Distributism, the State...
... and a long awaited for announcement!
... and a long awaited for announcement!
Dear friends and readers of The Distributist Review,
Allow us first to announce that fellow distributist and author Thomas Storck will be interviewed tomorrow on Paleo Radio by fellow TDR contributor, Jeremiah Bannister. The interview will be conducted tomorrow at 6pm EST and may be heard by connecting to www.wocrfm.com.
For our readers in the Ohio area, Sebastian's Church, Akron, will be hosting a performance of "Old Thunder: An Afternoon with Hilaire Belloc", a one-man show featuring Kevin O'Brien, founder of Theater of the Word, on Sunday, March 15th at 1 p.m. in Zwisler Hall. The program is free and open to the public; a free-will offering will be taken. Come and meet Catholic historian and poet Hilaire Belloc, who lived in England from 1870-1953. "Old Thunder" provides a stirring presentation, which includes Belloc's prophetic take on modern society and culture. [St. Sebastian's Church, Zwisler Hall, 476 Mull Avenue Akron, OH]
We wish to remind everyone to please register if you have not already done so for the upcoming conference, "Catholicism and Economics," hosted and sponsored by the Nassau Community College Center for Catholic Studes. The school has received a lot of registrants from the distributist camp, so please make sure to register and support our efforts.
Many surprises are in store for readers of the Review and The ChesterBelloc Mandate in the upcoming months. Of course, as things materialize, we will make the appropriate announcements, but it may suffice to give our readers a hint. "Bye-bye Google"
For now, we bring you the first in a series of pamphlets, brochures, and other printable distributist materials, which will be used for the event mentioned. We begin with John Médaille's "An Introduction to Distributism." We welcome our readers to print, copy, distribute, or simply place the following on their websites.
Servire Deo regnare est!
Richard Aleman
An Introduction to Distributism
A rose is a rose by any other name... if only social theories were the same. The topic of distributism comes up frequently in my day-to-day life. The word's use in my daily conversations would land it a place it somewhere between the words "and" and "the." While I may wish to chalk it up as the result of people clamoring over my views on the political economy, I fear that it has more to do with my being a blabbermouth, unable to stop talking about those things I hold near and dear. This pleasant addiction to discussing distributism with friends and strangers alike has been accompanied with a great deal of inquiry and feedback. I often have people accuse me of being "a socialist" or advocating "Robin Hood economics." This is all too typical, particularly from those who have never heard of, or who have never read material pertaining to, distributism. It wouldn't be a fool's wager to bet the farm that many of you have been accused of much the same. The question, though, is why people would accuse us of such things. In my humble estimation, it has more to do with the word distributism than with the actual substance of the economic system itself. People hear the word distributism and they immediately connect it with the redistribution of wealth, particularly at a federal level. While these people certainly miss the mark, there is little room for doubt as to why they would harbor such an assumption. Words, like slogans, are tricky. This is especially true of political and economic schools of thought. Take just two examples: Conservatism and libertarianism. People don't have to be political wonks or economic gurus to have a general impression of what these words mean. Conservatives want to conserve something, being (at least historically) traditionalist in nature. Libertarians, though far less familiar to the citizenry, would deal with liberty or freedom. Both of these words have positive associations, dealing with things people generally like to identify with. The designations Progressive or Constitutionalist is much the same. So what of distributism? Well, for better or worse, as was stated earlier, people associate the word with redistribution of wealth. While putting an economic system in place, as well as a political structure in order, where the wealth of the nation would be redistributed away from Big Business to local businesses would be a good thing, this is not the common perception of what we are hoping to achieve. Rather, they work under the definitions and intellectual framework provided for them by pundits and talking-heads hailing from both the Left and the Right. Both sides generally refer to the concept as the federal government taking money from the little guy in order to pay for an array of social programs and line the pockets of special interests. All of this has led me to a few conclusions. On the one hand, distributists can retain the name, only then to spend large amounts of time clarifying themselves and attempting to tear down walls of defense and skepticism surrounding those who otherwise be open to our ideas. Or we could consider formulating a new designation that would bypass negative connotations, saving us plenty of time and making our mission all that much easier. On a personal note, this idea is not at all foreign to me. Back in 2002 I became frustrated with designations I would use when describing my personal political and economic beliefs. At the time I was still a Protestant, and I held to a hybrid of positions commonly found within Christian Reconstructionism (Theonomy) and paleoconservatism. To say that these didn't roll off the tongue with the greatest of ease would be an understatement. Christian Reconstruction was just far too long. Theonomy placed me (wrongfully so) alongside the ecclesiocrat ayatollahs. And paleoconservatism had a number of difficulties. People typically identified my conservatism with the likes of Bush, Limbaugh, and Hannity. Furthermore, for those who had an inkling of an idea as to what it was, they associated me with racialism so often found amongst its adherents. In short, these designations would not do. So in hope of distinguishing myself from these groups, I began using the term paleocrat. A simple combination of words. Paleo meaning old or ancient. Kratos meaning rule or law. So there it was. I was an adherent to "the old rule" or "the ancient law." The problem, though, was that I was left having to explain not only what the word meant, but also the substance of that philosophy. For this reason, I chose to use the designation as little more than an internet identification. It was an experiment that fell short, but an experiment nonetheless. Whether distributists choose to retain the name or look towards formulating a new one that steers clear of negative association while also providing people with a positive and familiar connotation is yet to be seen. It appears that there are those within the movement who are willing to discuss such an idea, and their motivations may be similar to those I've discussed here. My hope, at least for now, is to have stirred the imaginations within minds much brighter than mine, so as to begin a discussion that may be long overdue.
© Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009
Back to TOP