# Let's debate "distributism" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468 "2005-11-10T20:28:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/61 "2005-11-12T23:42:11Z")
> [@](#): > > by **elucidator** > Fascinating term! What is a “natural” economic system? What characteristics distinguish it from an “unnatural” economic system? And by what mechanism does it operate to “eliminate oppression” over time? Roughly speaking (and I’m talking really roughly here), Capitalism. Essentially, when people are able to act economically in their own interests without undue influence from non-economic factors (such as government). However, this sort of thing existed before Capitlism itself, before “capital” was a word or even had that much influence. Essentially, a natural system is simple one which grew spontaneously out of everyday human economic choices. The mechanism I was thinking of is talent and skill. These are, more or less, potentially distributed equally among all human peoples and races. It is also clear to me that racism exists primarily in the middle ground between complete unfamiliarity and complete familiarity. If one group of people has a larger pool of talent and ideas to draw from, they wil tend to have a economic advantage. Racism is obviously a barrier to this, hence non-racists will, all else being equal, tend to gain economic advantages. Since others, who may be racist, will tend to shrink in economic importance, it becomes in their interest to soften racism to regain an advantage. If they don’t, they will tend to weaken over time anyway. Of course, thinking about it more, Kimstu may have a point. I may be more correct if I said “natural economic systems _tend_ to hold back racism”. Anyway, I don’t meanto present this as a proven thing, so I’m sorry if I gave that impression. It’s just a theory I have. Phew. Sorry for being so wordy. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/62 "2005-11-13T01:39:28Z")
To get back to distributism – although I don’t think collectives of craftsmen are going to be putting modern manufacturers out of business anytime soon, I remember reading articles in Wired a few years ago (prior to the dotcom bust, but that’s not an issue in this case) about a way something similar might change the way we do business into something more along distributist lines. Their idea was that skilled professionals and managers would be using the Internet to entirely sidestep the usual corporate model of getting work done and making money. The idea is that people with skills and experience would use the Internet to hook up directly with one another to create and sell products and services. That is, suppose you’re an unemployed marketing manager who knows there’s lots of money to be made selling wibbets to a large but hitherto undiscovered niche market. Rather than go to a corporation and give them the idea (and risk seeing it stolen outright) you advertise to form a working group to make some money in the wibbet field. You get resumes from the people you need: unemployed finance officers, unemployed salesmen, unemployed production managers, etc. Then you get together in a chat room, hash out the form of the corporation and its plan for making millions from wibbets, then scare up a small biz loan and away you go. You don’t necessarily need a building, in-house production staff (hire a contractor) or in-house accountants, etc. Your officers work together remotely, there might not be any actual physical office needed. the whole point of the enterprise is to sidestep the stranglehold that existing corporations have on capital and manpower. It could be especially good for the 50-somethings that often get dumped by corps for health insurance and pension reasons. They often have a lot of skills and abilities they’ve amassed over time, and a nut that will encourage them to really try to succeed. I see all sorts of potential problems for such a scheme, but it does sound like a variation on distributiionism that could work within the framework of capitalism, and maybe even supplant it eventually. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/63 "2005-11-13T16:59:57Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Their idea was that skilled professionals and managers would be using the Internet to entirely sidestep the usual corporate model of getting work done and making money. The idea is that people with skills and experience would use the Internet to hook up directly with one another to create and sell products and services. That is, suppose you’re an unemployed marketing manager who knows there’s lots of money to be made selling wibbets to a large but hitherto undiscovered niche market. Rather than go to a corporation and give them the idea (and risk seeing it stolen outright) you advertise to form a working group to make some money in the wibbet field. You get resumes from the people you need: unemployed finance officers, unemployed salesmen, unemployed production managers, etc. Then you get together in a chat room, hash out the form of the corporation and its plan for making millions from wibbets, then scare up a small biz loan and away you go. Yes, that’s what we in the business world call “four unemployed guys getting together to start their own business.” > [@Evil Captor](#): > > You don’t necessarily need a building, in-house production staff (hire a contractor) or in-house accountants, etc. Your officers work together remotely, there might not be any actual physical office needed. > > the whole point of the enterprise is to sidestep the stranglehold that existing corporations have on capital and manpower. It could be especially good for the 50-somethings that often get dumped by corps for health insurance and pension reasons. They often have a lot of skills and abilities they’ve amassed over time, and a nut that will encourage them to really try to succeed. What you described is very similar to a consulting firm model. You have a firm that provides a particular service - supply chain, SAP, HR, whatever. You know people you get from those firms are experts in that particular area. You can form a team made from those experts for a particular project and then disband the team when its done. Trust me. The “virtual workplace” idea is bullshit. It’s hard enough working on a team that’s dispersed throughout the country let alone one with no physical infrastructure. There are certain benefits to having people in close proximity working. There are also benefits to having some sort of continuity. That’s the problem that companies are constantly trying to face - what can we outsource? What should we keep in house? Should we hire a permenant staff, a team of consultants or sub contract it out? What can be virtual and what needs to be in close physical proximity? What should be centralized and what should be dispursed? THERE IS NO ONE BEST SYSTEM. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/64 "2005-11-14T02:13:27Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Yes, that’s what we in the business world call “four unemployed guys getting together to start their own business.” Granted. IIRC Wired was suggesting that this model would supplant the usual model of looking for work – you wouldn’t send your resume to Monster and respond to job ads, you’d look for a start-up where your skills are needed. This would be your first choice, working for a corporation would be second. I think in Silicon Valley for a time, this was a growing trend. Might still be, just many more computer professionals are stuck with that second choice nowadays. Hurrah for capitalism, eh? > [@](#): > > What you described is very similar to a consulting firm model. You have a firm that provides a particular service - supply chain, SAP, HR, whatever. You know people you get from those firms are experts in that particular area. You can form a team made from those experts for a particular project and then disband the team when its done. > [@](#): > > Trust me. I am not prone to trust people when it comes to examining ideas on the dope. I figure we are expected to look hard at ideas and think for ourselves. > [@](#): > > The “virtual workplace” idea is bullshit. It’s hard enough working on a team that’s dispersed throughout the country let alone one with no physical infrastructure. There are certain benefits to having people in close proximity working. There are also benefits to having some sort of continuity. I am not so prone to dismiss the idea out of hand, if only because we are supposed to be giving distributionism a fair hearing and maybe trying to find realistic ways to make it work, while being realistic about the problems it would encounter. I think the more pressing problem where everyone in essence volunteers to start a company is that you’d have a bigger problem with clash of egos than you do in corporate situations, and there’s a lot of that in many corporations. The people working remotely doesn’t strike mae as nearly as dangerous. > [@](#): > > That’s the problem that companies are constantly trying to face - what can we outsource? What should we keep in house? Should we hire a permenant staff, a team of consultants or sub contract it out? What can be virtual and what needs to be in close physical proximity? What should be centralized and what should be dispursed? > > THERE IS NO ONE BEST SYSTEM. I feel that corporate oligarchies are no better than other forms of oligarchies – they tend to make those in the lower strata into something like surfs. I dislike them on principle, and any system that actually works and gives people more power and more opportunity is by definition better in my book. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/65 "2005-11-14T19:43:37Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I was wondering how this philosophy differs from communism. In philosophical terms, distributism appears to be free of any “class struggle” ideology and is not based on implicitly-atheistic materialism, nor any form of historical determinism. In practical terms, in a distributist society, property would not be held in common, nor managed by the state. It would be something like American society before the emergence of large corporations. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/66 "2005-11-14T19:52:07Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am only stating that I think the natural forces are in motion for an evolution toward this, and that there is no need for an “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” style actions. Don’t forget, distributism was formulated as an **alternative** to Marxism. There is no “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” envisioned. Nor is there any such thing in Robinson’s novel. Besides – you gott keep up with your post-Marxist revisionism! The Dictatorship of the Proletariat comes **later!** After the Hegemony of the Lower Middle Class, the Interim Rule of Guys With the Middle Name of “Wayne,” the Transformative Regime of People With Lots of Tattoos and Piercings, the Revolutionary Command Council of Small Brown Furry Things of Doubtful Provenance, and the Dominion of the Phoenix of the South in a White Wine Sauce With Poststructuralist Romanticism. Then, after the drugs wear off\*, we gradually realize that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is what we’ve already achieved (I have the mathematical proof somewhere), and we decide to stick with it, at least until we can hold down solid food again. \*(Intellectual honesty compels me to mention the dissent of the Neo-Shachtmanite Anarcho-Syndicalists, who argue vociferously that at that point it would be counterrevolutionary to come down. 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/67 "2005-11-14T19:59:41Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Finally, this seems to be based on the belief that small enterprises are just as efficient as large ones, and this just isn’t the case. No . . . Robinson’s vision seems to be based on the belief that small enterprises offer comparative advantages other than economic efficiency, and for which it is worthwhile to sacrifice economic efficiency. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/68 "2005-11-14T20:09:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No . . . Robinson’s vision seems to be based on the belief that small enterprises offer comparative advantages other than economic efficiency, and for which it is worthwhile to sacrifice economic efficiency. What are those advantages, how much efficiency must be sacrificed, and what are the implications of sacrificing econominc eficiency if lots of other countries are not also making the same sacrifices? Unless someone can tell me that with a great deal of certainty, I’m understandably hesitant to bite. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/69 "2005-11-14T20:21:05Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > And couldn’t it be the case that money flows to to those who have capital in exactly the same way that tournament wins tend to flow to those athletes who already have tournament wins? i.e. having lots of tournament wins is a predicter of future tournament wins because it’s an indication of ability. A correlation, not causation. > > In other words, the fact that someone is already rich tends to indicate that they are good at creating wealth. Therefore, they will tend to create even more wealth. :dubious: You skipped a step there. **Creating** wealth and **acquiring** wealth are two different things. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/70 "2005-11-14T20:36:34Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > …Unless someone can tell me that with a great deal of certainty, I’m understandably hesitant to bite. This is a telling point, given the eagerness with which you otherwise embrace “lefty” points of view. Mmmmm. Yes. Further, perhaps it is not necessary to “bite”. Can we not experiment? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/71 "2005-11-14T20:38:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Don’t forget, distributism was formulated as an **alternative** to Marxism. There is no “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” envisioned. Nor is there any such thing in Robinson’s novel. But how do you enforce the model without a dictatorship? Suppose Joe outcompetes all the other small businesses in his block, forces them out of business, and buys them out and sets up a mega-corporation. Or is this a one-shot deal, where everyone starts out “even” (apart from human capital like education and innate talent, or dumb luck), and then the chips fall where they may? Or does the state simply confiscate everything at my death and hand it out to whoever is in line? (In which case, I simply sign over my business to my children, or sell it to an off-shore corporation and have them pay my kids a dividend or something.) Come to think of it, is selling stocks and/or bonds allowed in Robinson’s novel? Limited partnerships? Incorporation? Is working for wages even allowed? > [@](#): > > \*(Intellectual honesty compels me to mention the dissent of the Neo-Shachtmanite Anarcho-Syndicalists, who argue vociferously that at that point it would be counterrevolutionary to come down. 😉 ) Fucking splitter. 😉 😃 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/72 "2005-11-14T20:51:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > This is a telling point, given the eagerness with which you otherwise embrace “lefty” points of view. Mmmmm. Yes. I’m quite happy to embrace plenty of “lefty” points of view, just not in the economic realm. > [@](#): > > Further, perhaps it is not necessary to “bite”. Can we not experiment? If this country had stayed true to the federalism of the founders, it’s quite likely that this would have already been done. 🙂 At any rate, I highly recommend that we use the state of MN to do the experiment. When would you like to start? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/73 "2005-11-15T00:01:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Come to think of it, is selling stocks and/or bonds allowed in Robinson’s novel? Limited partnerships? Incorporation? Is working for wages even allowed? Anyone who wants more than $10k/year has to work for it. The other stuff is not discussed in the book. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/74 "2005-11-15T00:21:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > …At any rate, I highly recommend that we use the state of MN to do the experiment. When would you like to start? Already have. Spent years working in collective food co-ops, and the like. Be assured that your wholehearted support has not gone unnoticed. This will stand you in better circumstance when The Day arrives. I have every confidence that you will be subject to nothing more onerous than a few weeks in the Jane Fonda Aerobics and Re-Education Camp. No need to thank me. Least I could do. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/75 "2005-11-20T19:56:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If this country had stayed true to the federalism of the founders, it’s quite likely that this would have already been done. 🙂 No, I doubt state-level distributist experiments would be possible if we still had a federal constitution that forbids impairment of contracts and uncompensated expropriation of private property. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468/76 "2005-12-21T22:44:20Z")
I never imagined any current news would warrant reviving this thread about an almost-forgotten ideology – but guess what! Apparently, the government quite recently has been spying on the (historically distributist) Catholic Workers movement, allegedly because of it’s “semi-communistic ideology”! [http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1791958.php:](http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1791958.php:) > [@](#): > > After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities. > > But the documents, coming after the Bush administration’s confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest. > > One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a “Vegan Community Project.” Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group’s “semi-communistic ideology.” A third indicates the bureau’s interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. What kind of decade are we living in, that anybody thinks people like these might be dangerous? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-distributism/330468.md?page=3)