Capitalism vs Distributism

[someotherguy]

Hi, in light of recent high-profile discussions on Distributism, I finally looked it up, and it seems completely unrelated to Socialism, yet very close to Capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

In socialism state owns everything, so you get problems from that, I know, I lived there. I'd really like to not discuss this system, just including it because it gets grouped with Distributism.

In Capitalism it seems that the capital eventually will be in very few hands, I wouldn't call it out as a huge problem yet, although some do, but if only few people in the world have money, and the rest have none, everyone can agree there's a problem. Although I understand that an argument can be made that this isn't true, and there won't be only few people with all money, that all people will have some money as long as they work.

But that's where Distributism comes in - everyone owns capital, and it's not concentrated in few people's hands. That's the solution for "Too Big to Fail" issue.

So based on what I read, Distributism seems like a more advanced form of Capitalism, though I did not understand how it's achieved.

Am I off here? is there an argument against Distributism and in favor of Capitalism?

Edit: I'm sorry if the definition I have for socialism isn't the one that you'd like to use for the word. I think that's more of a vocabulary issue, I'd still like to have it stand, and I agree that you would like to have a different meaning for socialism, lets just call it the case of homonym (same word means different things). I'd still like to discuss Distributism vs Capitalism though.

[Spectral]

Am I off here? is there an argument against Distributism and in favor of Capitalism?

Incentive effects.

[Catta]

Seems much like social democracies in the north.

[Mayhem]

Seems much like social democracies in the north.

this obviously can´t be because in socialism everything is stateowned

[Xarkan]

this obviously can´t be because in socialism everything is stateowned

Strictly speaking the [social] democracies in the north are not socialist but that would blow peoples minds :P Edit: lol the missing social made for nonsense.. like the north has any true democracies, that was just silly

- - - Updated - - -

Am I off here? is there an argument against Distributism and in favor of Capitalism?

In general if you are looking for a third way look no further than third way. Try wikipedia

[Deleted]

I'm all about Capitalism. Pure Capitalism. Shame that we have a twisted version of it globally now.

[someotherguy]

I'm all about Capitalism. Pure Capitalism. Shame that we have a twisted version of it globally now.

From what I'm seeing pure form of Capitalism leads to monopolies - which I think most of us don't like, did you read up about that Distributism thing?

[Ragelicious]

What is it with people and mixing up socialism with communism. Amazing that in the mighty year of 2013, there is still so many uneducated numbnuts around.

[Callous1970]

So based on what I read, Distributism seems like a more advanced form of Capitalism, though I did not understand how it's achieved.

This is a good question. How do you ensure that a farmer owns the land he farms on and the equipment needed to farm it? You can't really. Combines and the other equipment needed to maintain a farm cost a fortune. Honestly this is why so much farmland is corporate now. The resources needed to effectively and efficiently farm are too much for just one person or one family to own themselves.

If you look at IT, you run into a similar problem. Sure, anyone can save up and own a laptop or PC, but what about a big mainframe? What about the complex network infrastructure? That stuff is large and expensive, and is more than one person can easily own themselves.

And you can apply that to any modern industry, really.

I think Distriubtism would have worked 200 years ago, when just about everything was made by hand and an individual could own the tools of the day that they used for work. But in the modern world where billions can be invested in the hardware used to make our modern world work, that is simply beyond the ability for individuals to own their own little part of that.

And I just want to say one small thing about Capitalism. A lot of people make the highly erroneous assumption that there is a fixed amount of wealth, and that one person earning more means everyone else earns less. This is false. New wealth can and is created every day, and me earning more doesn't preclude everyone else from earning more, too. That, I think, is the mistake that so many of these 99%'ers make when they get all lathered up over the "rich" and over capitalism.

[Xarkan]

What is it with people and mixing up socialism with communism. Amazing that in the mighty year of 2013, there is still so many uneducated numbnuts around.

That is simple really..

So many people with causes between totalitarian states and people working in the white house have been labeled socialists and communists. The words have no meaning left.

- - - Updated - - -

And I just want to say one small thing about Capitalism. A lot of people make the highly erroneous assumption that there is a fixed amount of wealth, and that one person earning more means everyone else earns less. This is false. New wealth can and is created every day, and me earning more doesn't preclude everyone else from earning more, too. That, I think, is the mistake that so many of these 99%'ers make when they get all lathered up over the "rich" and over capitalism.

That is meaningless to me.

In a given moment there is a total amount of wealth, if one person get more of the cake in that moment there is less at that specific moment to divide amongst the rest. Sure in the next moment there is a different total but your percentage share at the given moment is your percentage share. If your share is above one seven billionth of the total someone else will have less. Edit: Not saying that is wrong as such, i am no communist, i am just saying that if you think you can earn something more without the end result being someone having less then i think you are wrong.

[Ragelicious]

Just the whole "In socialism the state owns everything". Really in 2013? The education system a certain place in the western world, needs a heavy increase of funding.

[Masark]

And I just want to say one small thing about Capitalism. A lot of people make the highly erroneous assumption that there is a fixed amount of wealth, and that one person earning more means everyone else earns less. This is false. New wealth can and is created every day, and me earning more doesn't preclude everyone else from earning more, too. That, I think, is the mistake that so many of these 99%'ers make when they get all lathered up over the "rich" and over capitalism.

Here's the mistake you're making. You're assuming that the distribution of the "new wealth" is disconnected from the existing distribution of the "old wealth".

Back in reality, money is subject to gravity and money attracts more money in a non-linear fashion.

[matt4pack]

Just the whole "In socialism the state owns everything". Really in 2013? The education system a certain place in the western world, needs a heavy increase of funding.

I'm pretty sure Europe is a capitalist society. Just because you have socialist programs doesn't mean you're a socialist society. The misuse of the word goes both ways.

[Deleted]

I'm pretty sure Europe is a capitalist society. Just because you have socialist programs doesn't mean you're a socialist society. The misuse of the word goes both ways.

If Europe was a true capitalist society they wouldn't have bailed out the banks.

[Wells]

If Europe was a true capitalist society they wouldn't have bailed out the banks.

Pretty sure they still use markets and currency.

[LilSaihah]

If Europe was a true capitalist society they wouldn't have bailed out the banks.

So they're fake capitalists and fake socialists. Can't please everyone, Europe! Great Leap Forward or Social Darwinism or nothin

[Deleted]

Pretty sure they still use markets and currency.

It's a perverse offshoot of capitalism based on debt and artificial credit creation.

[Deleted]

If Europe was a true capitalist society they wouldn't have bailed out the banks.

Well, where has a pure Capitalism?

Don't say America... That's like saying China is Communist.

[Gheld]

I'm all about Capitalism. Pure Capitalism. Shame that we have a twisted version of it globally now.

That's what I used to tell myself up until recently.

The fact is even if you discount all that tin foil hat Zeitgeist crapola it doesn't take a whole lot of pondering to conclude that the game was rigged before the ballpark was open. Everyone gets a chance at bat but in this league the umpire is the only one who gets paid. Everybody else is playing for "self satisfaction" and what not.

We're the "lucky" ones. Because we don't have to worry about food. And when all is said and done we have enough money left over to afford ourselves a small sampler of the fruits of industrialization.

So pure uncorrupted capitalism could only happen if the entire global economy were to collapse and you were to start everybody, absolutely everybody, with nothing. No money. No assets. But I somehow doubt humanity would survive that level of unrest.

[Raeph]

On Topic: Distributism is an offshoot of Capitalism, however it is based on a particular dogma that the individual by themselves will not work towards the collective good on their own, rather they must be forced or coerced into "reinvesting" in society, rather than hording resources.

With this concept there comes everything from tax credits for business activities and charitable giving, all the way to excessive taxation (France and their 75% income tax comes to mind, *opinion subject to fierce debate).

The issue however comes with how do you define "Reinvesting", "Hording" and "Collective Good" in this structure? If there is disagreement on the definition how do you appeal that definition in the public space, or is their no appeal and are the definitions forced on the populace for the greater good, by a small portion of the population (oligarchy, dictatorship) or a large portion of the population (tyranny of the majority)?

It is an interesting concept, that forgets that wealth distribution happens all the time between the upper and lower echelons of society without the intervention of a third party, not all of it is good, not all of it is evil.

I would argue that the best way to distribute wealth more appropriately is, rather than enforce a certain level of "economic morality" on the populaces spending regardless of moral standard, rather be an individual example yourself and take the resources you, yourself, have and benefit the lives of one or many people with it.

At least you don't have to worry about the government or a social society taking a cut first before the funds actually reaches the person you are trying to help.