Capitalism isnt perfect but what would you suggest? Socialism?

[warpus]

Distributism seemed like an interesting idea, but I realized it was BS when I read this line:

Usual attitude of the government toward the Church: Central focus

 

[Inqvisitor]

Distributism seemed like an interesting idea, but I realized it was BS when I read this line:

Usual attitude of the government toward the Church: Central focus

I knew there would be confusion and problems when I posted the link to that rather amateur chart...

Naturally a system guided by Catholic principles would be very different from a system guided by profit and power.

Even if the Church were the central focus of the government, why would that make this economic and social order "BS" exactly...?

 

[blackheart]

Perhaps it is poor wording, but the rest of earth did exist in the Middle Ages...

Forget the wording then. The rest of earth didn't follow the Catholic faith nor did they use the system. If distributism was so great, why isn't it around, and why were living conditions in Medieval times so poor?

 

[warpus]

Even if the Church were the central focus of the government, why would that make this economic and social order "BS" exactly...?

Theocracy = BS

 

[Inqvisitor]

Forget the wording then. The rest of earth didn't follow the Catholic faith nor did they use the system. If distributism was so great, why isn't it around, and why were living conditions in Medieval times so poor?

Human greed. Protestantism opened the door to the evils of usury, which had formerly been isolated to the Jews. Protestant nobles usurped more power and wealth from the Church and abandoned Catholic principles. Living conditions in mediæval Europe were not bad from a socioeconomic point of view. Advances in medicine, sanitation, and other such fields occurred independently, and were certainly not the result of the rise of capitalism. However the peasant was much freer economically in the Middle Ages then modern man. If one were to implement distributism today, living conditions would not drop.

Are you a wage-slave?
I'll take another page from that website you love again:

Are you a wage-slave? Be honest, are or can you:
1.be the sole or principal owner in the business in which you work?
2.own your own home, without burden of usurious debt?
3.have daily leisure to spend time with your family?
4.be the sole 'breadwinner' of the family, so that your wife is able to devote all of her love, talents and energy into your & her home and hearth?
5.able to school your own children?
6.able to afford basic necessities for civilized living, such as good musical instruments for your children?
7.schedule out most of the activities of the day, or are they directed for you, either by bosses or clients?

If you work hard, and
SCORE LESS THAN SEVEN Then you are
A WAGE-SLAVE

by Belloc's definition, you may call yourself politically free, but you are economically enslaved as a wage-earner to a government or corporate body.

Freedom-wise, you are placed BELOW the average 13-century peasant, who possessed all the above!

 

[Inqvisitor]

Theocracy = BS

Funny I don't think anybody said anything about a theocracy.

And that doesn't answer the question, as theocracy is not what is up for debate here.

 

[blackheart]

However the peasant was much freer economically in the Middle Ages then modern man. If one were to implement distributism today, living conditions would not drop.

by Belloc's definition, you may call yourself politically free, but you are economically enslaved as a wage-earner to a government or corporate body.

Freedom-wise, you are placed BELOW the average 13-century peasant, who possessed all the above!

Complete and total bullfeathers. I'm sure the 90% of peasants milling the land for their land didn't have musical instruments nor did they have no debt and have plenty of free time. Why don't we judge 13th century living by our standards then and see who comes out on top?

Questions to ask a 13th Century peasant
1) Will you starve when this year's crop fails?
2) Can you afford luxury goods?
3) Can you afford to take a vacation?
4) Work less than 60 hours a week?
5) Freely switch occupations?
6) Not have your children be forced to work?
7) Have economic mobility?

If you can't do any of this, then the 21st Century is a better place to live!

 

[Inqvisitor]

Complete and total bullfeathers. I'm sure the 90% of peasants milling the land for their land didn't have musical instruments nor did they have no debt and have plenty of free time.

Debt did not exist, as usury was forbidden. People owned their own homes, and could spend their earnings as they pleased. People work to produce what they need, hence time is freed up for matters other than money.

A modern couple could not even afford to own their own home, much less have children. Capitalism is the bane of Western civilization.

Questions to ask a 13th Century peasant
1) Will you starve when this year's crop fails?

People starve today in 21st century capitalist societies around the world. People starved much worse in capitalist and socialist societies in the 19th and 20th centuries. And in those cases, economic conditions actually were related.

2) Can you afford luxury goods?

Such as? What "luxury goods" would a mediæval peasant be desirous of?

3) Can you afford to take a vacation?

Another fallacy, considering the idea of taking a recreational "vacation" far away only came about in the last half century. An American laborer in 1900 was not taking vacations either.

4) Work less than 60 hours a week?

Business owners work whenever they wish, just as in any other society. Naturally, they would need to work out a way to produce what they need, however many hours that would take.

5) Freely switch occupations?

In capitalism, switching occupations requires one to already be financially healthy enough in case their new venture fails. Mediæval peasantry chose to specialize.

6) Not have your children be forced to work?

Children aren't forced to work, but families worked together as a unit, unlike in capitalism or socialism. Your children could worked for the family, and thus for their own future as well.

7) Have economic mobility?

Economic mobility would imply that there are huge class differences which men would be segregated by. All contributing men should own about an equal share of their country's economy. "Economic mobility" would mean one man would get richer at the expense of others.

 

[Mise]

I can't believe you're arguing that peasants of the 13th Century have more economic freedom than we do today, and using them as an example of why we should go down your road of "distributism"

 

[Inqvisitor]

I can't believe you're arguing that peasants of the 13th Century have more economic freedom than we do today, and using them as an example of why we should go down your road of "distributism"

Because they did...

There's a reason why Western birthrates are the way they are today...

 

[Panzeh]

Tell me, Inqvisitor, do you support the establishment of a nobility? That's the guy who owned the peasant's land.

 

[blackheart]

Inqvisitor's responses are too delusional to even respond to, so I bring you this:

Distributism looks like a thinly veiled disguise for a communist system subservient to a religion. No debt, equal distribution of labor/tasks, etc.

Therefore,

Inqvisitor = communist

 

[Inqvisitor]

Inqvisitor's responses are too delusional to even respond to, so I bring you this:

Distributism looks like a thinly veiled disguise for a communist system subservient to a religion. No debt, equal distribution of labor/tasks, etc.

Therefore,

Inqvisitor = communist

Communism does not have "equal distribution of labor/tasks."

Another troll post from you, making up complete fallacies and ad hominem attacks.

 

[blackheart]

Communism does not have "equal distribution of labor/tasks."

Another troll post from you, making up complete fallacies and ad hominem attacks.

Then what does communism has that is so different from distributism?

And please Inqvisitor, don't be a hypocrite and complain about fallacies and ad hominems.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Then what does communism has that is so different from distributism?

Hmm, let's see the former the people own nothing, the latter they own everything. There's a start...

And please Inqvisitor, don't be a hypocrite and complain about fallacies and ad hominems.

Suppose next time I'll just call you a "delusional" "communist" when I don't feel like debating facts and realities then...

 

[Panzeh]

How do you enforce the policies of distributism without massively increasing state power?

 

[blackheart]

Hmm, let's see the former the people own nothing, the latter they own everything. There's a start...

Both of them everyone "ideally" owns everything.

Suppose next time I'll just call you a "delusional" "communist" when I don't feel like debating facts and realities then...

There's too much irony in this statement to even dispel.

 

[Inqvisitor]

How do you enforce the policies of distributism without massively increasing state power?

The state would not intervene in any matter other than protecting the widespread ownership of the means of production. Matters such as wages, supply, and prices would be managed at the guild level.

Belloc suggested merely implementing a progressive tax to make it too prohibitory financially for it to be worth taking power over another's ability to earn wealth.

 

[blackheart]

The state would not intervene in any matter other than protecting the widespread ownership of the means of production. Matters such as wages, supply, and prices would be managed at the guild level.

Belloc suggested merely implementing a progressive tax to make it too prohibitory financially for it to be worth taking power over another's ability to earn wealth.

So instead of the state or a corporation running things, a guild would?

 

[Inqvisitor]

Both of them everyone "ideally" owns everything.

Yes, but in distributism they really do own everything, while in communism they really don't.