Regards,
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.
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.
Leave capitalism alone; it’s what developed our country into the world power that it is.
” 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.
“Capitalism” is an attack word that leads people astray. “Free enterprise system” is more descriptive of both the ideal and the reality. As for monopolies, did Ford or GM keep their monopoly? IBM? Apple? Microsoft? Walmart?
“Distributism” sounds like feel-good mush to me. We need a better description to see if there is anything there.
I will probably get around to the enclosed video.
weren’t Bush, McCain, and Romney “3rd way” squishes?
besides, this just looks like yet another attack on JD, which is the attack angle sent out by the DNC’s express blast this week to their lying leftist media allies as to how to attack MAGA this week ...
I’m no more opposed to “widespread property ownership” than I am to income equality. Both sound nice, but how will you achieve them? Forcing either is counter-productive and wrong.
Perhaps people should get the message to learn (school), work, save, and invest. With the exception of inherited wealth, all the preceding elements are often required to retire with a small fortune. (Sometimes those who inherit a large fortune retire with a small fortune.)
You may have friends and relatives who fail in one or more of the above. For myself, it’s not my fault that relatives shun the stock market.
Let’s not encourage people to “invest” in state lottery or play gambling games on their smartphones.
Distributism is not the only right wing alternative to capitalism that arose. Another is the Social Credit movement started by British Major C.H. Douglas (important--this is NOT the same "social credit" system as that practiced in Communist China!).
I am afraid that for me economic speak is nothing but gobbledygook, so I can't tell you anything about it other than that it exists, but there are numerous online sources of information (Wikipedia being one).
The only problem is the association of these ideologies with anti-Semitism. Both Chesterton and Belloc were accused of these (I don't think Chesterton was, but Belloc is simply not a very sympathetic character). Major Douglas was an avowed anti-Semite who insisted the "new testament" was an improvement over the flawed "old testament" with the Jews (and not just theologically; I don't think he was speaking theologically whatsoever). However, he never advocated anti-Semitic policies that I am aware of.
There is much on the European Right that is bad, but it doesn't hurt to be open to some ideas that go into that territory.
For a lot of people on the right, “socialist” just means someone they disagree with, or don’t like, or who isn’t lock-stock in line with President Trump.
If they really don’t like the person then they’ll escalate to “communist”. It’s pretty embarrassing to see the words getting thrown around with so little understanding.
Regards,
I watched the video. I did not hear the words “Distributist” or “Distributism” one time. I didn’t hear anything like it. Can you point me to the minute he talks about it?
There was nothing objectionable about the video.
Perhaps a lot of hay is being made contrasting Friedman/Reagan in the 1980s and President Trump. Vance sensibly says that we are influenced by our times.
Back in the 1980s we had the cold war. The backdrop was the possibility of a hot war. It would be a conventional war with the possibility of going nuclear. General industrial policy did not figure into the cold war. Maybe some specific materials were restricted to the military, but no one care where our food or pharmaceuticals came from.
Times are different. We have had porous borders and our enemies have crossed them. Biological warfare is a reality like never before. We recognize that our industrial base has declined and the skills that undergird them are greatly reduced or gone.
Different times require different policies. That’s what I heard from Vance.
The more I look at this, the more it looks like mush. I’m not at all impressed by the article by Richard Excell. May of the posts are no better.
He discovers a third way between capitalism and communism. A third way has been proposed by just about every socialist in the 20th century. I guess it’s new because we are in the 21st century.
From the article:
Their solution was widespread, local ownership of productive property: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
We have a quote, but from whom?
Capitalist and capitalism are attack terms, so they already throw people off the path of reason. Does the author (who?) mean that we have too few business owners? That would be an ok opinion. Note that such an opinion remains unsupported.
Personally, I think more Americans should be directly invested in the stock market. If their retirement program depends on the stock market, they should at least know it.
That’s my opinion. Where I diverge from the author is that I would not use government to force my opinion on others.
When someone says, “We should do this,” they usually mean the government should force people to do this. I say no way to that “third way.”
Oddly enough, Vance agrees with me that we need some details. He said the church operates at too high a level of abstraction. That’s what I’m seeing here as well.
What is “unfettered capitalism”? Does it mean total deregulation? No stop lights that regulate traffic? Do we need a third way to save us from this imminent danger?