I have no idea what distributism is, is it like Socialism?
No. It is opposed to socialism.
Even the early philosophers of it hated the name. It seems to imply wealth redistribution, which isn’t at all the case.
The “distribution” aspect comes from the idea that the means of production, in an ideal society, would be as widespread as possible in order to promote individualism. Chesterton’s own to describe it was “three acres and a cow”, meaning each family should be able to provide for themselves and be self-sufficient. It promotes free markets and private property, and I would argue to much a greater extent that modern capitalism. The way modern capitalism is practiced concentrates wealth, leading to corporations attempting to choke out competition with the state’s help. As well, people surrender their lives to corporations rather than the local and their family, which logically leads us to the economic globalization we experience today.
I would argue it is economics as if God and people mattered. It is opposed to statism, socialism, and communism, while managing the means of production in a way which voluntarily protects the family unit and well-being of society.
But wouldn't a libertarian society worsen wealth inequality and strengthen corporate power?
It’s a common misconception that large economies of scale are the natural tendency of freed markets. Progressives and Conservatives commit the same fallacy in believing that government regulation diminishes corporate privilege. Progressives of course are happy to hurt targeted firms while Conservatives think regulations keep businesses from being even more profitable. Both are misled. The reality the Left and Right miss is that regulation isn’t the antidote to privilege but rather the means, and less of it helps smaller competitors more than the big guys. And anything which improves competition increases consumer choice and lowers prices.
Libertarians have admittedly failed for some time to adequately distinguish between Big Business and free enterprise. Big Government has always been the facilitator and enabler of Big Business. It’s a symbiosis; one requires the other. It’s a popular myth that the State is a bulwark against corporate abuse, but government facilitates it on a grand scale. A truly liberated marketplace would devour most large-scale firms, resulting in a much smaller upper class and a wealth redistribution according to merit rather than fiat. This is not to say that vast free trade zones, large economies of scale, corporate bureaucracies, and multinational businesses would be impossible without state support, but assuredly rare.
When you review the supportive role governments historically played in the beginning of industrialization (Enclosure Acts, ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, eminent domain, etc.) and how the so-called Robber Barons of the Guilded Age accumulated their fortunes, you find favorable government policy crucial to it all. Furthermore, law enforcement, the FBI, military, CIA, etc. have all acted in concert to protect entrenched corporate interests. The very origins of police were as runaway slave patrols assigned with apprehending (i.e. protecting) the “property” of slave owners. Fast forward in history, you find the police suppressing worker strikes (i.e. “run away workers”) to protect the “property” of corporate owners. Later, you have police enforcing segregation laws and the FBI spying on, terrorizing, and sabotaging civil rights, antiwar and labor activists and other dissidents. The Progressive Era brought the cartelization of dominant industries and the beginning of official imperial operations overseas, which were essentially militarized subsidies, bailouts, protectionism, etc. for Western corporations operating abroad. If needed, poor patriotic “cannon fodder” could be conscripted to go “liberate,” “democratize,” “Christianize,” or “civilize” the brave foreigners who stood in the way of U.S. business interests in their land.
So again, the State has been the great enabler of corporate abuse, both at home and overseas. To reduce undue corporate power, we must remove the legal protections of its power. This returns power back to the people quite potently in the form of decentralized, spontaneous, and participatory activism which can directly create a healthy business climate. A freed and empowered public able to engage in voluntary patronage and boycotts is a more effective check against exploitative companies than outsourcing our responsibilities to a political managerial class likely to be bribed by wealthy donors.
Self-management, solidarity, and variety are all legitimate valuative criteria for judging economic institutions … Asking whether particular institutions help people attain self-management, variety, and solidarity is sensible.
Albert and Hehnel, The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, p.9
The statement “no one who works 40 hours a week should starve” is the bare minimum of bullshit centrist ideology; the fact that it’s considered a relatively “out there” left-wing idea is absolutely wild. No one should starve, full stop. Especially with the material abundance we now sit upon. Full workers-control-production socialism now.
February 3rd 2017 // Back home for the weekend, and spending my day catching up on micro and macro, before starting the supervision work for them! I’m aiming to complete the two pieces of supervision work before I go to bed on Sunday! Hope you’re all having a productive day!
certain states try to restrict what a food card can buy so much, and it really fucks disabled people over, for instance some states either don’t allow for microwaved meals to be bought or are trying to make it so a food card cant cover them, which is absurd because … if you’re disabled it’s kind of fucking hard to cook a full meal for yourself, if not impossible.
Restrictions on poor people’s diets is violence. Just because someones poor doesn’t mean you should police how they should eat. Would you fucking want to live on nothing but rice and beans for the rest of your life because you’re disabled and thats all you can afford?
would you want to never have any sweets or easy to eat snacks because you’re too poor and too disabled to afford such things even for your birthday or special occasions. Or would you want to only be able to afford frozen/canned vegetables never being able to taste a fresh salad or even a fucking apple?
Because lawmakers think poor people, and especially poor disabled people don’t deserve fresh fruits and vegetables, snack foods, cake, and the list goes on.
We are people who cannot work because we’re disabled and you are punishing us for it. Some of us need easy food to eat, some of us need fattening food to eat because we’re underweight, some of us need special diets due to allergies, and restricting what all people on food cards can eat can get people killed.
Looked at superficially, people appear to function well enough in economic and social life; yet it would be dangerous to overlook the deep-seated unhappiness behind that comforting veneer. If life loses its meaning because it is not lived, man becomes desperate. People do not die quitely from physical starvation; they do not die quietly from psychic starvation either. If we look only at the economic needs as far as the “normal” person is concerned, if we do not see the unconscious suffering of the average automatized person, then we fail to see the danger that threatens our culture from its human basis: the readiness to accept any ideology and any leader, if only he promises excitement and offers a political structure and symbols which allegedly give meaning and order to an individual’s life. The despair of the human automaton is fertile soil for the political purposes of Fascism.
stop making excuses for trumps violent actions by saying “maybe he didnt understand how bad ____ would be.” He did understand. Thats why he did them. hes not incompetent. hes not ignorant. hes just hateful and murderous. his goals arent to uphold human life. theyre to leave a path of destruction and suck the land and people of all value to claim his own.