|*||*||Dutch parliamentarian Sadet Karabulut said in 'Bondgenoten' labor union monthly of dec2012 on page 27 (translated): "(...) Give employees more say in the companies. Do you think they will allow the top to earn a hundred times more then the workfloor ? (...) Democratizing the economy is necessary. (...) This is true in a smaller way for companies, but also in a big way for States. (...)"|
IN 15 SEKUNDEN
Eine der Hauptursachen der Finanzkrise ist den meisten Menschen gar nicht bewusst - die eigenmächtige Herstellung von elektronischem Geld auf unseren Konten durch die Banken. Die Vollgeld-Initiative will erreichen, dass nur die Nationalbank Geld herstellt, so wie es die Bundesverfassung eigentlich vorsieht.
(...) End quote. (This issue perhaps belongs under National Sovereignty of the People; because de-facto this money creation power is so special (not accessible to everyone) and great (and people so easily manipulated by that what this money can do) that those that have it become the Sovereigns. The system proposed here on this law4.org website (DAVID239/9-roads) has also a "vollgeld" money creation system (as far as undersigned can understand the German website,) but not the same investment system(s) as may be proposed by some vollgeld proponents (which in the DAVID239 system is heavily regulated, but not completely wiped out from the private profit sphere).
|*||*||The Land Party, landparty.org.uk Quote: "Instead we campaign for the right of all people to have what they need to live - Land! Free people with their own land need not fear recession, unemployment or the collapse of private banks. "|
Israeli Moshav Ovdim Quote:
"contrary to the collective kibbutzim, farms in a moshav tended to be individually owned but of fixed and equal size."
"Moshav ovdim (Hebrew: מושב עובדים, lit. workers' moshav), a workers cooperative settlement. This is the more numerous (405) type and relies on cooperative purchasing of supplies and marketing of produce; the family or household is, however, the basic unit of production and consumption" End quote.
In the system proposed on this website (DAVID/9-roads), there would be no issue of where people live or if a village can grow or not. Every citizen will have land by law. The system is therefore more loose, while allowing people to combine any way they would like or not at all.
Across Latin America, a Struggle for Communal Land and Indigenous Autonomy
Sunday, 20 July 2014 00:00
By Renata Bessi and Santiago Navarro F., Truthout
The land in these towns is communal; it belongs to everyone. There is no private property, not even small plots are sold. The transference of land is done through a transfer of land rights. A father can transfer his land to his children, for example. Everything must go through the assembly. No one can sell the land and no one can buy it. "If someone here works in the fields that individual is given a parcel of land. But that person must continually work the piece of land. If after three years nothing has been produced on the land, it is transferred to someone else who is interested in farming it. The commissioner is in charge of this," explained the president of communal resources of Capulalpam.
The assemblies can even decree protected communal areas. "We are updating the statute about communalism that governs communal resources. We are going to decree that an area where there are freshwater springs will be protected. We know that there are currently projects to take our land," the commissioner said. People that come from other communities cannot acquire land; they can only rent. Nor can they participate in the assembly system automatically. In Guelatao, "the person that moves here has the obligation to report himself or herself to the municipal government in order to be considered for community projects and cargos, but only once the decision has been made by the assembly that they can be accepted," according to Guelatao's mayor.
See link for full article
Comment: This plan puts too much power in the hands of the State, without
there being a need for this. The land should be owned by the people.
It may be interesting to notice the idea of a different
system of land usage, which also suggests that something is wrong
with the free market in land. This plan could work in a Sovereign village
scale (where the State is under more close control by the public).
The Distributist Movement thus seeks to achieve this end both by means of the democratic political process and by non-state mutual organizations of individuals that facilitate widespread private ownership through not-for-profit lending for private purchase and co-operative enterprise.
In Britain of the 1920s and 30s, the distributists sought the restoration of family and individual liberty by a revival of smallholder agriculture and small business and an end to grasping landlords, by attacking monopolies and trusts and denouncing what they saw as anonymous and usurious control of finance.
Opposed to laissez-faire capitalism, which distributists argued leads to a concentration of ownership in the hands of a few and to state-socialism in which private ownership is denied altogether, distributism was conceived as a genuine Third Way, opposing both the tyranny of the marketplace and the tyranny of the state, by means of a society of owners.
End quote. This is similar to the logic of the system proposed here under the name D.A.V.I.D. system, including the ideas to distribute land to all and keep it so distributed, and to promote small/medium businesses against large ones.
See also: www.distributism.org (What exactly they have created under this name of "distributism" could vary more or less (even dramatically) from what is here proposed as a D.A.V.I.D. system. It could also be less tightly defined since it seems to be coming from multiple sources, each of which may not have worked out a system of Distributism to the degree that it is worked out here.
For example the catholic church seems to be the opposite of anything that can be Distributist, as they hoard control and have Monestaries where people work as communes ? Yet these websites seem to promote this tyrannical and power centralizing organization ? The Catholich Church has always been (violently) at odds with perhaps the first true Distributist: Mozes, who (or if you prefer: whose G.d, the Creator) gave all people their land forever (permanent Land distributism), and made laws that would work against the establishment of a finance Plutocracy (loan readily without interest, destroy the loan in the 7th year for the poor, etc). The essential ideological claim to power of the Catholic Church, is that they represent "the messiah," (who is not a god nor a King in the Jewish system), who has (in the Catholich Church wild claim) the power to overthrow the Distributionist laws of Mozes, which they have done (or rather, they never followed it in the first place, since they are not Jewish to begin with.) Mozes can be seen as the first Distributionist of the currently existing world, and the Catholic Church as the primary tyrannical reaction against the Distributionist Law of Mozes. It is not so hard to see this happening, because the land of Israel is relatively close to Rome, and Rome wanted to conquer it. Hence they had to infiltrate the Militant Jewish culture with their own brand of that culture. This Rome has done to all tribes that it conquered.
Undersigned does not quite comprehend why Distributism is at odds with class struggle in general, or Revolution against Plutocracy (as the linked article later argues). It is not entirely clear why "the bourgeoisie" is needed to create Value in products and services out of the fact that demand is a key component in the market price (what is the definition of "bourgeoisie" here ?). On the contrary: Distributism seems to be a sort of a final Revolution against all Plutocracy. A Revolution that does not afterwards substitute their own Oligarchy, but rather puts above all a fair law against Oligarchy, if so demanded by the People themselves, and also forms a State based on the principle of Distributing Power to All as much as possible (Distributism of the power over the State, Distributism of Land, Distributism of the power over larger corporations, and Distributism of market opportunities by denying a Plutocracy to form).)
Here is a links page about Distributism: http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm
Here a brilliant few pages about why Distributism in general is necessary. http://www.medaille.com/distributivism-encyclopedia.pdf
Distributivism, also known as Distributism, is an economic theory formulated by Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton largely in response to the principles of Social Justice laid down by Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum. Its key tenet is that ownership of the means of production should be as widespread as possible rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few owners (Capitalism) or in the hands of state bureaucrats (Socialism). Belloc did not believe that he was developing a new economic theory, but rather expounding an old and widespread one against the novelties of both Capitalism and Socialism.End quote. Unfortunately there is no clear title/author on the linked document. The supertext seems to call this document 'Distributivism,' it looks like a copy of the first 5 pages of a book.
Comment: Indeed, Distributism of the Capital goods is the first, production the second, and exchange the third, with consumption the fifth, disposal of waste products the sixth, and refining the waste products to return to an original source state the seventh step in the cycle of production. Capitalists forget the first step, because they are already in control of too much. They have no interest in sharing their privilige, and will as a class ~ as they have proven in history ~ mass murder to protect it. This is why the (pseudo-)intellectual and political classes pretend that the first step (Distributism) is unnecessary. They are riding on top of society, and hate to sacrifice some of that position in order to create a better society for all. Hence the Distributive system can only be implemented by class-struggle, against all who earn more then the average (which under far evolved Capitalist system conditions is only a minority or even a tiny minority, it is not half of the population as the word might seem to suggest.)
That then also determines the moment of the Distributist Revolution: when the institutionalized pseudo-intellectuals and political classes are discredited by their failing attempt to manage the unmanageable (raging Capitalism) on the one hand, and where the Wealth has concentrated to such an amount that even members of the institutionalized intellectual classes are falling on the side of the have-nots. They might then mobilize the masses with the idea of Distributism, because there is something in that which could immediately improve the wealth position of the majority of the people. The method by which Distributism would then be implemented is, as seems to be usual with all human activity: greed. To achieve Justice would be a nice propaganda tool for the moment, but what most people will likely only want, is to increase their personal wealth, regardless of how it is achieved. The fact that the masses do not care for truth or Justice or Distributism when they have only to vote it into place, during a period that they are distracted by their full bellies and various toys, shows that the great masses of humanity have only a limited interest in Justice, and an overwhelming sense of selfishness and greed. This greed will have to be exploited for the cause of Justice at the right moment. That is the best that can be done for a humanity that is as obsessed with greed as it is.
Minor points with the link: First the word "Capitalism" is used
to refer to the ownership of Capital, whereas shortly after it
morphes into meaning free trade. It also would seem to introduce
unnecessary complexity in the text to start refering to obscurantist
terms "corrective justice" which would be clearer as "trade justice,"
or "exchange justice." Corrective Justice can mean a million things.
It is also adding to the confusion that Capital is later not used,
but the term equity seems to be introduced instead of it. One could
also wonder why sometimes "property" is used, and then "Capital."
All these words that are dancing around each other make these
kinds of abstract texts, that do not (yet?) go into actual detail
of what Distributism is supposed to mean in reality (everyone a
part of the soil, for example?) probably unreadable for masses of
people. The risk is that the worthwhile arguments fail to reach the
masses. Jargon has to be avoided, because the institutionalized
(pseudo-) intellectual classes, as the text itself mentioned, are
not interested in truth, but interested in fulfilling their greed
and prestige (on the whole). They can read complex texts, but will
do nothing with it. Our only chance is with the laboring masses,
at the time of their greatest distress, even their greatest dying.