In college I wrote a twenty-page paper on Distributism, and, I must confess, I know less about Distributism now than I did before writing the paper. Is Distributism based on a barter system? If we barter, is money involved? How much land am I allowed to own? Distributism reminds me of the late Transcendentalist Movement in Indiana, of which Orestes Brownson was a founding member. The only problem with the Transcendentalists is that they all wanted to sit on the farm and talk philosophy. If everyone sits and talks philosophy, who does the work?
There seems to be quite a few opinions as to what distributism would look like, in reality. I don't think that a barter system, for example, would work except as an occasional practice. How much land one would own would be up to the landowner. Distributism isn't just about farming, as I'm sure you know. Chester-Belloc's view was that non-farmers would be essential. A bakery, for example, that was independently owned, and strived to use locally-made ingredients could be a part of this system, or any shop that is independently owned and operated. For Chester-Belloc, it was about independent means of production, unhampered by corporate rules, control, and greed. A society that is independent in production, whether it be a farm or a shop, would be less likely to be manipulated by politics, or at least that's the theory.
You're right to ask about who would do the work, though, if everyone sits around and talks philosophy. Owning a real farm is hard, hard work. Not many Americans these days care to work that hard. So in reality, as much as I like the idea of distributism, I don't think that it can really ever work. Even Chesterton and Belloc didn't actually live that life; they just advocated for it. And they made a good case, for the most part. But that was back when men and women were able to work hard.
Topic: Distributism (Read 5448 times)