Distributism, as an economic philosophy, is totally new to me. (My decision to circumvent Pennsylvania's high school graduation requirement of a course in economics, which I ditched in favor of AP physics, continues to haunt me.) I came upon it while looking for a good G. K. Chesterton link for my O God of Earth and Altar post; Chesterton was one of distributism's more vocal proponents.
Since one obviously doesn't hear much about it, distributism may be outmoded, impractical, unworkable, or just plain wrong; I don't have time to learn more about it now, and Li'l Writer Guy is still chanting with the monks. However, I find it most intriguing, since at first glance it accords well with my own philosophies, bringing together such diversities as homeschooling, home birth, home cheesemaking, family farms, independent businesses, public transportation, artisan breads, adn above all recognition of the family unit as the basic structure of society. Here are some quotes from the Wikipedia article:According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (socialism) or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton's statement: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."
Distributism puts great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that no larger unit (whether social, economic, or political) should perform a function which can be performed by a smaller unit.
Distributism sees the trinitarian human family of one male, one female, and their children as the central and primary social unit of human ordering and the principal unit of a functioning distributist society and civilization. This unit is also the basis of a multi-generational extended family, which is embedded in socially as well as genetically inter-related communities, nations, etc., and ultimately in the whole human family past, present and future. The economic system of a society should therefore be focussed primarily on the flourishing of the family unit, but not in isolation: at the appropriate level of family context, as is intended in the principle of subsidiarity.
And here are two excellent essays I found in my brief meanderings, both from the Dallas Morning News, September 23, 2007:
Patrick Deneen: There's a Lesson in Europe's Gardens, Woodpiles and Chickens
Allan Carlson: Here's a Way for America to Give It a Shot
Enjoy!I came across distributism in Inchausti's "Subversive Orthodoxy," which I think merited a mention in one of Janet's posts. It sounds interesting, but probably takes more education and effort to work than the two more extreme positions (maximizing profit and maximizing distribution parity). Implemented fully, it would certainly turn investing upside down!
I'm not at all sure it would "work" for an entire society. As enthusiastic as I am for small, organic farms, for example, one thing agri-business does well is make available plenty of cheap nutrition. Perhaps a network of small farms could do as well if we decide, as the Japanese government did, that their benefits are worth subsidizing, but that's not obvious. Homeschooling, home birth, family farming, cheese and bread making, heirloom plant and animal preservation, self-employment, and the like are not for everyone, nor would I under any circumstances want to require it. But there's something they all have in common that I believe is so valuable it ought to be encouraged, whereas in our current society it is all made difficult, sometimes even illegal.
I believe this approach to life to be much more than preservative, but if nothing else it contributes to what Neil Postman called the Monastery Effect: small groups preserving essential knowledge and abilities until the world is again ready to receive them.
Sometimes we have the political and economic will to resist the headlong rush of "whichever direction we are going is the right one," as with the choice of France, Switzerland, and Japan to subsidize small farmers, or when Basel, in the 1970s, deliberately chose to turn away from the "automobile model" of city planning and create its excellent and popular public transit system. But our decision-makers won't always get it right, and more likely will do so only rarely. This is one reason why liberty is so very, very important: to enhance the probability that what is right will be preserved.
It sounds like what Ayn Rand opposed in Atlas Shrugged. Certainly, it goes along with the "too few capitalists" problem, though the solution in that setup was to shutdown the people who succeeded in order to distribute the wealth, where a pure distribution system wouldn't have to shut them down in order to get other people involved.
And the only way the government could figure out how to distribute was to take over the successful company in order to kill it to provide opportunities for others.
And now, that I have actually read the articles that you linked to, I like the Deneen article.
I don't know how the subsidy/tax works, and I'd likely oppose some of the artificial means to get people to do what is "best" for everyone.
ie. if there is a law that says supermarkets have to charge for plastic bags, than I'd oppose it. If grocery stores decide that is a good thing, and either can make extra money, or get people to bring their own bags, that's fine with me.
One thing Deneen's article reminds me is that one can no more stereotype European life and thought than American. I find the division of our country into Red States and Blue States absurd, though somewhat justified by our winner-take-the-whole-state electoral process. The far greater division is between urban and rural. Just as America is not just its cities, neither is Europe.
