Several of the authors at the Distributist Review have been writing on how we can begin a distributist society within the home and at our community level. Being sympathetic to the project of distributism, I thought I would offer my own thoughts. A caveat I offer up front is that I generally consider myself a socialist rather than a distributist. The previous statement is not a conflation of distributism with socialism, because their differences are rather significant.
In brief, the reason I have eschewed distributism is that I no longer believe the anti-subsidiarity of corporatism is driven predominantly by consumer choice. In other words, I don’t believe the advantages of scale are artificial, having been driven by regulatory capture, monopoly, and consumer manipulation via marketing. I do believe these are very real issues, but I don’t believe they are driving issues. I do however agree with the Distributists that a substantial portion of the inequities of our society are the product of capitalists exploiting workers. Given that I’m a socialist, that shouldn’t be shocking.
Another thing we share in common is the short term prospects of achieving our goals is somewhere between zilch and none. Those thinking Obama is a socialist will just have to take it on my authority that he isn’t a socialist and won’t be advancing a socialist agenda. Despite what you may have heard, government run health care is not the pinnacle of socialism but one of things that basically every country in the world has significantly socialized, including our own with Medicare.
One of the reasons people join movements is that they believe their lives will be better in the present for embracing its ideals. Certainly there are people out there who believe things will have to get a whole lot worse and then enough of their program will have been enacted in order for their ideology to be fruitful. However most rational people are incrementalists and believe a little movement in their direction will bear some fruit, if not a bountiful harvest. Unfortunately it is most assuredly the case that those who go out of the way to ensure their business operates in a just and equitable manner will find themselves at a disadvantage against companies in a society that does not share the same views of justice and equity. Being at a disadvantage does not mean being shut however.
For those concerned over the treatment of animals and the use of pesticides and certain fertilizers, a niche industry has grown to serve those needs. Supplier cooperatives are another instance where freedom has been exchanged for greater equity. Often the solidarity has resulted in a greater share of income going to the producers. Much of industrial and commercial work is not about how much the consumer shall pay but about what share of the proceeds should go to ownership and what share should go to the workers. What is true for one isn’t true for all though. When Massachusetts mandated employees by offered affordable insurance, one of the hardest hit industries were nursing homes and those providing indigent care. Many of these same places saw the government as their major source of revenue. In that case, greater equity necessitated greater cost. While I would like to claim moves toward socialism would mean roses and ponies for everyone, I can’t responsibly make that claim. Likewise a distributist society would have some better aspects to it, but other aspects would necessarily suffer. That is what makes policy different from utopian schemes.
Five paragraphs on now, I suppose I should get to the practical part of this essay. (And to think I was secretly condemning other people’s inabilities to self-edit.) What I’m selling is poverty, ideally the voluntary sort. In truth, you are probably better off being a happy capitalist in this society and praying everyday that you don’t fall off the wagon. You’ll be even better off if you can convince yourself that your success, if are so fortunate, has been a product of your hard work and your fear of being dependent upon others. You’ll get additional points if you can say those thinks as a lawyer, corporate toady, government employee, university professor, or high priced non-profit lackey. There simply is not a lot of money to be made working with your hands or offering your own manual labor period. You can spend your life thinking you’ll be the exception to this or you can accept your poverty. Alternatively you can live a mildly or outrageously hypocritical life. I won’t even condemn you for that. Principles after all are the privilege of the powerful and ideologues.
A living oxymoron is the humanist who can’t stand people. I would encourage you to avoid that. Live on the other side of the tracks. Live communally or in a 2-room (not a 2-bedroom, I said a 2-room) apartment. Live within walking distance of a church and go there. What you’ll probably find is that you desire and have become accustomed to a rather privileged existence. By privileged, I simply mean being accustomed to choose and not simply having to experience. The greatest issue with people who get ideas in their heads is not that they want to evangelize, it is that they want to dictate. At some point you are going to have to learn to live with the world as it is. Romanticism is for those that haven’t experienced life. To put this somewhat nicer, adjust your expectations so that they are closer to reality. Life doesn’t always get easier. Oftentimes you are just changing one set of problems for another set of problems. For cliche fans, the grass isn’t always greener on the other side.
Housing is one of those few choices where a lot of other things in your life can be decided. Having a minimal housing expense gives you freedom but it also constrains other freedoms. Of course the reason something is minimal is because it is less desired. It is one thing to live communally as college students when everyone has few or no real obligations and not too much concern over the future. Living in a close community (or as a close family for that matter) when there is significant freedom in choosing who can be in the community and there is significant freedom to leave that community at little to no cost is one thing, but it hasn’t been the common theme in history. Throughout human history people have predominantly lived in communities because there was no real alternative. We are wealthy enough in this country where quite a few people don’t have to do so, and the ones who don’t have that option aren’t all that appealing as a basis to form a community. For disaster porn fans, these are the hordes our formerly middle class heroines are defending themselves from once the dung hits the fan.
I confess that I’m not doing the best sales job here. I’m afraid that what it comes down to is that if you wish to drop out of this society, you are going to have to get disgusted with the bourgeois and its useful idiots. By analogy, as the conservative Catholic sees Nancy Pelosi in the communion line, you are going to have to see the 6-figure non-profit worker begging for the widow’s mite to continue his ministry. As much disgust, whether open or not, as you have for the lower classes, you are going to have to see it in the upper classes, just different in kind and not as visible due to the tall fences that have been erected between you. Or you can be a hypocrite. Again, I’m not going to condemn you for doing so. There are very few powerful people and whatever power you gain is more often than not going to be a product of sacrificing something else. There is no easy path. To gain your life, you must lose it.
Of course there is no guarantee that things will continue as they have. Perhaps, it is better to say they won’t continue as they have. Personally, I anticipate the income gap increasing between the rich and the poor. I anticipate more of the middle class being pushed into the ranks of the poor. As this happens, I won’t be the one to tell you that everyone will be better because of it. I won’t even tell you that you’ll be better off having chosen it yourself rather than having it foisted upon you.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In