CMO7-

That was an intelligent post, and I learned a few things from it.

But if I continued playing devil's advocate, I might take issue with a few things:

1) Communism and socialism are not the same thing: They are often wrongly used interchangeably, but socialism is simple public ownership of property; communism is dialectical materialism (i.e., the reduction of spirit to matter, and therefore pantheism);

2) A Marxist would view socialism as a transitional state from the collapse of capitalism en route to communism;

3) But if it is agreed that socialism is simply public ownership of property, and distributism features private ownership of property, how can it be said that the latter is socialist?

4) Also, I do not understand the linkage you make between distributism and liberation theology.  I think once it is admitted that distributism features the private ownership of property, which is antithetical to socialism (much less communism), that linkage vanishes, does it not?

5) I think many trads would be surprised to hear that their endorsement of distributism rendered them socialists in your eyes, or even liberation theologians (i.e., the distortion of the mission of the Church from saving mens' souls, to that of preaching social, economic, and political justice), since they themselves would be enemies of liberation theology.  Do you hold that they maintain their opposition to liberation theology in spite of their economic philosophy which would lead them towards it?

6) In your opinion, must one who opposes capitalism necessarily be suspect of socialism?

Sincerely,

Sean

Sean, these are all very interesting questions, and are all related to each other.  

So lets see if I can simplify for the sake of argument.

Socialism is an economic philosophy that attempts to manage resources based on the collective input of the works.  The resources are distributed by the collective based on the amount of work or input individuals put into the collective.  Under this system, workers contribute their labor for an exchange in the share of the goods.  The collective determines who gets what and how much based on their input.  By necessity, there are no real class lines.  Everyone is a worker and has a fair share.

Communism is both an economic philosophy but also a political philosophy.  In communism the government controls the resources and determines who gets what resources based on what they perceive that people need.  A worker's input or contribution has no value into the equation.  As a political philosophy, communism seeks to create a purely classless society.

No, these philosophies are not identical, but fundamentally they are the same---a distribution of resources and wealth decided by a collective in order to manipulate and economic system.

Yes, a Marxist views socialism as a stepping stone to communism.  

While a distributist society would be one in which individuals maintain the right to property ownership, the property is distributed in an egalitarian fashion based on the decisions of the collective.  Socialism, as an economic philosophy, is interested in egalitarian distribution of resources.  In this manner, the society is classless.

Liberation theology is the idea that humans need to be liberated from poverty and especially economic systems that were seem as oppression and unjust.  Distributism fits nicely with this idea because it does precisely that.  Workers, who are the one's considered oppressed by capitalistic system, are free from the their unjust environments.  Is distributism the same as liberation theology?  No, but distributism is a tool to achieve such.

I never said that I believed that trads who adhere to distributism are socialists.  That's putting words into my mouth.  I said that fundamentally distributism is socialist in nature.  It becomes easier to accept liberation theology when one embraces distributism.

I never, not once, claimed that one who opposes laissez-faire capitalism is a socialist.  That certainly is not true.  It is true though that people who become vehemently anti-capitalist are opened to forms of economic philosophy that are socialist.

I think the safe route is just to stick with "good old-fashioned monarchical politics and feudal economics" too, Sean.  

http://www.naderlibrary.com/cult.dantemonarchia.htm

Happy to oblige, Sean.  I love Dante's writings.    :king:

CMO7-

Question (Still playing devil's advocate here):

1) I just came across an account of what will transpire after the 3 Days Darkness, and read this comment:

2) "There will be no more "Big Business" and huge factories which sap men's souls. Craftsmanship will revive, and assembly lines will give way to the working bench."

3) The comment comes from here: http://www.3daysofdarkness.com/

4) Do you perceive distributism, socialism, and liberation theology at work in the 3 Days of Darkness prophecies of the various saints who have opined thusly?

Disclaimer: As previously stated, I am no distributist, and only know about it that which you have written.  I just want to troubleshoot all sides to arrive at an opinion of it.

Sean, re-read, perhaps, cathmomof7's post.