Kruse Kronicle

Good Thoughts on Distributism

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

Kishore Kayabalan had some good observations about distributism at The Acton PowerBlog    in a post titled Italy, competition and the problem of guilds.

… both the New York Times and IBL make it clear that the Italians are being done in by the impediments to the free-market economy, deriving in many cases from a fear of open, honest competition in the marketplace.

Nowhere is this fear more evident than in the system of guilds that still dominates many sectors of the Italian economy. Guilds, in effect, are associations meant protect certain industries from competition in the name of cooperation/collusion among the suppliers of a good or service. And the recovery of guilds is often at the heart of a school of thought known as distributism that seeks a “third way” between capitalism and socialism. …

… It is most unfortunate that some conservative religious-minded people have fallen for the “charms” of distributism, many of which are romantic longings for a more self-sufficient, localized economy made up of many (“well-distributed”) small-property owners, as opposed to large monopolistic, corporate holders of property.

Of course no one with any religious sensibilities really wants to (or can for that matter) defend capitalism, let alone the status quo, unconditionally. At its best, distributism can remind us that we are not economic automatons, that we shouldn’t become “wage-slaves”, and that as free, morally-responsible persons, we can and must choose how we ought to live. But it should also be obvious that a return to the guilds, with its limitations on free competition, is no way to correct the excesses of 21st-century capitalism. Just ask the Italians….

Comments

10 responses to “Good Thoughts on Distributism”

  1. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    This comment is pretty funny! “Of course no one with any religious sensibilities really wants to (or can for that matter) defend capitalism, let alone the status quo, unconditionally.”
    I guess, by definition, if I can defend capitalism then I have no religious sensibilities. So the argument is specious. He defines a persons sensibility based on their beliefs. “If you agree with me you are sensible. If you don’t you aren’t.”
    To dismiss all who disagree with you as “less than”?

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Dave, I stumbled over this comment as well. I think if you go back and read it carefully you would agree with him. Edit out his parentheticals:
    “Of course no one with any religious sensibilities really wants to … defend capitalism … unconditionally.”
    Or better said:
    “Of course no one with any religious sensibilities really wants to (or can for that matter) unconditionally defend capitalism, let alone the status quo.”
    In other words, to disagree with him you are saying that capitalism and the status quo should be defended unconditionally.

    Reply
  3. ceemac Avatar
    ceemac

    I know this was just a short blog post on Acton. But I think he too casually (and maybe even arrogantly) dismisses the emotional appeal of Distributism.
    I have never really read Chesterton, Belloc, Wendell Berry, or the Southern Agrarians. Just about them. But I am a Southerner. I’ll assume enough said. I think I get the appeal of those folks. The longing to have deep and lasting connections to a people and a place. The longing to have obligations to that people and place that transcend the whims and wishes of any single individual. I get it. Some days I even agree with it. A lot!!!!
    Kayabalan (and Kruse) is not going to win the argument an argument with a Distrib/Localist/Agrarian on economic grounds alone.
    Seems to me that Kayabalan would be more effective if he honored the longings that may make those other systems appealing and sought to demonstrate how capitalism just might be more likely than any other systems to meet those longings

    Reply
  4. John Avatar
    John

    When the entire human world founds itself on the adolescent motive to aggrandize the gross level individual ego-“I” (as does capitalism), then everyone is collectively working towards the destruction not only of human culture and humankind itself, but even of the Earth itself, the very vehicle that supports human life.
    The individual and collective denial – and active refusal – of the Universal Condition and Intrinsic Law of Prior Unity is the root and substance of a perpetual universal crime against humanity and the entire Earth-world, performed by every one and all of humankind itself.
    And of course capitalism is the most “advanced” form of this collective crime against humanity and the Earth-world ever created on this planet.
    Another word for this collective refusal of the Intrinsic Condition of Prior Unity is sin.
    Such collective refusal (or sin) is the worst cancer in the universe. It is the worst sickness. It is the most horrific disease. Its implications cover the entirety of everyone’s life. The world is filled with its symptoms and reeks with its torments and potentials, coming from all directions, most of which people cannot even see.
    Again–capitalism celebrates and encourages this dreadful situation, while all the while pretending to be the most “advanced” form of human culture that the world has ever seen.

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Ceemac, I frequently tell people that I once quit a firm with 15 employees because I didn’t like working for a large corporation. 😉
    I too enjoy that small firm. But just a beginning study in business and economics will tell us that having only small firms is not viable for an economy. Industries vary widely in the factors that influence them. Some are geographically limited. Others require so much technology that massive factories are needed to produce products cost effectively. Still others involve so many items at relatively low cost per purchase that wholesalers are a must. Generally speaking, the nature of the industry dictates the size and number of firms, not some moral directive.
    Without large firms there is no way we would be having this conversation. Computers consist of materials pulled from as many as forty countries that require precession processing and assembly.
    Distributism is largely a romantic fantasy that holds no practical solutions for world economic challenges.

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Well John, using 1990 purchasing power parity dollars, global per capita income was about $90 a year 10,000 years ago. It doubled to $180 in 1750. From 1750 to 2000 it rose from $180 to $6,600 … this during a time when the world population grew nearly sevenfold.
    Life expectancy at birth worldwide has been about 30 year until the past couple of centuries. In developed nations it is approaching 80. Worldwide it is approaching 70. Life expectancy is considered the best indicator of the overall performance of society because so many factors affect it.
    All this is tightly linked with emergence of capitalism. As said above, unconditional endorsement of capitalism is not in order but nothing else remotely compares.

    Reply
  7. ceemac Avatar
    ceemac

    * FWIW I am not a distributist nor do I play one on TV. I simply think that I “get” them.
    * I am an INTJ (and I know you get that)
    * Purtitan/Wilsonian/Technocrat (PWT for short) would be a pretty good description of my political philosophy. (Yep, I am aware that you are not fond of any of those types)
    * Speaking of holders of a romantic fantasy: sounds like a pretty good description of Acton Institute types.
    * As a PWT I know that I am extremely competent in my vocation which is a fairly narrow area. I am also aware that I am pretty much incompetent when it comes to anything not related to my vocation.
    * I read and watch most of the Acton links you put up. Acton folks seem to think that it is important that I become competent in areas not related to my vocation. As a PWT I do not understand why they would want to distract me from my vocation. What they seem to see as a taste of paradise I am inclined to see as a form of hell. It makes no sense to me.
    * As a PWT a fundamental issue for me is how do we order society so ALL people are free to passionately and single mindedly pursue their vocation w/o distraction. In fact as I think about it that would probably be my definition of liberty: “being free to passionately and single mindedly pursue my vocation w/o distraction.”
    * And that makes me think about health care. In our current system I “hire” medical professionals to provide me with advice in making decisions. As a PWT I see that as a seriously flawed system filled with too many distractions. A better system would be one where medical folks are seen as authorities to whom I submit. By submitting to the discipline of a medical authority I may be as healthy as I can possibly be. I may then be more “free to passionately and single mindedly pursue my vocation w/o distraction.”
    * I am not competent to design, implement, and run such a health care system. But my assumption is there are people for whom those things are their vocation.

    Reply
  8. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    ceemac, you said,”I may then be more “free to passionately and single mindedly pursue my vocation w/o distraction.”
    I would argue that having known the joys of ice cream, cake, and even the occasional Monte Cristo sandwich, and sitting back on the couch with a favorite beverage, and watching an exciting football, or even futbol game, that being authoritatively directed to abandon those pursuits in favor of healthier alternatives would lead to a much less happier me.
    I would further argue that we already put physicians on way too high an authoritative position as it is.
    I have been far “healthier” and at or near an optimal weight, and I have been more unhealthy than I am today. I don’t believe there is actually much correlation between happiness/fulfillment and health status. The former is much more of a decision as the latter depends significantly on outside factors.

    Reply
  9. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    Mike, I don’t have a problem defending capitalism. It is the only system that takes into account mans nature. One fact of human nature is that if some difficult or unpleasant task needs to be done, and an individuals situation is not significantly different because I chose to do that task(I get the same amount of resources to feed, clothe, house, and entertain my family whether I do the task or not), that said individual will chose not to do endure the unpleasantness.
    Those difficult or unpleasant tasks are called work, and work that doesn’t get rewarded doesn’t get done without some sort of enforcement.
    As you said, “nothing else remotely compares.” I may not be able to unconditionally defend capitalism, but to be honest, I’m not far from it.

    Reply
  10. ceemac Avatar
    ceemac

    Dave,
    You used the terms happiness and fulfillment. I did not use them though perhaps they could be teased out of my comments.
    If I have to use those terms then I guess I’d argue that the only way for a person to find happiness and/or fulfillment is through passionately and single mindedly pursuing their vocation w/o distraction.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to JohnCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading