5 ms·

"Further, some distributists argue that socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism, as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state, res

"Further, some distributists argue that socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism, as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state, resulting in a form of socialism." This is pretty wild, could someone please explain this argument for me?

tathougies 8y ago
Yes... Communism means the communal ownership of goods. In practice, some process needs to be in place to decide how the goods are used. Usually, this is some kind of democratic institution -- a government or small committee that nominally looks after the interests of the people. Historically, the issue with communism is the inability for this small group to truly benefit all the workers. Corporate capitalism is the same system under another name. Instead of governments controlling the capital in the name of the workers, employers own the capital in the name of the workers. Workers themselves in both systems do not often own their own means of production (although capitalism at least allows for this). For example, a distributist model of furniture manufacture involves thousands of local woodworkers each making furniture, selling them, profiting in a small way -- at least enough to raise their family. A corporate capitalist model is one large company which owns all the tools and wood that the individual employee-workers utilize to make a good that is sold to profit the corporation. A communist model is the 'people' own the tools and the wood that some citizens make into furniture for the benefit of all the community. Because the worker gets everything they need anyway, their income isn't actually a function of their labor. In both the case of corporate capitalism and communism, the worker does not own the means of production and the profit and value they create via the utilization of the tools and raw materials owned by some other more remote group is mostly alienated from their behavior. Only in the distributist model are people actually paid exactly for what value their labor provided. In other words, monopolistic publicly owned corporations are basically communism, but with the board of directors (on behalf of the 'people' -- the shareholders, basically the public for large corporations) substituting for the communist government. All economic decisions are made centrally, and any competition between these large firms in an oligopoly is more akin to the competition between communist governments than the competition envisioned by capitalists
- blowski 8y ago
  Thank you for such a clear explanation. As somebody that clearly knows their onions on this topic, are you able to answer a couple more questions? 1. Under distributism, what happens to people who can’t produce valuable economic output - the old, disabled, infirm? 2. How does distributism deal with externalities, both positive and negative. What incentive is there for charity or creative work where results benefit the whole group, so nobody wants to pay?
  - platz 8y ago
    Well, how do those things happen today?
    - blowski 8y ago
      A combination of tax and regulation to redistribute income, cover the cost of negative externalities, and encourage activities with a positive externality. I’m grossly oversimplifying, and obviously it’s neither 100% efficient nor effective. I’m genuinely intrigued by distributism, so please don’t think I’m making snarky comments.
      - platz 8y ago
        Since capitalism does those things in an ad-hoc way, I don't see why it would have to be any different under distributionism; if anything it would most likely be a non-change; it certainly doesn't seem to preclude those activities - my impression is you have to implement some form of mixed economy no matter what backing ideology you try to guide with.
        blowski 8y ago
        So distributism isn’t opposed to tax? Could the government then subsidise some types of work that it wanted to encourage, or tax those it wanted to discourage?
        deleted 8y ago
baddox 8y ago
The sentence is probably using “socialism” to refer specifically to social democracy (capitalism with strong state interventions to regulate firms and provide welfare) rather than the broader historical definition (social ownership of the means of production).

tathougies 8y ago

Yes... Communism means the communal ownership of goods. In practice, some process needs to be in place to decide how the goods are used. Usually, this is some kind of democratic institution -- a government or small committee that nominally looks after the interests of the people. Historically, the issue with communism is the inability for this small group to truly benefit all the workers. Corporate capitalism is the same system under another name. Instead of governments controlling the capital in the name of the workers, employers own the capital in the name of the workers. Workers themselves in both systems do not often own their own means of production (although capitalism at least allows for this). For example, a distributist model of furniture manufacture involves thousands of local woodworkers each making furniture, selling them, profiting in a small way -- at least enough to raise their family. A corporate capitalist model is one large company which owns all the tools and wood that the individual employee-workers utilize to make a good that is sold to profit the corporation. A communist model is the 'people' own the tools and the wood that some citizens make into furniture for the benefit of all the community. Because the worker gets everything they need anyway, their income isn't actually a function of their labor. In both the case of corporate capitalism and communism, the worker does not own the means of production and the profit and value they create via the utilization of the tools and raw materials owned by some other more remote group is mostly alienated from their behavior. Only in the distributist model are people actually paid exactly for what value their labor provided. In other words, monopolistic publicly owned corporations are basically communism, but with the board of directors (on behalf of the 'people' -- the shareholders, basically the public for large corporations) substituting for the communist government. All economic decisions are made centrally, and any competition between these large firms in an oligopoly is more akin to the competition between communist governments than the competition envisioned by capitalists

blowski 8y ago
Thank you for such a clear explanation. As somebody that clearly knows their onions on this topic, are you able to answer a couple more questions? 1. Under distributism, what happens to people who can’t produce valuable economic output - the old, disabled, infirm? 2. How does distributism deal with externalities, both positive and negative. What incentive is there for charity or creative work where results benefit the whole group, so nobody wants to pay?
- platz 8y ago
  Well, how do those things happen today?
  - blowski 8y ago
    A combination of tax and regulation to redistribute income, cover the cost of negative externalities, and encourage activities with a positive externality. I’m grossly oversimplifying, and obviously it’s neither 100% efficient nor effective. I’m genuinely intrigued by distributism, so please don’t think I’m making snarky comments.
    - platz 8y ago
      Since capitalism does those things in an ad-hoc way, I don't see why it would have to be any different under distributionism; if anything it would most likely be a non-change; it certainly doesn't seem to preclude those activities - my impression is you have to implement some form of mixed economy no matter what backing ideology you try to guide with.
      - blowski 8y ago
        So distributism isn’t opposed to tax? Could the government then subsidise some types of work that it wanted to encourage, or tax those it wanted to discourage?
        deleted 8y ago

baddox 8y ago

The sentence is probably using “socialism” to refer specifically to social democracy (capitalism with strong state interventions to regulate firms and provide welfare) rather than the broader historical definition (social ownership of the means of production).