Welcome to Political Irish

We believe in free legal speech, fair play and good discussion. Sign up and join in!

Register Log in

Self Moderated Distributism

DS86DS

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
2,622
Likes
3,159
Distributism was established as an economic philosophy within Catholic thinking as an alternative to Libertarian style capitalism with its "each man for himself" ethos. Catholic thinkers such as Belloc and Chesterton advocated for the Distributist model, as did the papacy.

One of the most damaging legacies of Libertarian propagandists to the Conservative Movement has been in how they managed to slyly infuse traditional economic liberalism, or Neo-Liberal capitalism within the traditional Conservative movement. They latched onto the anti-Communist movement and so economic liberalism began to be seen within Conservative circles as the common sense approach to fend off the Red Menace economically. Even today you have degenerate anti-Christian and anti-Nationalist Libertarians claiming that they are Conservatives despite the fact that their views on Social Liberalism are identical to Liberals.

That the Conservative movement ever adopted Libertarian Capitalism as it's economic component for no other reason than a shared anti-Communist viewpoint shows a complete lack of imagination. Libertarianism and Neo-Liberal capitalism are antithetical to Nationalism and to Conservatism. According to the solipsistic ideology of Libertarianism, the concepts of national pride, adherence to Christian morality and having an obligation to your community and nation should take a backseat to individual gain. Within the social and economic system we have today, the concept of God and national pride take a backseat to individual greed and the social liberalism as advocated by Libertarians.

This system is a curse upon the world and we as Nationalists must find a social and economic system which represents the interests and those of our communities, churches and nations. As for those who dismiss distributism out of hand, there is no suggestion anywhere that distributism advocates for a two tier society in which industrious hard workers and layabouts nonetheless receive the same just deserts and rewards irregardless of their efforts and contributions to their respective society and communities.

It is naive to think that the simplistic mantra of supply and demand can be an appropriate mechanism for delivering anything in society deemed to be a necessity for survival and beyond anything other than indulgences in luxury items. A man having the ability to feed, clothe and house himself and his family should not come down to some popularity contest down at the employment seeking office anymore than we should be running a society permanently reliant on an unstable economy more akin to the bookies in the lead up to the races, than on a thought out, long term arrangement with the health and wellbeing of wider society as it's number one priority.

All of this will become even more self evident in the years ahead as the pace of technological change accelerates and displaces an ever greater percentage of the workforce. Half of the population are not going to willingly starve to death just because some high flying entrepreneur can't find a new use for them. And when push comes to shove, supply and demand economics will be shown up for the nonsense it truly is.

Distributism could be the most appropriate economic model for maintaining our nation and it's traditions. Economic and social philosophies such as Libertarianism with its emphasis on greed and it's lax attitude towards moral degeneracy will be the downfall of traditional nationalist Christian nations unless we reform our socioeconomic model. Do not be fooled by the Libertarian self-appointed Conservative tag, they are modern social Liberals who just so happen to wish for a return to the economic liberalism of 19th century Britain
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • #2
OP
DS86DS

DS86DS

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
2,622
Likes
3,159
Since 1980 when Thatcherism and Neo-Liberal economics became the new trend, we've had a movement whereby Libertarians such as Milton Friedman began to be called Conservatives. This was considered the case as supposed Conservatives like Thatcher adopted these policies. What started in Britain with the election of 1979 soon spread to the rest of the Western World with so-called Conservatives adopting policies that were traditionally seen as liberalism, particularly during the 19th century.

Traditional and cultural Conservatives had traditionally rejected this form of economics as they knew that it was along with Social Liberalism a destroyer of traditional values such as the nation, the church and the family. Catholic Conservatives such as Hillaire Beloc and GK Chesterton understood this, as did the papacy. Economic liberalism and Social Liberalism are two sides of the same coin, and one feeds off of the other.

We now have so-called Thatcherite politicians calling themselves Conservative despite the fact that they conserve nothing and support economic and social liberalism. We need to get back to the actual meaning of traditional conservatism which was sabotaged by the Thatcherite Neo Liberals during the 1980s and further down the line by Thatcherites such as Clinton and Blair. These people are not, and never were conservatives. Any sensible conservative before 1979 could see through this deception. They are only concerned with their own bank accounts and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom