Distributism

As best I can tell from reading a few articles about distributism (but nothing yet by its originators themselves, so take this for what it's worth), it appears to be striving toward a condition that the Bible considers a hallmark of God's blessing.

Solomon's reign was a high type of Christ's millennial reign:

And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon. 1 Kings 4:25.

Micah prophecies the same blessing when Christ comes:

But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. - Micah 4:4.

The same phrase is used by a false Christ to tempt the godly:

Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me, and then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern. 2 Kings 18:31

Finally, the destruction of this state of society is a severe judgment from God:

And they shall eat up thine harvest, and thy bread, which thy sons and thy daughters should eat: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine herds: they shall eat up thy vines and thy fig trees: they shall impoverish thy fenced cities, wherein thou trustedst, with the sword." - Jeremiah 5:17.

It seems clear to me that widely distributed ownership of land (or any means of production) is an essential condition of a Christian society.

Definitions of capitalism abound, and I have studied no capitalist theory. I will therefore limit my denunciation of capitalism to the fruits it has born, and let alone the ideal or pure capitalism of theory. I believe I can do this while remaining meaningful, because "by their fruits ye shall know them."

From what I picked up from a few articles by The Distributist Review and The Chesterbelloc Mandate, a basic distributist critique of capitalism lies in the division of capital and labor, the separation of the ownership of the means of production from the labor involved in the production. That our modern capitalist system has inflicted a great chasm between the two can scarcely be denied. That this economical condition is almost the reverse of the blessing that every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, is also undeniable. That, by itself, should suffice to seriously call into question corporate capitalism.

A Lew Rockwell type might respond: "But capitalism simply creates a playing field that favors good production over bad production. We simply ask that the best man win; and the existence of great corporations is an example of the best man winning. What's to complain about?"

I once bought into this, but lately I have become convinced the free market system rests on a pelagian premise: that, in fair competition, the good triumphs over the bad. But this is the same argument that gets us mob rule when applied to politics. Theorists of pure democracy claimed that, as the first law of nature is self preservation, the masses would never vote for a destructive ruler. The theorists overlooked the destructive tendencies of sin in every man's heart, and terrible consequences have attended this oversight. Similarly, free competition in the marketplace can only result in endlessly better prices for endlessly better products if the consumer makes endlessly better choices with his money. History has here, too, proven the opposite. It is true that competition weeds out some classes in favor of others: but the competing classes are not "good products" and "bad products"; they are "successful moneymakers" and "unsuccessful moneymakers." There is no necessary correspondence between a successful moneymaker and a good product. Wal-Mart proves this well.

One of the articles on distributism that I read, but can no longer locate, pointed out that when the laborer makes a product and profits from it himself, he has two interests: the product itself, and the profit from it. When a labor and capital are separated, the interests are also separated. The laborer has an interest in the product, but not in the profit. The capitalist has an interest in nothing but the profit. As long as he can sell at a profit, he has no interest in the goodness of the product itself. This creates pressure on the laborer to turn out products at the level best suited to make money, and diminishes his concern for the inherent worth and quality of what he makes.

Now it is true that a rare laborer could care so much about his work that he does a better job than the Bottom Line demands. It is also true that a capitalist could care so much about what he sells that he invests beyond the level the Bottom Line demands. But here is the point: when the two interests of profit and production are separated, there is a tension, institutionalized by the system, between the two. True, it is not necessary to yield to the tension, but that's like a having a faithful marriage while living in Las Vegas. You can theoretically make it just fine...but why set yourself up? A wise man sees where the road goes and removes his way far from it.

One of the most difficult parts of the flooring job I now have is reuniting the two interests. Through years of warehouse work a work ethic was instilled in me: do quality work if you can, but when the pressure is on, nothing matters to management except speed. In business where the owner, the profit-maker, and the laborer are all one man, there is an even balance between the two interests. My boss is in the business because he loves working with wood flooring. (Of course, he likes profit, too.) His standard for his own work generally exceeds the customer's standard, and he is free to pursue really good woodwork because he also controls the bottom line. If he were separated from the labor and only cared about profit, he would crank out floors at the minimum standard at which he could make a profit. If he were separated from ownership and interested only in the floor (with an hourly wage unconnected with the actual value of the floor), all the pressure from ownership would be to sacrifice superfluous quality for profit-making speed.

In a biblical view of economy, quality and profit should be mutually supportive. When a business becomes destructive of one of these ends, it becomes destructive of the other, and it is high time to alter or abolish it.