Outright opposition to modernity is often dismissed as backward-looking or “reactionary” and associated with a rigidly hierarchical or aristocratic outlook.
We’re really enjoying this thinking, and it aligns with where we have arrived - community sufficiency, subsistence neopeasantry, permacultural relocalisation.
I don't like the word 'distributism' - only because it doesn't have a nice aesthetic sound to it. I think it's the 'bute' sound. My version is called 'liberal socialism', which rolls far better off the tongue, and the ideas in this essay about economics are very similar indeed...
For an affectionate shortening or nickname for a liberal socialist political party, though - Lizzies - that sounds good.
I know what you mean about the word 'liberal' though - it's as if it has been captured and appropriated and twisted into meaning something other than 'liberal'. I mean it in the sense of tolerance and no one forcing their beliefs onto others. 'Freedom' I guess - which also means creative freedom (equally within the economy).
A similar argument I think is true for the word 'socialism' - in the sense that prior to Marx it was a more 'liberal' or 'mutualist' etc. idea. Then the Establishment shill Marx comes along, captures it, then twists it into meaning 'State controlled' (i.e. top down instead of bottom up, which is imo how socialism should really be) - which is anathema to all freedom-loving human beings. Freedom from being told what to do, from someone lording it over you, being in control over one's life, being a fundamental psychological part of the spectrum/hierarchy of needs.
Perhaps rather than try and come up with a new term (fun though that might be!) maybe just 'reclaim' the words? I've become quite fond of my term 'Lizzy' after all!
I like Distributism and would far prefer it over the alternatives. There is one potential issue though:
"The State: Acceptance that the state will have certain necessary functions to perform for the foreseeable future. However, following the principle of ‘subsidiarity,’ the state should govern much less in a top-down fashion and much more in a bottom-up fashion by encouraging voluntary associations to carry out community tasks as much as possible."
Distributism calls for breaking up of cartels, widespread regulations on the market, and the limitation of industrialization. These things cannot be accomplished from the bottom up, nor can a weak State focused primarily on voluntary association carry out the necessary regulations and enforcements required to achieve Distributism. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the only way to achieve something similar to Distributism is through a very powerful, very far-reaching State that governs very much from the top down.
If we took Rerum as the guide, you would have to reestablish a strongly Christian culture in which the moral authority of the Church was recognized. Then, possibly, something like the medieval moral constraints on the economy could be reimposed mainly via cultural means. In that context, it did not take a powerful state to impose them. However, I think you are pointing a larger issue: if the state is something like the modern state, what has to be your theory of the state for it to operate within the framework of 'subsidiarity'? I am not aware of such a solid theory put forth by distributists. It is not hard to imagine policies that would move things in that direction though. Another reader proposed increasing tax rates based on size of market share a corporation has. Any number of policies have incentivized bigness. Any number of policies could incentivize smallness. The real issues are the issues of creating the political will (cultural) to call for this and the structuring of power that would create a minimal but morally active state. As noted, not EASY to get there from here.
All good and reasonable. But - and I sound like a broken record these days - why do we not circumscribe the range of options with a realistic assessment of what is actually, physically, possible? The modern state is done for. The sexbot world is a ludicrous, deranged fantasy. We are used to the idea of looking towards the horizon for some sense of the future but it just isn't going to work out that way.
Roger, thanks for the observation. Yes, what is feasible is itself a good question. Next week's essay goes quite a different direction. Will be interested to hear your thoughts on that. What do you think of Chesterton's idea of looking to the past for ideals since we have a better understanding of what is achievable and what is challenging about ideals we have already worked on (discussed in essay 7)?
I went and.looked it over again. "We need to move from treating people like “products” to treating them like humans." And a brief conclusion follows with which I also agree. Do we agree that it is a human impulse (not at all understood) that produces civilisations? And that civilisations are, in turn, intensely dehumanising? That's quite a pickle. I agree with Debord (and others) that this thing we live in has a life entirely of its own. Like other organisms, it will die. And then we will have to remember what we really are as humans. I don't know that we can do a good job of that but it's a certainty that we are going to find out. We can idealise that or ignore it, but it's coming. Looking back in time for clues seems sensible to me, it is wise to be prepared. Not to religion, however, that is really a component of the collective response to the leviathanic experience.
Hi Roger, I appreciate the respectful and challenging dialogue. I hope that is characteristic of Substack. I agree that civilization creating is a thing we tend to do. I also agree that that is a pickle. I am tempted to say we are pickles all the way down, but don't think that is quite true. I would say we are pickles almost all the way down. My belief that the pickling stops short is a matter of faith or metaphysical principle. Nevertheless, we are certainly creatures with many contradictions. I would be interested in hearing more about what you mean about religion being 'a component of the collective response to the leviathanic experience.' For my part, I think we are inherently spiritual creatures. By that I mean the spiritual is an inherent aspect of our being fully human.
Further, by that, I would mean our ability to at least aspire (the word itself points to spirit) to self-transcendence.
When I say religion I mean only the organised religions which, as far as I know, arose in tandem with the emergence of the urge to create civilisations. Presumably as a (psychological, defensive) response, though I don't discount the possibility that it is simply a wild side effect of the conditions. Before that there were ritual behaviours, which are not religious in themselves. Spiritual is a word I have some difficulty with, since it is widely used but never defined. I'm never quite sure what is meant. Nevertheless, I don't mean to suggest that we are not spiritual or that we cannot aspire to self-transcendence. It seems, from what I've been able to gather so far, that what we are longing for is a connection or lived experience that is prehistorical. Which we glimpse from time to time. And which is in practice identical to just being human again.
I hope Substack treats you well. I think it will. These are very interesting essays, thought-provoking and entertaining. Looking forward to the next.
Hello, I just subscribed to Winter Oak, and was told that an e-mail would arrive, but none came! Nothing in spam either. Can someone help me? Thanks, Jack Williams.
If you contact winteroak@greenmail.net and let us know the email address with which you subscribed, we can check if you are on the list. Thanks for your interest, Jack!
We’re really enjoying this thinking, and it aligns with where we have arrived - community sufficiency, subsistence neopeasantry, permacultural relocalisation.
I don't like the word 'distributism' - only because it doesn't have a nice aesthetic sound to it. I think it's the 'bute' sound. My version is called 'liberal socialism', which rolls far better off the tongue, and the ideas in this essay about economics are very similar indeed...
Yeah, not the greatest term. I’m not fond of liberal (in my mind that covers economic liberalism, ie capitalism). Any other options?
For an affectionate shortening or nickname for a liberal socialist political party, though - Lizzies - that sounds good.
I know what you mean about the word 'liberal' though - it's as if it has been captured and appropriated and twisted into meaning something other than 'liberal'. I mean it in the sense of tolerance and no one forcing their beliefs onto others. 'Freedom' I guess - which also means creative freedom (equally within the economy).
A similar argument I think is true for the word 'socialism' - in the sense that prior to Marx it was a more 'liberal' or 'mutualist' etc. idea. Then the Establishment shill Marx comes along, captures it, then twists it into meaning 'State controlled' (i.e. top down instead of bottom up, which is imo how socialism should really be) - which is anathema to all freedom-loving human beings. Freedom from being told what to do, from someone lording it over you, being in control over one's life, being a fundamental psychological part of the spectrum/hierarchy of needs.
Perhaps rather than try and come up with a new term (fun though that might be!) maybe just 'reclaim' the words? I've become quite fond of my term 'Lizzy' after all!
I like Distributism and would far prefer it over the alternatives. There is one potential issue though:
"The State: Acceptance that the state will have certain necessary functions to perform for the foreseeable future. However, following the principle of ‘subsidiarity,’ the state should govern much less in a top-down fashion and much more in a bottom-up fashion by encouraging voluntary associations to carry out community tasks as much as possible."
Distributism calls for breaking up of cartels, widespread regulations on the market, and the limitation of industrialization. These things cannot be accomplished from the bottom up, nor can a weak State focused primarily on voluntary association carry out the necessary regulations and enforcements required to achieve Distributism. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the only way to achieve something similar to Distributism is through a very powerful, very far-reaching State that governs very much from the top down.
Forest Rebel,
Excellent critique!
If we took Rerum as the guide, you would have to reestablish a strongly Christian culture in which the moral authority of the Church was recognized. Then, possibly, something like the medieval moral constraints on the economy could be reimposed mainly via cultural means. In that context, it did not take a powerful state to impose them. However, I think you are pointing a larger issue: if the state is something like the modern state, what has to be your theory of the state for it to operate within the framework of 'subsidiarity'? I am not aware of such a solid theory put forth by distributists. It is not hard to imagine policies that would move things in that direction though. Another reader proposed increasing tax rates based on size of market share a corporation has. Any number of policies have incentivized bigness. Any number of policies could incentivize smallness. The real issues are the issues of creating the political will (cultural) to call for this and the structuring of power that would create a minimal but morally active state. As noted, not EASY to get there from here.
All good and reasonable. But - and I sound like a broken record these days - why do we not circumscribe the range of options with a realistic assessment of what is actually, physically, possible? The modern state is done for. The sexbot world is a ludicrous, deranged fantasy. We are used to the idea of looking towards the horizon for some sense of the future but it just isn't going to work out that way.
Roger, thanks for the observation. Yes, what is feasible is itself a good question. Next week's essay goes quite a different direction. Will be interested to hear your thoughts on that. What do you think of Chesterton's idea of looking to the past for ideals since we have a better understanding of what is achievable and what is challenging about ideals we have already worked on (discussed in essay 7)?
I went and.looked it over again. "We need to move from treating people like “products” to treating them like humans." And a brief conclusion follows with which I also agree. Do we agree that it is a human impulse (not at all understood) that produces civilisations? And that civilisations are, in turn, intensely dehumanising? That's quite a pickle. I agree with Debord (and others) that this thing we live in has a life entirely of its own. Like other organisms, it will die. And then we will have to remember what we really are as humans. I don't know that we can do a good job of that but it's a certainty that we are going to find out. We can idealise that or ignore it, but it's coming. Looking back in time for clues seems sensible to me, it is wise to be prepared. Not to religion, however, that is really a component of the collective response to the leviathanic experience.
Hi Roger, I appreciate the respectful and challenging dialogue. I hope that is characteristic of Substack. I agree that civilization creating is a thing we tend to do. I also agree that that is a pickle. I am tempted to say we are pickles all the way down, but don't think that is quite true. I would say we are pickles almost all the way down. My belief that the pickling stops short is a matter of faith or metaphysical principle. Nevertheless, we are certainly creatures with many contradictions. I would be interested in hearing more about what you mean about religion being 'a component of the collective response to the leviathanic experience.' For my part, I think we are inherently spiritual creatures. By that I mean the spiritual is an inherent aspect of our being fully human.
Further, by that, I would mean our ability to at least aspire (the word itself points to spirit) to self-transcendence.
When I say religion I mean only the organised religions which, as far as I know, arose in tandem with the emergence of the urge to create civilisations. Presumably as a (psychological, defensive) response, though I don't discount the possibility that it is simply a wild side effect of the conditions. Before that there were ritual behaviours, which are not religious in themselves. Spiritual is a word I have some difficulty with, since it is widely used but never defined. I'm never quite sure what is meant. Nevertheless, I don't mean to suggest that we are not spiritual or that we cannot aspire to self-transcendence. It seems, from what I've been able to gather so far, that what we are longing for is a connection or lived experience that is prehistorical. Which we glimpse from time to time. And which is in practice identical to just being human again.
I hope Substack treats you well. I think it will. These are very interesting essays, thought-provoking and entertaining. Looking forward to the next.
Thanks Roger.
Hello, I just subscribed to Winter Oak, and was told that an e-mail would arrive, but none came! Nothing in spam either. Can someone help me? Thanks, Jack Williams.
If you contact winteroak@greenmail.net and let us know the email address with which you subscribed, we can check if you are on the list. Thanks for your interest, Jack!
I would like to find the other parts of this, as there are apparently more parts. Please let me know how to find them, Jack Williams.
Hello Jack,
All the other essays are available on my Substack and also on Winter Oak (8 of 10 have been published thus far): https://winteroak.org.uk/category/w-d-james/