Comments
|
|
sign in to comment.
|
|
|
Jim B. wrote on November 12th, 2009
Also see: Fr. Barron comments on Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story"
http://www.4marks.com/videos/details.html?video_id=2156
|
|
|
Jim B. wrote on November 10th, 2009
Here is a FAQ sheet on Distributivism by the Distributivist Review
http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/13267414?extension=pdf
|
|
|
Jim B. wrote on November 7th, 2009
Jenni - "low prices" at the cost of families having a living wage flies in the face of hundreds of years of Catholic Social Teachings. Globalism (i.e. Wal-Mart) is a modern form of slavery. In Central America, many women who produce "brand" products (mostly textiles) are lined up and given birth control pills and told they are "vitamins". It is a grave injustice and treats people like chattel.
|
|
|
Troy H. wrote on November 6th, 2009
Good article thanks for posting this.
Pax et Bonum
|
|
|
Further, like Capitalism and Fascism, Socialism has a materialistic core to it, a belief in the utmost importance of the things of this world. It operates under the assumption that life on this side of the grave is all there is. Religion is an enemy to the system, lulling people away from responsibility, an "opiate of the people."
That is a perfect way to sum up what is wrong with both Capitalism and Socialism. They are not focused on the Human Good. Whereas ...
But Distributism does the opposite. It believes in personal freedom and in de-centralizing political power into the lowest level possible. (Subsidiarity is one of the core principles of Distributist thought.) It also holds that private property—especially private productive property—is not evil in itself. But it needs to be widely distributed to as many as possible.
As John Paul II would have said: we are dealing with persons. More goods, more money, even more property does not equal more happiness (true or supposed, as many millionaires could affirm), even in this life. Of course, Our Lord's warning of the danger of riches and even Aristotle's sound admonitions in this regard provide enough for us to be wary. In Laissez-faire capitalism you are left with nothing more than an all-consuming desire to acquire. Just because the subject of this desire is different than in Socialism does not change the result or effect.
Every moral act (among which "Economic" acts are included by all moral theologians) is defined by its object, its end, its circumstances, etc. What is the goal in Capitalism or in Socialism? Is it that the common good be promoted by true happiness of all members of the society, as St. Thomas urged?
|
|
|
Some people on the cultural left and the cultural right are anti-big business, not because they are pro-consumer or pro-ordinary folks, but because they want to maintain an economic system where small retailers and craft producers make a good living, even if this means inefficiency and higher costs.
Where I live we have a misguided movement called “Keep Austin Weird” that encourages people to buy from locally owned businesses, rather than large national or international corporations. Even if that means you have to pay more. All over the country you see anti-Wal-Mart sentiment, out of a concern that Wal-Mart has caused small retailers to go out of business. I think this is wrong. It’s hard to think of any organization that has so much good for so many people as Wal-Mart. They probably deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
I’m sorry about small retailers driven out of business, but that is the nature of a dynamic market economy. There are economies of scale in many industries, and if Wal-Mart is going to charge lower prices, I’m shopping there.
Part of the problem with healthcare is that it is stuck in the old craft production, small business model. We need a Wal-Mart-ization of healthcare to bring prices down.
|
|
|
Jim B. wrote on November 4th, 2009
Tim I think you're confusing free market principles with capitalism (the accumulation of capital). As the article's author points out, capitalism achieved what socialism set out to do - that is create a monopoly on capital. The TRUE measure of a free market system is one where the level of monopoly and oligarchy are kept in check, something that capitalism has failed to do.
All economic systems need checks and balances. That was proven last year when the taxpayers had to bail out Wall Street to the tune of 787 BILLION dollars. Lazzaie-faire capitalism has evolved into a financial oligarchy where the profits are private and the losses are socialized (ask anyone with a 401k).
Distributism calls for the widest possible ownership of the means of production in order to prevent just the very thing that occurred with the bailouts. In the financial world an example would be the comparison of a credit union where all the members are owners in proportion to their deposits (shares). Contrast that to a large bank that has a few wealthy shareholders and oligarchic "managers". Their monopoly size allows them to manipulate the markets which are the antithesis of "free" markets.
|
|
|
Capitalism keeps getting a bad rap. So let's call it what it really is, Freedom. Capitalism means you can sell whatever others are willing to buy at a price they are willing to pay for it, or you can shun that and the stuff that can be obtained through it. Just like our soul has free will we can choose how to live our economic life but we must face the consequences of our decisions.
Every man is a capitalist when it comes to his wage, we all want to be compensated as much as possible for whatever labor we provide. Additionally Every Woman is a capitalist when in the market she desires to obtain the best product at the lowest rate. This has been true since the first farmer traded some of his crops for meat from the hunter.
It is also true that everyone desires to be treated fairly in all dealings; unfortunately man is a fallen creature subject to greedy and selfish habits. What must be changed is not the system but rather the participants in it.
|
|
|
This is the most concise explanation of distributism that I've seen. Distributism is actually the antithesis of Marxism, but it's somehow difficult to grasp. It's very well explained here. The principles are so complementary to Catholic teaching!
And I love seeing the suggestions for implementation -- coming turn of events may offer ever-increasing opportunity. I'll be emailing this to friends -- Thanks for posting, Jim.
|
|
|
|
|
