4 ms·

I love Distributism. As G.K. Chesterton said, "The problem with Capitalism is not that there are too many but too few" Distributism seeks the maximum number of

I love Distributism. As G.K. Chesterton said, "The problem with Capitalism is not that there are too many but too few" Distributism seeks the maximum number of families and individuals privately owning a small bit of capital. Imagine every family with a small business, and these businesses sometimes cooperating to do greater things. Distributism seeks to avoid massive capital in the hands of a few oligarchs. It also seeks to avoid the means of production belonging to the people in a vague and non-specific way -- such as communism with its abolition of private property (No one really owns anything in that vague abstraction -- the State owns all). When everyone (or at least most) has a modest business, they can support their community and keep it intact. Subsidiarity is localism through and through -- not just in food but everything else. I think we all want our work to make the places we live better. We all want the power to help our friends get jobs so they do not have to move far away (Have a small business and you can hire them).

toasterlovin 8y ago
The problem with this vision is that economies of scale exist. I have been involved in a manufacturing business for a while. Scale solves lots of problems. It spreads overhead over more units. It incentivizes spending resources to hyper optimize material and labor usage. Etc.
- bloudermilk 8y ago
  That's what makes cooperation an important aspect of these types of ideologies. In Humanizing The Economy[0], the author describes successful cooperative movements from around the world that are based on localized democratic principles but leverage large-scale cooperation to organize at scale. [0]: https://www.newsociety.com/Books/H/Humanizing-the-Economy https://www.newsociety.com/Books/H/Humanizing-the-Economy
  - specialist 8y ago
    Thank you for this tip. I'm eager to read this book. While I'm a big fan of Richard D Wolff's efforts, he fails to examine the governance models of co-ops. What works, what doesn't. Models of incorporation. Case studies. Governance is key. -- Some years ago, I joined a non-profit OSS team, part of the Kuali Consortium, with the primary intent to see how it worked first hand. Sadly, it didn't. Even more sadly, I still have little clue what could work, what to advocate. I am inspired by Pieter Hintjens' Social Architecture as model for successful OSS: http://hintjens.com/books http://hintjens.com/books But have yet to practice it myself. -- Sorry, I always conflate ideas. My end goal is to figure out how to make useful, meaningful software while still paying my mortgage and feeding my family.
    - bloudermilk 8y ago
      Agree with your critique of Wolff. I’m on a similar quest and have some resources you might find interesting. Feel free to reach out on gmail–same handle.
- amelius 8y ago
  There are also downsides to economies of scale, besides those seen in capitalism. For example: monoculturalism (all products are the same; little variation; products target only the greatest common denominator); and negative externalities as seen in the bioindustry.
- geofft 8y ago
  In the software world, we solved economies of scale without centralization with open source. Everyone contributes a little bit to Linux, which soundly beat all the commercial Unixes without putting power in the hands of a few. It's an interesting question whether this can be generalized, especially to industries with physical products. Can you have a group of several independent farmers work together on farming technology and avoid having to join a large corporate farming company? Can you have a collaboration between independent coffee shops so they get all the benefits of being Starbucks franchisees while remaining independent?
badpun 8y ago
This model was maybe viable in XIX century when our economy was simpler, but it's impossible to produce anything really complex (like a modern x86 CPU) like that. A network of thousands tiny, family-owned businesses will never self-organise to produce such CPU.
- discreteevent 8y ago
  This is true for a cpu, but is it true for a phone or a car?
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  But thousands of vendors and suppliers need to organize to produce a CPU, or an airplane, or a car. Self-organization is indeed utopic, but let's not pretend raw materials enter some Intel factory and Xeons come out the other end.

toasterlovin 8y ago

The problem with this vision is that economies of scale exist. I have been involved in a manufacturing business for a while. Scale solves lots of problems. It spreads overhead over more units. It incentivizes spending resources to hyper optimize material and labor usage. Etc.

bloudermilk 8y ago
That's what makes cooperation an important aspect of these types of ideologies. In Humanizing The Economy[0], the author describes successful cooperative movements from around the world that are based on localized democratic principles but leverage large-scale cooperation to organize at scale. [0]: https://www.newsociety.com/Books/H/Humanizing-the-Economy https://www.newsociety.com/Books/H/Humanizing-the-Economy
- specialist 8y ago
  Thank you for this tip. I'm eager to read this book. While I'm a big fan of Richard D Wolff's efforts, he fails to examine the governance models of co-ops. What works, what doesn't. Models of incorporation. Case studies. Governance is key. -- Some years ago, I joined a non-profit OSS team, part of the Kuali Consortium, with the primary intent to see how it worked first hand. Sadly, it didn't. Even more sadly, I still have little clue what could work, what to advocate. I am inspired by Pieter Hintjens' Social Architecture as model for successful OSS: http://hintjens.com/books http://hintjens.com/books But have yet to practice it myself. -- Sorry, I always conflate ideas. My end goal is to figure out how to make useful, meaningful software while still paying my mortgage and feeding my family.
  - bloudermilk 8y ago
    Agree with your critique of Wolff. I’m on a similar quest and have some resources you might find interesting. Feel free to reach out on gmail–same handle.
amelius 8y ago
There are also downsides to economies of scale, besides those seen in capitalism. For example: monoculturalism (all products are the same; little variation; products target only the greatest common denominator); and negative externalities as seen in the bioindustry.
geofft 8y ago
In the software world, we solved economies of scale without centralization with open source. Everyone contributes a little bit to Linux, which soundly beat all the commercial Unixes without putting power in the hands of a few. It's an interesting question whether this can be generalized, especially to industries with physical products. Can you have a group of several independent farmers work together on farming technology and avoid having to join a large corporate farming company? Can you have a collaboration between independent coffee shops so they get all the benefits of being Starbucks franchisees while remaining independent?

badpun 8y ago

This model was maybe viable in XIX century when our economy was simpler, but it's impossible to produce anything really complex (like a modern x86 CPU) like that. A network of thousands tiny, family-owned businesses will never self-organise to produce such CPU.

discreteevent 8y ago
This is true for a cpu, but is it true for a phone or a car?
JetSpiegel 8y ago
But thousands of vendors and suppliers need to organize to produce a CPU, or an airplane, or a car. Self-organization is indeed utopic, but let's not pretend raw materials enter some Intel factory and Xeons come out the other end.