Capitalism or Distributism?

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

I've recently read about Distributism, an economic ideology supported in great measure by the Catholic Church.

This is, an ideology that

• Supports the ownership of Private property, just as Capitalism
  
• Supports the spread of Private property as much as possible among the population

For instance, Capitalism

• Supports the ownership of Private property, just like Distributism
  
• The objective is to generate profit for investment
  
• The market is competitive, and people decide which corporations succeed and which fall

One disadvantage I recognize in Capitalism is that, since the consumer decides which businesses fail and which succeed, mass advertising will be issued by these corporations. Ultimately, this leads to consumerism, which personally, is harmful for the moderate levels of goods consumption a society must have, as well as any education a consumer could have.

However, Distributism has it's own disadvantage. If everyone owns businesses, all these are going to be small businesses. This means that large industries, such as informatics, vehicles, steel, among others, will prove difficult to run.

I've considered if there is a way to combine these both, recognizing the importance and disadvantages of both. In which most people own small business, but some people could band together to form the larger industries, and people are free whether to own Private business or work for the larger ones. What do you think?

[Sir Benedict]

This is the first time I've heard of distributism. It's certainly an interesting theory, but after studying the Wikipedia article I must say that I strongly oppose it. It seems to me that distributism itself is not an independent theory but instead a moderate form of socialism. If a society truly respects property rights and individual freedoms, then capitalism is the result by definition. If there are interventions into the free market by those who wish to promote the "common good," then socialism is the result by definition. Since distributism is only distinguished from capitalism by such interventions (i.e., anti-trust interventions, anti-bank interventions, etc.) then distributism is a form of socialism ipso facto. Therefore, all of the economic, political and ethical arguments that can be made against socialism (there are so many I won't bother to represent them here) are equally applicable to distributism.

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

I further read more and now I think that you are right. I've always been a supporter of the free market. And maybe it should stay like that.

[Sir Benedict]

That's not to say that I disagree with all aspects of distributism. In fact, I love subsidarity. Subsidarity is both useful in propagating economic efficiency and necessary in providing for human flourishing, I'm just skeptical of anyone that attempts to enforce subsidarity where it does not occur naturally.

[Pan Kristoff Drevo]

It would be interesting to try and take all the best aspects of various economic systems and combine them into something totally different, but also totally feasible and workable.

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

For instance, a flaw I see in modern day capitalism is that, some corporations bombard the population with advertisements that discourage to "think properly". Basically, promoting bad messages and values, prioritizing materialism above morality. But this has it's workarounds. I have thought on being "totalitarian enough" to have all advertising government approved before being launched to the general public, even Internet advertising. I will also fight against any kind of monopolistic practices, promoting free enterprise.

Although I do recognize Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism is just having the right to own private property for profit, and there is nothing evil, non-traditional or non-Christian in that.

[Sir Benedict]

Dec 1, 2015 22:37:01 GMT Pan Kristoff Drevo said:

It would be interesting to try and take all the best aspects of various economic systems and combine them into something totally different, but also totally feasible and workable.

I think that's what the founders of distributism were trying to do, but then you get the full benefits of none and the problems of all of them. I think it is important to remember that all economic systems besides capitalism have moral and economic flaws which are systemic and cannot be reduced or compensated for. On the other hand, all of the problems which arise from capitalism are merely the result of individual mistakes or malevolence and are not the direct result of capitalism.

As you can probably guess, Paolo, I would be against any proposal that would infringe property rights, especially if it simultaneously infringes freedom of expression. Advertisements are necessary in order to promote exchange, and people only enter into those exchanges which they feel will benefit them. Advertisement is not the problem, but rather it is people who waste their capital on things that are stupid. But since all value is subjective, it is not for the state to decide what people should or should not purchase as they pursue happiness.

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

Dec 2, 2015 15:28:21 GMT Sir Benedict said:

As you can probably guess, Paolo, I would be against any proposal that would infringe property rights, especially if it simultaneously infringes freedom of expression. Advertisements are necessary in order to promote exchange, and people only enter into those exchanges which they feel will benefit them. Advertisement is not the problem, but rather it is people who waste their capital on things that are stupid. But since all value is subjective, it is not for the state to decide what people should or should not purchase as they pursue happiness.

That is what I mean. And yet people should be free to use their capital as they wish, I feel that the only condition is as long as any ideas shown by advertising do not contradict the ideas brought by the State. As long as this is accomplished, I have no problem with people expressing themselves. For instance, I would block advertisements that somehow show blasphemous depictions of the Lord, as well as sexual content or other content that shouldn't be seen by the general public due to "think of the children reasons", that's what I mean.

As long as this requirement is met, I have no trouble with people advertising their products.

[Sir Benedict]

Ah. I would still be against even that, but your position makes sense given the type of state you're trying to create.