Skip to main content

Worth Quoting

There are but three social arrangements which can replace Capitalism: Slavery, Socialism, and Property.

                                                                                                --Hilaire Belloc
                                                                                               The Servile State
Labels:

Comments

Nina Cornelsen said…
Property is a social arrangement? That's a new concept to me.
December 2, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Scot said…
He's talking about a socio-economic paradigm. Property for Belloc and other Distributists means productive property that many people own either privately, e.g. you own your own writing business/shop or farm or auto garage, etc. or you band together with others becoming employee-owners of a medical clinic, school, factory, etc.
December 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM
Nina Cornelsen said…
...as opposed to socialism, in which the state owns everything, and slavery, in which some humans are owned by others. I think I understand. The "property" system sounds similar in concept to an Israeli moshav, which is distinct from capitalism in that, while property is individually owned, the people conduct business together for the collective good of the community.

What's not clear is whether "property" is really entirely distinct from capitalism. Doesn't it play a role within the capitalistic system? Both of your examples exist in our capitalistic society. Or is the author arguing that American "capitalism" is tainted by other socioeconomic paradigms?

I may be totally off base. I'm constructing all these ideas from one quote and a two-sentence summary. /-:
December 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Scot said…
No sweat, Nina. Distributism is different from Capitalism in that it (one, is a Catholic economic system) says that most or all of the people in society should be owners of productive property, not just the 1% of capitalists. Property as it is now, is mostly in the hands of the super-rich.
December 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Nina Cornelsen said…
I see. Is the basic argument that people tend to take better care of the things they own?
December 16, 2012 at 12:09 AM
Scot said…
No. The basic argument is wealth accumulates with those who have property. If productive property was much more widely dispersed through a society, more people could create their own job security as well as have access to wealth.
December 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Good reads of 2009

I haven't made a list like this in a while, and I believe I discussed most of these on the blog as I finished them, but I thought I'd make a handy short-hand list for you and me. These are only in the order I read them and do not indicate any preference. The Open Door * Frederica Mathewes-Green The Children of Hurin * J.R.R. Tolkien The Omnivore's Dilemma * Michael Pollan Agrarianism and the Good Society: Land, Culture, Conflict, and Hope * Eric T. Freyfogle Wonderful Fool * Shusaku Endo Up the Rouge: Paddling Detroit's Hidden River * Joel Thurtell and Patricia Beck Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction: Christianity and the Battle for the Soul of a Nation * Rodney Clapp (I started the following in December, but I haven't finished them--so far they are excellent: Love and Hate in Jamestown * David A. Price and The Picture of Dorian Gray * Oscar Wilde) Try one of these--let me know.
6 comments
Read more

Independent Women?

      During breakfast today I was reading an excerpt from a play in The New York Times Magazine (I know, I was a day behind and read Saturday's edition yesterday) entitled Rust .  The play, written by a professor at Grand Valley State University, here in Michigan, is a nonfiction drama about the closing of a GM plant in Wyoming, MI.  The play itself sounds interesting and I enjoyed the excerpt, but what caught my eye was something a character said.  The character is "Academic" and plays a historian and guide to the playwright, also a character.  He is explaining the rise of the automobile factories and the effect of the car on American culture.  He says, "Women became independent, they go from producers of food and clothing to consumers of food and clothing."  This was meant as an earnest, praiseworthy point.     I would counter with "How far we've fallen."  To say that a woman (or a man) is independent because she has moved from producer to cons
6 comments
Read more