I have finally found one of the best literary pieces out
there covering and explaining the nature of Distributism throughout history.
The work is titled: "The Servile
State" by Hilaire Belloc. He, along
with G. K. Chesterton, founded about twenty plus chapters of the Distributist
League throughout England at the beginning of the 20th century.
The manuscript starts first by dissecting the economic modes
and systems followed during the classical and Roman periods which depended in
whole on slave labor. This last institution was not frowned upon during this
time period given that it was widespread and common. In essence, the classical
period economy was predicated on slave or servile labor; that is, it was a
servile state. As Christendom rose at the outset of the decline of the Roman
Empire, slavery became a reprehensible practice. As consequence, the feudal
system proliferated under the direct tutelage of the Catholic Social doctrine
of the time. This system stemmed chiefly from the wide distribution of
ownership in the agricultural sectors and through the guild system in the
artisan and productive sectors.
It is noteworthy that usury was not permitted back then, so
democratically owned firms were commonplace during that same period. This
dynamism spurred small owners and distributed wealth in a more egalitarian
fashion than today. A guild pretty much behaved like a worker cooperative in
that in the profits were divided fairly among the members of the cooperative.
This last part sounds a lot like Socialism, however the main difference between
the two is that Distributism garners small ownership through the right to
private property; Socialism, on the other hand, aims to centralize the
distribution of wealth through a rigid central system formed by bureaus
(government) by collectivizing land and urban resources.
This last economic period came to an end during the
Protestant Reformation, whereby, usury became permitted, rich aristocrats
converted to Protestantism mainly to partake in the expropriation of properties
owned by the Catholic Church, thus, impelling disparity of ownership and the
whole of the wealth of existing economic resources. At that point, class
distinctions and disparities became more pronounced. So too was the gap of the haves and the have
nots. This gave birth to modern capitalism, the reason being that the current
small owners of the time were outstripped by the competitive advantage of those
with more resources and properties drawn from the spoils of the partial defeat
of Catholicism as the main religion. Belloc argues that as technological
innovations increased, so did capitalistic practices which forced the once
popular and numerous bulk of small owners to become salaried slaves by not
having the option of owning a small fraction of the firm they work for.
During the industrial period in England, it became apparent
that the impersonal and positivist posture of capitalism at the time
misconstrued human labor as a simple figure and calculation of labor units, without
recognizing its intrinsic worth more than its instrumental one. This posture
was not enough to solve the inefficiencies of capitalism. This reason gave rise
to the government sectors to intervene the free market whenever it saw the need
to solve extant caveats. During the book's publication at the beginning of the
century, Belloc speculated that with the permeating inherent usury and
financial speculation practices of capitalism, it would not be surprising for
the state of a given country to have the possibility to buy the entire shares
of all privately owned corporations at an aggregate scale, and thus, statizing
them; that is, collectivizing the private sector and turning it into a public
one owned largely by the state/government. This, in theory, is done under the
premise that a strong centralized approach would do a better job in
distributing society's wealth on a more egalitarian fashion. Here again private
property would have been censured and outlawed in favor of a collectivized one;
by extension, the concept of small ownership is barred and deleted from social
existence.
Procuring brevity, to Belloc irresponsible monopolistic
Capitalism is the same as Socialism in that in the distribution of property and
resources is unfair, the former being owned chiefly by a plutony of bank owners
and a small regent bourgeoisie class, and the latter being owned mostly by the
state. So it is safe to consider Socialism at its mature stages the same as a
Capitalistic oligopoly or monopoly, succinctly stated, State Capitalism. We can
appreciate that the two systems do not permit a numerous amount of small
owners, but most importantly they sever the liberty of most of the individuals
that do not belong to a privileged class of deciding between working for a wage
or being a small owner. This feature strongly constitutes the definition of a
salaried slave. The last sentence pretty much admits to Belloc's main thesis
that our current divergence from a wholly Distributist based economy is
regressing modern society back to the economic platform of the classical
period, slavery, a servile state.
Before I end this essay, I must highlight that the concepts
of Distributism, small ownership, a strong localized economy, equal
distribution of wealth and resources among the masses, ethical and humane labor
and business practices, prohibition of usury, and more importantly, worker
cooperatives are ecumenical. Notwithstanding the fact that Distributism as a
system started under a Catholic banner, it can be applied to any virtuous cause
out there. Of the truth embedded in religious systems and philosophies; that
controversy falls beyond the scope of this laconic writ.
