Distributism (also known as distributionism or distributivism) is an economic philosophy that developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno.
According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or by accomplished individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). Distributism therefore advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership and, according to co-operative economist Race Mathews, maintains that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.
Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitive. Thomas Storck argues that "both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life".
Mutualism is an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration. Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value that holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility". Mutualism originated from the writings of philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe these individuals are not laboring. Though Proudhon opposed this type of income, he expressed that he had never intended "...to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose." Insofar as they ensure the worker's right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets (or artificial markets) and property in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land, whose ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called "possession"); thus advocating personal property, but not private property.
Though mutualism is similar to the economic doctrines of the nineteenth-century American individualist anarchists, unlike them, mutualism is in favor of large industries. Mutualism has therefore been retrospectively characterized sometimes as being a form of individualist anarchism, and as ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism as well. Proudhon himself described the "liberty" he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property."
Mutualists have distinguished mutualism from state socialism, and do not advocate state control over the means of production. Benjamin Tucker said of Proudhon, that "though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, [Proudhon] aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few...by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its own use down to cost."
Xisca Nicolas wrote:
So we could at least design OUR new behaviour to the ACTUAL system. That is how I came to the idea to put my money on the usual account and not on the saving account, because if banks pay me for this use of my money, it means that they do things I do not agree with!
wayne stephen wrote:I am in agreement with Xisca that you cannot create an economic system yourself. The one we have has developed organically over millennia.
... The entire system is too complex.
... Why not try to keep the wealth in a localized system .
How many millions of dollars spent on potato chips in your city goes out of your city not to return ?Enriches shareholders who do not spend their dollars locally ? I think we should practice/promote homestead thrift and support local efforts in sustainability. When we do the culture will change , not just the mechanism for exchanging symbolic work units.
wayne stephen wrote:I am in agreement with Xisca that you cannot create an economic system yourself. The one we have has developed organically over millennia. A cooperative is not an economic system . It is a way of owning property . Crowd sourcing is not an economic system but a way of gathering capital. Those can exist in many economic systems , socialist or capitalist.
wayne stephen wrote: I see private property as very organic . Just ask any 3 year old who says "mine" when you try to hold their toys . Bonobos and penguins have been seen to barter and prostitute themselves . I think permaculture and any sustainable cultural system will work where there is peace . Nothing like military tanks and humvees to compress your soil. So , as far as designing an economic system for permies I can get on board with peace as a basis for economic stability and prosperity . After that , someone will have to convince me that Libertarianism will not suffice just fine. Peace!
wayne stephen wrote:Is private property any different than an animal claiming its territory
Logan Simmering wrote:
Also, Libertarianism, in the typical "Don't tread on me" Laissez faire, backed by gold meaning of American politics, is a system singularly incapable of dealing with market failures or externalities. A population with a permaculutre ethic might be better able to cope with externalites given its whole systems approach to thought , but it would still seam to lack a real means of pricing them into the market (without more ethical producers being under cut by less ethical ones), and it would still lack the means of dealing with the macroeconomic shocks that lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression great depressions, and dozens of panics and price shocks.