Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/22/2026 7:48:07 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
A Third Way
Much like Chesterton and Belloc posited and argued for a third way, a path that did not look like Monopoly Capitalism or State Socialism, we may be some arguing for this now.
I came across what I thought was a fascinating interview by Bishop Barron of Vice President JD Vance. I am a big fan of anything Bishop Barron puts out, not just because I agree with him, but because I find him to be one of the top intellectuals of our day. Listen to his debates, discussions and interviews. Watch the speech he gave at America’s 250th birthday. Suffice to say, the algo’s populate my feed with his content.
I did not know what to expect of the interview when I saw it. JD Vance has become a figure that is somewhat vilified on both the left and the right. The left sees him as Trump’s attack dog, lacking civility, and embodying the same brutal message. The right sees many of his comments, particularly where he said that maybe we need to move beyond the views of Milton Friedman, as an abandonment of core conservative ideology.
I encourage you to listen whether you like him or not. You will surely learn something. That is important since he is likely leading the ticket in 2028. You might want to know what you are (or aren’t) voting for.
(Excerpt) Read more at stayvigilant.substack.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I see a lot of people now saying JD is a socialist.
No, JD is not a socialist. JD is a Distributist.
Now I do have my issues with JD's views and now knowing that he favors Distributism my opinion of him gets pulled down even further, let us not smear the guy as a socialist.
He doesn't deserve that. What we should do is discuss the merits good or bad of Distributism and JD's rejections of the free market.
“Distributism” is an early 20th-century economic theory proposing that productive property and wealth should be widely owned by everyday citizens rather than concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few (capitalism) or the state (socialism).
It advocates for decentralized businesses, cooperatives, and robust anti-monopoly laws to empower families and communities.
Distributism isn’t an outright rejection of the Free Market. It does favor smaller businesses over larger ones. I would posit that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act has a modicum of Distributism behind it.
Despite its name, Distributism would not be about taking from the rich and giving (distributing) to the poor the way Socialism does. It certainly is not against a healthy, successful business making a healthy, successful profit.
It would be very much for employee ownership of companies (Winco is a successful example of that). It is against a company using its dominant position to dictate policy and the courts (Pfizer, Bayer/Monsanto).
How it does those things look on the ground, especially now, is something Chesterton and Belloc (big idea men) never really spell out, except by way of allegory.
A distributist is an advocate for distributism, an early 20th-century socio-economic theory. It proposes that productive property and wealth should be widely owned by individuals and families rather than centralized under the control of the state (socialism) or a few corporate monopolies (capitalism).
I am not sure thats how you define capitalism, but not being an economist, I am not sure I see the problem with distributism, if that is in fact what Vance is.
If you dont mind spending the time educating me wrt to earlier comment, I would like to understand your concern with Vance.
I am not sure where that quote comes from but this language is virtually indistinguishable from several different Distributism websites describing and promoting Distributism.
This is exactly what gets Distributists in trouble and what gets them falsely labeled as socialists.
The acceptance of hard left language - its actually grotesque.
It was written:
“””””...........owned by everyday citizens rather than concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few (capitalism)..........”””””
That sentence describes corporatism, not capitalism. Capitalism is free markets, not concentrated holdings. So either the Distributist supporters writing this are (1) ill-informed, which bodes poorly for what would incentivize anybody to listen to the ignorant or (2) flat out stupid, which does not bode well for them in any capacity, or (3) agenda driven and simply do not care to get things correct even if it means siding with socialists on critical details.
Distributists might gain more support if they stopped embracing the left’s idiotic talking points and setting out distinctly to say “those guys are nuts, we’re not like them.”
Hey thanks for this - so that was AI generated wording. Good to know.(in regard to my prior response)
Distributism was primarily expounded by early 20th-century English writers G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. They formulated the economic theory as a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, advocating for widespread property ownership and small-scale cooperatives rather than wealth concentrated in the hands of a few or the state.
Key Thinkers and Sources
Hilaire Belloc: Belloc laid out the foundational political and economic critique in his seminal work The Servile State (1912) and An Essay on the Restoration of Property (1936).
G.K. Chesterton: Chesterton popularized the concept through his witty essays and books like What’s Wrong with the World (1910) and The Outline of Sanity (1926). As he famously noted, “The problem with capitalism is not that there are too many capitalists, but that there are too few capitalists.”
Catholic Social Teaching: The movement is deeply rooted in 19th-century papal teaching, most notably Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum and Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno (1931), which criticized both the exploitation of unbridled capitalism and the collectivism of socialism.
Other Prominent Figures: Figures like Father Vincent McNabb, as well as Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin (who founded the Catholic Worker Movement), further adapted and applied these principles in the United States.
Distributism is based on Catholic morality (stemming from Leo XIII Rerum Novarum) and it is not at all related to a Centrally Planned economy. It truly allows individuals to own a stake in society.
My big thought on economics is that digital currency, automation, and AI are going to re-invent basic economic truths. There's no way to avoid a truly major re-think on economics. Musk says (I believe) that money will "disappear" and he might be right.
In the end, we will face a new form of economics. Distributism doesn't seem like the worst choice.
Bookmark
So how big is a company “allowed” to be under this system?
Not having any big companies leads to some logistical problems considering a large and widespread population. In other words, if it’s all done w/small companies, then every region needs a small version of a conglomerate.
E.g., which family business in my town is going to make clothing?
Which one is going to provide medicines?
Which ones are growers for food?
Which ones are going to make tools? Precision tools?
Who provides my television set? Communications systems?
Yada.
Stop and think that maybe the reason a big company exists is because that makes the most sense for the product or service offered.
Hence, not many companies making B-2s, but lots of small plumber outfits out there.
“Monopoly Capitalism” is an oxymoron in the US.
Where are these 1950 Monopolies now?
General Motors? Standard Oil? US Steel? General Electric? ATT?
1980 IBM was the monopoly.
2000 Microsoft, Cisco were the monopolies.
2026 NVIDIA, Alphabet/Google, Apple, Microsoft, JP Morgan Chase are the monopolies.
The only perpetual monopoly in the US is Government.INC.
Ditto. Distributism sound like muddy thinking, focused on idealism lacking in understanding of the human animal. A moment's reflection will provide a thesis on what could go wrong.
How successful are committees at creating either wealth or functioning enterprises?
Do groups invent, do they have homogeneous work ethics and drive?
Do groups innovate, branch out, take risks?
Are group more vulnerable to fraud and malpractice than individual entrepreneurs? The more moving parts the more chance of a failure.
Will the other nations of the world adopt this path, lower their productivity and drive to excel in pursuit of a collective approach?
Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated. What would the USA need to relinquish to have the world share in US assets?
It seems that distribitionism is an attempt to return to a simpler time with smaller worker owned businesses & organizations. While this may satisfy a yearning it is a blind end. Progress is not made by clipping wings or by constraining the abilities and entrepreneurship of individuals. How much of this philosophy is rooted in guilt?
I would have to take issue with the theory that JD Vance is the likely 2026 nominee. He’s not my idea of presidential material. It will not surprise me if he ends up declining to run.
Trump is obviously grooming Marco Rubio and with good reason.
36 countries have BILLIONAIRES. The US has the most BILLIONAIRES. Worlwide 67% of Billionaires are SELF-MADE.
In the US 73% of Billionaires are SELF-MADE.
“Monopoly Capitalism” is an oxymoron.
Maybe you never owned your own business. I did and it takes enormous ambition and hard work to make it happen. I don’t want the government taking anybody’s hard earned wealth and redistributing it to those who didn’t have the oompf to make it.
I cannot believe this guy is quoting Chesterton like its a good thing. 😆
Leave capitalism alone; it’s what developed our country into the world power that it is.
Emblems used by medieval German guilds and corporations, displaying various symbols related to their professions Corporatism Ideologies Ideas People Literature Organizations Related articles icon Politics portal vte Corporatism is a political ideology and political system of interest representation and policymaking whereby corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, come together and negotiate contracts or policy (collective bargaining) on the basis of their common interests. The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or "body".Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as "corporations" in modern American vernacular and legal parlance. Instead, the correct term for that theoretical system would be corporatocracy.
Corporatism developed during the 1850s in response to the rise of classical liberalism and Marxism, and advocated cooperation between the classes instead of class struggle. Adherents of diverse ideologies, including economic liberalism, fascism, and social democracy, have advocated for corporatist models. Corporatism became one of the main tenets of Italian fascism, and Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime in Italy advocated the total integration of divergent interests into the state for the common good. However, the more democratic neo-corporatism often embraced tripartism.
” a third way, a path that did not look like Monopoly Capitalism or State Socialism,”
No one argues for “monopoly capitalism” (except the creators of the board game Monopoly). Markets abhor monopoly as nature abhors a vacuum. It takes government power to protect a monopoly from competition.
“JD Vance is under fire for both his comments about Milton Friedman”
The JD Vance comment that I saw about Milton Friedman had to do with international trade. Milton Friedman could correct in a changing world. It is quite possible that if Milton Friedman were alive today, that he would agree with Vance about international trade.
The only thing that seems to be missing are the arguments. In a good and peaceful world free, international trade would increase prosperity for all. In today’s world, we need a strong domestic manufacturing base for self-defense under a variety of contingencies. Also, I don’t think we should buy too much (if any) of our food or pharmaceuticals from our enemies. Friedman would understand these arguments.
Also, people may not be as malleable as we once thought. While the press told displaced people in manufacturing to “learn to code,” displaced members of the press have proved unwilling/unable to follow their own advice and learn to code.
We have that with the stock market - individuals own massive companies, taking part in their profit (and their loss) and with no work on their part. Paradise for those who continually invest in such. These bigger businesses are then balanced by individual small business owners. Works great if the government mostly stays out of the way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.