Was Chesterton a SOCIALIST? w/ Dale Ahlquist 

Not at all, it's just that many people think not supporting unregulated corporate capitalism is the same as being a communist

You should have dave the distributist on. From the channel "The Distributist"

Matt, you should have someone on from the American Solidarity Party

Some people think, especially in the US it seems, that any criticism of capitalism or any economic system that is not laissez-faire capitalism is socialism. Which simply is wrong.

Seems Catholic moral teaching in part agrees with Federalism because it is based in localism

As for the distributing ownership, we have seen that happen for some time now. In the way that personal investments in mutual funds and pension funds are ownership of publicly traded companies. So when people attack capitalism, it is not a case of some few people owning huge monopolies today. There are many more examples of distributed ownership. If this is what was meant by "distributism" then we have achieved some of the benefits. It is a voluntary system, so you can't say it is socialist. Interesting discussion.

The American Solidarity Party is a political party that believes in this political theory that wants to make this the main American economy. I think Matt Fradd should consider interviewing Peter Sonski who is running for US president. An alternative word for this economic theory can also be solidarist, hence the Solidarity Party

I presume you mean by that was he a collectivist? No, he was a distributist/syndicalist along with Hilaire Belloc which is a distinct economic system from capitalism and collectivism (and corporatism and feudalism). BTW, for future reference, socialism just means income distribution through high taxes and welfare programs in a capitalist economy. It is a policy to reduce wealth inequality and NOT a distinct economic system and does mean collectivism.

I wonder if it is really true that capitalism ends in monopoly. Examples of monopolies within capitalism are quite rare. The truth is largely the opposite; large firms go to the government to lobby for special favors because they cannot stand the competition from other market participants.

Capital markets in the US aggregate populations (similar to what happened in China) in fewer cities, working for fewer companies, using fiat currency and laws which destroy the principals of subsidiarity and solidarity. Leading to a cancer, a cancer of lack of meaning, community and purpose in cities. A true utilitarian nightmare.

☝ Gents, I got it: neighborism. Easily the best -ism you'll ever come across in this context.

Distributism is incapable of working.

Depends on your definition of socialism. By the Oxford English dictionary definition no but many socialists don't follow that definition and would classify distributism as a form of market socialism.

8:10 A capitalist _very_ small business is actually one man working and doing the profits, and _no one_ working for him. Or it could be husband and wife and then one employee. That's basically the bakery where I had my first coffee this morning. And later on, a jumble.

Now give me the 3 hour session tapes

This IS capitalism. Everyone shares profit. Often if the business is big you can buy shares. Often companies offer 2 for 1 shares for employee partners.

Why do we even need an "ism" term? Can't we just call the ideal subsidiarity? Just get rid of the cronyism (and fractional reserve banking) and things will pretty much sort themselves out, as you'll remove the means for inordinate control.

If you like distributism you may want to look into the zapatista rebels in southern Mexico. They style themselves as a far left socialist organization but their policies in practice look more like distributism with small scale peasant farms and worker owned industries with land being held in common but privately worked by individual families similar to the Russian peasant communes Chesterton seems to have praised in "The Apatite of Tyranny", they have websites where you can find zapatista made products. Unlike other leftist organizations they have always been friendly to the church as well.

Capitalism is where owner supremacy leads to class conflict. Socialism seeks to solve class conflict by placing one class, the workers, in a position of supremacy. Distributism wants to solve class conflict by turning one class into the other, workers into owners. Catholic teaching ought to make us seek a solution of class harmony. Not a dystopia where one class rules another or a Procrustean attempt to turn one class into the other. This solution is called Corporatism.

Awesome watch, thanks Matt - thanks Dale!

Why trade with the people in your town? You’d be much more local if your own household produced everything it consumed. You would also be living as subsistence farmers.

@pintswithaquinas I wanna challenge you to have an SSPX priest on your show, debating with an anti-sspx figure. I know you've covered this topic once before in your videos- but I think this is becoming a more heated and covered topic- and I appreciate the way you handle your debates. I might get a lot of hate for bringing this up but I don't really care - but I think it's necessary and you've interviewed people on several other controversial topics- so why not! :))

I don't think capitalism precludes or is mutual exclusive to localism. Localism is a specific type of capitalism. It's a bit pessimistic and claiming of omnipresence to argue that capitalism will always run down the road that America currently is. The supply and demand of the market could most definitely pick Non-profit companies. Anyone that acts along a localist mindset is still well within the bounds of capitalism and a large enough group of people thinking that way would make those companies survive. Long story short, the American idea of crony capitalism with a stock market is not the forgone conclusion to a capitalist market. Nothing about capitalism requires those things. Those things exist because of the same thing that generally ruins all economies: human greed.

The capitalist small business example seems to have a misunderstanding. The "boss" reaped many of the benefits because the boss sowed many of the risk. The employees show up, apply, and can get stable salary as long as they work there. The owner has to pay the initial fee (which can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions) to create the means of the business itself. And if the business have a slow day or even lose money, that affects the finance of the owner itself. So say the business has a loss 25%, the employees will still be paid 60k a year while the owner must pay 250k. If Localism, that is employees also being stakeholders, can gain from the extra profits, they must also must bear the loss. Meaning they must pay 15k that year. I'm not against this model but this is the consequence of the system you, Belloc, and Chesterton proposes. If you implement this model, don't go crying to the public about how employees are treated unfairly because they must "pay their debts". What happens then? Must the owner be charitable and bear their losses as well and keep paying them salary? Hey ho, that's what capitalism is!

It's a little cheap to claim that the only reason one might not spend money within the community as much as possible is because one is afraid they can no longer pursue the American dream. That's just being unimaginative. I purchase from anyone that can provide me value greater than or equal to the value of the money I hold. Far from money leaving the local economy, which so happens to increase the scarcity of money (a benefit for those who already have little of it), there is (hopefully) an increase of wealth in the value that was imported. The real problem is that this additional value is not always expressed in a way that benefits the buyer or the local community. This is often because the purchase is consumed selfishly or inefficiently, and that more than the purchase itself is what feeds a breakdown in subsidiarity. It is arguable that certain purchases could never be anything but selfishly consumed, but to constantly check if another's purchases never met this condition creates the same uncomfortable and often envious atmosphere that socialism does. At the very least, a localist must be content to believe that his neighbor does his best, which means he must not expect a surplus from him, whether that be in money received in business or wealth from his generosity.

this is exactly the conversation i needed to hear for a long time. Rerum novarum.... not quite new, but I'm adding it to my reading list.

What Chesterton a socialist? That doesnt make sense as a sentence.

Was*

The answer is "Yes"

Two thoughts: 1) Technology may mitigate the economies of scale that favor vast corporations. If we ever reach the point when we can 3D print microchips, then every town could have its own electronics factory - the raw materials are dirt cheap. So, that could work. 2) I strongly support corporations being owned, as much as possible, by the employees and communities that are local to the company’s operations. For employees, many companies have employee stock plans. I would suggest also, that when a corporation wants to set up shop in a community, they give the community some stock. No idea how that would work, exactly (give everyone within a certain radius X shares, give Y shares to the municipal government, give Z shares to a non-profit set up to benefit the community, etc?).

Wait a second. Then pope Leo did not condemn socialism, because socialism means the workers own the means of production. Sounds like pope Leo was also in favor of it

Serious lack of economic knowledge