Distributism

[Matto]

This is Catholic social teaching in action, it was started off by a Catholic priest.

I don't know how much you know about it Keith, but it is working system, unlike raw capitalism or socialism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaJ1hfVPUe8&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7efaDeFmurQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The unions can't move in on these businesses and pit workers against owners, because the workers are the owners.

The big predatory private equity firms can't move in and buy up controlling interest and sell off assets for profit, because the workers are the controllers, with equal votes.

[KeithE]

This is Catholic social teaching in action, it was started off by a Catholic priest.

I don't know how much you know about it Keith, but it is working system, unlike raw capitalism or socialism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaJ1hfVPUe8&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7efaDeFmurQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The unions can't move in on these businesses and pit workers against owners, because the workers are the owners.

The big predatory private equity firms can't move in and buy up controlling interest and sell off assets for profit, because the workers are the controllers, with equal votes.

Interesting and no I have never heard of distributism or Mondragon.

It strikes me as more akin to socialism than capitalism. But it differs from classical socialism that the scope of the collective action and “means of production” is smaller (regional) than a state-based socialism and the workers are all part owners. In principle it is more responsive to all the people and ostensibly decisions are made by the people and not just a handful of top execs.

I have worked for three “employee-owned” corporations: one very large one SAIC (40,000 people) , one medium sized one - Dynetics (at the time 200 employees now over 1000) and my current small employer - Willbrook (58.5 employees). While employee ownership can bring rewards, in none of these were the employees polled to ask about company decisions. The Mondragon co-op of 100+ companies sounds like employee decision making is regular practice and that is good. For all their talk/training on “business ethics”, SAIC has been caught and fined $500M for a NYC payroll scandal/paybacks as well as anchoring the NIST 9/11 WTC panel (i could go into details but will spare you and me the time). The point is employee ownership does not guarantee wholesome business practices, unless employees are actually made aware of and vote on the business decisions; employees can be the ACCOUNTABILITY function.

Other readings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching#Key_themes
7 key themes I can agree with:
Sanctity of human life and dignity of the person
Call to family, community, and participation
Rights and responsibilities
Preferential Option for the poor and vulnerable
Dignity of work
Solidarity
Care for God's creation

I would like to see how the pay is distributed at such organizations and how pleased employees are with the approach and if there are other distributist entities around the world. But it sounds good.

[Haruo]

Wikipedia has an interesting list of what it says are worker-run cooperative businesses, though I'm not clear that this is always true; in some cases I think they are member-run, and while the workers may be (and perhaps are required to be) members, so are a lot of customers who don't work there.

[Matto]

It strikes me as more akin to socialism than capitalism. But it differs from classical socialism that the scope of the collective action and “means of production” is smaller (regional) than a state-based socialism and the workers are all part owners.

It's main aim is decentralizing power either from the socialist elite or the capitalist elite.

The very simple and basic way of looking at the differences between models  

With the socialist model everything is owned collectively and workers don't get a say, but are controlled by a central authority. Effectively the state owns everything and the means of production, and makes all the decisions. A ruling class always forms and protects it's position.

With Capitalism the centralization of power goes to private hands by monopoly, a monopoly of Capital and the means of production. It grows larger private interests by buying influence with the state. The end result is wage slaves. 

The effect of socialism and capitalism is the centralizing of capital and the means of production to a controlling elite, public or private. Choose your master.

Distributism is not collective ownership by the state, it's co-operative ownership by the workers.
Standard socialism denies private ownership and control, and creates wage slaves.

If Capitalism is broadly and simplistically described as the idea of ownership of private property.  
 Distributism by that definition is capitalist. In fact it is the most capitalist, because it seeks to put as much property into as many hands as possible.

Collectivization and monopoly are the same thing, centralization. Both systems detract from individual self determination.

The problem is centralization, raw capitalism and socialism are the same, they just differ on state or private monopoly.

China is a case study on the marriage of socialism and capitalism, because the two centralist systems are compatible, they just negotiate what the state controls and what private hands control. Either way, property and the means of production ends up in an elite few hands.

Socialism and Capitalism are centralizers and Distributim is a decentralizer, that puts property, the means of production, and self determination into the hands of individuals.     


 

[KeithE]

It strikes me as more akin to socialism than capitalism. But it differs from classical socialism that the scope of the collective action and “means of production” is smaller (regional) than a state-based socialism and the workers are all part owners.

It's main aim is decentralizing power either from the socialist elite or the capitalist elite.

The very simple and basic way of looking at the differences between models  

With the socialist model everything is owned collectively and workers don't get a say, but are controlled by a central authority. Effectively the state owns everything and the means of production, and makes all the decisions. A ruling class always forms and protects it's position.

With Capitalism the centralization of power goes to private hands by monopoly, a monopoly of Capital and the means of production. It grows larger private interests by buying influence with the state. The end result is wage slaves. 

The effect of socialism and capitalism is the centralizing of capital and the means of production to a controlling elite, public or private. Choose your master.

Distributism is not collective ownership by the state, it's co-operative ownership by the workers.
Standard socialism denies private ownership and control, and creates wage slaves.

If Capitalism is broadly and simplistically described as the idea of ownership of private property.  
 Distributism by that definition is capitalist. In fact it is the most capitalist, because it seeks to put as much property into as many hands as possible.

Collectivization and monopoly are the same thing, centralization. Both systems detract from individual self determination.

The problem is centralization, raw capitalism and socialism are the same, they just differ on state or private monopoly.

China is a case study on the marriage of socialism and capitalism, because the two centralist systems are compatible, they just negotiate what the state controls and what private hands control. Either way, property and the means of production ends up in an elite few hands.

Socialism and Capitalism are centralizers and Distributim is a decentralizer, that puts property, the means of production, and self determination into the hands of individuals.     
 

Here is the larger quote from me which I’ll expand slightly in red to explain what I meant by “socialism” and to get close to what Matto said in green above.

KeithE: It {distributism} strikes me as more akin to today’s socialism than capitalism. But it differs from classical socialism that the scope of the collective action and “means of production” is smaller (regional) than a state-based socialism and the workers are all part owners. In principle it is more responsive to all the people and ostensibly decisions are made by the people and not just a handful of top execs (“capitalistic elites”) or “socialist elites”.

But I will hasten to point out that in today’s socialistic countries such as the Scandinavian countries, the decisions are not made by an “elite” without concurrence from the populace. Note that the Swedish populace are in the main very happy with the centralization that is providing them important social services even if they are taxed as high as they are. True, in “classical socialistic" countries (like the USSR) those decisions are made by a detached “elite” claiming authority and were/are not popular with the people who in some cases (like North Korea) are kept in the dark.

Personally I do not see problem with centralization per se (in small regions as in distributism or in larger regions such as countries) as long as the powers make decisions based on the people’s wishes ("consent of the governed"). Thus ACCOUNTABILITY by trusted/independent agents plays an essential role in keeping any centralized government in align with the will of the people. OUTLAWING MONEYED INTERESTS in the political process (elections/legislative/execution) is also essential (including the overthrow of Citizen's United which allows corporations and unions unlimited rights to buy the government they want.)

In today’s socialistic countries, private property ownership is practiced. There may be more state owned businesses but privately owned businesses are also the majority.

China is transitioning from an old style socialistic country to a mixture of capitalism and today’s socialistic countries but still primarily old style (I think) and may end up with a new paradigm.

[Matto]

Personally I do not see problem with centralization (in small regions as in distributism or in larger regions such as countries) per se as long as the powers make decisions based on the people’s wishes.

Communism started with that noble sentiment, but as with all centralization history has proven it degenerates, and the people are not well served.
Europe worked when it was decentralized, now with greater centralization it is being destroyed, and a powerful elite are serving their own interests. Member nations have lost decision making ability even at a local level. A central bureaucracy in brussels can overrule local communities, as evidenced with the Shell pipelines in Ireland and England.
The people have no say at the local level or even the national level, they have to go to Brussels and explain their plight to people that don't care and are unelected.

Centralization takes away self determination from the individual, Europe started this centralization with noble ideals, but it has already degenerated in favor of the elites.

[KeithE]

Personally I do not see problem with centralization (in small regions as in distributism or in larger regions such as countries) per se as long as the powers make decisions based on the people’s wishes.

Communism started with that noble sentiment, but as with all centralization history has proven it degenerates, and the people are not well served.
Europe worked when it was decentralized, now with greater centralization it is being destroyed, and a powerful elite are serving their own interests. Member nations have lost decision making ability even at a local level. A central bureaucracy in brussels can overrule local communities, as evidenced with the Shell pipelines in Ireland and England.
The people have no say at the local level or even the national level, they have to go to Brussels and explain their plight to people that don't care and are unelected.

Centralization takes away self determination from the individual, Europe started this centralization with noble ideals, but it has already degenerated in favor of the elites.

Greater ACCOUNTABILITY by trusted/independent agents and OUTLAWING MONEYED INTERESTS can negate that degeneration that is possible with any centralized system (even regional based co-op companies as in distributism).

OTOH, capitalism with the deregulation and moneyed interests that the free marketeers demand is ruining the economy and fairness thereof.

[Matto]

Greater ACCOUNTABILITY by trusted/independent agents and OUTLAWING MONEYED INTERESTS can negate that degeneration

Communism outlawed moneyed interests Keith . I think moneyed interests deserve a say in things, but the moneyed interests I am referring to is the owner worker.

Accountability is exactly what is lost with centralization, a central bureaucracy serves very poorly.

Accountability works best when your representative is in your neighborhood, and if you don't like something you can see him face to face, and tell him how you feel.

[Matto]

You can see the degeneration in the book The animal farm. The noble idea that all animals were " equal " turned into some animals are more equal than others. Then it turned into some pigs are more equal than others.

It's an insight into human nature more than anything.

I don't like secular centralized authorities, they have always degenerated, there are countless examples throughout history.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, this is the corrosive effect that happens with greater centralization, until self determination is choked out.

[KeithE]

Greater ACCOUNTABILITY by trusted/independent agents and OUTLAWING MONEYED INTERESTS can negate that degeneration

Communism outlawed moneyed interests Keith . I think moneyed interests deserve a say in things, but the moneyed interests I am referring to is the owner worker.

KeithE: I very much agree that workers deserve a say in things, but that is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about corporate money who is always seeking an advantage through campaign gifts, influencing (heck, writing) riders to bills to reduce their taxes and increase their subsidies, and lacking that cry for de-regulation in the execution of the laws (removing the very ACCOUNTABILITY that is needed to keep government true to the consent of the governed).


Accountability is exactly what is lost with centralization, a central bureaucracy serves very poorly.

KeithE: It is working in the Scandinavian countries. Example 1. Example 2. Example 3. Example 4. Open your eyes.

Accountability works best when your representative is in your neighborhood, and if you don't like something you can see him face to face, and tell him how you feel.

KeithE: I have tried to see my local Representative (even went to his office (D-Bud Kramer) in the Federal Building in WashDC to talk about 9/11; at first his front office said he would to talk- just wait; but later I was told he was too busy but that he would get back with me but never did). Bud did not seek re-election and is now a paid lobbyist where he can really make some money. He (and my current tea partier Representative (R- Mo Brooks) have never returned my calls or emails and I’ve sent 10’s of emails their way on a large variety of subjects. I once approached Mo Brooks at a local Penera where he used to hangout in the morning with his straw hats on. When I attempted to get a point or two across (Gitmo, jobs programs as I remember), he just looked away at his WSJ and ignored me. Didn’t like what I was saying, so he tuned me out. Maybe in Australia, Reps listen but here they don’t unless campaign cash is offered or some ideological accord is offered.

Now I have never tried to contact my State (Alabama) Representative but have been involved in trying to have the 1901 Alabama Constitution rewrote. Although polls say most Alabamians want that by a 2:1 margin, Republicans and the timber industry has seen to it that it never gets brought up in the state legislature or to a vote.

You see MONEYED interests (and increasingly an ill-informed ideology) is what is holding back ACCOUNTABILITY and the consent of the governed.

I could easily go on, but have to get to work.

[Dave Roberts]

You can see the degeneration in the book The animal farm. The noble idea that all animals were " equal " turned into some animals are more equal than others. Then it turned into some pigs are more equal than others.

It's an insight into human nature more than anything.

I don't like secular centralized authorities, they have always degenerated, there are countless examples throughout history.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, this is the corrosive effect that happens with greater centralization, until self determination is choked out.

Why is the same not true of religious authorities like those protecting pedophile priests by reassigning them to other parishes rather than fulfilling their legal responsibilities to see that they were prosecuted according to the legal reporting requirements concerning child abuse. Even the Chair of Peter has had previous possible involvement in Germany. How does that not fit with your assertion of absolute power corrupting?

[Matto]

KeithE: I very much agree that workers deserve a say in things, but that is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about corporate money who is always seeking an advantage through campaign gifts, influencing (heck, writing) riders to bills to reduce their taxes and increase their subsidies, and lacking that cry for de-regulation in the execution of the laws (removing the very ACCOUNTABILITY that is needed to keep government true to the consent of the governed).

Don't forget unions lobbying government as well Keith, they are big money interests.

People have been trying to regulate undue influence in government for a long time Keith. They set up countless regulator bodies at massive public expense to hold moneyed interests to ACCOUNT, but it always gets subverted.

If cash contributions to campaigns were banned, the moneyed interests would find other ways to compensate. Take for example that congressman who helped pass a bill that favored big Pharma. He received a million dollar check well after he left congress.

My point is that moneyed interests always find a way. Money talks, because people listen to it.

Big money interests go to the Federal Government because the Government has the power to help their agendas. What if the Government didn't have the power to help them.
Decentralizing power takes the sugar off the table, so lobbyists can't lobby for big money interests, if the Government can't help them. There's no one to buy influence from.

If the Federal Government kept to it's core business, there would be far less abuse of powers they shouldn't have in the first place.
Small government can't help big business. But Big Government with big powers can move heaven and earth for big business interests.
It's the centralization of government power that causes the corruption. So instead of opening hundreds of regulators at huge expense, why not remove the incentive to lobby government altogether.

[Matto]

You can see the degeneration in the book The animal farm. The noble idea that all animals were " equal " turned into some animals are more equal than others. Then it turned into some pigs are more equal than others.

It's an insight into human nature more than anything.

I don't like secular centralized authorities, they have always degenerated, there are countless examples throughout history.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, this is the corrosive effect that happens with greater centralization, until self determination is choked out.

Why is the same not true of religious authorities like those protecting pedophile priests by reassigning them to other parishes rather than fulfilling their legal responsibilities to see that they were prosecuted according to the legal reporting requirements concerning child abuse. Even the Chair of Peter has had previous possible involvement in Germany. How does that not fit with your assertion of absolute power corrupting?

I know that no one has worked harder against the abuse problem in the Church than the then Cardinal/ Benedict XVI, and many people are completely ignorant of it. They would rather believe things that suit their prejudices.

[Matto]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I don't know if you have heard of this before Keith, but it gives a guiding principle about the public purse. Once it is opened up for charity, no end of corruption occurs.

[KeithE]

KeithE: I very much agree that workers deserve a say in things, but that is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about corporate money who is always seeking an advantage through campaign gifts, influencing (heck, writing) riders to bills to reduce their taxes and increase their subsidies, and lacking that cry for de-regulation in the execution of the laws (removing the very ACCOUNTABILITY that is needed to keep government true to the consent of the governed).

Matto: Don’t forget unions lobbying government as well Keith, they are big money interests.

KeithE: I have not forgotten that as shown above in the discussion of Citizen’s United near the bottom of this link. But union lobbying $51M in 2011 is only 1.5% of the total lobbying of $3.32B in 2011.

Matto: People have been trying to regulate undue influence in government for a long time Keith. They set up countless regulator bodies at massive public expense to hold moneyed interests to ACCOUNT, but it always gets subverted.

KeithE: Massive public expense?? Let’s see, the DCAA get $0.532B/year to monitor DoD spending of at least $750B/year (that’s .0007 less than 0.1%). GAO budget is $0.557B/year to monitor discretionary government spending of $1,242B/year (that’s .00045 also well less than 0.1%); that is 1/6 of that spent on lobbying - guess who wins. The SEC has been effectively deregulated and let’s not forget that this deregulation is primarily responsible for the financial crisis we are still mired in today. IRS and EPA enforcement have been cut. The Consumer Protection Agency has not even been opened yet - repubs have seen to that which has opened up predatory opportunities in cell phone, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and mortgage industries to name a few that have been increasingly taking advantage of Americans while the repubs demonizes Elizabeth Warren and this agency’s goals). Get quantitative please when you make claims; it adds perspective.

This country is a mess Matto and most of the press is missing it since they too are big business friendly because they are one.

Matto: If cash contributions to campaigns were banned, the moneyed interests would find other ways to compensate. Take for example that congressman who helped pass a bill that favored big Pharma. He received a million dollar check well after he left congress

KeithE: I’m guessing that Billy Tauzin (ex R-Louisiana) is who you had in mind.

Matto: My point is that moneyed interests always find a way. Money talks, because people listen to it.

KeithE: I’m surprised a moral absolutist like you have shown (wrt homosexuality and abortion) would be using the "everyone will do it anyway” logic.

Matto: Big money interests go to the Federal Government because the Government has the power to help their agendas. What if the Government didn't have the power to help them. Decentralizing power takes the sugar off the table, so lobbyists can't lobby for big money interests, if the Government can't help them. There's no one to buy influence from.

If the Federal Government kept to it's core business, there would be far less abuse of powers they shouldn't have in the first place.
Small government can't help big business. But Big Government with big powers can move heaven and earth for big business interests.
It's the centralization of government power that causes the corruption. So instead of opening hundreds of regulators at huge expense, why not remove the incentive to lobby government altogether.

KeithE: Some valid points here Matto. But I wonder if the US were more “states rights” oriented, if that would reduce the lobbying amount or just spread it around. But probably there would be some less "sugar" as you say. Is that “sugar” an Aussie saying?

My approach is to first decide of level of centralization (federal, state, county, city) based on the scope of the effort and it’s natural applicability range. For example Defense and Immigration should be border issues that the federal government undertakes. Utilities are more at the county/city level but with interregional sharing possibilities considered. And I’m not against a little experimentation in different states/provinces until we learn what works best (e.g. varying health exchanges in states with “ObamaCare”).

Then decide the level of oversight/ACCOUNTABILITY after centralization decisions to watchdog for corruption/bad performance at the levels needed. I’d be happy with 1% of funding as a guideline as to how much ACCOUNTABILITY is advisable. The key is to assure independence, so a 1% separate "review of the reviewers' objectivity" might also be advisable totaling a 1.1% expense as a means to curtail corruption/inefficiencies. Well worth it.

[Dave Roberts]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, this is the corrosive effect that happens with greater centralization, until self determination is choked out.

I know that no one has worked harder against the abuse problem in the Church than the then Cardinal/ Benedict XVI, and many people are completely ignorant of it. They would rather believe things that suit their prejudices.

I'm just following what you said out to its logical conclusion. Since the Vatican is an absolute monarchy, how is it not subject to the effects of absolute power?

[Matto]

I'm just following what you said out to its logical conclusion. Since the Vatican is an absolute monarchy, how is it not subject to the effects of absolute power?

The Pope doesn't have absolute power, you not understand how the system works. Authority is distributed to the Bishops for their Diocese and they distribute authority to priests in that Diocese. The priests have authority in their parishes.

You have a flawed understanding, and have made a false assertion from that flawed understanding.

[Matto]

Greece has been a socialist country for years, most people looked to the state to provide jobs, and welfare and it grew. Now the state is broke because too many people used the state as a charity, that is the end result of socialism.

A story that has just come out shows people are being turned away from hospitals because there is no medicine to give them. Things like insulin are no longer available to the poor, and this is essential for their survival.

Hospital workers haven't been paid in months, but they are forced to work for nothing.

Some people have tried to barter for medicines ( eggs and clothes ) but are turned away from hospitals with nothing.

Socialism piles more and more expenses on the state not caring how much is borrowed, and it eventually collapses in state bankruptcy.
Cyprus just declared bankruptcy.

Socialism bankrupts nations, it has been proven time and time again. People never seem to learn.

[Dave Roberts]

The Pope doesn't have absolute power, you not understand how the system works. Authority is distributed to the Bishops for their Diocese and they distribute authority to priests in that Diocese. The priests have authority in their parishes.

Doesn't that mean, then, that all authority flows from the Holy See, the one granting the authority (in Catholic understanding as the representative of Christ)? That makes the system heirarchical modeled on the Roman Empire, does it not?

[Haruo]

The pope's "absolute" power (whether temporally in the Vatican City State or spiritually in the Roman Catholic Church) is severely circumscribed by the power of the College of Cardinals as well as other limitations, and in any event at least the spiritual power is indeed exercised as Christ's Vicar on earth. But the days are long gone when the people of Milan could raise a layman to be their bishop by acclamation.

[Dave Roberts]

The pope's "absolute" power (whether temporally in the Vatican City State or spiritually in the Roman Catholic Church) is severely circumscribed by the power of the College of Cardinals as well as other limitations, and in any event at least the spiritual power is indeed exercised as Christ's Vicar on earth. But the days are long gone when the people of Milan could raise a layman to be their bishop by acclamation.

As I read the history of the RCC, it seems that Constantine modeled the College of Cardinals on the Roman Senate, didn't he? They were the advisers to the Emperor.

[Matto]

As I read the history of the RCC, it seems that Constantine modeled the College of Cardinals on the Roman Senate, didn't he? They were the advisers to the Emperor.

No, you can see the Apostles and elders gather in council in scripture, deciding matters of faith. And they modeled their councils from the Sanhedrin model. Catholicism is a Jewish religion.
I dont know where you get this Constantine idea from.

[MJ Willett]

it differs from classical socialism that the scope of the collective action and “means of production” is smaller (regional) than a state-based socialism and the workers are all part owners.

With the socialist model everything is owned collectively and workers don't get a say, but are controlled by a central authority. Effectively the state owns everything and the means of production, and makes all the decisions.

Any collective ownership and collective economic management scheme in a community fits under the umbrella of socialism, it doesn't have to involve central planning by an authoritarian state. Socialists are a diverse group. Some lean more towards anarchism and local democratic control and some are more for authoritarian big government.

Even Karl Marx was ambiguous (or perhaps brilliantly nuanced, or perhaps ambivalent, or perhaps clueless) as to what he envisioned the long-term role of the state to be when the future communist society was achieved. Communism is typically envisioned by Marxists as a completely classless, stateless, and propertyless society. Government is interpreted by Marxists as merely a tool of the elites to exploit the working masses and maintain their elite privilege. They believe that eventually government would be unnecessary under communism once classes were eliminated. But of course it isn't that simple, even for the Marxists because just as they believe capitalist government exploitation is a necessary step toward communism, they also believe a temporary period of socialist authoritarian government was necessary in order to get there. This caused a great deal of dispute with collectivist anarchists, such as Mikhail Bakunin because Marxism and Anarcho-Collectivism are otherwise nearly indistinguishable.

[Dave Roberts]

No, you can see the Apostles and elders gather in council in scripture, deciding matters of faith. And they modeled their councils from the Sanhedrin model. Catholicism is a Jewish religion.
I dont know where you get this Constantine idea from.

Came from Dr. Bart Ehrman, UNC-CH Professor of Religion in a course from the Teaching Company: "Christianity from Christ to Constantine."

[MJ Willett]

As I read the history of the RCC, it seems that Constantine modeled the College of Cardinals on the Roman Senate, didn't he? They were the advisers to the Emperor.

No, you can see the Apostles and elders gather in council in scripture, deciding matters of faith. And they modeled their councils from the Sanhedrin model. Catholicism is a Jewish religion.
I dont know where you get this Constantine idea from.

I don't believe there is any debate that the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the RCC is modeled after Roman administrative system, which makes sense because it was a government institution of the Roman Empire. The College of Cardinals wasn't created until the 11th century, so Constantine isn't responsible for that.