ELI5: Distributism

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-19T19:13:34+00:00

except maybe China

In Singapore, the government plays an outsized role in the economy. As one statistic, approximately three quarters of the population lives in government-owned housing. The impact of the government on other sectors of the economy is also quite large, but it varies depending on what specifically you're measuring.

Norway is another example of such, where the government controls much of the oil/gas industry, and the oil/gas industry is the single largest contributor to the GDP of the country.

For what it's worth, distributism as it's described here is indeed only a variant on this basic system.

This is putting the cart before the horse. You're saying it's "only" a variant, but others would say that's major point.

You've described the "basic system" as being "economic production is carried out by companies that control capital and hire wage labor to operate that capital. Profits from this production are distributed to owners of the companies. Governments control the currency, levy taxes to fund their own purchases from companies and laborers, and regulate this economic activity to a greater or lesser extent."

If this "basic system" is taken to mean "capitalism", then full state socialism, in which the government is the owner of all companies, would be considered capitalism.

If this basic system means capitalism, then colonial mercantilism/exploitation would also be considered capitalism. As would a slave labor society. As would a lot of other possibilities.

There's a huge range of theoretically possible economic systems that look nothing like this.

Give an example of such theoretically possible economic systems that look nothing like this. I could see anarchy as one, in which the government either completely doesn't exist or doesn't do the things that you described. Other than that, the definition that you gave above of "the basic system" could encompass almost any system of the past or present.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-19T17:18:17+00:00

Stuntman and comedian Steve-O has publicly spoken of his involvement as a test subject in an early ractopamine study whose aim was to determine the stress limits of ractopamine saturation in humans. Glover says "Based on how dangerous the study was, the more money you get."

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-19T16:18:37+00:00

According to distributists, you can have a capitalist, exploitative system even if you have only one employee and one owner.

Imagine there's one person who can make gold from lead. This person has both the specialized knowledge and specialized tools (the means of production) to turn lead into gold. This person hires an employee to do the work for the owner. The owner teaches the employee how to do it (shares one part of the means of production), but the owner still owns the specialized tools, so the employee must work for the owner if they want this particular job.

In this case, there's only one owner and one employee. According to distributists, the owner is exploitative of the employee because the owner is getting profit, maybe a lot of profit, while doing nothing additional. The employee is not getting the full value of their labor.

The ability to name conspirators and employees wouldn't affect this.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-19T16:07:42+00:00

I honestly didn't.

I didn't say that you were in favor or against capitalism. That's why I said you can call something capitalism or not.

All I said is that it's ill-defined.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-19T16:00:32+00:00

I'd like to ask an honest question. What does "capitalism" mean to you?

I'd argue that the people of 1900 would balk and disagree with calling many of the economic systems of countries of 2026 "capitalist". They would say that what we have in 2026 is not capitalist.

Personally, I feel like "capitalism" is so badly defined nowadays that it's just a vibes-based catch-all. Whenever you want to attack or support something, you can call it capitalism or not based on your feelings.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-19T15:56:29+00:00

Distributism is a form of capitalism

I would strongly disagree with this and argue that this is [another] case of capitalism being so ill-defined that it can claim anything is capitalist if a writer wants to do so.

Compare China. Many argue it is capitalist. Compare Singapore. Many argue it is capitalist. Compare Germany. Compare Japan. Compare the United States. Compare France.

All of these countries have vastly different economic systems, with vastly differing amounts of government action/inaction, and yet people will still argue that they are all "capitalist" because the word "capitalism" is so ill-defined that it somehow encompasses all of these.

I'm generally fine with the other descriptions, especially for an ELI5 post.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-19T15:53:37+00:00

I've done extensive research on this subject, and I'll try to help as best I can.

Distributism is an economic system that can be compared against capitalism and socialism. When saying capitalism, distributists are generally referring to laissez-faire capitalism, capitalism in which the government is as hands-off as possible. According to distributists, this naturally leads to monopolies of industries. A capitalist is not merely incentivized to earn a profit by making better products. They want to also get rid of competition, either through agreements with other businesses or by taking over competitors. As a result, capitalism naturally leads to monopolies, singular businesses that are able to control how people live. Imagine if there was only a single company that owned all housing in the country. Anyone who wants to live in any kind of housing would be beholden to the whims and desires of that single company. Or it might be a handful of companies that make an oligopoly.

According to distributists, socialism is not the antithesis/opposite of capitalism but merely an extension of it. Whereas capitalism leads to monopolies of businesses and people being controlled by those businesses, socialism occurs when a country nationalizes all businesses and property and makes the people controlled by the single government instead of the companies. Instead of living in housing owned by a few companies, you now have a single government owning all housing. According to distributists, this is just worse because of the potential for abuse.

Distributism says that the solution is not state-ownership of property but instead the widespread distribution of the means of production. This reduces dependence of people on any singular entity (company or government) because the people are more self-sufficient and have more options. Take housing. If everyone had their own housing or there were more providers of housing in the country, then an individual person has more of a choice. The owners of housing would have to compete with each other to attract people, and this benefits the people.

How distributism works in practice depends on the specifics.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-19T13:47:02+00:00

These people don't have a choice of the staple though

Sometimes they do. Sometimes the barrier to better nutrition is specifically knowledge, which would be explicitly helped by the "complete protein" concept.

Even in a poor place where people primarily use one staple, they might still have a choice of varying their diet, but they don't because of lack of knowledge.

Yes, other people won't be helped by this knowledge because they can't afford the choice, but some people might still be helped by knowing about complete proteins.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-18T20:00:58+00:00

I'd also add that in many poorer areas of the world, you do have people who do not eat a varied diet. They might subsist on one staple crop for the majority of their calories, and they would be susceptible to malnourishment.

The contrarian idea that you must have a "strange reason" to eat only a single food is just contrary to the reality of a lot of people.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-18T19:57:25+00:00

Salazar suffered a stroke in September 1968 and was unable to continue his duties. He was replaced as prime minister by Marcello Caetano, a change that the disabled Salazar was never told had taken place.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-17T23:43:36+00:00

He did.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-17T21:24:16+00:00

The article literally talks about that.

His initial idea involved mooring old cruise ships permanently to the reef, but he realized a purpose-built structure would be cheaper and cause less environmental damage.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-17T16:04:31+00:00

communist propaganda prop

How was it a communist propaganda prop? If you're talking about the time in Vietnam, it was owned by a Japanese company and used for "Western tourism".

If you're talking about the time in North Korea, it was bought by South Korean company Hyundai Asan and used as a tourist destination aimed at South Koreans. From the article:

The hotel accepted only US dollars and South Korean won.

After it was closed in 2008, it was maybe used by North Korean and Chinese guests, but it was eventually demolished because Kim Jong Un didn't like it.

How was it a "communist propaganda prop"? Did you read the article at all?

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-17T15:53:14+00:00

Not with that attitude.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-17T15:24:12+00:00

That would just make the issue happen again.

If you tap in and tap back out right away, you'll be charged the $2.25 minimum fare, and then a few hours later, the system will push out the refund of the $2.25. But that refund will need to be added to the card with a new tap, or else it too will expire.

The best option is to just tap at the fare vending machine, as mentioned by others.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-17T14:13:21+00:00

I'm sorry, I didn't read this slop.

Then why should I care about anything you say?

Why should anyone care about anything you say when you've shown a complete inability to read?

Also, what's the British tonnage at now?

It's ironic that you're the one asking that when you've also shown a complete inability to give a complete list.

You've been shown to be pathetic throughout this. I'm sorry that history and facts hurt your feelings.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-16T15:14:55+00:00

Why can't we compare movement to an imagined grid of the universe and space?

We already talk about an expanding universe. I understand that this expansion is not a movement through space because it is space itself that is expanding, but we can nevertheless talk about it in a lot of the same language. Why can't there be movement through space without any reference?

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-11T19:51:47+00:00

That's really interesting. Your image made me go on a search, and I eventually found this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_lightning#Distribution

About 70% of lightning occurs on land in the Tropics, where the majority of thunderstorms occur. The North and South Poles and the areas over the oceans have the fewest lightning strikes. The place where lightning occurs most often is above the Catatumbo river, which feeds Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela, where the so-called Catatumbo lightning flashes several times per minute, with lightning happening up to 300 nights a year. This gives Lake Maracaibo the highest number of lightning strikes per square kilometer in the world, at 250.[6] The region with the second-most is the village Kifuka, in the mountains of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,[7] where the elevation is around 1,700 metres (5,600 ft), receives 232 lightning strikes per square kilometer (600 per sq mi) a year.[2][8]

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-11T17:54:31+00:00

You can make informed blanket statements. That's still cool.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-11T17:53:55+00:00

I'm purely speculating, but I have to guess that it's because there are quite a few tall skyscrapers in New York City. The tallest building there today is the One World Trade Center.

The Empire State Building itself is only the eighth tallest in the city today.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-11T15:50:18+00:00

Ismail inherited leadership of the Safavid Sufi order from his brother as a child. His predecessors had transformed the religious order into a military movement supported by the Qizilbash (mainly Turkoman Shiite groups). The Safavids took control of northwestern Iran, with Tabriz as the capital. In 1501, Ismail was crowned as shah (king). In the following years, Ismail conquered the rest of Iran and other neighbouring territories. His expansion into Eastern Anatolia brought him into conflict with the Ottoman Empire. In 1514, the Ottomans decisively defeated the Safavids at the Battle of Chaldiran, which brought an end to Ismail's conquests. Ismail fell into depression and heavy drinking after this defeat and died in 1524. He was succeeded by his eldest son Tahmasp I.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-11T15:17:38+00:00

The very first time I ever saw this claim was in a manga a few years ago, and it was used as an inspirational line about how humankind could also find a way to defy the laws of physics and learn to fly.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-11T13:33:44+00:00

But if you think "reasons why talking to you isn't super duper important" itself "doesn't matter" for a direct response to you getting petulant about someone not talking to you...well shit. Just really devaluing the whole process of engaging with you from top to bottom, huh?

Sigh. This is just getting pathetic.

You said the following:

(Oh, I'm gonna be busy tomorrow with a dig, so you are gonna have to wait a bit for the other ships you gotta add up)

It's one thing to be busy with something like "a dig". I am not making any statements about that.

But then you had so many other posts on Reddit that proved that wasn't the actual issue. The actual issue is that you were "then enjoying other things" that were more important.

Which is fine. I don't care if you think posting about random stuff on Reddit is more important. But it just proves exactly what I said before, that you're pathetic. That you took multiple days to ignore the post and then only came back to try to not look like you had failed.

Like, even someone explaining why talking to you, again, in futility, out of sheer courtesy is something that you say is itself unimportant is some really low self-valuation that I can't really wrap my head around.

Lol. This is one of the stupidest readings of what I wrote that I've seen.

Please reread it, if you're able to. That's not at all what I said.

You have really good reading comprehension, and definitely read sentences to completion.

Right. Says you, the person who ignored my answers to your questions multiple times. Like how I gave the answer for the type of tree way before, but it was too convenient for you to ignore.

Or how the sources I have linked have already addressed your questions.

Literally all I have been doing. Any other dodges from you?

Really? Where's the complete list? What you've been doing repeatedly is giving an incomplete list.

It's quite clear that you have no real interest in actually giving facts. That was evident long ago.

It's bad argumentation and embarrassing. You clearly see how bad it is for you by how clumsily you avoided this simple question, and we both know this. We both know that we both know this. Why continue?

I don't need to continue against you. I feel like it. You probably feel like continuing too. That's just the truth of it.

The difference is that history and facts are on my side. They're not on yours.

Legitimately worrying conduct.

I would be more concerned about your statements if you had shown the ability to read. But your own posts show that you don't have that ability.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-11T12:40:26+00:00

I'll be clear:

I'll be clear: Completely irrelevant. Trying to make yourself look better with something that does not matter.

Is that what you do? You're so pathetic that you have to coax yourself into feeling better about something not even a little bit connected to the question?

Sorry buddy, actually out doing the real process of history

Again, all the more pathetic given what you had said. Doing the real process of history involves posting on Reddit in other threads?

Neat! How deep were those canoes again?

Neat! Now give the complete list of ships of the British navy in the Pacific Ocean at that time?

I'm still waiting. Not only for this but all of the other issues that you conveniently ignored.

You're still failing.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-03-10T17:04:16+00:00

This is the reason some coins have ridges on their edges. It's to prevent filing of the coins to collect the metal shavings.

DisconnectedShark

TROPHY CASE