Can an Anglican theologian from Britain revive an 80-year-old Catholic social justice theory and provide a solution to America’s economic woes and political polarization?
Philosopher and political thinker Phillip Blond thinks so, and he’s giving it everything he’s got.
Blond, who has been a counselor to British Prime Minister David Cameron, just wrapped up a two-week U.S. tour to pitch his retooled version of “distributism,” a theory that argues that both capitalism and government are out of control.
I wish there was more description and examples of the practical changes he advocates but if he’s talking about what I think he is, he’s spot on.
When I was growing up, most of what affected us (meaning my family and loved ones) personally were local issues, challenges, phenomenon. The local weather dictated when certain types of produce would be on our table and the quality of that produce besides. Decisions and productivity at the local, regional or, at the very least, American companies affected local wages, benefits/health coverage, and the economy. Much of our food was grown in the area (my mother turned up her nose at what she called “shipped in” produce and wouldn’t buy it because she said it lacked flavor. She was right.) and we grew some of it ourselves. We ate, bought, used what we could produce or get locally/regionally. People saved up for a TV or appliances because, yes, American-made products were more expensive but no one could fathom a different way. You bought what you produced.
What a difference now! Issues far away affect us personally, as do local and national problems. We’re accustommed to eating, using, wanting what we want, when we want it, at the cheapest price possible no matter what the impact may be. It seems that we’ve given up some of that local pride and control in favor of this “global economy” thing we were sold. (Less so here in Texas but it still has an effect, particularly on the young people.)
We need to regain a sense of real community at the local level and take care of each other, first and foremost. That may mean quashing individual wants and desires for the latest, greatest, and cheapest but it’s the way we used to live.
I am fully on board with Distributism as a philosophy. In fact I wish had known before now that what I have believed for some time had a name, other than Moderate. I even believe what Mr. Bond preaches is what the majority of Americans believe, and pretty well describes conditions that gave rise to America’s true Golden Age which I believe began at the end of the great depression and ended in the early to mid 1980s.
Since then we have been in a downward spiral with massive growth in the Central Government, an unrelenting concentration of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer, a growing class of poor, and a greatly diminished middle class. I.E. the conditions that existed in late 19th century America.
However, the far right and tea party would call Mr. Bond’s philosophy, Socialism.
The problem is not capitalism but cronyism in government. In a pure capitalist system. The state and nor community is the final authority on trade but the individual is. I decide who I want to trade my time and property with value for value as nether party uses force and fraud against he liberty of others.
Distributism is just putting lipstick on the collectivist pig.
@Teatime2
Sorry I recall the year is 2011 not 1950. You are free to live in past on your property but you do not have right to force your ideas or community on others.
“We’re accustommed to eating, using, wanting what we want, when we want it, at the cheapest price possible no matter what the impact may be. It seems that we’ve given up some of that local pride and control in favor of this “global economy†thing we were sold.”
Frankly I do not see the problem and frankly I find the “impact” you opinion.
In the ideal, there is room for Wal-Mart and the local farmers market. The trick is, no one can not use force against the other in a pure Capitalist system. You may like local, I like Wal-Mart because I value my money which represents the vale of my mind and time I traded with a employer. The problem is cronyism is it favors the big over those who to trade with the small and Distributism favors the small over those who favor to trade with the big. The solution is laissez-faire.
#3 — I’m not forcing anything on anyone. Frankly, [edited] your particular choice offers inferior and oftentimes more expensive goods than my choice AND tries to put my choice out of business. I have to deal with that.
Why you would prefer to pay more for produce that is shipped before it’s ripe from a Third World Country and why you resent the fact that I like to buy fresh, ripe produce at a lower price from my neighbors here in Texas boggles. However, again, my choice isn’t forced on you but your choice threatens my sources of good food and, by extension, my health. Your “cronyism” comments in this regard don’t make sense, sorry.
[Comment edited by Elf – please would commenters deal with the thread issues on their merits, reading other commenters’ comments carefully, and avoid inflamatory language – thanks – Elf]
Laissez-faire capitalism has been tried many times in history and has never worked. It does not work at all as #3 described, because once wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of too few, monopolies and oligopolies arise and use their monetary power to restrict the choices of others, to crush their competitors, and to influence government. If Wallmart controls all of the food, you will buy your food from Wallmart regardless of what it costs and who you want to buy it from. If Standard Oil controls all of the oil you will buy your Oil from Standard Oil regardless of what it costs and who you want to buy it from. If you are a computer software engineer and all computers run only Microsoft software, you will work for Microsoft or you will not work at all.
Further, the simple fact is when the resources are controlled by too few, Crony Capitalism is unavoidable. Who is to stop it? The government?? Politicians are the beneficiaries. Laissez-faire capitalism has proven itself as much a threat to democracy as communism.
In the late 19th century in the US, Laissez-fair capitalism reigned, and we came very close to descending into Oligarchy, with all power in the hands of a few extremely wealthy industrialists. Much like the system that is developing in post Communist Russia today.
After all it was laissez-faire capitalism that led to the rise of Europe’s class structure, against which this nation rebelled. We are a democracy first, not second. The economic model we choose should promote liberty for all, and not power for a few. The best we have been able to come up with thus far has been regulated capitalism.
The abuse of power by those who have achieved a central position of authority is an expression of the ‘dark side’ of human nature that is within all of us
AND it has manifested and is manifesting itself in all forms of government and in all economic systems.
Solutions to this ‘dark side’ problem are seldom, if ever, achieved by creating some other structure or process designed to use a centrality of authority ‘in the second instance’ to resolve a centrality problem ‘in the first instance.’
All centrality solutions, in the end, provide a mechanism by which a few individuals can and almost always will abuse the centralized authority that they exercise.
Democracy and a TRUE free economy, when responsibility as it has been practiced, as in the American system or as in the British or some European systems, has been proven to be the best way of managing governmental and economic power.
Even then, the actual practice of democracy and a free market economy, is fraught with problems because of ‘human nature.’
Those who seek to replace democracy or the free market economy with some sort of highly structured central authority only increase the opportunity for individuals to abuse their central authority.
What is required is an ‘ethos’ that is practiced within governments and economies that is believed in and which is followed and which results in a ‘self-policing’ between individuals.
Is this achievable? Its is only achievable to a degree and is highly dependent upon the traditions and belief systems of a nation or an ecomomy.
So, Mr. Blond should focus his energies and his time on strengthening and restoring the belief systems that govern the righteous behavior of human beings and which can exert societal control over the ‘dark side’ aspects of human behavior.
@ Teatime2
I have to confessed I did leave out something that is a given; throughout the year suppliers of fresh vegetables changes with the seasons from imported to local . Now with that there one cavort, what do you do after the growing season. If anything imports allow me to enjoy fresh vegetables all year long. I guess, during the winter we all suppose to eat can (detestable) veggies like I did as a kid in the 1960.
I have to admit my own bias living in Portland Oregon were metro and local government is pushing radical eviromentalisam, sustainability and preaching localism often with veiled heavy hand of regulation.
@Mitchell
The thing is Laissez-faire capitalism has never been tried. What we have is a mixture between statism and capitalism. In various degrees. I get the impression 19th – 20th European government was more autocratic or statist than capitalist, Not the environment where Laissez-faire capitalism would not be able to thrive.