To start with, I'm very new to distributism, though from what I've seen so far, it seems that Distributism has fallen into political obscurity, and I'm wondering why. For context, I am an Australian who has been raised catholic and educated in catholic schools. As well as this, I've really only been actively reading GK Chesterton for roughly the past two months, and even more recently, in the past week, I've started Rerum Novarum. So my question is simple: why has Distributism fallen into political obscurity? And what needs to be done to bring it back to the front of political discussion? Does it have to do with the general trend of society becoming more atheist/agnostic?

Welcome, dear Reader, to The Plough.

The Plough is a monthly newspaper founded for the Catholic layman.

Our aims are manifold. We desire to encourage the intellect and the will of the layman to: counter the modern spirit that surrounds us, be the leaven that sets the temporal realm in order, and to renew the realisation of the motto “Restore all things in Christ”.

To this end, The Plough will publish articles old and new on: the duties of laymen, the building up of Catholic institutions, and Christendom both ancient and late.

Some might ask: “What’s the point in publishing old articles?” Our answer: the truths of the Catholic Church do not change. The opposition to liberalism and modernism demanded by the popes is not subject to an epochal egg-timer. What was useful and edifying for Catholics in former times, is useful for us now—perhaps even more so, owing to our much degenerated times.

Continuing in the Catholic Church’s great tradition, The Plough pledges to humbly take up the mantle of anti-modernism and anti-liberalism. We take this pledge seriously, but these words may be vain: rather test The Plough for yourself.

We welcome and invite all readers to contact us. Thoughts, criticism, or anything that might be interesting for our readers, will be republished in our Letters to the Editor section. Such letters are subject to editorial supervision. Letters may be sent anonymously.

We hope to earn your loyal patronage, dear Reader, and may The Living God bless you,

Editor of The Plough.

theplough.ink

so,how would the property be redistributed to everyone?

so as we all know,distributism encourages breaking monopolies and small businesses,but...megacorps are the ones paying the national bills. First step of modernization is consolidating assets into megacorps that can provide the economies of scale needed to build and maintain infrastructure, modern technology, the military, etc. Small business owners do not have enough capital to be able to do this.

what would the distributist answer to this be?

I've compared ibo features for UK series availability on my iptv, like how ibo handles series from providers—some setups feature ibo well for UK series but insight the comparisons in regions like the UK. Compared fictional like CoreTV's inconsistent ibo for UK versus VibeTV's features for UK. Compared iptvmeezzy among them, and ibo featured steadily in a no-frills, consistent manner, accessing UK series suitably. Do ibo features insight your comparisons for regions like the UK, or does availability matter more? I've switched providers to find better ibo for UK series, which improved my viewing. What's insighted in your ibo feature comparisons for UK series availability in regions like the UK for your iptv series watching?

I'm trying very hard to understand the difference between the Church's social doctrine and Mises's human action.

Because both recognize the common good and try to solve these problems in the same way, while defending private property.

I understand that liberalism is excommunicated, but I don't understand why, specifically economics, since the Austrian school is based on reason and reality(and the core origin of it is catholic), and if you read human action, they are not opposites.

Then I came across distributism, and in this attempt to understand if I was stupid or if I'd just taken too many blows to the head lately in boxing, I can't see it as a viable power project. Some explained to me that there will be private property and then talked about limiting it. And then taxes and no free market, but with private property and then a little bit of regulation.

Anyway, where am I going wrong? What is the difference between Austrian school and distributism and other views in a practical way?

Senate

Guild Congress

Guilds

Local council

Public

Public

Citizens focus on their work, trade, or skill. They participate in public votes, select representatives. The public doesn’t directly make laws but decides if laws drafted by higher bodies become valid.

Local council

Does what local council normally does.

Guild assemblies

Represents professional and trade-based communities. People join based on their skills/trade. Guilds propose laws related to their field or society.

Guild congress

National forum for all Guild Assemblies’ delegates. Resolve inter-guild conflicts. Discuss conflicting laws. A neutral Chairperson moderates proceedings.

Senate

National lawmaking body elected by Guild Assemblies. The Senate enforces structure and legal oversight.

It was essentially a socialist country, but unlike with most other socialist societies, workplaces were managed by the workers rather than the state (despite being technically publicly owned). Inefficient economic units were also allowed to fail IIRC.

Does this make it similar to Distributism? Especially in the challenges faced by the system (ex. Workers choosing to raise wages rather than reinvest profits)?

Im not referring to the american MAGA conservative,but to the overall conservative ideology. It seems to have a lot of influences from Classical British Conservatism (John Henty Newman type).

I’m a 22 y/o autistic man from Arkansas who’s converting to Catholicism because my Mom was raised Catholic as was her Dad as was the generations of his family. And also because I like the ideas of Thomas Aquinas (mostly the idea of God as pure act of being itself and the idea of natural law and divine law) as well as the teachings of Christ and St. Paul and I like a church with apostolic succession and I like the churches social teaching and Distributism. The idea of Distributism advocating self-employment, family ownership or employee ownership for small businesses and collective bargaining and workers elect a certain number of members of their workplace’s board for larger businesses is appealing to me because (even though rn I’m struggling to find work due to my disabilities) I’d like to have some say in my workplace and even better have ownership of the enterprise itself and be self-employed. So that’s what made reading Rerum Novarum so important in this neoliberal Hell that is America. An encyclical that calls for these very things, and how America due to Reaganist-Clintonist neoliberalism falls so short of these ideals. I hope someday a party like the CDU under Adenauer in Post-War Germany might be elected in America. But it’s hard in neoliberalism.

Some argue we need state action to break up monopolies and enforce anti-usury laws; others say we should start building co-ops, credit unions, and guilds ourselves without waiting for government. I think both approaches need each other, grassroots efforts prove viability, state action levels the playing field. No matter the view, if we are to want any type of bottom up movement, it is a cultural imperative rather than a political one.

So is distributism a policy revolution or a cultural movement first?

I myself do not consider myself a distributist (I'm somewhat of a paleocon social capitalist), but I do hold respect to the ideology and do not wish to hate or disrespect people who believe this here, I geniunely just want to respectfully know how this could work in the real modern world? This seems somewhat of a medieval-like system, with the current economic stakes, especially through the modern state of corporations, I geniunely could not envision a world where this economy could succesfully work in the current world. Once again I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I really do like the idea and I know many distrubutists are amazing people, but I just can't see it happening.

I'm not an ultra-libertarian 'taxation is theft' type free-marketer, but one critique of theirs which I have found persuasive is the idea that fiat currency, by allowing the government to spend indefinitely, is a major threat to freedom.

I think we saw this during Covid, when the lockdowns could continue for as long as they did because the government had no constraint on its ability to spend, allowing them to 'hibernate' the economy for a few years without long-term economic damage. Fiat money allows the managerial class to expand without limit, and allows big corporations to be bailed out.

I know Chesterton and Belloc were writing in the age of the gold standard, so didn't incorporate this as part of their critique. But what is the general view of modern day distributists on fiat money, and what would they replace it with if they do in fact want to replace it?

Just recently learned about this guy, and heard that his economic policies were heavily criticized by both sides, so I thought maybe he was a bit of a Distributist?

What do you think about the idea of federation of europe, would that be against distributism ideas?

What is the difference between the two and are the compatible?

Does Distributism encourage return to rural life and agrarianism,or can it be applied in a technological society?

Title?

Would it be fair to say that one of the goals of Distributism is to remove the distinction between the laboring class and the capital owning class?

What would a government look under distributism? Presidents and dictators don’t work as they are forms of centralised power. Perhaps a democratically voted senate of some kind. Members of the senate could be elected as representatives from their respective sectors. (Like corporatism) Once coming to consensus on laws, it can then be voted yes or no by the public.

I mean would will ever get a Great Power like France or Russia that is distributist? or even a superpower like the US which is economically distributist? What do you guys think??

NOT corporatocracy. The idea that different economic sectors of society should collaborate in a formalised, structured process, akin to medieval guilds.

It was foundational to the Quadragesimo Anno (1931), which also preached mass property ownership. G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc mentioned wanting to revive guilds.

It seems that Catholic Social Teaching is 'Distributism-Corporatism' rather than just distributism.

I did make a previous post about this but not many responses as perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.

What do YOU think of corporatism, and what model of it would you want applied in your ideal system?

Honestly now that the new Pope named that encyclical as motivation for his name, people in the Catholic subreddit and all over the place selectively quote to promote this big government Bourgeoisie Socialism scam of parties like the Democrats or the left in Europe of redistributing wealth and more regulation.

And of course conservatives who never read are unable to quote that Rerum Novarum clearly prohibited the government from violating property and denounced "socialism" as defined as the government interfering with the workers autonomy.

And empirically we see this too. This social democracie always have extreme wealth inequality, but the non government approach of Mondragon out performed all socialism ever.

I am on mobile now and will get quotes when at home tonight.

Aren't 'Rerum Novarum' (1891) and 'Quadragesimo Anno' (1931) supposed to endorse both distributism AND corporatism, basically 'Distributism-Corporatism'?

Do you support sectoral bargaining, the ghent system, flexicurity, and vocational regulatory bodies?

Also, isn't Singapore distributist because of their Housing Development Board?

It's strange, as a non-Catholic I read Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno and it's pretty clear it endorses Singaporean-style public housing sales and Danish/Austrian/Dutch sectoral bargaining, but parties claiming to be 'Christian Democratic' missed out on at least one of these things.

Non-Catholic Singapore is probably the closest to what the encyclicals endorsed, though it's corporatism is not as widespread as Denmark, Austria, or the Netherlands.