Distributism

[Resurrexi]

ty

[Era Might]

Explain what you mean by "distributism".

[Aloysius]

there are many ways of "acheiving distributivism" which I would consider criminal and sinful against the seventh commandment.

but as an ideal to strive for, that property ownership and ownership of business should be as widely distributed as possible so that every person has the oppurtunity to own that which makes them their living, it is the best continuation of the Church's social thought through the scholastics till the present and is probably the best possible economic system.

[Mercy me]

So, what is the difference between "distributionism" and communism?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1073042' date='Sep 23 2006, 08:09 PM']
So, what is the difference between "distributionism" and communism?
[/quote]
Private property that owners can develop how they wish. It respects the economic freedom of individuals.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1072831' date='Sep 23 2006, 03:20 PM']
ty
[/quote]

Yes.

Yes and no, although leaning towards yes. I think it is immoral because of the issues with it. But I'm not sure something such as a form of economy can be inherently evil. Could be wrong though. Can capitalism be used in a good way, I think so, but I haven't really seen it.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1072841' date='Sep 23 2006, 03:31 PM']
Explain what you mean by "distributism".
[/quote]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism[/url]

G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc are the major players in this area.

[Budge]

[quote]
Distributism, also known as distributionism and distributivism,[u] is a third-way[/u] economic philosophy
[/quote]

[quote]. As Hilaire Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number owners of the means of production" ("The Servile State", 1913). T[u]his broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.[/u] ("The Servile State", 1913)[/quote]

Sounds like Third Way Communism, the new communism now promoted by the UN.

You all know what The THIRD WAY represents dont you?

It is essentially the marriage of COMMUNISM AND CAPITALISM.

By the way it is being IMPLEMENTED NOW.

The Fatima apparition which I believe was demonic, spoke some truth about the errors of Russia {COMMUNISM} being carried to the entire world.

[quote]Development: United Nations and the 'Third Way'



United Nations, Nov 10 (IPS/Farhan Haq) -- [size=4]Proponents of a "third way" between free-market policies and socialism must still define the path forward but the United Nations has joined in the debate on the new political buzz word.[/size]
The "third way" is credited with boosting the political fortunes of Europe's resurgent social democratic parties as well as those of U.S. President Bill Clinton. On Tuesday, the Second Committee of the U.N. General Assembly - which focuses on economic and social affairs - took
a look at the new phenomenon.

Proponents of third-way politics, including the concept's primary architect, London School of Economics Director Anthony Giddens debated, what Giddens argued, the central question: "How do you make capitalism work?"

What became clear, Giddens told IPS, is that both "market fundamentalism" and "Keynesian socialism" have failed, and that voters demand alternative policies. Beyond that, he conceded, the concept of a third way is "an ongoing debate rather than a set of positions".

Yet third-way politicians - among them, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and Clinton - have been vague at best about what type of alternative they intend to create.

Blair, Clinton, Bulgarian President Petar Stoyanov and former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi could not even come up with a common definition of a third way during a September forum at New York University on the topic.

Giddens suggested a number of common rallying points upon which social democratic parties could agree, including striking a balance between government regulation and the market; a focus on ecological concerns; the creation of regulatory controls on financial speculation; and a push toward global governance.

Governments, he argued, had committed two major errors in recent decades as the world has undergone globalisation: They had regarded globalisation as simply an economic phenomenon and they had developed only national challenges to the problems it posed.

"People have voted against that," he noted. Now, Giddens argued, political will was growing to re-examine the global financial system and to push for more regulation at the global level - perhaps for the first time since the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were created following World War II.

"There is a movement of economic integration in the world," added Jacques Baudot, director of the Copenhagen Seminar on Social Policy, but, he argued, no similar political integration to balance it. "A global market is not a global international community," he contended.

The problems of unrestrained global markets become particularly clear following the Asian economic crisis and ther subsequent economic woes of Russia and Latin America, some third-
way proponents argued.

The eruption of the financial crises last year - and the popularity of European social democratic parties in recent elections, notably in Britain, France and Germany - boosted attention to the idea of a third way, said Kwame Pianim, chief executive officer of Ghana's New World Investment Ltd.Many political parties were wondering, "Do we have the means to regulate the flow of speculative capital?" he added

Nor is the push for global regulation confined to the industrialised world. "Those (developing nations) who have suffered from structural adjustment programmes have said that there must be some sort of alternative," Pianim said.

As the third-way concept developed, it must embrace the idea of "public management" or ways to ensure that the public sector runs efficiently, possibly by "borrowing" the methods of the private sector in providing certain benefits, argued Albrecht Horn, of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

In practice, however, third-way politics has proved to be a more elusive concept.

Clinton - elected in 1992 as a 'New Democrat' looking to change the welfare-state policies that his party had upheld since Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1933-45 presidency - at times has seemed little different to his right-wing Republican opponents.

Clinton has pursued fiscal austerity measures to balance the U.S. budget, scrapped federal welfare guarantees and favoured sweeping free-trade accords with only small amendments to deal with labour and environmental concerns. At the same time, beyond a failed effort to devise a national health-insurance policy, the U.S. president has taken few initiatives that could spell out what he means by third-way politics.

In a recent editorial, the leftist British magazine The New Statesman joked that Clinton's vague comments about the Monica Lewinsky scandal defined a "third way" between adultery and faithfulness. Third-way theorists are wary of making overly broad claims for their concept.

"One of the lessons of the current (economic) crisis is that a certain element of humility is needed," Baudot said. As a result, the effort to define the third way should include a caution "not to be too
systematic, not to be too certain."[/quote]

Clinton loves it as do all the elites, because it will make them RICH, on the backs of millions of impoverished people.

Total control of Capitalism by the state, enrichment for the globalists.

[url="http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8f3QesVY_HcJ:www.sunsonline.org/trade/process/followup/1998/11120598.htm+Third+Way+and+United+Nations&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a"]LINK[/url]


Anyone who supports Distributism, supports the new Third Way Socialism which is what the GLOBALISTS WANT.

A return to the FEUDAL system.

[Socrates]

There's been lengthy arguments on this topic here before, and i'll just say that for an argument on this subject to have any meaning, the terms "distributism" and "capitalism" must first be carefully defined.
Both sides tend to misuse these terms in order to demonize the opposition.
I gnereally have little problem with the goals of distributism, but believe there are serious problems with trying to enact it in practice. (Please run a search to see arguments pro and con.)

[Budge]

Just like Communism, sounds good on the surface, everyone sharing, but definitely bound for failure.

Communism {SOCIALISM} is back by the way via the UN.

Third way policies, the marriage of Captialism and Communism, the redistribution of the world's wealth.

Just like when Communists duped Russia and pleaded the case that Communism would bring workers up....

The entire world is being duped by the UN's supposed concern for the poor of the world.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1073636' date='Sep 24 2006, 08:47 AM']
Sounds like Third Way Communism, the new communism now promoted by the UN.

You all know what The THIRD WAY represents dont you?

It is essentially the marriage of COMMUNISM AND CAPITALISM.

By the way it is being IMPLEMENTED NOW.

The Fatima apparition which I believe was demonic, spoke some truth about the errors of Russia {COMMUNISM} being carried to the entire world.
Clinton loves it as do all the elites, because it will make them RICH, on the backs of millions of impoverished people.

Total control of Capitalism by the state, enrichment for the globalists.

[url="http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8f3QesVY_HcJ:www.sunsonline.org/trade/process/followup/1998/11120598.htm+Third+Way+and+United+Nations&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a"]LINK[/url]
Anyone who supports Distributism, supports the new Third Way Socialism which is what the GLOBALISTS WANT.

A return to the FEUDAL system.
[/quote]

Budge, from this speil, it is clear that you have absolutely no clue what "distributism" refers to. I myself have some problems with distributism, but I can say it has absolutely nothing to do with Communism, globalism, or socialism.

In fact, if you gave this rant in front of any considering themselves distributists, they would probably laugh, because distributism is about as [b]anti-globalist [/b] a philosophy as they come!

Budge, why must you continuously spew your abject ignorance over these boards? Are you trying to see how much of a fool you can make of yourself?

[Budge]

Well who wants everyone to go back to living in huts under the feudal system?

Distributism would require governmental intrustion into business and MASSIVE REDISTRIBUTION of property and wealth.

Sounds like a bunch of Catholics who want to return the world to the some false romantic ideal they have of the Medieval rural economy.

I dont see it as anti-globalist, the globalists would love the world to all be living as peasants.
[quote]
Opposed to laissez-faire capitalism, which distributists argued leads to a concentration of ownership in the hands of a few and to state-socialism in which private ownership is denied altogether, distributism was conceived as a genuine Third Way, opposing both the tyranny of the marketplace and the tyranny of the state, by means of a society of owners.

Like socialism, distributism is concerned with improving the material lot of the poorest and most disadvantaged. Unlike socialism, which advocated state ownership of property and the means of production, distributism seeks to devolve or widely distribute that control to individuals within society, rejecting what it saw as the twin evils of plutocracy and bureaucracy. [/quote]

THIRD WAY...

RED FLAG TERM to me and yes Im simplifying this, that means we are only HALF-COMMIE.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Budge

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Budge' post='1074071' date='Sep 24 2006, 07:03 PM']
Well who wants everyone to go back to living in huts under the feudal system?

Distributism would require governmental intrustion into business and MASSIVE REDISTRIBUTION of property and wealth.

Sounds like a bunch of Catholics who want to return the world to the some false romantic ideal they have of the Medieval rural economy.

I dont see it as anti-globalist, the globalists would love the world to all be living as peasants.
THIRD WAY...

RED FLAG TERM to me and yes Im simplifying this, that means we are only HALF-COMMIE.
[/quote]

Actually, some communities manage to do the whole "redistribution of wealth thing" quite well. Of course, it's entirely voluntary. Nobody owns anything. They distribute to every family as they have need. They attempt to live out what the church practiced in the Book of Acts. Granted, this is not a command of God for Christians to follow...but there is a principle there. But that's for another thread.

[Budge]

I have no problem with Christians sharing things, I think in every good church, that folks should look out for the poor and share their abundance, with those in need. In fact the church I am in now, follows this. This is not to be done via state interference however but out of Christian love for one another.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1074071' date='Sep 24 2006, 06:03 PM']
Well who wants everyone to go back to living in huts under the feudal system?

Distributism would require governmental intrustion into business and MASSIVE REDISTRIBUTION of property and wealth.

Sounds like a bunch of Catholics who want to return the world to the some false romantic ideal they have of the Medieval rural economy.

I dont see it as anti-globalist, the globalists would love the world to all be living as peasants.
THIRD WAY...

RED FLAG TERM to me and yes Im simplifying this, that means we are only HALF-COMMIE.
[/quote]
Oh for Pete's sake!

Distributists are basically people who support private ownership of land for everybody, and and think as many people as possible should own their own private businesses, and sho support small, family businesses, over big chains and multi-national corporations.
I personally know and have talked to a number of distributionists, and they are as conservative, anti-big government, anti-collectivist, and anti-globalist as they come. Most would sooner die than be ruled by the U.N. or other globalist bodies. Distributism is based on an ideal of small local government and subsidiarity, and is against powerful central government, and any kind of globalism.
(Talk to Aloysius for more details. )

You can criticize distributism where criticism is merited, but what you are saying here has absolutely nothing to do with distributism. (Just as your attacks on the Catholic Church have nothing to do with the reality of the Catholic Church.)

If you have no clue what you are talking about, you should just SHUT UP! Please.
Remember, it is better to be silent, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth, and be known a fool indeed.

Take some time to actually read up on your Chesterton and Belloc, before coming back to the debate table.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Socrates

[Budge]

[quote]Distributism is based on an ideal of small local government and subsidiarity, and is against powerful central government, and any kind of globalism.[/quote]

I am not an economist.

You do know what THIRD WAY debate has been about havent you?

[url="http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895"]THIRD WAY-MARRIAGE OF CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM[/url]

[quote]
Understanding where Marx went wrong is central to understanding the ideological underpinnings of distributism because the founders of the movement - Belloc, Chesterton and others - were themselves mostly socialists who developed distributism [u]in response to the theoretical problems which they had come to see Marx's analysis.[/u]

The most fundamental issue is the Labour Theory of Value.
[/quote]

Quote by Chesterton..
[quote]
I will take two examples out of the new movements: Socialism and Spiritualism. [font="Arial Black"]Now it is perfectly true that when I first began to think seriously about Socialism, I was a Socialist. [/font]But it is equally true, and more important than it sounds, that before I had ever heard of Socialism I was a strong anti-Socialist. [font="Arial Black"]I was what has since been called a Distributist, though I did not know it. [/font]When I was a child and dreamed the usual dreams about kings and clowns and robbers and policemen, I always conceived all contentment and dignity as consisting in something compact and personal; in being king of the castle or captain of the pirate ship or the man who owned the shop or the robber who was safe in the cavern. As I passed through boyhood I always imagined battles for justice as being the defence of special walls and houses and high defiant shrines; and I embodied some of those crude but coloured visions in a story called The Napoleon of Notting Hill. All this happened, in fancy at least, when I had never heard of Socialism and was a much better judge of it.[/quote]
[quote]
I therefore became a Socialist in the old days of the Fabian Society; and so I think did everybody else worth talking about except the Catholics. And the Catholics were an insignificant handful, the dregs of a dead religion, essentially a superstition. About this time appeared the Encyclical on Labour by Leo XIII; and nobody in our really well-informed world took much notice of it[size=4]. Certainly the Pope spoke as strongly as any Socialist could speak when he said that Capitalism "laid on the toiling millions a yoke little better than slavery." But as the Pope was not a Socialist it was obvious that he had not read the right Socialist books and pamphlets; and we could not expect the poor old gentleman to know what every young man knew by this time -- that Socialism was inevitable.[/size] That was a long time ago, and by a gradual process, mostly practical and political, which I have no intention of describing here, [b][u][size=4]most of us began to realise that Socialism was not inevitable; that it was not really popular; that it was not the only way, or even the right way, of restoring the rights of the poor. We have come to the conclusion that the obvious cure for private property being given to the few is to see that it is given to the many; not to see that it is taken away from everybody or given in trust to the dear good politicians.[/size][/u][/b] [/quote]

The last line I underlined is VERY INTERESTING.

[url="http://www.smart.net/~tak/Chesterton/conver5.html"]GK CHESTERTON[/url]

When people start talking about redistribution of wealth...which I would surmise would be FORCED...

That has at least the tinge of COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM.

So far I havent been able to find an anti-globalist distributist article, can you provide one?

Edited September 24, 2006 by Budge