An alternative to Socialism and Capitalism?

When Mr. Shaw refrains from hitting me over the head with his umbrella, the real reason--apart from his real kindness of heart, which makes him tolerant of the humblest of the creatures of God--is not because he does not own his umbrella, but because he does not own my head. As I am still in possession of that imperfect organ, I will proceed to use it to the confutation of some of his other fallacies. - Chesterton in Do We Agree? : A Debate between George Bernard Shaw and G.K. Chesterton.

This is a delightful debate because Chesterton and Shaw were both geniuses, comedic, stylistically unorthodox, paradoxical, and best friends. Their philosophies were worlds apart, but their friendship continued strong until Chesterton’s death on June 14th, 1936. One day, the transcripts of a debate (the debate happened in 1928) were rescued and we have a record of one of the many debates they participated in together. Not only is it a joy to read because I’m in love with their personalities and style, but the substance of the debate was as relevant then as it is today.

Partnered with Hilaire Belloc (British historian, poet, writer), Chesterton lead a political crusade in favor of a view called Distributism, an economic theory that keeps all the virtues of Capitalism without the vices, and shunned Shaw’s particular brand of Socialism (there are so many types). The achilles heal of Capitalism, according to Chesterton, is the corporation, an evil Chomsky regularly denounces. The corporation is a kind of socialism, and so this sort of unbounded Capitalism leads to a certain kind of socialism: the corporate kind. Without getting into the minutia, what ends up happening is that the corporations get in bed with the government: they’ll scratch the government’s back if they scratch theirs. A corporation can fund campaigns, pay for ads, and other things. Representatives from corporations can meet with, say, Senators and agree to finance their campaign if they back the corporation's politics and so on and so forth.

Chesterton - a Christian - thought that government and the economy should be fashioned in a way that promoted Christian values. It just so happened that the economic system Chesterton thought did this the best was Distributism. The crucial concept in this debate is ‘the means of production’, which is the lynchpin of an economic system. In Capitalism, the means of production are controlled (predominately) by the rich, the corporations. In Socialism, the major means of production (banks, schools, hospitals, factories, plants, manufacturers, and so on) are directly controlled by the government (with shades of gray thrown on whatever is owned and how much control there is on what is owned). In Communism, (and I am open to correction here) all means of production are owned by the government.

Distributism is distinct from these philosophies. Chesterton laid much emphasis on how capital should be distributed. Private property should be distributed as widely as possible. Thus, the government that makes that happen is good, and the economic system that could arise would be the best. Farms, businesses, plants, factories, hospitals, schools all need to be privately owned, independently owned. In this case, we’d have not bureaucrats, not government officials, not corporations, but individuals, individual families owning the means of production.

Distributism, therefore, draws a fine line between good and bad government intervention. The bad kind tries to own all the means of production. The good kind tries to arrange things in such a way where the government doesn’t own any means of production: that is because it is arranged in such a way that it is all privately owned. Chesterton thought this route was the most realistic option to tackle issues like poverty. The society that produces poverty is the one that doesn’t care, because it can’t care. We look at the homeless man with disdain and wonder why he can’t just find a job! Then we come to see that - in most cases - he is lazy, doesn’t want to work, is uncivilized, and isn’t fit for society anyway. But Chesterton wants us to imagine a different society, a society where poverty can be almost done away with; and if it’s still there, it’s not anymore the fault of society: the fault is put squarely on the individual.

In that society, we have towns and villages all evenly distributed, all fairly apportioned. Anywhere we have a cluster of people we’d be sure to find families who were responsible for the means of production for a certain good or service upon which the village or town as a whole depended. The poor would be a class that would soon deteriorate, because it would be a society in which the distribution of capital would be about the same. No one would be extremely rich (only useful in a purely capitalistic society) or destitute (the practical outworking of socialism and communism and corporate socialism - a.k.a. Capitalism).

Greed would have less incentive, and the value of thanksgiving and sharing could be an option. If we think of free trade, the incentive to put, say, factories overseas to import the goods for a cheaper price would almost disappear. We wouldn’t cut off trade, but the amount of goods and services domestically made would increase, and we would have many prospective exports, like China. The jobs of the middle class (a class which would gradually replace the rich and most of the poor) would be more secure and there would be a greater allegiance to nationalism rather than the corporate bottom line. Patriotism would increase (perhaps?). What use and need or want would we gain from the flood of illegal immigrants pouring over the border? They’d run not into blind, greedy entities encased in skyscrapers, but village outposts, families, knit together by family loyalties and allegiances.

I haven’t read too much on this philosophy, but it appeals to me. I plan on reading Chesterton's book, An Outline of Sanity, in which this framework is explained in detail. The first thing I’ll do though is this: in the next blog, I’ll see how Chesterton stands against Shaw’s socialism, examine the points where they clash, and see what I like the most. I’ll then work out in more detail exactly what the ins and outs of Distributism involve and entail.