Opinion

Third way not so different

The trouble with distributism is it doesn't work, writes Guy Crouchback.

We often hear talk of a “third way” between capitalism and communism or socialism. Sometimes this is put forward with an air of surprise that so simple a solution has not yet been put into place.

Capitalism is a means of production. It might be compared with a car: good at getting people to destinations but which can be misused. It has no conscience, morality or religion and cannot be expected to have them.

Whether it is used for good or ill depends on conscience, morality and religion of the driver.

Communism, on the other hand, does make claims to morality and conscience. It claims to be a total system: good is anything that aids it, evil anything that hinders it.

The doctrine of “distributism” put forward by some Catholic thinkers such as GK Chesterton should not be called a “third way.” It is, I suggest, rather a variety of capitalism.

When distributism is put into practice, it is often not recognised as such. One of the most important practical distributists was British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who made it possible for tenants of council houses to buy their houses.

Distributism seems tied up with the idea of an independent, healthy and sturdy peasantry.

This is not an ignoble idea. One of the reasons JRR Tolkien’s The Lord of The Rings has been so popular is that, in addition to exciting battles and creepy monsters, it has the safe, good background of the Hobbits’ Shire with its small farms and trades.

This seems to resonate with something deep in our culture: a charming picture, but one which it would be very difficult to actually make work today.

Always remember a big, soulless modern farm, with battery-hens, tax accountants and so forth, means cheaper food for the world.

The trouble with distributism is it doesn’t work or, rather, works only in special circumstances. In Israel, the kibbutz, a sort of distributist arrangement, worked because inhabitants were unusually determined to make it succeed and also received a lot of government support.

I have recently been researching the early history of South Australia. There, land was originally given out in 80 acre lots in accordance with the distributist ideal of small farms and small property owners.

However, they proved too small to be economical: poorer farmers sold out to richer, who ended up with larger, economically viable units. Adam Smith, father of modern economics, had many insights which are still relevant after more than 200 years.

One is the necessity of economies of scale, mass-production is cheaper; another, with which a distributist would probably agree, is people require challenge and variety of work to be fully human.

Just after writing this, I read a column by Professor Carroll in The Australian.

“The development of the welfare state is one of the achievements of the modern West. But the welfare state has brought a mentality of dependency, which in Greece will only be remedied by necessity: national bankruptcy leading to a much lower standard of living, with sections of the population forced to return to small farming. Britain, and with it much of southern Europe, may face much the same necessity.”

Share this post