I’ve been reading a bit about Distributism, a ‘third-way’ of thinking about economics. It is different from Socialism or Capitalism in that it discourages large accumulations of property (not capital), but encourages private property in as many hands as possible. G.K. Chesterton summarized it as “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
This strikes a chord with me, especially in the tech space. Bloggers, Podcasters, Startups, etc… are good example of distributed property owners. Certainly they have investors in many cases, but not always. And they own their own means of production. I find the idea of encouraging wide property acquisition, but discouraging oligopoly, quite fascinating.
If you take away the prospect of owning your own property, then you undermine many motivations for industry. However, if you take away the prospect of owning everyone else’s property, or owning large disproportionate amounts of property, you do little to discourage personal industry.
Let’s say I want to be rich. I do not want to be megalomaniacal rich necessarily. If I think I can be rich, but not ridiculously rich, I will continue to work hard.
But what happens if I become rich? Will I still be motivated to industry? Human nature testifies against this. Most who have the motivation to become rich maintain the motivation to keep it. And most who become rich agree that the money no longer matters after a point. It becomes a game they can win. That’s what motivates them. Money is just a convenient scorekeeper.
There are other ways to keep this score than money. And the money number once irrelevant can be lower and still motivate.
This is not a defense of Dsitributism, nor do I think the philosophy is without flaws. But I think we could benefit quite a bit from an injection of this perspective into our current debates, and our ways of doing business.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
It comes down to (as everything seems to) who sets the limits. I assume distributism requires some sort of regulation regarding limiting the amount of property one person or entity can own.
We already have that in the media industry. In radio, a single entity cannot own more than a certain percentage of the market in a given area. (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/reviewrules.html)
So it all comes down to who sets the limits, and how reaching those limits are. It seems the only way to enforce that is to grow government, and that just doesn’t seem to be the answer to me.
May 4th, 2010 at 2:33 am
I had never heard of distributism until I read this post, but having learned about it, I have to say that I’m for it 100%.
Or at least I’d like to say that, but having matured from my larval state over the past few years, I’ve learned that strictly adhering to a political or economic philosophy just doesn’t get one very far in the real world.
But maybe, if just a small percentage of the richer among us could back this and try to conduct business with this philosophy in mind, our situation might turn out to much better than it would be with complete laissez-faire capitalism. I’m interested in going forward with this in mind.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
May 12th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
But Dave, that’s true of any and every system. If you always have the concern you express, then the only solution is anarchy. I find it a very fashionable, but fatuous thing to say you are against government intervention these days. Every governmental system we’ve ever had has involved some level of government intervention. There is certainly a way to implement a policy of distributism without growing government. I can already hear a response that “we don’t trust the government to do that”. OK, but then we are left with only ever opposing any government initiative and left supporting anarchy. Which I’ve been a fan of at times in my life for sure, but I no longer think it has all the idealistic advantages I used to.
May 14th, 2010 at 3:40 am
Actually, believe it or not, what you described in terms of distributionism has much in common with basic Catholic Social Teaching. Funny thing is, while much of this teaching was formulated in the 1950s, much of it is coming back into thought, but Catholics aren’t around to bring it forward anymore.
Here’s where I’m coming from:
Capitalism and socialism share some basic assumptions that paint a shared world view. Because of these assumptions, they have a tendency to see the world in three categories:
1. Capitalist
2. Socialist
3. Anarchy
From that world view, if you’re not a capitalist, you’re some level of socialist. If you’re not at socialist, then, heck, you’re some level of capitalist with some anarchist thrown in.
It’s liberating to view the world from “outside that box”.
Some shared assumptions that capitalists and socialists share:
1. Humans are primarily selfish. In capitalism’s case, there’s a belief that when properly channeled, this selfishness can translate to a public good. The force that does that channeling is of much dispute. The belief ranges from “the magic” of the marketplace to some level of divine intervention. In socialism, it’s the state that disrupts that selfishness in the name of the public good.
2. Bigger is by definition better and more efficient. Think the massive agrifarms vs. the huge collective farms. That merging into always larger systems is better.
3. That centralized planning is essential. Yes, even capitalism falls into this category, just by a different method than the socialist central planning.
4. That new, “modern” methods are inherently superior to “feudal” and “old fashioned” ways of doing things.
5. That the sacrifice of the present is absolutely necessary to the good of the future. That is, that pain is necessary to the present (capitalism: layoffs, etc., Socialism: the disruption of social groups) so as to gain some level of, well, a utopian future.
I can go on, and I’m oversimplifying, but this is a very self-limiting perspective. There are “third ways” that present alternatives, and those ways are based on differing assumptions:
1. That humans are not primarily selfish creatures. That, on the whole, there is more good than selfishness in us. Hence we are nurturing to our families, create non profits and charities to help the disadvantaged, etc. That well run and responsive governments aren’t by nature evil, but on the whole, have the potential to create more good than evil.
2. That bigger isn’t always better. That is, that much of the belief of “efficiencies of scale” is more of a belief than a quantifiable proof. IN fact, scaling up has been demonstrated to lead to less effectiveness. Efficiencies of scale can lead to diseconomies of personal effectiveness. That is, smaller is better, more efficient, and more adaptable.
3. That centralized planning isn’t always necessary.
4. That “modern” methods of economics aren’t always superior to “old fashioned” methods. Case in point: Amish and Mennonite family farms. Acre for acre, they’re the most productive farms east of the Mississippi, and what’s more, they’re much more self sustaining than any modern agri business. Think of how India has gained some short term and bountiful harvests at the expense of ruining hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile land.
5. That inflicting pain in large numbers isn’t always necessary. Today’s modern capitalist may think it unfortunate to lay off thousands in America so as to move labor costs to China, but that isn’t necessarily the only option.
BTW – LOVE that quote from Chesterton so much so that I’m copying it again: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” Well said!