is a question commonly asked.
It's also unfortunately a question that distributist are unable to answer, or at the least they're unable to answer correctly, because if they could answer the question correctly, then they would in turn not be distributists.
So let me answer the question, because it does deserve a correct answer.
What is distributism:
Distributism is a denial of the natural social order which is grounded in the subsidiarity and solidarity of noblesse oblige. A society grounding in the noblesse oblige relation of owner and employee is true Catholic solidarity because it's a solidarity grounded in subsidiarity.
Noblesse oblige is grounded in the understanding that society is by nature hierarchical and ordered to the good of man both here on earth as well as to his final end. Noblesse oblige is grounded in the same principle as subsidiarity, i.e. an understanding that society is natural to man, and man finds his perfection in society.
Distributism is an appeal to solidarity, but it's it's an appeal grounded in divisiveness where owners are regarded as strangers and enemies to be overcome. Distributist mistake the current disorder in society falsely assuming it to be a disorder intrinsic to hierarchical society; and so in turn develop their understanding of solidarity as a reaction to their mistaken understanding.
Distributism is a reactionary utopianism of the intellectual class who have zero experience in practical matters, but who would gladly foist their dystopian idiocy on the common man.
Distributism is a type of western Catholic gnosticism of the intellectual class who think they have answers when what they really have is not a clue.
Distributism is an economic system that makes me appreciate the miserable system grounded in usury we currently suffer under, because it could be far worse, we could live under distributism
Other posts of mine on distributism:
I would rather be ruled by the illiterate carpenters I've known
Than be ruled by the Catholic intellectual class who are infatuated with their notions of distributism.
With the economy now gone to hell and life an extreme struggle trying to support a family, is there anything more annoying during these difficult times than the academia types who think of themselves as economic guiding lights when all they have to offer is the most inane and horrific advice possible?
Will the Real Distributists Please Stand Up
Is Edward Bellamy's book, Looking Backward, a 21st century distributist manifesto? Because whenever I read the current writings by distributists the dystopian Looking Backward is invariably what comes to mind.
Occupy american distributism with foreign writers. I just did a search at the Distributist Review for Huey Long and for Fr. Charles E. Coughlin and received "No results". And so just for the interest of it, I tried instead Chesterton or Belloc and recieved pages ad infinitum.
Do distributists realize how absurd they sound?
When ever I read some advocacy for distributism
I’m invariably reminded of this passage in P.G. Wodehouse :
“Bingo,” I cried deeply moved, “you must act. You must assert yourself. You must put your foot down. You must take a strong stand. You must be master in the home.”
He looked at me a long strange look.
“You aren’t married, are you , Bertie?”
“You know I’m not.”
“ I should have guessed it anyway”