Distributism is the economic ideology that most of the world's productive assets should be widely owned instead of concentrated in the hands of a few capitalist or in the hands of the state. It was developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). Distributism puts great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that no larger unit (whether social, economic, or political) should perform a function which can be performed by a smaller unit.
Distributism sees the family of two parents and their child or children as the central and primary social unit of human ordering and the principal unit of a functioning distributist society and civilization. This unit is also the basis of a multi-generational extended family, which is embedded in socially as well as genetically inter-related communities, nations, etc., and ultimately in the whole human family past, present and future. The economic system of a society should therefore be focused primarily on the flourishing of the family unit, but not in isolation: at the appropriate level of family context, as is intended in the principle of subsidiarity. Distributism reflects this doctrine most evidently by promoting the family, rather than the individual, as the basic type of owner; that is, distributism seeks to ensure that most families, rather than most individuals, will be owners of productive property. The family is, then, vitally important to the very core of distributist thought.
Distributism may be the best alternative to capitalism or socialism that we have. With the family at the center of society instead of the individual we remove the incentives for nations to self destruct with capitalism.
>>174783OP smells like a commie in disguise.
Theories and more theories about wealth will never change the fact that are all Semite originated.
>>174783It reminds me of some type of commune or co op type deal. I don't have too much against those. Commie shit like that can work on small levels. I like emphasis on family but isn't that what a private owned business is? Its the family's themselves that sell their shit off or give the reins to a non family member anyway.
It would also be nice if the small guy could be the one doing the job but what if they are shit or cant keep up? Just as anarchists will always get balled up by anyone and everyone bigger, they will be beaten by a group of family's (clans-states etc.)
Probably only works with whites anyway.
Why was this thread made right after I made this thread?
>>174606 →You're better than this, anon. Distributism is an anarchist or pseudo-anarchist theory and shouldn't have its own thread when it can fit in the anarchist thread.
Also, that dog being skin-and-bones says a lot about your economic ideology.
>>174795>Distributism is an anarchist or pseudo-anarchist theorDistributist nations could have a state.
>>174783I remember hearing about this at the Catholic university I attended college. At the time I felt like it was just a primitive form of Socialism. I think the central problem with it is and remains that it is made for an economic situation where "production" means fruit of the land. It'f relatively easy to take arable land and divide it when the dominant form of production is subsistence agriculture. But what about in a society where large factories, railways and shipping lines are dominant? What about in a post industrial information based society where insurance, technology, government and the like, all with intangible production, form the back bone of the economy? I don't think we have a better way of forming the basic economic system than the public corporation and money markets. The need for structured organization, and massive amounts of capital makes decentralization not quite viable
>>174783So... Literally communism?
>>174820Communism does not allow private property.
Distributism is similar to mutualism but with luddite tendencies. It places all economic value on land, which is a very 18th century way of thinking. In reality, human capital and technology are far greater determinants of prosperity (just look at a country such as Switzerland). This is possible only with some degree of labor specialization, which distributists eschew in favor of turning everyone into farmers.
Distributists are merely another brand of idealists who believe in a Shire-like system where every man has "two acres and a cow" and can support eight children. Of course, the population in the West is far too big to give everyone this much space and in any respect strong population control would be needed to maintain it. It is a return to the Malthusian trap we escaped.
>>174879>Luddite tendencies Well put. It just seems it would only work with some force keeping everyone in check, Kind of like The Giver. Its counterintuitive to the sands of change.
I believe Private Central Banking/debt backed currency to be the problem, those put capitalism in a neccesity for population growing to issue debt, even if you manage to close your borders and turn the west into a White ethno-state by international law, you will not save his economic demise until you shut those Central Banks down and create a goverment backed currency. I know it's in other board but i believe it's relevant.
>>174783sound similar to national socialism in the way it puts a lot of value on the family.
Just made this thread on 8chan and got a ban.
>>178955It does have sort of a >>>/leftypol/ feeling to it, desu.
>>178956/leftypol/ hates private property, religion, and the family. How is it /leftypol/?
>>178957Well, maybe that's an unfair judgement. It's not exactly leftist, when you look at it in detail.
It does seem to call for the even redistribution or assets/resources across the population though, so I guess the touchy cripplechan mods just saw that on the surface and rejected it without reading into it.
>>174783Is Xi a president, or the new dynasty of China? It seems hes moving towards traditional Chinese government imperialism pre communist party.
>>179009Ideology gives way to pragmatism in the long run. If anything I would say China is less communist than national socialist, as Maoism seems to be only a veneer.