tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post2994744191002902520..comments2023-10-25T08:46:20.242-05:00Comments on The Distributist Review: Should Distributism Be Given a New Name?John Médaillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-65658389442457175182009-01-24T11:01:00.000-06:002009-01-24T11:01:00.000-06:00By way of introduction, I'm a committed distri...By way of introduction, I'm a committed distributist who's been reading this blog for some months now but have yet to chime in. This topic, I believe, is of utmost important to the political, social, and economic philosophy we now call "distributism" if it is to attract greater interest and activity.<BR/>Perhaps distributist aversion to slick advertising leaves us forgetting the incredible power of connotation. The McCain campaign last year consciously used the phrase "redistribution of wealth" as an attack on the Obama campaign. While it was ultimately an electorally unsuccessful strategy, it nevertheless helped to galvanize the once wary conservative Republican base in the final weeks of the campaign. Particularly in the U.S., "distribution" and any variant have clear connotations with leftist ideology, particularly among conservative types.<BR/>I remain convinced that most average Americans are at heart distributists - we are a family-oriented bunch who prefer small government and small business in principle if not in practice. We do not realize that we are at heart distributists not only because of the implications of a two party system (a topic suitable for its own discussion), but because we don't know what distributism is - the moniker itself is too unintentionally charged for Americans to investigate because there is the automatic assumption that distributism is simply a synonym for socialism.<BR/>At the same time, there is a timidity in approaching distributism among those who would otherwise be open to it. Consider middle and high school religion texts' dilution of Dorothy Day into a pacifist bread-line organizer. There is little attention given to the political or economic implications of her philosophy (perhaps because there is also little confidence that our students could comprehend it) - but also, I believe, because discussing something called "distributism" would raise the hackles of more than a few concerned conservative parents.<BR/>Distributism clearly needs a new name which is politically uncharged, which is simple and direct, and which is approachable for those who already support its aims but because of justified prejudices have no access to the wealth of thought found in Chesterton, Belloc, Day, Maurin, etc.<BR/>My own introduction to distributism came through the undoubted orthodoxy of the socially-oriented papal encyclicals - Rerum Novarum & Quadrigessimo Anno. I suggest, then, that distributism co-opt a term which has been applied to the writings of John Paul II: Personalism - or, since this already has a broader existing philosophical meaning, Economic Personalism (though this is admittedly wordy). A new term should invoke the fullness of humanity that is the ultimate philosophical aim of distributism, while having neutral connotation.Will Seathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05044575591197234242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-89912923533793791082009-01-23T16:12:00.000-06:002009-01-23T16:12:00.000-06:00Greetings,This sounds a lot like the slow food mov...Greetings,<BR/><BR/>This sounds a lot like the slow food movement, but with capital and money rather than with tomatoes and wine. Perhaps they have some different names.<BR/><BR/>peaceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-47711847354404912152009-01-20T23:45:00.000-06:002009-01-20T23:45:00.000-06:00Microcapitalism?Sustainable Capitalism?Freeholderi...Microcapitalism?<BR/>Sustainable Capitalism?<BR/>Freeholderism?<BR/>Yeomanry?Danbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02630461228714499323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-75658523308468658292009-01-20T12:18:00.000-06:002009-01-20T12:18:00.000-06:00Localism- keeping the means of production close to...Localism- keeping the means of production close to home. <BR/><BR/>Does that work?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-33401662050147057072009-01-20T12:15:00.000-06:002009-01-20T12:15:00.000-06:00I'm thinking Localism or Distributed Capitalism mi...I'm thinking Localism or Distributed Capitalism might work unless somebody already took that name.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-5013202910256350872009-01-19T10:29:00.000-06:002009-01-19T10:29:00.000-06:00Jesse wrote:Hello Tom."It's not only that though. ...Jesse wrote:Hello Tom.<BR/><BR/>"It's not only that though. Isn't Distributism a more widely distributed type of Capitalism? We all have the "not enough captitalists" Chesterton quote readily on our tongues," <BR/><BR/>Yeah, GK said the problem with the Capitalists is that there aren't enough of them. If we had a lot more of them it would mean we had restored the small shops. But I've never heard any small shop keeper call himself a Capitalist. They usually think of themselves as Citizens. <BR/><BR/>But there are still a lot of people who equate Capitalism with Democracy. <BR/><BR/>And my union thinks all good things come from the Capitalists and the massive corps.<BR/><BR/>So I like describing Distributism as Community Commerce, as exemplified in the the U.S. in the 1950s. Only better.Tom Laneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01811615310314303793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-44619346619742355472009-01-19T09:47:00.000-06:002009-01-19T09:47:00.000-06:00Viking, of course these things are a matter of jud...Viking, of course these things are a matter of judgment and of degree, but when gov't spending is 1/3rd of GDP, I think there is warrant for calling it state capitalism. Is it lower than in other forms of State Capitalism? Undoubtedly, but again that is still a difference of degree rather than of kind.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-76195845206314766462009-01-19T03:15:00.000-06:002009-01-19T03:15:00.000-06:00John, I have trouble agreeing with your descriptio...John, I have trouble agreeing with your description of our current economy as "State Capitalism". If that's what this economy is, then how would you describe the former Soviet Union, where the state was close to 100% of the economy and owned all of the productive property? Besides, any society is bound to have some percentage of its GDP going to government, unless you think anarchism is a serious option. From the post you wrote in response to Kevin Carson, you apparently do not.<BR/><BR/>VikingVikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660688426762417651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-67803588345080592642009-01-18T12:34:00.000-06:002009-01-18T12:34:00.000-06:00Jesse, I think the more accurate description of ou...Jesse, I think the more accurate description of our system is "state Capitalism"; the state, after all, constitutes one-third of GDP. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps the best description of distributism is "The Ownership Society"; our aim is to make as many men as possible to king of their own castles, the duke of his own little estate. These petty princes may negotiate with others in a way the wage-slaves cannot.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-75529124563643807962009-01-18T12:15:00.000-06:002009-01-18T12:15:00.000-06:00"I prefer saying Big Business Capitalism vs. Big G..."I prefer saying Big Business Capitalism vs. Big Government Socialism (or Communism, if you prefer) in my conversations."<BR/><BR/>... That is, in conversations where I introduce the third way of Distributism :-)Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718530044133779893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-35746767208373736002009-01-18T12:12:00.000-06:002009-01-18T12:12:00.000-06:00::I just heard from another guy who says we should...::I just heard from another guy who says we should never use the word "Capitalism" in a negative sense since it turns people off and makes them think you're a commie. <BR/><BR/>Hello Tom.<BR/><BR/>It's not only that though. Isn't Distributism a more widely distributed type of Capitalism? We all have the "not enough captitalists" Chesterton quote readily on our tongues, so I won't bother repeating it in full; still, even Mortimer Adler, who was on our side, wrote the <I>Capitalist Manifesto</I>. <BR/><BR/>I prefer saying Big Business Capitalism vs. Big Government Socialism (or Communism, if you prefer) in my conversations. I am, however, just a novice to this whole intriguing movement, and am more than willing to adapt where better minds have overcome.Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718530044133779893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-89524353902233046322009-01-18T08:49:00.000-06:002009-01-18T08:49:00.000-06:00This is a really good question. I just heard from ...This is a really good question. <BR/><BR/>I just heard from another guy who says we should never use the word "Capitalism" in a negative sense since it turns people off and makes them think you're a commie. <BR/><BR/>I've heard much over the years from my Communist friends, who think any argument against their politics is red-baiting. <BR/><BR/>I think Distributism is an ok label when it is explained as a key subsection of Solidarity. Solidarity can always be explained as Friendship. <BR/><BR/>During the fight against NAFTA, activists in my Local Union described the options facing us as Solidarity vs. Competition. Friendship vs. Dog Eat Dog. We were crushed by the UAWs propaganda machine that described the "real world" as dog-eat-dog. <BR/><BR/>But if we had known then about Distributism we might have won that fight. It is not so much the word Distributism as the common sense behind it that should, eventually, carry the day. <BR/><BR/>Carrying that day, to me, means winning transparency on the evils of Capitalism and Communism; then leading to the conversation on Distributism. As more and more people see Distributism as the answer they will turn to discussing what it will take to achieve it? I don' think they will be quibbling about the title. I think they will be returning to what Aquinas said is the sole moral purpose of business: community service at a fair profit.<BR/><BR/>We need to be clear that Capitalism is a great evil; and, so is it's partner Communism. With that clarity people will see Distributism as the new paradigm and move towards it in their arguments which will ask what it will take to achieve it?<BR/><BR/>And that will quite probably be The General Strike.Tom Laneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01811615310314303793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-35386730716174277852009-01-18T07:26:00.000-06:002009-01-18T07:26:00.000-06:00No luck yet, but here's my scrapped list:Decentrab...No luck yet, but here's my <I>scrapped list</I>:<BR/><BR/><B>Decentrabutionism</B> -- Stresses the decentralist tendency of Distributism (but an even more clumsy word than distributism).<BR/><BR/><B>The Common Law party</B> -- Speaks for itself (but sounds too familiar -- I don't think we want a "party" anyway).<BR/><BR/><B>Mediacrat</B> -- As in via media, the middle way (sounds too much like we're for CNN and FOX).<BR/><BR/><B>Axialism</B> -- True center; bringing to mind the axial age, and having roots therein (also, however, brings to mind "axis of evil").<BR/><BR/><B>Yeomenism</B> -- (Lol)Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718530044133779893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-60106062830617094642009-01-17T18:37:00.000-06:002009-01-17T18:37:00.000-06:00Having worked with campaigns and studied productio...Having worked with campaigns and studied production design, I most certainly understand the implications color selection may have on perception. That being said, even the cultural significance of colors change. While some may associate various colors with causes (black with anarchism, green with environmentalism, red with Republicans, and blue with Democrats), these typically aren't the first thoughts to come to mind for Johnny Q or Sally Sue when they see them. Rather than political, these have taken on a far more emotive response, whether it be alarm, calm, etc.<BR/><BR/>Your last paragraph is one worth discussing. Why not frame it with the question "What would Chesterbelloc do?" Did the word cause unease to the majority of people they spoke with about it? Were people immediately turned off by the word? Was the cultural and historical context favorable (or at least indifferent) towards the designation? These are questions that ought to be seriously reflected upon.<BR/><BR/>Belloc and Chesterton was awfully pragmatic. They were incrementalists. They wrote about finding even the smallest ways by which we could advance the cause. If dropping the name Distributism, while maintaining the exact same philosophy and holding these men and their works in no less regard, would result in an increased readiness for the masses to listen, then wouldn't this be something Chesterbelloc would encourage? I guess that is the question: What would Chesterbelloc do?Paleocrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09247190026778661113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-29486266505032566372009-01-17T16:44:00.000-06:002009-01-17T16:44:00.000-06:00I don't forsee a change for the same reason that I...I don't forsee a change for the same reason that I stopped worrying whether our imagery contained any red, green, or black in it.<BR/><BR/>Recently I stumbled across this dilemma when making a sign for a homeschool conference. I worried about making the sign red because we could be accused of being communists. I couldn't choose green because then we are tree-huggers. Not black because we are then labeled anarchists or fascists.<BR/><BR/>After my mental stress was over, I thought, "who cares?" If people don't wish to understand our position or argue on merit, why should I worry?<BR/><BR/>It may make it harder, and you certainly make a good point, but Distributism is so closely tied to Chesterton and Belloc that any other name, in my opinion, betrays their legacy, and our future.Richard Alemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272016770106926094noreply@blogger.com