Distributism and Web 2.0
Distributism is a cool economic philosophy with an crummy name. Even it’s most enthusiastic proponents, such as G.K. Chesterton, bemoaned the unfortunate, unappealing label, while singing the praises of the idea.
For those who aren’t familiar with it (probably 95% of the population), let’s start by describing a few key distributist principles. First, distributism states that the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of Big Government (i.e. socialism) or Big Business (capitalism). Distributism emphatically prefers Small Government and Small Business.
Many people view it as a “third way,” an alternative to socialism and capitalism. I like to think of it as Big Family, not necessarily in the sense of having a lot of kids, but in the sense of having a lot of local authority, of being the king of your own castle. In a distributist “Big Family” framework, neither Big Business nor Big Government dictates your options, controls your future or is responsible for taking care of you. It’s actually quite resonate with the American understandings of rugged individualism and liberty.
Distributism also advocates “subsidiarity” (yet another word Microsoft Word’s spell checker doesn’t recognize). Subsidiarity basically means larger units should not perform a function which can be performed by a smaller unit. Suddenly, I realize why Microsoft doesn’t recognize the word.
In practice, subsidiarity tends to have a positive impact on quality, largely because the producers and consumers are much closer in time and space. In fact, they tend to actually know each other. Small bakeries, breweries or other shops tend to be distinctive and uniquely colorful. They tend to be family oriented, internally and externally. They certainly have their challenges and shortcomings, but on the whole, they work as well as any alternative approach (if not better).
To Capitalists, distributism looks suspiciously like socialism, largely due to distributism’s prejudice against large corporations. To Socialists, distributism looks suspiciously like capitalism, with its emphasis on private ownership and preference for small, unobtrusive government. Both Capitalists and Socialists might accuse Distributists of advocating anarchy. In reality, distributism is more social than socialism, because it is focused on building sustainable, interdependent communities. It is also more capitalistic than capitalism, because it advocates the widespread production of goods and services, by means of privately own resources. As for anarchy, distributism is anarchic only in the sense that it minimizes the authority of business and government, without abolishing either.
Dorothy Day, co-founder of the Catholic Worker Movement, wrote: "The aim of distributism is family ownership of land, workshops, stores, transport, trades, professions, and so on. Family ownership in the means of production so widely distributed as to be the mark of the economic life of the community-this is the Distributist's desire. It is also the world's desire.” (The Catholic Worker, June 1948)
Distributists would like to somehow limit the influence of both corporations and governments, but they historically haven’t had much of a leverage point with which to enforce those limits. With an emphasis on local control, decentralization and autonomy, distributist organizations tend to be small by design. Thus, distributism as a practical ideology has had a hard time countering the large, organized forces of Big Business and Big Government. Further complicating things, distributism is largely the product of the Catholic Church’s social teaching, which leads some to look at it with suspicion, particularly those who are distrustful of religion in general or the Catholic Church in particular.
Along comes Web 2.0.
The term Web 2.0 was coined by Tim O’Reilly, founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media. Like distributism, Web 2.0 has many definitions, some more useful than others. A central theme running through most definitions is the ability for users to interact and contribute. Web 2.0 is all about “user-generated content,” as seen on sites like Wikipedia, Blogger and YouTube. Web 2.0, in other words, enables a wide distribution of the means of production. Web 2.0 is profoundly distributist.
Among other things, Web 2.0 technologies provide people with inexpensive (often free!) professional-level digital production tools and direct access to wide-open distribution channels. Even for non-digital products such as candles or clothing, sites like PayPal make it child’s play to create a little shop with world-wide reach. These tools, sites and capabilities are helping to create an economic environment where distributism could actually work.
Like distributism, Web 2.0 supports decentralization, in contrast to the highly centralized organizational structures of days past. Sites like del.icio.us and flickr rely on users to not only submit content, but also to dynamically create the taxonomy within which the content resides. These user-defined structures are called folksonomies, and far from being anarchic collections of useless clutter, over time they actually make it easier and more intuitive to discover information.
Many Web 2.0 systems and sites are designed to exist in a state of “perpetual beta,” in which they receive constant updates and upgrades, often contributed by the users themselves. These technologies tend to get better the more they are used. This means user behavior is not predetermined by an omniscient software developer, but by a community of individuals who own, share and use the online tools. It means the power to create is in the hands of large numbers of small groups, working in parallel and interdependently. This is a distributist’s dream.
Wired magazine’s Chris Anderson has written extensively about another Web 2.0 phenomenon he termed The Long Tail. According to Wikipedia, Long Tail economics means “products that are in low demand or have low sales volume can collectively make up a market share that rivals or exceeds the relatively few current bestsellers and blockbusters, if the store or distribution channel is large enough.” In other words, small producers have the potential to reach an economically sufficient quantity of buyers, if there was only some way to connect the producer with the consumer. That’s where the internet comes in. The internet, particularly the Web 2.0 version, is the ultimate connector.
Thanks to Web 2.0 technologies, people who want to produce books, movies, video games and music are not only finding it easier to create high quality products, they are also finding it easier to connect with paying customers. Specifically, they do not need to rely on large, centralized studios and publishing houses, which have historically overfiltered content in order to serve the lowest common denominator of customer. Instead, a writer can go to a site like Lulu.com, upload a manuscript, and have his book available for sale at Amazon.com (or in a Lulu-sponsored online shop) in a matter of minutes.
Thanks to sites like Amazon.com and NetFlix, movies and books no longer need to rely on the limited ability of a brick-and-mortar shop to reach local audiences. Instead, the whole word becomes “local,” and even if the item isn’t a huge hit in the classical sense, it can still reach enough people to make money. As
Web 2.0 is, perhaps, a force large enough to counter the pair of 800lb gorillas known as Big Business and Big Government, and it does so organically, without introducing artificial constraints on government or commerce. More and more people are taking advantage of this new opportunity to personally produce, sell and distribute goods. They are writing books, recording music, creating art, then selling their creations – all without relying on traditional retailers.
Distributism advocates the widespread ownership of the means of production. Web 2.0 literally distributes production capabilities around the world. Aspiring distributists would do well to learn more about Web 2.0, and internet entrepreneurs might find distributist economics quite relevant to their endeavors. Together, they aren’t going to create a perfect utopia, but they just might improve the lives of many, many people.