3 ms·

This is a type of utopia that many of us yearn for, but never appears to have worked at the level of large nation-states. I mean, here are some things that are

by rmk 9y ago

This is a type of utopia that many of us yearn for, but never appears to have worked at the level of large nation-states. I mean, here are some things that are not taken into account: - People who can not work because they simply can't hold down a job, period. - Externalities such as neighboring (or even distant) communes dumping wastewater into rivers etc., or polluting the ground, or air... you get the idea. What about natural calamities, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and such? - Conflicts over scarce resources. Water, for example. Communes that rely on a common source of water will likely have conflicts. How are they resolved? - Any commune is exceedingly unlikely to be good at producing all the things it needs. Trade will need to develop. Does 'self-reliance' exclude the possibility of trade? - How large should a commune be, to enable innovation? Without innovation, there will be stagnation that will harm the commune in the long run. - How would a commune handle people that are 'different'? How about criminals within and without?

svieira 9y ago
This is not at the expense of the large nation state, it just limits the power of the nation, preferring to push down the responsibilities to the lowest level possible, rather than aggregating up the moment that any benefits can be found from that aggregation. We live in a world where (to quote GKC [1]): > Lancashire merchants whenever they like > Can water the beer of a man in Klondike > Or poison the meat of a man in Bombay; > And that is the meaning of Empire Day. The advantage of centralization is that we can stop the poisoning all at once (because there is only one place doing the poisoning). However, when the meat is poisoned many more people suffer food poisoning than would if the food packaging were distributed. [1]: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Songs_of_Education125.html
pjc50 9y ago
Probably best to distinguish between "self-reliant economically, but connected to the world economy" vs "closed system". Trying to be self-reliant in terms of physical inputs doesn't work in the oil age. Whereas the various small and micro-states manage to be economically self-reliant while importing staples. I don't think distributism requires a closed system.
jawns 9y ago
How familiar are you with distributism? It certainly does not advocate for communes! Distributism is merely an (admittedly aspirational) economic system where the ownership of productive property is widespread. A few of its guiding principles may answer your concerns: * Subsidiarity teaches that things should be handled at the lowest or least centralized level that is competent to handle them. That doesn't mean that small organizations should be expected to bite off more than they could handle. It may very well be that a giant, multinational corporation is the lowest-sized organization that can handle operating something like an airline, and that is not inconsistent with distributist principles. * Distributism, as an economic system, is not at all incompatible with things like a strong social safety net. However, it is worth pointing out that if the ownership of productive property were to become more widespread, the need for such a safety net would be decreased.

by rmk 9y ago

svieira 9y ago

This is not at the expense of the large nation state, it just limits the power of the nation, preferring to push down the responsibilities to the lowest level possible, rather than aggregating up the moment that any benefits can be found from that aggregation. We live in a world where (to quote GKC [1]): > Lancashire merchants whenever they like > Can water the beer of a man in Klondike > Or poison the meat of a man in Bombay; > And that is the meaning of Empire Day. The advantage of centralization is that we can stop the poisoning all at once (because there is only one place doing the poisoning). However, when the meat is poisoned many more people suffer food poisoning than would if the food packaging were distributed. [1]: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Songs_of_Education125.html

pjc50 9y ago

Probably best to distinguish between "self-reliant economically, but connected to the world economy" vs "closed system". Trying to be self-reliant in terms of physical inputs doesn't work in the oil age. Whereas the various small and micro-states manage to be economically self-reliant while importing staples. I don't think distributism requires a closed system.

jawns 9y ago

How familiar are you with distributism? It certainly does not advocate for communes! Distributism is merely an (admittedly aspirational) economic system where the ownership of productive property is widespread. A few of its guiding principles may answer your concerns: * Subsidiarity teaches that things should be handled at the lowest or least centralized level that is competent to handle them. That doesn't mean that small organizations should be expected to bite off more than they could handle. It may very well be that a giant, multinational corporation is the lowest-sized organization that can handle operating something like an airline, and that is not inconsistent with distributist principles. * Distributism, as an economic system, is not at all incompatible with things like a strong social safety net. However, it is worth pointing out that if the ownership of productive property were to become more widespread, the need for such a safety net would be decreased.