Distributism a romantic dream or untried reality?

Justin Dziowgo of The Democracy of the dead had this post about distributism. He considers Fr. Richard John Neuhaus' treatment of Cherston's socio-political vision in a 1995 First Things reflection. In short, Fr. Neuhau dismisses much of Chesterton's distributism as a romantic notion based more on poetry than practicality.:

He writes, quoting a letter by James Fitzpatrick in New Oxford Review:

Whenever I read Chesterton and Belloc, the imagery captures my imagination: small villages, self-employed craftsmen, religious schools, social life revolving around the local parsonage, evenings with a pint of ale in a cheery pub. And then I come back to earth. The goal of distributists is to use the state to limit unjust concentrations of wealth; their objective is to use the law to set the framework for a less materialist society, one where home and hearth and family count for more than the lounge-lizard life of the [Donald] Trumps and certain stock market gurus. Well, it sounds great, but, who is going to be in charge of all this social engineering? Who is going to define what it means to be 'excessively' materialist?

Mr. Dziowgo doesn't quite agree. He sees that Chesterton is concerned witht the direction in which society pursues in its effort to live in a capitalist economy. Distributism is, for Chesterton, a way in which Society can regain the simplicity that helps it to remain sane. Mr. Dziowgo adds:

Distributism is not so much an economic theory as it is a cultural theory. The notion is that man flourishes best when he is self-governing and tied to nature. By owning more of the means of production, he is closer to the root of his work, which ultimately benefits him, his family and his practice of religion.

It is because distributism is a cultural movement, or perhaps a mindset, that it does not have many articulated policies or position papers. In order to be a distributist, one must change the way he views things. Distributism is about emphasizing the sacramental imagination.

Mr. Dziowgo's reflection motivated me to do some digging of my own. After reviewing some of Chesterton's thoughts on distributism here, I agree with Justin about Chesterton's intention. He's making a cultural and philosophical critique of the effects of capitalism's excesses on people's daily lives. His main complaints appear to be that:

1)Participation in the market has somehow taken the place that properly belongs to individuals and the community participating in life with God. In other words, the market--a secondary good--has become the absolute good, as practiced by capitalist society

2)The complexities of industrial capital society, in which the decisions of industrialists have far-reaching consequences on thousands, interfere with the proper operation of any form of democratic government: parlimentary constitutional monarchy, republic, etc.

3)Monopolists had too great in advantage in the market. Larger entities could buy out the property and production capapbilities of smaller businesses, leading to a distortion of subsidiarity in the marketplace.

His principle concern, which many that honor common sense may agree, is that too often society embraces a system of ideas i.e. free market economy (capitalism)as though original sin did not exist. People participate in this system as though every person will reasonably pursue his own advantage and not act self-destructively in any way. Clearly such a society places its collective belief in an absurdity. The trouble is that before long everyone is so caught up in the buying and selling that no one has time to even consider whether or not such living is absurd.

Seen in this light, his support of distributism is support of a way of living that he finds more sane than the nonsense that passed for respectability in his time. It doesn't lend itself to an easy comparison to capitalism as a strictly economic system. Free Market enterprise is a system, after all, in which scarce resources that have alternative uses are distributed through private participation in a price-controlled system of exchange. Still, when we consider the problems of excess consumerism, corporate malfesance, the shortages and surpluses that result from wrong-headed government intervention, and the disruption of local cultures by globalization, can any thinking person deny that Chesterton may have had a point?

In fairness to capitalists, perhaps Michael Novak's three-pillared system represents the best that capitalism can be. If society supports itself on a moral culture, a democratic polity and a free-market economic system, perhaps there's hope that capitalism can at last achieve the sanity for which Chesterton desired when he had placed his hope in distributism. Only time--and commitment to such an ideal in such a fallen world--will tell.