What is Distributism? Distributism Explained Simply | Principles of Distributism

[@iamamaverick9176]

Yes!! Thanks Dan! Distributism is one of those underrated, almost obscure, economic theories that has been getting more attention recently. And it’s thanks to channels like this one where it’s getting more recognition.

[@shivandragon1651]

Whoa this is literally what i have been thinking of for like 5 years and have never had a name for it 😮

[@CrimeonZ]

I see Distributism as an improvement of Capitalism

[@scipioafricanus2]

the fairest, most prosperous and sustainable economic system by far.

[@lotionman1507]

In practice, Distributism is a teaching about how to approach the free market as a Christian (particularly a Catholic). To Catholics, utopianism is frowned upon, so any teachings about how a whole society would be made distributist are more of a "what if" than a real prescription.

[@michigandersea3485]

They've got to strip away any strategies for actually making an end to the artificial scarcity by calling revolution "utopianism"

[@ensemblist]

Thanks! Now I have a word to describe my personal thoughts and feelings around economics !

[@IllustratetoEducate]

Nice! Thank you for watching and hope you continue to enjoy future videos as well.

[@harrygarris6921]

Yeah I think the biggest issue with it is just the market inefficiency would be hard to sell to people, coalitions of smaller family owned businesses to provide a service over a larger area would be more difficult to pull off than a single organization doing it. But at the same time I think on the level of human experience pockets of small businesses co-operating together to build successful communities is a million times more pleasant than a few giant and highly centralized megacorporations delivering stuff to your door and completely annihilating that sense of cooperative community and ultimately our humanity in the process. Our society is consistently trending further and further in that latter direction. And no surprise it's really difficult to foster communities of people with any real bond to each other anymore, and our economic system is largely responsible for this failure.

[@huntermiller2474]

Its an interesting system. My main concern would be if the system has the teeth to properly check the ambition of those who wish to overreach into areas they do not belong.

[@Hashsquatch]

Learn something new every day. This is how we should be doing things

[@jhljhl6964]

Distribution according to work and merit .

[@DianeBerry-s7u]

Well done. Thank-you for putting this together.

[@timparker5246]

It is the 1st time i've heard of this; it sounds good in theory but people being people would find a way to f#@k it up.

[@josephmariaotf]

That's why I am a monarcho-distributist; just like Hilarius Belloc himself: the best government system (monarchy) alongside the best œconomic system (distributism).

[@CrimeonZ]

@@josephmariaotfperfect ideology.

[@ClearLight369]

Distributist is how the whole world used to operate before kings began to support the rise of huge corporations. Thank you for the video.

[@RextheRebel]

I wish this was one of the major parties ideologies in America. I dont care which party, though i have a feeling it would be easier to convince Republicans to be on board with this belief system.

[@boxthebox8659]

Nah I bet it’s be the democrats cause this almost seems closer to socialism and most Catholics are democrats compared to the ones that are republicans and plus they support the environment and workers rights more. Either way though it would be amazing if this could somehow become reality

[@gracemaryallen2384]

Check out the American solidarity party. They’re also socially conservative in other catholic aspects

[@infinitedonuts]

I’d argue this is still socialism (probably most akin to market socialism and Christian socialism) because the workers and not the would be individual capital owners own and control the means of production of the economy, although I don’t care what we call it, this is what I support.

[@dr.peppermintpatty4925]

I don't… this is every authoritarian country at its core and I will not sit by and allow this country to be destroyed by the racist fascist fake Christian right…. I'm an individual, not your property

[@harrygarris6921]

Socialism generally focuses on coalitions of workers in similar trades although I suppose you could break it down to the individual level, whereas this is more focused on family units and the formation of a kind of heritage trade system. I think that's a pretty significant difference.

[@AmericanImperium1776]

I don't see how it's socialist. It declares private property is necessary to a society and is also intertwined with the spiritual aspect of society through the Church. Something that the materialist Socialists stand against.

[@Ariverfish]

Don't you dare utter that filth in the same breath. Socialism undermines the importance of family, religion and subsidiarity, core tenets of distributism. Socialists only care about the ends, and would advocate for unnatural means of upheaval. The individual owns their own individual tools, they do not own what isn't theirs or what's others', but they have the duty to improve and benefit from their locality.

[@ArtemSayapov]

​@@Ariverfishhow does socialism undermine any of those things? Just because USSR was atheist doesn't mean all socialist implemsntations have to do that too. Honestly, I would argue that this falls under market socialism, because family buisnesses are allowed to be privately owned, but large buisnesses are owned by the workers collectively. This is all it needs to do to be considered market socialism, and it does that.

[@abnertrinidadmartinez4789]

I very much like how this system is presented, and I would be interested to see an experienced economist take a look at this system and give us an honest analysis. It seems to me on the surface, however, to address many of the drawbacks that capitalism and socialism each face respectively. It's not based on ideals such as "freedom" or "equality" but rather something more practical such as family.

[@BenjaminWirtz]

I have advocated free market capitalism (as opposed to the crony corporatism we currently have) but I am taking a hard look at distributism specially as it relates to Christian history, but it would have to be done from the bottom up, and the last point of the video explains the issue with implementing it that way.

[@AmericanImperium1776]

Not Corporatism, Corporatocracy. Corporatism and Distributism both come from Catholic Social Teaching.

[@bickeya.j.m8470]

Fantastic. I agree with this economic system. Every country in the world should have this. Not just capitalism, socialism, or even communism. I don't like capitalism or communism, I agree with most of socialism. But this is better, having a combination of capitalism and socialism. You can't have too much freedom, then businesses take advantage on setting high prices for consumers and not treating their employees right, and sometimes having them work in poor working conditions. But, you can't have too many restrictions either. A person or family, should be able to own their home and private businesses. 👍

[@Ariverfish]

Socialism is a stain. It is distributism if you decided to strip the natural process of society and decided to worship labour and the material. The common denominator between capitalism and socialism is that both ideologies decided to abandon ethics and God, replaced with earthly and material vices.

[@JohnnyBoi-11153]

What are your thoughts on Market Socialism?

[@bickeya.j.m8470]

@@JohnnyBoi-11153 It would be a long story.

[@Walls2008]

Very good!

[@chazsmash2345]

Good...explained well.

[@IllustratetoEducate]

Thank you 🙂

[@Abrar_Rahman_Nafim-4444]

Am A Muslim ☪️ From Bangladesh 🇧🇩 And When I Take The 8 Value Taste My Result Was Theocratic Distributism And I Don't Know Much About This ⁉️

[@javindhillon6294]

idgaf if people call it socialism, I want to pet the doggo

[@SB-tp2jv]

So, where Distributism stands on Political spectrum- centre / centre-left/ centre-right ?

[@infinitedonuts]

I would say it’s left-leaning because it workers own and control the means of production.

[@SB-tp2jv]

@@infinitedonuts But it's not possible everywhere. Imagine , tribal communities living in Sahara desert and they have no resources. How Distributism will help them ?

[@infinitedonuts]

@@SB-tp2jv in that scenario, if they really have no resources in that desert, than they’d be screwed regardless of the economic system they have.

[@SB-tp2jv]

@@infinitedonuts Still , there is 1 valuable resource left - Sunlight. If the residents give a plea to government to set up solar power plant, Industrialists can set up solar power plants and tribesmen will be paid to work there. What do you think of that ?

[@infinitedonuts]

@@SB-tp2jv I would they have the resources to make solar panels if they have no resources except sunlight? I may have misunderstood but when you said no resources, I took your scenario pretty literally.

[@DistributistHound]

Comment part 2 Social Credit seeks to remedy this. There are two related mechanisms. The first is the social dividend. It is a basic income distributed to all citizens each year on the assumption that we are all equal heirs of the social capital that civilization has acquired. This is in no way socialism or communism, as the real capital can still be privately owned and not collectively. But the idea is basically that society as a whole is like a huge company of which we are all shareholders, and that the “profit” obtained each year (currently plundered from us by bankers who lend with interest) should be distributed to all of us as a dividend. Note: this is NOT a tax and redistribution system. There is no redistribution of privately earned money in social credit: what you earn is what you keep. Rather, this is NEW MONEY created without debt to represent the NEW value created in the previous year, and distributed to all members of a society in equal parts. It should also be noted: this basic income is based on how much society produces in a given year. It is a dividend, not a guaranteed fixed amount. A common objection to social credit is that if everyone received a basic income, people would stop working and production would cease, as in unmotivated communism. However, the value of the dividend is based on the total production of society. Therefore, if total production decreases, the value of the dividend would also decrease. For some people, this would no longer be enough to meet their needs/wants, and they would be pushed back into the labor market, which would increase production and reach a balance between work and free time. The second related mechanism of social credit is a price rebate. This is, in fact, the main mechanism. The dividend helps distribute the surplus in production (if there is any) and disperses it in the form of monetary capital among all members of a society, but it is like adding the same amount to both sides of the equation. The real way to close the gap between “production cost” and “supply and demand price” is with the price rebate. There are various ways it could work in practice, as long as the accounting ends up equal at the end: basically, the consumer pays a percentage of the price of the goods, the very simplified formula is consumption/production, bringing the price closer to the fair amount to pay, while the producer receives the full amount of the price, closing the gap with newly created debt-free money. So, in other words, if the economy spends $3 million in a year generating $4 million in price value, sellers would sell their goods for the total of $4 million, but consumers would only pay $3 million for them, and the extra million would be compensated as a rebate by the national credit office. This could be done, for example, by having customers pay the “discount fee” and then having sellers submit their receipts for reimbursement, or even through a national debit card system in which customers know that for every $3 they contribute, they could get $4 in products. This closes the gap in a way that the dividend does not necessarily address (because people can SAVE the dividend, so it’s hard to predict if it will “close the gap” in advance, while the rebate is done AT THE POINT OF PURCHASE and, therefore, only applies to actual transactions; goods that are not purchased and money that is saved are not really valuable “yet,” only potentially, but their potential may never be realized, and thus you cannot count on it in your calculations). This is a brief explanation, but I recommend checking out the KZbin channel “CH Douglas Institute” with animated videos that clarify more questions about this model also how ir could be combined with clasical Distributism and it’s high compatibility with Catholic Social Teachings.

[@Hateful_Psycho]

Dan The man

[@Castillo525]

Anyone here after Lavader's poll? Lol

[@MartinR1_91]

Its the third position in its truest sense and has nothing to do with fascism. If anything its command economy and equity through merit with a strong Christian morality and it baffles me why its still obscure and has never been seriously considered in the west. Distributism opposes globalisation and the individualist free market which is a threat to liberal governments so its binned off as fascism.

[@UniversalistSon9]

In a way this sounds kinda like anarchism, interesting

[@maximilianogarciachirinos3663]

Excwllwnt video. However, I believe that capitalism is the way.

[@nancyferrier8609]

Which kind of capitalism. Free markets or predatory capitalism?

[@maximilianogarciachirinos3663]

@@nancyferrier8609 define predatory capitalism.

[@nikobellic9140]

@@maximilianogarciachirinos3663 capitalism function on the exploitation of third world countries and still creates poverty and lowers the salaries in the western country

[@CarapaceClavicle]

@@maximilianogarciachirinos3663”too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists” - GK Chesterton

[@maximilianogarciachirinos3663]

@@CarapaceClavicle That is your opinion. In a free market society the generation of wealth is constant and capitalism thesoluction that have decreased poverty dramatically. While socialism "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery". - Winston Churchill.

[@karunastar3084]

Which countries currently use Distributism?

[@user-hm4od3wu1z]

0

[@OPotiguaramazonense]

Maybe nordic countries... Norway and Sweden some years earlier were a notorious examole.

[@Ariverfish]

None, too many chosen anarchists, communists and ultra-capitalists currently rule the world.

[@juanjosemora6534]

Since Capitalism is widespread, its more used in certain regions around the world. Search for Grupo Mondragon from Spain.

[@JohnnyBoi-11153]

@@OPotiguaramazonense Nope, all the Nordic Countries are Social Democracies.

[@allandalegibson1194]

Read The Book of The Acts of The Apostles.... The entire point of The Bible and Jesus.

[@theredcelt627]

That was informative, but there are many flaws in the logic of this system. The biggest one is incentive structure. It’s the same fatal flaw as socialism. There’s no incentive to do more a society will stagnate. Also, if there’s a way someone can get by with minimal effort they will. Therefore, with no incentive to work harder than anyone else, the lowest amount of effort becomes the standard. Anyone who figures out how to get by as thereby given themselves, the only effective raise that is possible in such a society, decreasing the amount of work necessary for their livelihood. With that being the only incentive, society becomes a race to the bottom. Human nature is not inherently altruistic. Very few people have the quality of character to put forth a high amount of effort for nothing more than the sake of others.

[@shivandragon1651]

Hmmm I disagree because the incentive Is the fact you own your own business and you want that business to do better, and the way it does better is by your town doing better and so on

[@TheRyanbossxx]

FIRST !

[@sidengland6302]

Most people are not capable of running their own business successfuly. That's why they become employees.

[@geoman5695]

Your right - everyone has different gifts and talents .... however, those not able to run a business successfully by themselves would be most suitable as an employee owner in a larger concern where others may be able to help steer the business in the right direction - or, they could simply consult a busijness consultant like many people and businesses do today .....

[@sidengland6302]

@@geoman5695 Employees have no right steering a business they didn't create. They have no skin in the game and will only vote in their best interest.

[@sidengland6302]

@@geoman5695 "right direction"? Most employees would steer the profits into their own paychecks until the business eventually goes bankrupt. If they want to be an owner, they can buy stock. Why should they have a say with no skin in the game? People don't seem to realize how much time, money and effort it takes to start a business, then to just turn it over to the employees? And when it fails, it's the OWNER'S loss.

[@geoman5695]

@@sidengland6302 They have a right if the business is structured that way ..... of course, they will vote their best interest - EVERYONE votes their best interest - biz owners, corporate board members, etc.... but usually their best interest is the heatlhy continuation of the business ...

[@geoman5695]

@@sidengland6302 if the biz owner decides to re-structure into an employee owned venture then that's his/her decision - no one is forcing them to do that!

[@MissStateFan]

Socialism is not just state ownership. Workers can own the means of production in a socialist society.

[@infinitedonuts]

I’d argue that in order for a state to be socialist it is required that the workers own and control the means of production. Just like for in capitalism it is required that there are individual capital owners own, and control the economy (the birth of modern capitalism was when the Dutch East India company was created because this is when you saw the creation of a capital owning investor class). However, some state socialist like Marxist-Leninists argue the workers do own the means of production through the state. Because of the lack of a direct say, though I’m a bit more skeptical towards that line of thinking.

[@sunlightswift]

This is true. Socialism is an extremely broading economic theory that encompasses many approaches. It is at its roots equally opposed to state as it is to big corporations. syndicalism is one example of an implementation that has actually been used that doesn't involve state and is 100% socialist

[@michigandersea3485]

IMO, the important role of the state in a soci*list society is to defend from the inevitable aggression of capitalist enemies, speculators, and internal corruption--not run a command economy. All people should own their own homes and productive resources by right. Workers' self-directed enterprises, self-employment, and maybe state enterprises in a few areas where monopoly actually makes sense, should be the structures that exist for production. We need to keep competition and productivity in the economy while giving workers skin in the game and authority over how that happens. The important part is to ban regressive institutions and force them underground, so they cannot push our society backward into the abyss. Capitalist democracy lacks any such guardrails, as we have been seeing lately...

[@hickszn]

Second! ?

[@FreddieVee]

Pipi Dream

[@PaulBallantyne250]

So "Distributism" is fair market socialism, or in other words Democratic socialism. Got it.

[@lotionman1507]

no. its basically moral advice about how to use your money in a free market. the main difference between it and austrian economics is that distributism teaches that wealth is a means to an end (that you should choose to use it to help those immediately around you)