land, and people “held” the land in return for specified service(s) to the State, usually military service.  Land was not private property.

Distributism and Economic Personalism, Part II

In our last episode (i.e., the previous posting on this subject) we mentioned that when we got around to addressing this subject again that we’d try and get to the point.  So, let’s ask again, “Are distributism and the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism compatible?”  Our starting point for today’s discussion is G.K. Chesterton’s description of distributism as a policy of widely distributed private ownership of capital, with a preference for small, family-owned farms and artisan businesses.

A Commons Question

A few weeks ago we had a question about “the Commons” that, prior to the Industrial Revolution and the enclosure movement, were a (if you’ll excuse the term) common feature of everyday life for many people.  We get different forms of this question periodically, so we figured it would be a good time to answer it in a blog posting.  The question?  Were the Commons an example of agrarian socialism, i.e., land owned in common by every member of a town or village?