Anarcho-Distributism:

The Third Type of Libertarianism By W. J. Whitman

“I wanted, though I did not know it then, a synthesis.”

—Dorothy Day1

Libertarian Socialism & Anarcho-Capitalism

We are constantly bombarded by the worthless dialectic of the political processes of

Liberal Democracy. We are given false dichotomies of left-wing vs. right-wing, liberal vs.

conservative, libertarian socialist vs. anarcho-capitalist. These dichotomies are largely fictitious.

We must transcend this dialectic and come to some sort of synthesis. There is no necessary

contradiction between the radical “left-wing” and the radical “right-wing.” There is no

fundamental disagreement between libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism. There is only

an apparent contradiction due to a discontinuity of vocabulary—i.e. the same terms are being

used by different people to mean different things. When the anarcho-capitalists condemn

“socialism,” they are referring to state-socialism of the Marxian-type. The libertarian socialists

do not advocate any such “socialism.” When libertarian socialists criticize “capitalism,” they are

referring to state-capitalism of the Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes variety. The

anarcho-capitalists do not advocate any such “capitalism.”

In fact, the anarcho-capitalist ideas of Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and Hans-

Hermann Hoppe are greatly influenced by the ideas of libertarian socialists such as Benjamin

Tucker, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Lysander Spooner. Both anarcho-capitalism and libertarian

socialism are rooted in the classical liberal tradition. They both advocate the free market and the

abolition of the state. When Rothbard introduced the term “libertarian” to the American right, he

was consciously identifying himself, as an anarcho-capitalist, with the market anarchism of the

libertarian socialists. For the most part, the libertarians of both traditions are really advocating

the same thing; they are merely calling it by different names. Anarcho-capitalism is

libertarianism and libertarian socialism is market anarchism. The anarcho-capitalist and the

anarcho-socialist are both part of one libertarian tradition. They have the same roots in classical

liberalism and free-market economics and they advocate most of the same ideas.

1 Dorothy Day, The Long Loneliness, Part 1, § 6

Benjamin Tucker, one of the most prominent libertarian socialist theorists, says that “the

bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labor should be put in possession of its own.”2 Tucker

continues:

“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a

logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in

the early chapters of his ‘Wealth of Nations,’—namely, that labor

is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this

principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all

further considerations of it to devote himself to showing what

actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at

present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists

have followed his example by confining their function to the

description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial

phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the

description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the

means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after

Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up

where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical

conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.

“This seems to have been done independently by three

different men, of three different nationalities, in three different

languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a

Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew….

“From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of

price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of

price—these three men made the following deductions: that the

natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is

the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift,

inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source

abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of

2 Benjamin Tucker, Individual Liberty, Ch. 1

labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three

forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the

trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute

for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor

which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be

gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that

the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing

more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the

landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact

usury from the labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal

privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the

enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down

monopoly….

“It was at this point—the necessity of striking down

monopoly—that came the parting of their ways. Here the road

forked. They found that they must turn either to the right or to the

left,—follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty.

Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were

born State Socialism and Anarchism.

“First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the

doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the

government, regardless of individual choice.

“Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish

the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all

industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive

agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State….

“This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as

the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by

individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be

abolished.

“When Warren and Proudhon, in prosecuting their search

for justice to labor, came face to face with the obstacle of class

monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested upon Authority,

and concluded that the thing to be done was, not to strengthen this

Authority and thus make monopoly universal, but to utterly uproot

Authority and give full sway to the opposite principle, Liberty, by

making competition, the antithesis of monopoly, universal. They

saw in competition the great leveler of prices to the labor cost of

production. In this they agreed with the political economists. The

query then naturally presented itself why all prices do not fall to

labor cost; where there is any room for incomes acquired otherwise

than by labor; in a word, why the usurer, the receiver of interest,

rent, and profit, exists. The answer was found in the one-sidedness

of competition. It was discovered that capital had so manipulated

legislation…that almost no competition at all is allowed in

supplying capital…

“Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to

sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society. But,

though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed

nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to

all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few.

And when the light burst in upon them, they saw that this could be

done by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus

bringing the price of its own use down to cost,—that is, to nothing

beyond the expenses incidental to handling and transferring it. So

they raised the banner of Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home,

as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the

Manchester doctrine; laissez faire the universal rule. Under this

banner they began their fight upon monopolies, whether the all-

inclusive monopoly of the State Socialists, or the various class

monopolies that now prevail.”3

The early anarchists (i.e. libertarian socialists) held that all monopolies rest upon special

privileges granted by the state. The state itself is a monopoly—a monopoly on the “legitimate”

use of violence (under the euphemism of “defense”), a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of theft

(under the euphemism of “taxation”), a monopoly on the “legitimate” counterfeiting of money

(under the euphemism of “expansionary monetary policy”). In order to achieve the free-market

ideal of libertarian socialism, all monopolies have to be abolished. This means that the state itself

(because it too is a monopoly) needs to be abolished in order for a free market to exist.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon writes:

“As a variety of the liberal regime I have mentioned

anarchy—the government of each by himself, self-government….

politically, the idea of anarchy is quite as rational and concrete as

any other. What it means is that political functions have been

reduced to industrial functions, and that social order arises from

nothing but transactions and exchanges. Each may then say that he

is the absolute ruler of himself, the polar opposite of monarchical

absolutism…. anarchy is the ideal of the economists, who attempt

strenuously to put an end to all governmental institutions and to

rest society upon the foundations of property and free labour

alone.”4

As you can see, libertarian socialism is a form of market anarchism. Murray Rothbard’s

notion of anarcho-capitalism is based almost entirely on the ideas of the libertarian socialists.

Rothbard’s ideas are by no means original. He is merely a synthesizer of earlier views. He has

taken a great deal from the libertarian socialists and mixed it with some of the ideas of the

Austrian School economists. On the topic of libertarian socialism, Rothbard writes:

“I must begin by affirming my conviction that Lysander Spooner

and Benjamin R. Tucker were unsurpassed as political

philosophers and that nothing is more needed today than a revival

3 Benjamin Tucker, Individual Liberty, Ch. 1 4 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The Principle of Federation, Part 1, § 2, 4

and development of the largely forgotten legacy that they left to

political philosophy. It was left to Spooner and Tucker to

adumbrate the way in which all individuals could abandon the

State and cooperate to their own vast mutual benefit in a society of

free and voluntary exchanges and interrelations. By doing this,

Spooner and Tucker advanced libertarian individualism from a

protest against existing evils to pointing the way to an ideal society

toward which we can move; and what is more, they correctly

located that ideal in the free market which already partially existed

and was providing vast economic and social benefits. Thus,

Spooner, Tucker, and their movement not only furnished a goal

toward which to move, but they also greatly surpassed previous

‘utopians’ in locating that goal in already-existing institutions

rather than in a coercive or impossible vision of a transformed

mankind. Their achievement was truly remarkable, and we have

not yet risen to the level of their insights.”5

It is not difficult to detect Rothbard’s admiration of the libertarian socialists here. He goes so far

as to say that they are “unsurpassed as political philosophers” and that we need a “revival of their

legacy.” Rothbard continues:

“I am, therefore, strongly tempted to call myself an ‘individualist

anarchist,’ except for the fact that Spooner and Tucker have in a

sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that

doctrine I have certain differences. Politically, these differences are

minor, and therefore the system that I advocate is very close to

theirs; but economically, the differences are substantial, and this

means that my view of the consequences of putting our more or

less common system into practice is very far from theirs.”6

5 Murray Rothbard, The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economists View (in Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume

20, No. 1 (Winter 2006):5-15 6 Murray Rothbard, The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economists View (in Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume

20, No. 1 (Winter 2006):5-15

As Rothbard himself admitted, the political differences between anarcho-capitalism and

libertarian socialism are minor and both systems are very similar. However, Rothbard disagrees

with some of the economic analyses of the libertarian socialists. Firstly, because Rothbard had

studied the Austrian School of economics, he rejected Adam Smith’s labor theory of value in

favor of Carl Menger’s subjective theory of value. Since socialism is based on the labor theory of

value, Rothbard cannot be called a “socialist” even though he agrees with the libertarian

socialists on nearly everything. It is an interesting fact that the subjective theory of value (a.k.a.

the marginal theory of value), like the theory of socialism, was a conclusion reached by three

different men, of three different nationalities, independently and simultaneously. The subjective

or marginal theory of value was discovered independently by Carl Menger, William Stanley

Jevons, and Léon Walras. Whereas the socialists carried the labor theory of value to its logical

conclusion, the marginalists rejected the labor theory of value altogether. Instead, they

maintained that the value of a good is ultimately determined by people’s subjective estimations

rather than by the amount of labor expended in the production of the good. The cost of a good

does not depend upon the amount of labor exerted in the process of production, but rather by

people’s estimation of how much the product is worth. If you publish a book, you may put in a

lot of work but that does not guarantee that the book will sell for a high price. If the content of

the book is mediocre, then it is likely that the book will not sell for much. All prices are

ultimately determined by subjective estimations of value. Supply-and-demand and the amount of

labor expended in production are only secondary consideration that may affect prices. Today it

seems quite obvious that the subjective theory of value is correct. No one in their right mind can

still defend the labor theory of value in its original form. It is now a defunct theory. The labor

theory of value is not held by a single credible economist today. In addition to Rothbard’s

rejection of the labor theory of value, his knowledge of Austrian Economics gave him a far

superior understanding of interest and banking than any of the libertarian socialists had. As a

result, he also disagrees with their position on the question of usury. Furthermore, Rothbard

disagrees with the libertarian socialist position on property rights in relation to land. He holds

that the land-owner should have the right to sell his land (as long as the land was acquired in a

fair way), whereas the socialists hold that land cannot properly be sold because property rights

are intimately linked to use. So these are the three major points of disagreement between

libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism: (1) the labor theory of value vs. the subjective

theory of value, (2) the particular theory of how the economic phenomenon of interest works,

and (3) whether or not a land-owner should have the right to sell his land for a profit.7

Since the libertarian socialists and the anarcho-capitalists do have very much in common,

it seems to me that it would make sense for us to unite as partners in rebellion against “our

common enemy, the state.” Could we not work together to establish an anarchist society and then

work out the details later? We envision the same sort of system, free-market anarchism! Let’s

work towards that goal together. We are in perfect agreement about the sort of system that needs

to be put in place. The only substantial disagreement is about the economic consequences of the

implementation of that system. The establishment of a free-market anarchist society will be our

grand experiment. Who is right about the question of interest will be demonstrated by the

experiment itself. If the socialists are right, interest will drop to nearly zero. If the anarcho-

capitalists are right, it will not. Either way, we will be better off for having established a

voluntary society.

Personally, I am not in full agreement with either faction. Due to the fact that I have

studied economics fairly extensively, I reject the labor theory of value; therefore, I cannot be

considered a libertarian socialist. Moreover, I adhere to the Austrian Theory of the Business

Cycle, so I generally agree with Rothbard’s analysis of interest and credit. However, unlike

Rothbard, I am opposed to the institution of usury. I see the institution of usury as a force that

enslaves people—debt slavery is a very real evil! I do not believe that such an institution could

continue in an anarchist society. In an anarchist society, the people would always repudiate

nefarious contracts. The absence of the state as the “right-hand man” of the banker would make

it virtually impossible for the banking establishment to enforce contracts based upon high rates

of interest. This would cause interest rates to be extremely low in an anarchist society. In this

regard, my view is fairly close to that of the libertarian socialists. As far as the issue of property

rights in relation to land-owning is concerned, my position is somewhere between that of the

libertarian socialists and the anarcho-capitalists. Like the anarcho-capitalists, I believe that an

individual should have the right to sell a piece of land that he has fairly acquired through labor or

7 As far as the labor theory of value is concerned, I will say that socialism is not based on the assumption that labor

is the actual determining factor in prices. On the contrary, socialists assume that labor ought to be the determining

factor. The libertarian socialist would agree with the anarcho-capitalist in saying that the amount of labor expended

in production does not equal the cost of the product on the market. However, the libertarian socialist holds that it

ought to be equal, and that it would be equal, to the cost if the market were truly free.

trade. However, like the libertarian socialist, I hold that the right to maintain possession of the

land ought to be contingent upon the individual’s maintenance and use of the land. Un-owned

land can be acquired by an individual through the addition of labor in the process of cultivating

the land. Once the land is acquired as property through labor, it can be voluntarily sold by the

owner thereof and bought by another individual. However, if an individual purchases a piece of

land and then makes no use of it, allowing the land to fall into disuse, he shall lose his title to the

land and another person can come along and take possession of it through the addition of labor.

God is the only true and ultimate owner of land upon the Earth. We are merely stewards. Our

right to hold land as property is contingent upon our fulfillment of the commandment to

“cultivate and maintain” the land. (Cf. Genesis 2:15) In other words, our possession of land as

property is contingent upon our proper use of the land. If a man makes no effort to cultivate and

maintain his land, or if he is a bad steward and pollutes the land, then he has no proper claim to

the ownership of that land; therefore, he cannot claim it as his own private property. The bad

steward and the idle capitalist are usurpers—their possession of land is illegitimate. My view on

land can be classified as distributism. Distributism is a third way, an alternative to both

capitalism and socialism. Like the capitalist, the distributist recognizes the right of the property

owner to buy and sell land. Yet he does not recognize that as an inherent and absolute right. Like

the socialist, the distributist holds that the right to possess land as property rests upon the proper

use of the land. My political philosophy is anarcho-distributism; it is neither libertarian socialism

nor anarcho-capitalism. It is a third way. Anarcho-distributism is the third type of libertarianism.

Anarcho-Syndicalism & Guild Socialism

There are a great many union-supporters that are utterly deceived about the economic

consequences of the achievements of the labor unions. They falsely believe that it is a great

victory for workers when the unions secure higher wages for them. In truth, it is folly for the

unions to push for higher wages. If the unions succeed in getting wages raised, it will only result

in inflation. As wages rise, the capitalists who own the industries will put pressure on the

bankocrats, petitioning the central bank to relieve them of the “burden” of higher wages. As a

result, the capitalistic bankocrats in charge of the central bank will implement an “expansionary

monetary policy,” thereby devaluing the currency, and causing a reduction of real wages. While

the unions may succeed in raising nominal wages, the real wages will fall because all goods on

the market will become more expensive due to the devaluation of the currency. The end result is

that it is as if the workers had received no raises at all. Even if the unions could somehow keep

the central bank from devaluing the currency, the capitalists would raise prices to keep the higher

cost of labor from cutting into their profits. The non-union industries would have to raise wages

in order to keep from losing their best employees to the higher-paying competition (because the

employees will naturally want to leave for the higher-paying jobs elsewhere). As wages rise

across the market, all industries will raise their prices to prevent the additional cost of labor from

cutting into profits. The cost of all goods will increase. With the increased cost of living, the

purchasing power of the workers drops back down to the level it was at before the raises went

into effect. The success of the union in securing raises for its members ultimately provides no

lasting benefit to the workers. The only way that the unions could benefit the employees by

securing an increase in wages, is if the unions could also convince the central bank not to

devalue the money and convince the government to prohibit the industries from raising the prices

of their products. In such a case, we would have artificially determined wage rates and

artificially determined prices—Marxian-style state-socialism! If you are going to do that, then

you might as well demonetize the economy (abolish money), hand over all property to the

government, and have everyone directly employed by the state, with the government in complete

control of the distribution of goods! The use of unions to help increase wages is a terrible

practice.

In my opinion, the unions are worthless unless they are being used as a means to achieve

the abolition of the capitalist system.8 The only way to guarantee that the workers will not be

exploited by the owners of industry is to make the workers themselves into the owners of

industry. The recognition of this fact is one of the great contributions of the anarcho-syndicalists

and guild socialists. The only way to protect the proletariat from the capitalists is to turn every

proletarian into a capitalist! As long as the majority of people cannot own any means of

production for themselves, the majority will be forced to work for somebody else—they will be

forced into wage-slavery. Their survival will totally depend upon employment in the wage-labor

market. As Noam Chomsky put it,

8 Here I am using the term “capitalism” to mean a system wherein the owners of industry (capitalists) are distinct

from the workers (proletarians), and the vast majority of people are forced into wage-slavery.

“Anarchists of this tradition have always held that democratic

control of one’s productive life is at the core of any serious human

liberation, or, for that matter, of any significant democratic practice.

That is, as long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves on

the market to those who are willing to hire them, as long as their

role in production is simply that of ancillary tools, then there are

striking elements of coercion and oppression that make talk of

democracy very limited, if even meaningful.”9

Corporations are not persons: they have no “unalienable rights.” The concept of the

corporation is a capitalistic fiction. It is a scheme invented in order to separate the owners of

industry from the industry itself—it was created in order to prevent the capitalists from having to

take on the responsibilities and risks of owning a business in a free-market system. The

corporation is a myth, it is invisible and has no real substance—it is really non-existent. Since

the corporation is a non-entity, it is not theft for the workers to take over control of a corporate

industry. The workers are real persons with property rights, whereas the corporation is not a

person. The corporation lacks any natural or inherent rights. The goal of the unions should be to

allow the workers to take over control of the industry, transforming the corporation into a

workers’ guild.

Hilaire Belloc explains that after the abolition of slavery in Medieval Europe, there was a

transition phase in which feudalism (a more mild form of slavery) was practiced. Then,

feudalism itself waned and a more distributist-style society arose for a while. One of the most

important institutions in later Medieval times was the guild. Belloc writes:

“Meanwhile, side by side with this emancipation of

mankind in the direct line of descent from the old chattel slaves of

the Roman villa went, in the Middle Ages, a crowd of institutions

which all similarly made for a distribution of property, and for the

destruction of even the fossil remnants of a then forgotten Servile

State. Thus industry of every kind in the towns, in transport, in

crafts, and in commerce, was organized in the form of Guilds. And

9 Noam Chomsky, Chomsky On Anarchism (edited by Barry Pateman), Ch. 4 “The Relevance of Anarcho-

Syndicalism”

a Guild was a society partly co-operative, but in the main

composed of private owners of capital whose corporation was self-

governing…. Above all, most jealously did the Guild safeguard the

division of property, so that there should be formed within its ranks

no proletariat upon the one side, and no monopolizing capitalist

upon the other.

“There was a period of apprenticeship at a man’s entry into

a Guild, during which he worked for a master; but in time he

became a master in his turn. The existence of such corporations as

the normal units of industrial production, of commercial effort, and

of the means of transport, is proof enough of what the social spirit

was which had also enfranchised the laborer upon the land. And

while such institutions flourished side by side with the no longer

servile village communities, freehold or absolute possession of the

soil, as distinguished from the tenure of the serf under the lord,

also increased.”10

The guild functions as both a trade union and a co-operative.11

The guild system not only

eliminates the dichotomy between proletarian workers and capitalist owners of industry, it also

gives all of the workers an incentive to do the best job that they possibly can. Workers within a

guild tend to be more enthusiastic about their jobs. If the average worker has an idea that will

improve the product or services of the company, he is more likely to push the idea in a guild than

in a capitalistic corporation. The guild worker is a partial but equal owner of the company. If the

company starts to make more money, the worker will start to make more money too. Because the

10 Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State, § 1 11

Cf. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., What’s Wrong With “Distributism”: “Even granting the distributist premise that

smaller businesses have been swallowed up by larger firms, it is by no means obvious that it is always preferable for

a man to operate his own business rather than to work for another. It may well be that a man is better able to care for

his family precisely if he does not own his own business or work the backbreaking schedule of running his own farm,

partially because he is not ruined if the enterprise for which he works should have to close, and partially because he

doubtless enjoys more leisure time that he can spend with his family than if he had the cares and responsibilities of

his own business.” The objection raised by Dr. Woods is not a valid argument against distributism, as distributists do

not intend to make everyone own their own private business. The distributist also wants guilds and co-operatives to

be in place. While the member of a guild or a co-op would have the benefits of being a property-owner and would

have more control over his industry, he would not have the burden of the high responsibility that goes with owning a

private business.

worker is a partial owner of the business, he has a vested interest in the success of the business.

There are no “dead-end jobs” within a guild. By increasing the guild’s profits, you can always

increase the wages of every member of the guild. The guild system was extremely successful

historically. Today the guild system is making a comeback, proving that it can still work in the

modern world. For example, a distributist by the name of José María Arizmendiarrieta helped to

establish the Mondragon Corporation as a workers’ guild in 1956. The Mondragon Corporation

has since become the 7th largest business in Spain and the largest and most successful co-

operative in the world. Another example of the success of the co-op/guild system would be the

over 3,000 employee-owned businesses in the Emilia-Romagna region (an area in Italy smaller

than the state of Massachusetts). Thanks to the distributist system in place there, the Emilia-

Romagna region is one of the richest regions in Europe.

Distributism & Anarchism

There has been a debate raging between distributists and anarchists for quite a while. The

mainstream distributists within the Roman Catholic Church are quite critical of anarchism in

general; and they denounce both anarcho-capitalism and libertarian socialism. The traditional

Roman Catholic critique of both movements is based on ignorance. In order to accurately

criticize a particular school of thought, one must read the works of the writers within that school

of thought. This, however, the distributists seem to have failed to do. They frequently lump

anarcho-capitalists in with state-capitalists; and they lump libertarian socialists (anarchists) in

with authoritarian state-socialists. This shows that the distributist writers have failed to recognize

that the libertarian schools of “socialism” and “capitalism” are altogether different from the

authoritarian schools of “socialism” and “capitalism.”

The distributists rightly denounce “capitalism” defined as a system of wage-slavery

wherein the majority of the people are forced to work for a small capitalist minority, with the

capitalists owning nearly all of the means of production and the average worker neither owning,

nor having the ability to acquire ownership of, any means of production for himself.12

The

12 Cf. Hilaire Belloc, Nationalization: “[Capitalism’s] main characteristic is the possession of the means of

production, that is land and machinery, by a small number of citizens, while the great majority of citizens remain

dispossessed not only of the land and machinery, but of the stores of food and clothing and housing, without which

men cannot live.” Also, John C. Médaille, Toward a Truly Free Market, Chapter 5: “In capitalist economies, the

typical distributist gathers arguments against this wage-slavery definition of “capitalism,” and

continues from there to his critique of anarcho-capitalism. But anarcho-capitalism does not

advocate “capitalism” in that sense. “Capitalism,” as defined by anarcho-capitalists, is merely an

economic system with a free market wherein property rights are respected and preserved. This

particular definition of “capitalism” is totally different from the sort of “capitalism” that G. K.

Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were criticizing so long ago.

When Chesterton and Belloc criticized “socialism,” they defined socialism as State-

ownership of the means of production.13

When distributists criticize libertarian socialists, they

start with the typical ChesterBellocian critique of socialism as state-ownership of the means of

production, then conclude that libertarian socialists are wrong because “socialism” is wrong. But

it is quite obvious that libertarian socialists do not advocate state-ownership of the means of

production. On the contrary, libertarian socialists are anarchists! They advocate the abolition of

the state altogether. If they are advocating the abolition of the state, then they certainly cannot

advocate state-ownership of anything! Libertarian socialists are not “socialists” in that sense.

They are socialists in a totally different sense. To the libertarian socialists, “socialism” means the

abolition of state-capitalism in order to allow for a truly free market in which property will

naturally be distributed in a more equitable fashion. This definition of “socialism” is almost

synonymous with “distributism.”14

The only major point of disagreement between the

distributists and the libertarian socialists is on the topic of the state. Distributists want a more-or-

less minimalist state, whereas the libertarian socialists want to get rid of the state completely.

vast majority of men are not capitalists; that is, they do not have sufficient capital to make their own livings, either

alone or in cooperation with their neighbors, but must work for wages in order to live.” 13 Cf. Hilaire Belloc, Nationalization: “Those adhering to this sect (commonly known as Socialists) usually regard

inequality, and always regard ‘exploitation’ as immoral; and to eliminate these two evils which they postulate as

irreconcilable with any right living, they propose to eliminate private property in the means of production and to vest

all that can be vested in the hands of the State.” The term socialism was coined in reference to the political

philosophy of Robert Owen, Josiah Warren, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Seeing that Warren and Proudhon were

both opposed to the very existence of the state, it is quite obvious that their “socialism” (i.e. the original socialism)

was certainly not synonymous with “state-ownership of the means of production.” Nevertheless, Belloc himself

criticizes Proudhon and falsely asserts that he “postulated the ownership, management and control [of the means of

production and the distribution of wealth] by officers of the State.”(ibid.) 14 Cf. Donald P. Goodman III: “This is the defining characteristic of Distributism: the widescale distribution of

productive property throughout society, such that ownership of it is the norm, rather than the exception.”(An

Introduction to Distributism, Part 1) & “The widespread distribution of productive property is the primary goal of

Distributism.”(An Introduction to Distributism, Part 2) Also, consider the title of John Médaille’s magnum opus in

defense of distributism—Toward a Truly Free Market.

Additionally, libertarian socialism is based on Smith’s labor theory of value, whereas

distributism is not. (Hence, I call myself an anarcho-distributist rather than a libertarian

socialist because I do not accept the labor theory of value and, therefore, cannot properly be

called a socialist.)

It would be quite easy to synthesize the ideas of the distributists and the anarchists. I

believe that something of the sort has already been done by Dorothy Day. She explains that the

main reason that the distributists rejected anarchism was because they did not understand it.

Dorothy Day writes:

“Anarchism, according to the American Encyclopedia, is a

vaguely defined doctrine which would abolish the state ‘and other

established social and economic institutions and establish a new

order based on free and spontaneous co-operation among

individuals, groups, regions and nations….’

“Kropotkin and Tolstoi, the modern proponents of

anarchism, were sincere and peaceful men….

“Kropotkin wanted much the same type of social order as

Eric Gill, the artist, Father Vincent McNabb, the Dominican street

preacher, G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc and other distributists

advocated, though they would have revolted at the word anarchist,

thinking it synonymous with chaos, not ‘self-government’ as

Proudhon defined it. Distributism is the English term for that

society whereby man has sufficient of this world’s goods to enable

him to lead a good life. Other words have been used to describe

this theory, mutualism, federalism, pluralism, regionalism; but

anarchism…best brings to mind the tension always existing

between the concept of authority and freedom which torments man

to this day.”15

It is about time for distributists to realize that anarchism and distributism are not

necessarily contradictory doctrines. Surely, both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians will

agree that the monastery is the ideal way of life. The monasteries set the example of how society

15 Dorothy Day, The Long Loneliness, Ch. 1, § 7

should work. All monasteries operate on a totally voluntary basis. Could we not build up a

Christian society modeled after the monasteries? Could we not build Christian agrarian

communes as monasteries for the married? Fr. Georges Florovsky writes:

“The early church was not just a voluntary association for

‘religious’ purposes. It was rather the New Society, even the New

Humanity, a polis or politeuma, the true City of God, in the

process of construction. And each local community was fully

aware of its membership in an inclusive and universal whole. The

church was conceived as an independent and self-supporting social

order, as a new social dimension, a peculiar systema patridos, as

Origen put it. Early Christians felt themselves, in the last resort,

quite outside of the existing social order, simply because for them

the church itself was an ‘order,’ an extra-territorial ‘colony of

Heaven’ on earth (Phil. 3:20, Moffatt’s translation). Nor was this

attitude fully abandoned even later when the empire, as it were,

came to terms with the church.

“The early Christian attitude was continued in the monastic

movement, which grew rapidly precisely in the period of an

alleged reconciliation with the world. Of course, monasticism was

a complex phenomenon, but its main stream was always socially

minded. It was not so much a flight from the world as it was an

endeavor to build up a new world on a new basis. A monastery was

a community, a ‘little church’—not only a worshipping community,

but a working community as well. Great stress was laid on work,

and idleness was regarded as a grievous vice. But it had to be a

work for common purpose and benefit. It was true already of the

early Pachomian communities in Egypt. St. Pachomius was

teaching ‘the gospel of continued work.’ It is well said of him:

‘The general appearance and life of a Pachomian monastery cannot

have been very different from that of a well-regulated college, city,

or camp” (Bp. Kirk, The Vision of God). The great legislator of

Eastern monasticism, St. Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia (c.330-

379), was deeply concerned with the problem of social

reconstruction. He watched with a grave apprehension the process

of social disintegration, which was so spectacular in his day. Thus

his call to formation of monastic communities was an attempt to

rekindle the spirit of mutuality in a world which seemed to have

lost any sense of social responsibility and cohesion. In his

conception, man was essentially a ‘gregarious animal’ (koinōnikon

zōon), ‘neither savage nor a lover of solitude.’ He cannot

accomplish his purpose in life, he cannot be truly human, unless he

dwells in a community. Monasticism, therefore, was not a higher

level of perfection, for the few, but an earnest attempt to give a

proper human dimension to man’s life. Christians had to set a

model of a new society in order to counterbalance those

disintegrating forces which were operative in the decaying world.

A true cohesion in society can be achieved only by an identity of

purpose, by a subordination of all individual concerns to the

common cause and interest. In a sense, it was a Socialist

experiment of a peculiar kind, on a voluntary basis. Obedience

itself had to be founded on love and mutual affection, on a free

realization of brotherly love. The whole emphasis was on the

corporate nature of man. Individualism is therefore self-destructive.

“As startling as it may appear, the same ‘coenobitical’

pattern was at that time regarded as obligatory for all Christians,

‘even though they be married.’ Could the whole Christian society

be built up as a kind of a ‘monastery’? St. John Chrysostom, the

great bishop of the imperial city of Constantinople (c.350-407), did

not hesitate to answer this question in the affirmative. It did not

mean that all should go into the wilderness. On the contrary,

Christians had to rebuild the existing society on a ‘coenobitical’

pattern. Chrysostom was quite certain that all social evils were

rooted in the acquisitive appetite of man, in his selfish desire to

possess goods for his exclusive benefit. Now, there was but one

lawful owner of all goods and possessions in the world, namely,

the Lord Almighty. Men are but his ministers and servants, and

they have to use God’s gifts solely for God’s purposes, i.e.,

ultimately for common needs. Chrysostom’s conception of

property was strictly functional: possession was justified only by

its proper use. To be sure, Chrysostom was not a social or

economic reformer, and his practical suggestions may seem rather

inconclusive and even naïve. But he was one of the greatest

Christian prophets of social equality and justice. There was nothing

sentimental in his appeal to charity. Christian charity, in fact, is not

just a caritative emotion. Christians should be not just moved by

the other person’s suffering, need, and misery. They have to

understand that social misery is the continued agony of Christ,

suffering still in the person of his members. Chrysostom’s ethical

zeal and pathos were rooted in his clear vision of the Body of

Christ.

“One may contend that in practice very little came out of

this vigorous social preaching. But one has to understand that the

greatest limitation imposed upon the Christian preaching of social

virtue was rooted in the conviction that the church could act only

by persuasion, and never by violence and compulsion.”16

Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson (an Orthodox Old Calendarist priest) writes:

“Hence, the remnant of Israel, the True Orthodox, in order to live

proper lives, must form economic and social synodia, pooling

resources to the extent each family can allow, and organize

themselves in separate communities from the corrupt ‘Egyptian’

society around us. The home should be a small monastery, as St.

Nikolai Velimirovic states, tightly connected with the agricultural

16 Georges Florovsky, Christianity and Culture, Ch. 6, § 2

commune or labor association, seeking spiritual assistance as well

as occasional financial assistance from the local monastery. This is

the natural economy, the social life based on the cell of the

extended family, and extending itself perfectly into the labor

association, parish, and diocese, each under an elected synod, with

elections based on holiness and truthfulness. Media and

entertainments should also be based on such institutions, thus

relieving Orthodox families from depending on the corrupt and

oligarchic media system of the Regime….

“This brief treatment of complex ideas is written solely to provide

some form of theoretic foundation for the restructuring of

Orthodox society no matter what country in which one finds

himself. As the capitalist system shows tremendous structural

weaknesses, such as debt, and contradictions, such as the frantic

extension of credit to move inventory, shocks to the system may

well bring its collapse. In such a case, a ‘plan’ of sorts should be in

place so that Orthodox people can live rational and holy lives

outside of the mainstream society. Social Nationalism stands for

the building of alternative sub-cultural communities that slowly but

surely develop in such a way that the state is rendered irrelevant. It

stands for statelessness, but also for community, and a community

governed by tradition and canon law, which is merely a

crystallization of tradition and the experience of Orthodox

generations throughout history.

“The institutions of such a society are not ‘revolutionary’ in the

sense that they are something new, but precisely in the sense that

those, such as Razin, the Cossacks or the Irish Republicans, are

reaching to reestablish something that had existed before. In

medieval Ireland, Serbia, within the Cossack host, the Haiduks and

the Old Believer communities, such an ethno-anarchist model has

been in existence for centuries. Reestablishing it, based on the Law

of the Old Testament, is a necessity for the creation of rational

structures in an irrational world.”17

Christians should rally together into small agrarian communities, centered around a local

parish and a monastery. The idea of the Christian commune, which was historically of universal

importance, should be reintroduced to the modern world. If the idea of the voluntary commune is

not reintroduced, society is doomed. The existing system will soon no longer be able to support

the needs of the people. Monocultural techniques practiced by large-scale industrial agriculture

are steadily turning the American Midwest into a desert. The droughts that we have recently

experienced are only signs of things to come. The destruction of large ecosystems leads to

climate change and desertification. What happened to the Loess Plateau in China is happening to

the Midwestern United States. We are watching our farmland become barren and desolate before

our very eyes, but the masses are delusional and unaware that we are the cause of it. Our foolish

systems of farming are ruining the world. While monocultural farming techniques are

devastating the land here, we are running out of oil over there. As oil becomes more-and-more

scarce, and consequently more expensive, we will no longer have the luxury of shipping food

over long distances. We will be forced to produce all of our food locally. In a short while,

environmental and economic circumstances out of our control will force us to go back to older

ways of farming; and community involvement in the production of food will become a necessity.

The agrarian commune will once again be the cornerstone of civilization. The world monetary

and banking system has been thrust into the beginning of chaos. The current world-system is on

the verge of collapse. I do not know for sure whether it will last just five more years or another

fifty years, but the chrematistic statist system is failing on an international level. There is a very

real possibility that an anarcho-distributist, libertarian socialist, or anarcho-capitalist society will

naturally arise from the ashes of this crumbling world-system. Let us hope and strive in that

direction.

Influences Behind Anarcho-Distributism:

There are certain people who have come very close to advocating anarcho-distributism.

The two individuals who are closest to being anarcho-distributists are Dorothy Day and Fr.

Raphael (Matthew Johnson); they are both anarchists and distributists. However, I believe that

17 Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, National Anarchism and the Old Faith (viewed on 8/24/2012)

there is a distinction between what they have taught and what I am teaching. The political views

of Day and Johnson are pretty much identical to libertarian socialism—neither of them make a

clear distinction between socialism and distributism. I am the only true advocate of anarcho-

distributism as a distinct and unique political philosophy. No one else has developed this line of

thought in any systematic fashion. The other major influences behind my political philosophy are

Fr. Georges Florovsky, St. Nikolai Velimirovic, Nikolai Berdyaev, St. John Chrysostom, and St.

Basil of Caesarea. At the moment, however, it appears that I am the only real advocate of

anarcho-distributism. I am hopeful that my writings might win some others over to my point of

view, but I feel that I stand contra mundum for the moment. I am the founder and only advocate

of this new political philosophy. If there is anyone out there that follows my arguments,

understands my political ideas, and has been converted to the anarcho-distributist position

through the force of my arguments, then let’s hope that they will take up the cause of

propagating and spreading this doctrine.