Distributism

[Bill McEnaney]

Everybody,

I believe distributism needs to replace capitalism. To see whether you agree with me, please follow this (http://distributistreview.com/mag/?s=ferrara), click the third right-arrow, listen to the lecture, and share your thoughts. I'm eager to hear your criticisms of what the speaker says because I can't find any problems with it.

Bill

[RickD]

Bill, I clicked on the link, and I don't see a third right arrow. Perhaps, you could just link the lecture directly.

[Bill McEnaney]

Bill, I clicked on the link, and I don't see a third right arrow. Perhaps, you could just link the lecture directly.

Oops! I don't know what went wrong. After I clicked the link, I saw what I called a "right-arrow" when I should have called it a triangle that lay to the right of a picture of a loudspeaker. Here's a direct link (http://distributistreview.com/mag/wp-co ... a-Voce.mp3).

[B. W.]

Bill, Distribution violates these three commandments:

Exodus 20:15, "You shall not steal.
Exodus 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."

God respects private property rights and He is no Communist…

Distribution also violates the principles set forth concerning tithes. People brought the tithes to the Priest, Levites, NOT the Government. The religious leaders stored this in Storehouses and gave when need was needed to a specific criteria. There were to be no freeloaders. And this avoided secular Government controlling people through distribution. See the following verses:

Nehemiah 10:33-39. "....for the showbread, for the regular grain offering, for the regular burnt offering of the Sabbaths, the New Moons, and the set feasts; for the holy things, for the sin offerings to make atonement for Israel, and all the work of the house of our God. 34 We cast lots among the priests, the Levites, and the people, for bringing the wood offering into the house of our God, according to our fathers' houses, at the appointed times year by year, to burn on the altar of the LORD our God as it is written in the Law. 36 And we made ordinances to bring the firstfruits of our ground and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, to the house of the LORD; 36 to bring the firstborn of our sons and our cattle, as it is written in the Law, and the firstborn of our herds and our flocks, to the house of our God, to the priests who minister in the house of our God; 37 to bring the firstfruits of our dough, our offerings, the fruit from all kinds of trees, the new wine and oil, to the priests, to the storerooms of the house of our God; and to bring the tithes of our land to the Levites, for the Levites should receive the tithes in all our farming communities. 38 And the priest, the descendant of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levites receive tithes; and the Levites shall bring up a tenth of the tithes to the house of our God, to the rooms of the storehouse. 39 For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the grain, of the new wine and the oil, to the storerooms where the articles of the sanctuary are, where the priests who minister and the gatekeepers and the singers are; and we will not neglect the house of our God."

Deut 26:12 ,"When you have finished laying aside all the tithe of your increase in the third year—the year of tithing—and have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, so that they may eat within your gates and be filled."

The priest violated this command and historically this was done by the priest becoming one with the King / rulers – read Government so that the wealth was used wrongfully. As cited from Malachi below and the book of Malachi was written to the Priest, Levites

Mal 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you..."

Mal 3:8-10 "Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, 'In what way have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. 9 You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole nation. 10 Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, That there may be food in My house, And try Me now in this," Says the LORD of hosts, "If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to receive it.

So if you are using distribution to justify that the Government must redistribute – you are in violation of many biblical principles. Jesus was not a communist, nor is the Godhead. God is a theocracist, who entrusts to man to simply love one another, This we all fall short of. Jesus came and paid the price for our violation.

If you are for biblical based distribution, then advocate that the people pay funds to the churches and the churches distribute per congregation and let God take care of the violators as he did so by 70 and 135 AD.

So are you still a distributionist of the Marxist bent?
-
-
-
Note All Bible Quotes from the NKJV

[Bill McEnaney]

So are you still a distributionist of the Marxist bent?

B.W., I'm a distributist without any Marxist bent. Distributists don't want governments to redistribute wealth. So if you haven't heard the lecture I linked the first post to, please listen to it before we talk about it. Distributism has almost nothing in common with the kind of distribution you describe.

This (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archive ... butism.htm) may interest some posters. too.

[Canuckster1127]

You mean God isn't an American Capitalist?

[Bill McEnaney]

You mean God isn't an American Capitalist?

Distributism is capitalism in a weak sense of the word "capitalism." Many people believe that distributism is a kind of socialism. But as Christopher Ferrara points out in the article I cited a post ago, distributism and socialism are mutually incompatible. For him, distributism is "the antithesis of socialism." Socialists want the government to own the means of production. Distributists believe that many, many people should own income-producing private property: shops, restaurants, farms, online stores, cooperatives, online businesses, family-owned businesses . . . In fact, online businesses are excellent examples of distributism in action.

Families, individuals, and groups choose freely to go into business. The State doesn't force them to control the means of production. In his lecture I linked this discussion's first post, Dr. Medaille describes a large Spanish corporation that runs a university and even a welfare program both without any government help. Distributists want people to work for themselves, not for some company that may downsize them to increase its profit. We want small government, too. partly because we don't it to control companies. Would you want the U.S. Government to buy every car manufacturer it bailed out? I doubt it. But now that investors can trade stock with the click of a mouse, it would be easy for governments to get controlling interest in huge companies or even to buy them that easily.

[Bill McEnaney]

You mean God isn't an American Capitalist?

Since I believe that laissez faire capitalism is immoral, I doubt that he's a laissez faire capitalist.

[wrain62]

Capitalism gives the highest incentive to work hard and be innovative and that is why it has strong power. The opportunity to rise above and be rich is a great motivator and capitolism plays on this very well. Distributism from what I gather is this but also puts limitation on big institutions control over economy. But what powers then will drive the responsibility of providing safety nets for shocks in the system? Say that a pathogen takes down a large portion of the wheat prodution(GM wheat is just about used everywhere without much variation so if a deadly pathogen comes it will be able to infect all of the crops whereas traditionally the variety of the past would have blocks to pathogens by being likely to be resistant because of the likliness of immunity provided by variation) who would be resposible for directing the people to adapt to the loss? The government? Then it would need considerable power over companies to unify them to organize on changing production. A sort of scientist driven executive force or the executive force of leading distibutive companies? Then that itself sounds like the govenment and then what you have is a restructuring of government instead of a downsizing of it. Now it sounds like socialism. This needs to be thought through in every way before we prepose a new system. But that is obvious. Not a bad idea.

2 cents

[B. W.]

So are you still a distributionist of the Marxist bent?

B.W., I'm a distributist without any Marxist bent. Distributists don't want governments to redistribute wealth. So if you haven't heard the lecture I linked the first post to, please listen to it before we talk about it. Distributism has almost nothing in common with the kind of distribution you describe.

This (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archive ... butism.htm) may interest some posters. too.

Hate to be the one that informs you but this is nothing new: it is a neo-revised form of Liberation Theology.It is a blend of Christianized Karl Marx philosophy no matter how you cut it. It presents a beautiful side of evil. Its purpose is to use people’s good intentions to protest and then the true Marxist show up and steal your show.

It is also flawed. How? Only during the millennium reign of Christ will such a thing be possible because Christ Jesus himself will rule the nations – how? - With an iron scepter. It also does injustice to real Christian owners of companies who do pay employees good and demands even more from them. It lust after another’s possession. It ignores the oppression of the Government over business thru taxation and regulations and limiting (soon eliminating) responsible donations to charitable organizations. That is who you should be protesting – heck with wall street.

The Karl Marx system is basically this: It finds several supporting Cooperations and Banks whose business mindset is to form a giant monopoly enforced by Governmental control, so society can only attain goods/services from the company store. To achieve this, they must force out of business all competitors, or enslave them, or buy them out.

The current protesters are protesting whom and whom are they not protesting? Who’s supporting them with funds and food? Answer - the monopolizers who seek to bring down the system to fit a one world order. This is Communism and Fascism combined to monopolize certain businesses to control all aspects of all citizens lives, enforced by a Plato kind utopian rule.

So your choice is slavery or freedom… that simple. Capitalism is the least likely to enslave you. Sorry Bill – you are being duped to believe the lie that one can make their own Garden of Eden.
-
-
-

[Bill McEnaney]

B.W., did you listen carefully to lecture? If you did listen carefully to it, maybe you forgot what Medialle said about the Spanish corporation in Spain that does billions of dollars in sales and even runs a welfare program without any government intervention. Have you heard that Hilaire Belloc, who helped G.K. Chesterton invent distributism, suggests that the governments should tax monopolies to disband them and to protect small businesses? If not, you might read his book The Servile State.

The servile State is a society where employees trade freedom for security. Many of them could own their own businesses, grow crops on their own farms, form cooperatives, etc. But they don't dare to do that because they think their current employers will guarantee them an income.

I know nurses who worked for private hospitals that looked for excuses to fire their well-paid nurses only because the company that owned the hospitals wanted to replace them with nurses who would work for lower wages. To save money, those hospitals did hire new nurses and nurses from temp agencies. Unfortunately, the new nurses didn't know how to treat the illnesses the hospitals specialized in. The same hospitals wanted nurses to gather detailed information about new patients but wouldn't give them enough time to collect it. Time is money, right? Some employees lost their jobs and patient care suffered because the hospital owners put profit before people.

Compare those hospital owners to Costco Corporation, the company Christopher Ferrara writes about in the article I posted when answered the your first post in this thread. Costco pays each employee enough money to support a family. In fact, that profitable company pays 92% of each employee's medical bills (http://www.costco.com).

Even in a distributist society, there's a place for big business. But big business should treat each employee justly. For a society's members to enjoy liberty, the society needs first to be distributively just. Distributive justice helps each company. too. laissez-faire capitalists want the most profit the can get at the lowest expense. That's why many companies pay their workers the lowest wages they'll accept. Unfortunately, the lower their pay, the less the employees can spend. Do economies thrive when most people are too afraid to spend enough money to help them thrive?

Companies can cut their own profits by paying low, low wages. They pay their employees too little, the employees spend too little, and the companies forfeit revenue the could get if their employees had more money to spend. The employees need to cash their paychecks only to return the money to their employers by buying what those employers sell. Employees of big companies can do business with firms that do business with the ones those employees work for. The more money those other companies earn, the more they can spend.

To see why distributists don't want monopolies, remember that distributists apply the Catholic Church's principle of subidiarity. The principle tells me that we need to solve problems at the lowest level possible. If I can't, say, afford my own food, I ask my family for help. If they can't help me, I go to my friends, to my neighbors, to my church, to charities, food, pantries, and so forth until I get what I need. Government is a last resort.

It's not Big Brother who protects monopolies. But again, governments can control huge companies that need to cooperate with them. What would have happened to GM if the U.S. Government bought it? What if big companies need to depend on government-owned railroads to ship their products or to earn most of their income? You might found a company that sells most of its inventory to the government. What would you do if the government said, "B.W., give me controlling interest in your company, or I'll shut it down?"

[B. W.]

Bill, the article still applies the discredited liberation theology and revives it with a lot of polish and make-up.

Question: Who is responsible to enforce and implement distribution as the article suggest doing?
-
-
-

[Bill McEnaney]

Bill, the article still applies the discredited liberation theology and revives it with a lot of polish and make-up.

Question: Who is responsible to enforce and implement distribution as the article suggest doing?
-
-
-

Governments already regulate some businesses in some ways. For example, some governments outlaw monopolies, which I hope all governments do. In a fully distributist society, guild-like occupational groups would set the just wage for the members of that group. Occupational groups are like the American Bar Association. The Bar enforces its own code of conduct, decides who may join it and who may not. Medieval guilds let new workers join them only when its current members could still earn a living in the guild's profession. If I were a lawyer who applied to a town's lawyer guild when the town already had enough lawyers, the guild wouldn't let me join it then. Why? Because new members might make it too hard for current ones to earn a living in that profession in that town.

No one forces anyone to own his own business. Anyone is free to work for himself or for another employer. Nobody forces the workers to control the means of production, but in a communist society, the government would force them to do that. In a fully laissez-faire society, the government wouldn't outlaw monopolies. If it didn't at least regulate them, a monopolistic company might be the only company that would hire anyone in, say, some small town.

What may happen when the only employer town is a chain store owned by a multinational monopoly? In a town full of wage slaves, people who trade economic independence for security, maybe everybody works at that store and feels to afraid start his own business or work for some company other than the chain store. That store earns huge profit, pays its executives huge salaries, and refuses to pay its salespeople a just wage. A former employee of the company may start a business after he quits his chain store job, only to see that new business fail. The failure would be sad. But if the chain store failed, that failure would harm the local economy much more than the small business's failure would harm it.

[Bill McEnaney]

Capitalism gives the highest incentive to work hard and be innovative and that is why it has strong power. The opportunity to rise above and be rich is a great motivator and capitolism plays on this very well. Distributism from what I gather is this but also puts limitation on big institutions control over economy. But what powers then will drive the responsibility of providing safety nets for shocks in the system? Say that a pathogen takes down a large portion of the wheat prodution(GM wheat is just about used everywhere without much variation so if a deadly pathogen comes it will be able to infect all of the crops whereas traditionally the variety of the past would have blocks to pathogens by being likely to be resistant because of the likliness of immunity provided by variation) who would be resposible for directing the people to adapt to the loss? The government? Then it would need considerable power over companies to unify them to organize on changing production. A sort of scientist driven executive force or the executive force of leading distibutive companies? Then that itself sounds like the govenment and then what you have is a restructuring of government instead of a downsizing of it. Now it sounds like socialism. This needs to be thought through in every way before we prepose a new system. But that is obvious. Not a bad idea.

2 cents

I can ask a similar question about big companies: Who or what will force them to adapt to the loss? How many companies are ethical enough to do that themselves without downsizing anyone? Those companies might just import wheat from countries they outsource to, especially when they outsource to foreign wheat-farmers. Companies may lay off employees supposedly to rehire them after the companies recover from the loss. They may even replace them with illegal immigrants or with employees from a temp agency. That way, the companies wouldn't need to give those workers any fringe benefits. The illegal immigrants wouldn't even expect them.

I'm happy to see other people get rich with their small businesses. A friend of a friend of mine became a millionaire in his multilevel marketing business. So his success also helped the people he recruited. Since he worked for himself, he probably was very motivated to earn the millions he did, even more motivated than he would be if he worked for a company that paid him millions of dollars a year. People take pride in their work when they're self-employed.

A self-employed craftsman will gladly put his name on his work when he knows that it's excellent. But if he works for another employer, customers may never know his name. Work for a company with a general name: "National Tractor Inc.," "Baker International," or "Building Contractors, Ltd.," for example. Then who knows whether any particular person will be responsible when a product breaks, needs a recall, or injures someone?" By putting my name on my product, I'm taking responsibility for its quality. I'm not hiding behind some company name to remain anonymous.

Besides, although money is only a means to an end, many people treat as a means to a means. They spend money to earn more money, not to buy what they need. The more money the get, the more money they'll want, and they may never be content with what they already have. Many distributists, including me, want to earn enough money to live comfortably, though not extravagantly. As Holy Scripture teaches, "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added onto you." God may not want me to be a millionaire. But I can be a happy poor man if he wants me to be one. He'll supply what it need if I put him first. I prefer to live like a monk partly because I would hate to love money when that love of money is the root of all evil.

[Jac3510]

I agree with the OP. And BW, sorry to say, but you are just factually wrong. Distributism is decidedly not based on liberation theology, nor is it any form of it. LT got started in the 1950s and 60s. Distributism is based on Catholic social teaching (in particular to Rerum Novarum (1891)) and on natural law theory generally. To suggest any connection to LT or liberalism more generally is just factually and philosophically absurd.

I would suggest that everyone on this board who claims to be a capitalist is actually just an inconsistent distributist. If you think monopolies are wrong and ought to be disallowed, then you are a distributist, at least in a weak sense.

edit:

Here is a fabulous article on how distributism would handle our health care crises. I would support this in a microsecond.

http://distributistreview.com/mag/2011/ ... re-system/