10 Comments

Brian
October 11th, 2011 | 10:30 am

Um, what was the purpose of dignifying that completely content-free anti-distributist rant with a link?

OK, I grant that the David Brooks column is probably at least as devoid of value, but at least he’s not just trying to mock a serious and thoughtful movement that has much to say about current societal ills.

Joe Carter
October 11th, 2011 | 10:37 am

Um, what was the purpose of dignifying that completely content-free anti-distributist rant with a link?

Because it’s funny and accurate. Distributionism may be serious and thoughtful, but it is also utopian and unrealistic, and hence, a worthy topic for mild jest. Rather than trying to figure out how to the get the whole world to act like some obscure Spanish corporation, distributionist should join in and help the rest of us figure out how to solve the economic mess we are in.

Brian
October 11th, 2011 | 10:55 am

“distributionist should join in and help the rest of us figure out how to solve the economic mess we are in.”

What an odd critique, since it seems to me that that’s all distributists do. Why should they “join in” and debate what exactly the corporate income tax rate should be?

Joe Carter
October 11th, 2011 | 11:03 am

Brian Why should they “join in” and debate what exactly the corporate income tax rate should be?

Because they live in America and no the Shire. ; )

Seriously, I have a lot of admiration for distributionism. I would love for it to be a workable system of economics. But it’s not.

I don’t begrudge people who prefer to discuss distributionism rather than, say, play fantasy football or go rock climbing. It could be an interesting intellectual hobby. But it since it will not—and cannot—be a workable economic system, we shouldn’t spend a lot of time treating it as a serious alternative.

Tom
October 11th, 2011 | 2:43 pm

I’m confused. I’m a distributionist who wouldn’t get caught dead demonstrating in Zucotti Plaza. Am I doing something wrong, according to Acton Powerblog? (And what is Acton Powerblog anyway?)

Patrick
October 11th, 2011 | 3:31 pm

The anti-distributist blog post is only accurate insofar as distributism is reduced to a one-page flyer handed out at Occupy Sesame St. #9 in particular is extremely simplistic, bordering on just plain stupid. Is it even worth saying that distributists do not want life to look like a Monty Python movie?

Tom
October 11th, 2011 | 4:19 pm

@Patrick, yes, apparently it is worth saying. Which is sad.

Dave "Dblade" Dutcher
October 11th, 2011 | 6:37 pm

Joe, I don’t think the larger discussion has any purpose except continuing to enrich corporations and disenfrachise workers. Virtually every non-distributist solution in recent years has failed: the service sector did not save us, neither did the creative class. College education is no longer the panacea, nor is the internet. Neither are green jobs.

What exactly can we discuss?

Alexander S. Anderson
October 11th, 2011 | 10:17 pm

Joe, Distributism is always dismissed by practical people as unworkable. It’s like what Chesterton says: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” I think that a similar can be said of Distributism. Just because we can’t do it perfectly doesn’t mean we have no right to try.

Ethan C.
October 12th, 2011 | 12:22 pm

Hey, I meet 7 out of ten — 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 — I must be a distributist!