tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post6985138914904945718..comments2023-10-25T08:46:20.242-05:00Comments on The Distributist Review: The Red Tories and the Civic StateJohn Médaillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-53738382208084064802009-07-29T21:09:23.802-05:002009-07-29T21:09:23.802-05:00The absolute answer to the charge that something c...The absolute answer to the charge that something can't exist is to point out that it does exist, and clearly with Mondragon and the Emilian models, they not only do exist, but exist on large scales over long periods. The idea that such models don't count because they are on different continents, different cultures, etc., is somewhat contemptuous of Americans. However, one doesn't have to go to Spain. Examples are all around us. ESOPs, coops, mutual banks, credit unions, farm coops, etc. Distributism, although the name is new, is an old system, in fact the most natural system, and finding examples is child's play. Robert Waldrop, who addresses my class each year, founded the Oklahoma Food Coop about five years ago, which does about $1M/year. And he is supply limited; He can sell all the organic produce he can find. <br /><br />What is hard to find is a working example of a "real" capitalist system. There are none that I know of, and when they did exist, they proved themselves highly unstable, so unstable that there was near universal agreement to go to the government-managed capitalism that we all live under. <br /><br />I appreciate the hard-headed realists who want real examples, and I agree with them. But if you want realism, you have to go with distributism; all the Romantics, like Tom Woods, are pure capitalists, longing for a system that never was, never could be, and never will be.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-30350318853726652982009-07-29T19:45:08.119-05:002009-07-29T19:45:08.119-05:00Decentralist said...
"JimB do you mean w...Decentralist said...<br /><br /> "JimB do you mean what policies could be pursued or how we are to organise bringing them about?"<br /><br />I guess both - but more so plans - but even further than that procedures. <br /><br />Decentralist said...<br /><br />"But I too find the actual talk about policies less than up to scratch among my fellow distributists, one is forced often to turn to similar movements(in terms of their ideas on property, at least.) like mutualists, Georgists and various other kinds of decentralist movements."<br /><br />And that is precisely the point that others (particularly people like Thomas Woods etc) use to say that distributivism is just a "sentimental longing for the good old days."<br /><br />They are quick to point out that there are no working models and the distributivist's fire back "look at Mondragon" - but that won't fly because it's a different continent, culture etc, and it's 100 years old. <br /><br />I am absolutely convinced that we need a working model here in the US to point to if it's ever to be taken seriously by Americans who are all from Missouri when it comes to wanting proof of a concept. <br /><br />I'm thinking that with the recent introduction of Co-ops as a solution to health care reform that that could be a good place to start. There are MANY Catholic Dr and clinics that have stopped prescribing contraceptives to bring their practice in line with Catholic teaching. Many report an initial tough transition, but then report that their practices came back even stronger than they were before. If they could be organized into a co-op under the distributivist banner - it could be a start.<br /><br />See:<br />http://www.tepeyacfamilycenter.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-44666888089321140032009-07-28T22:46:36.482-05:002009-07-28T22:46:36.482-05:00JimB do you mean what policies could be pursued or...JimB do you mean what policies could be pursued or how we are to organise bringing them about?<br /><br />I consider myself a distributist, at least in the broad terms of wanting a distributive state of property and society, and increasingly inn the more narrow Catholic/Anglican sense. But I too find the actual talk about policies less than up to scratch among my fellow distributists, one is forced often to turn to similar movements(in terms of their ideas on property, at least.) like mutualists, Georgists and various other kinds of decentralist movements.<br /><br />But I believe with their help a decent idea of the decentralist policies can be sketched. They'd involve things like something similar to a Georgist LVT, something similar to mutualist banking and LETS schemes, stricter abandonments rules fo land and presumably the removal of corporate personhood, or a very large change in it, as well as all subsidies, or at least those to big business. There is also the area of guilds which could receive public support and status(I 'm not sure I personally support this.). There are many other policies, and obviously I have talked about economics, but just this little sketch should be enough to bring about a much greater distributive state. <br /><br />If however you are talking about how we get support for this then I guess the answer is simply the usual way of trying to raise support and educate people and hopefully winning over public opinion.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-30323053986647383572009-07-27T17:40:39.799-05:002009-07-27T17:40:39.799-05:00I have to say that his statement of the problem is...I have to say that his statement of the problem is concise and right on target, and I agree with the three goals as an answer to the two extremes. <br /><br />What is (still) lacking is any specifics of HOW to accomplish those goals. This has been my greatest frustration in trying to learn about distributivism. <br /><br />Paleo's latest post essentially says the same thing (something I have been saying for a year) - that what is needed is a WORKING MODEL that we can point to RIGHT HERE in the US. <br /><br />I am at a complete loss as to how to go about it. Do we have to wait for a complete collapse before we can start ? Right now the power rests with the oligarchs and for a variety of reasons they aren't about to offer a "hand-up" - as they are (literally and figuratively) "above it all".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-18715423501922293212009-07-27T14:30:38.302-05:002009-07-27T14:30:38.302-05:00There is nothing “red” in Blond’s analysis. And ye...There is nothing “red” in Blond’s analysis. And yet I find confusing his idea of a “permanent ascendancy of the middle class over the working class”. Is the middle class one and the same with the “liberal middle class”? And by “liberal middle class” does he understand the upper-middle-class liberals defined by Christopher Lasch as “a new class” whose livelihood rests “not so much on ownership of property as on the manipulation of information and professional expertise”(Revolt of the Elites)? The upper-middle class liberals did indeed entered into a “Faustian bargain” with financial and monopolistic capitalism. Acting as “experts” and “uber managers”, the “new class” supports the “techno-bureaucracy of the global managerial order” (Samuel Francis). The financial and monopolistic capitalism – globalism – has proletarianized the middle class and almost wiped out the working class by encouraging the formation of an underclass through massive illegal immigration and outsourcing. Both the neocons and the liberals approved of the process. Distributism should restore the dignity and material independence of the “old” middle and working classes, the pillars (together with the small farmers) of any future distributist order.Samnoreply@blogger.com