I don’t know anything about distributism, but I want to understand distributism. As I write these words, I have two pages open: The Wikipedia page for Distributism, and a Ludwig von Mises institute page on Praxeology. I am no economist, but I know GK Chesterton was a big fan of Distributism. So together, we are going to learn about it as a Catholic economic model, flavor it with Zippyist pragmatism, and lets see what comes out.
Begin At The Beginning
What is Distributism? It is an Economic school of thought based on Catholic social teaching, which is intended as a counterpoint to both Capitalism and Socialism. It could be likened to Economic Subsidiarity, wherein a Sovereign aims to accomplish economic endeavors at the smallest reasonable unit. Thus, one pillar rests on family businesses and cooperatives, while another rests on antitrust regulation.
The social aspect is based on these encylicals:
- Rerum Novarum (1891)
- This is considered fundamental to subsequent encyclicals, which I will also examine:
- Mater et Magistra (1961)
- Centesimus Annus (1991)
- Quadragesimo Anno (1931)
The principles of Distributism are first, property ownership is a “fundamental right”–I take them to mean here, a Natural Law. God gave us the ability to own property, this ability cannot be taken away by the State, only suppressed.
Second, wide “distribution” of the ownership of the means of production. Capitalism and Socialism, by way of contrast, centralize ownership; the one in Private hands, the other in State hands. Maximizing ownership of the means of production thus avoids the dangers of Monopoly posed by the one, and controlled economies posed by the other.
Lets pause to assess what we know so far. Distributism is an Economic Policy founded on social teaching, so we would look for something which would provide maximize the benefit provided to the populace. We see this fulfilled in the distribution of the means of production. We would also look for something which provides an economic dynamo for generating wealth and facilitating the means of exchange. Property cannot be distributed equally (as socialist idealists may dream), so if we just satisfy ourselves that property is distributed, the mechanism for economic activity exists simply in that property being sorted via free market transactions.
It would be a fallacy to argue that Capitalism has the same incentives due to shareholders, as shareholders interests do not always align with public good. Likewise the spirit of entrepreneurship, as once a business becomes established in the marketplace, it creates (naturally and unnaturally) barriers to entry. For example, if you or I wanted to start a carbonated beverage company, we need only look at the industrial operation of Coca Cola to let that dream bubble wistfully away.
Likewise would it be a fallacy to argue the same incentives apply to Socialism due to the explicit desire for public good. In this case, the public good is always administered by the state, so the public good really means the State good, and those two are not always aligned.
In essence, the chief sin opposed by distributism is centralism, as the names would imply. Any organization which consolidates money, power, means or resources of any sort, will deploy it for ends which serve it’s good, not the public good. If the means and resources are widely distributed and privately held, then the movement of goods will inherently drive economic activity and any given citizen will reap rewards proportional to the effort they put into generating their goods.
A Skeptical Eye
Attempting to turn a skeptical eye to this concept, what issues can we see from our understanding so far?
First and foremost, the transition from one system to another would be drastic. Lets skip that for now and just acknowledge there is a tremendous cost to changing economic systems.
Second, we can tell that distributism is designed to widely distribute resources and capital, but if we were to set up a test case and establish parameters, would it remain that way? Does distributism have long term longevity? I can fathom situations where enterprising people quickly become experts at what they produce, and by mere virtue of effort and ability, become bigger producers capable of producing more of a given product faster than the rest. In a market with low barriers to entry, there is sure to be concentration of capital. I would expect to see Distributism address mechanisms for this. Antitrust laws were mentioned, but as yet I have no sense of scale for antitrust laws.
Third, are we making idealistic assumptions about human behavior? It’s a fact of life that some people will always try to maximize their immediate wealth, and they are willing to do so at the expense of others. Do existing ideas of Distributism offer any controls for human nature?
Finally, less a counterpoint and more a litmus test for this concept: Could a distributist economic revolution have produced the same or better outcomes than the capitalist one produced between the 1800’s and today? Would a distributism economic revolution today improve outcomes into the future?
Looking Ahead
The stage is set for us to examine in more detail the principles of Distributism and see how it answers our questions and serves economic problems.
AMDG
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth 