I found the following quotes and have been thoughtfully considering the meaning and application:

On Distributism (vs. Capitalism, vs. Socialism)“According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism).”

G.K. Chesterton said “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”

As I meet more and more business owners, and discover more people who have been forced into self-employment (laid off, then hired back as a “consultant” for less pay and no benefits whatsoever), I am becoming more and more unsure about my fiscal political leanings. I have never been in support of aristocracy, or the slick and oily relationship between big business and a government that lets those companies reap far too many benefits with zero accountability.

Indeed, even the laws that have led us to have fewer and fewer communications choices (and will probably lead to the end of net neutrality) are outrageous to me. Consider how many cell phone service providers there were just 7 or 8 years ago. In my small town alone we had Cingular, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, Cellular One, and a couple of local providers. The local ones are gone now, and there are, in the minds of most, only two left.

How is this reduction in competition better for the consumer? It’s not. The companies have consolidated, laid off workers, and are now tightly controlling the market (aka reduced offerings and price points). And then there are the lovely cable companies. Wait, wait. Where you live there is really only one.  What about Microsoft and it’s complete monopoly on something like Office, which (and I will argue this with you) does not work the same on a Mac? So much for free market and competition, huh?

Which brings me to my thinking that maybe I need to re-evaluate how I feel about this. The idea and existence of monopolies within the private sector have long had me pushing animosities towards those companies and verbally fighting for a government to exert more control.

But more control by the government would simply create more of these situations, across all industries, due to their disgusting, incestuous relationship with flea-infested Corporate America. So I don’t want the state socialism as mentioned above either. I struggle, because I don’t think government can do it better, as I once did. But I also STILL believe that Corporate America will always screw us, too. They cannot be left to themselves.

I’m left with this very interesting theory of “distributism” and I must say, I feel a certain comfort at thinking about this. However, on further thought, it is an absolute oxymoron in almost every single capacity. How can we ensure as a society that the means of production are spread as widely as possible? This ends with either government regulation (and along the way gives us the entitlement programs, which are another cause for concern) OR with the larger corporations gobbling everything up under the premise of giving society more “resources.” It almost seems as though this theory tries to marry conservatives and progressives, which is interesting indeed.

I suppose that’s why it’s a “theory” – all things being equal, holding all other factors constant  – which are phrases from economics that frequently pop up when I hear that word. One good thing – I feel like I’m thinking a bit outside the box, and at least considering where we actually are in this whole process of an economy. How would we go about achieving this? Or is it simply not possible?