Understanding Distributism: Principles, History, and Catholic Insights
This is the eighth article in a series. To learn more, see: “The -Isms Encyclopedia: Historical and Philosophical Ideas Explained.”
Socio-political thought in the West today is often characterized by a struggle between two competing ideologies: conservatism and liberalism. Or, what are commonly known as “the right” and “the left.” This dichotomy is so pronounced that it significantly influences all aspects of our political and economic discourse. Laws are typically interpreted as favoring the left or the right. At the same time, economic policies are generally categorized as conservative or liberal, depending on who they help, who they penalize, and how. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of life in the West today without the ideological schism between conservatism and liberalism.
Interestingly, that’s exactly what a handful of British authors and intellectuals did a hundred years ago. Frustrated with having their political choices restricted to the left and the right, these British thinkers devised what they called a “Third Way” to approach politics in the West. This is a system that has become known as Distributism. Distributism is a hot topic within Catholic circles. Some Catholics consider it the ideal socio-economic system for a Catholic society. While others consider it utopian and unworkable.
In this article, we will examine the principles of Distributism, look at the important thinkers in the Distributist movement, and examine how Catholics can engage with Distributism.
Principles of Distributism
The early 20th century was the era of the Robber Barons, when titans of finance and industry, such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan, dominated the global economy. These men amassed untold amounts of wealth, which they used to bend government and society to their will. Because of their wealth and access to capital, these men were known as capitalists. This unprecedented concentration of money in the hands of a few capitalists aided the rise of socialism. Socialism advocated government nationalization of big industry and its profits as a means of achieving social equality. (We have an article on socialism to learn more about this critical ideology.) Therefore, socialism required an astronomical growth in the size of government to manage the economy.
Distributism emerged in Britain in the early 20th century in response to concerns about the simultaneous rise of big business and big government. The Distributists worried that this conflict spelled doom for the common man. They feared that both big business and big government threatened to destroy small ownership. From the Distributist perspective, the capitalist-socialist conflict would result in a lose-lose scenario where no matter who won, the common man would lose. But what was the answer to this? Was there a way to preserve society without handing control over to big business or big government?
Let’s look at some Distributist ideas in greater detail.
Private Property
Private property is at the heart of the Distributist ideal for society. A person is only truly secure insofar as they genuinely own property that cannot be taken away. Private property ensures that people retain autonomy to use their resources as they see fit and act within their own best interest. A Distributist system, therefore, works to guard the integrity of private property. It should ensure that it is neither lost through rapacious corporate competition nor confiscated by oppressive government taxation and regulation.
Distribution of Property
But how can Distributism claim to protect private property when it fundamentally opposes big business? After all, isn’t the e-commerce empire of Amazon “private property” of the corporation? Aren’t the transcontinental railroads of Rockefeller his property? How can Distributists say they are for private property when a Distributist system would reduce the private property of the corporate world?
This question brings us to the core of Distributist thought, which is that property ownership should be broadly distributed. To understand what Distributists mean by this, it is best to contrast the Distributist model of property ownership with those in capitalist and socialist models. In capitalist society, according to the Distributists, property tends to be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy elites, the capitalists. In a socialist society, property is concentrated in the hands of the government. Thus, property ends up concentrated in both systems. Both capitalism and socialism are harmful to the small property owner: the small farmer, the small craftsman, and the small business owner.
Distributists argue that property should not be concentrated at all. Instead, it should be broadly distributed among the people. This is from whence comes the name “Distributism.” Thus, in the Distributist model, businesses the size of Amazon or Standard Oil would not be permitted to exist in the same way they do today. Nor would government be allowed to grow into the leviathan our federal government has become.
Subsidiarity
Related to the broad distribution of property is the idea of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity means that problems should be solved at the lowest possible level in society. This is done by local or individual groups rather than by larger or more distant authorities. Subsidiarity is a socio-political mechanism that enables the broad distribution of property. Politically, this means local authorities would have considerably more power. Higher levels of authority would still exist, but they would only be invoked for problems lower authorities were incapable of dealing with. So, for example, a Distributist United States would still have a federal government for making war and negotiating international treaties. Still, the federal government would not, for example, regulate the flow rates of toilets or any of the other minutiae it currently assumes responsibility for. Power would be retained by the lowest authority capable of handling a problem.
Laws would similarly be structured to benefit the small at the expense of the large. Whereas our current system offers tax breaks and other incentives to huge companies that are not available to the small, the Distributist economy would prioritize the smaller instead of the larger. In fact, most Distributist thinkers posit some sort of tax or penalty that increases as a company grows in size. In this way, megacorporations like Amazon or Wal-Mart would be prevented from existing, just like a bush is increasingly pruned as it gets larger to stop it from getting out of hand. This reflects the fundamental belief of Distributists that there should be a moral ordering to economic life that serves the good of persons first and foremost.
The Family
Capitalism views the individual as the fundamental economic unit. Socialism, meanwhile, considers the state to be the primary driver of the economy. The Distributists, by contrast, viewed economic production as a family endeavor. In the Distributist vision, the primary economic unit is the family. Distributists envision a more traditional model of economic production where many businesses are family-owned and trades are taught in family settings. This avoids the family-destroying dynamic of modern capitalist societies, which turn mothers and fathers into wage earners, while also preventing families from becoming dependent upon the largesse of the state.
An Ownership Society
Distributists advocate for what they call an ownership society. Today, most people do not own the means of production by which they make a living. Instead, they are wage earners for others. In a Distributist economy, ownership of the means of production would be vastly more widespread. More people would be independent craftsmen, small business owners, and entrepreneurs. Distributists prioritize the small owner, for example, a plumber working for himself who owns his own tools, a small farmer living off the land’s produce, or a shopkeeper who is in business for himself.
Distributists understand that not every type of economic enterprise can be run by independent owner-operators and their families. For example, a large factory producing automobiles. In these circumstances, Distributists envision businesses organized as cooperatives. A cooperative is a worker-owned business where workers make decisions about the company’s direction and receive a share in its profits, as opposed to shareholders or private owners in a capitalist system.
Who’s Who of Distributism
Pope Leo XIII
Many principles of Distributist thought are derived from the thought of Pope Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903). His 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum proposed many ideas that Distributists would later adopt. This includes worker-owned enterprises, living wages, the family as the primary economic unit, and subsidiarity. Pope Leo XIII’s vision for industrial society was profoundly worker-centric. It called for an economy that prioritized people over riches. Leo’s ideas continue to inspire Distributists to this day.
Hilaire Belloc
Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953), a prominent early 20th-century Catholic author, significantly shaped Distributist thought through his advocacy for widespread property ownership and economic decentralization. In works like The Servile State (1912), he critiqued both capitalism and socialism. He argued that they concentrated power and wealth, resulting in social inequality and a loss of freedom. Belloc proposed Distributism as an alternative, emphasizing small-scale, family-owned businesses and cooperative models to foster economic independence and social stability. His writings remain foundational for those advocating localized, equitable economies.
G.K. Chesterton
Almost as influential as Belloc was G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936), a prolific English writer and philosopher who advocated for an economic system that prioritized widespread property ownership and small-scale enterprises. In works like What’s Wrong with the World (1910), Outline of Sanity (1926), and through his editorship of his periodical G.K.’s Weekly (where Belloc’s writings could also be found), Chesterton critiqued the excesses of capitalism and socialism. He argued they eroded personal freedom and community vitality. His accessible, witty prose helped popularize these ideas, influencing Catholic social thought and later proponents of decentralized economies. Chesterton’s vision emphasized human dignity and localism as antidotes to industrial centralization.
Dorothy Day
Although she is primarily known as a humanitarian and social activist, Dorothy Day (1897–1980) made significant contributions to Distributist thought. She integrated its principles into her work with the Catholic Worker Movement, which she co-founded in 1933. Through the Catholic Worker newspaper and the establishment of hospitality houses, she promoted small-scale, community-based economies. These emphasized personal responsibility, mutual aid, and voluntary poverty. Day drew on the writings of Belloc and Chesterton in her advocacy for decentralized property ownership and cooperative living. She saw these as alternatives to both industrial capitalism and state socialism. Her practical application of Distributism focused on serving the poor and fostering local, self-sustaining communities grounded in Catholic social teaching.
Fr. Vincent McNabb
In the clerical world, Fr. Vincent McNabb (1860-1943) was an influential figure in Distributist thought. A Dominican priest and scholar, Fr. McNabb was a fervent advocate for Distributism, emphasizing the moral and spiritual benefits of small-scale, agrarian economies. In works like The Church and the Land (1926), Fr. McNabb championed the family farm and local self-sufficiency as antidotes to industrialized capitalism, which he saw as dehumanizing. Drawing deeply on the Gospels and Catholic social teaching, McNabb argued that widespread property ownership fostered personal responsibility and community resilience.
Today’s Thinkers
Distributist thought today continues to evolve. Contemporary authors such as John Medaille and Thomas Storck have written extensively on the topic, offering compelling modern applications of Distributist principles. Their works remain central to the ongoing conversation within Catholic intellectual circles.
Joseph Pearce is another prominent voice. As editor of St. Austin Review and senior contributor at The Imaginative Conservative, Pearce regularly features content on Distributism. His book Small Is Still Beautiful: Economics as if Families Mattered is a modern Distributist classic. Drawing inspiration from E.F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful, Pearce writes on the needs of families and the moral imperative of local economies.
The Society of G.K. Chesterton continues to champion Distributism through essays and publications such as Gilbert Magazine. One notable collection is The Hound of Distributism: A Solution for Our Social and Economic Crisis, which brings together insightful reflections on how Chestertonian economics can be lived out today. The Society’s co-founder, Dale Ahlquist, is co-editor of Localism: Coming Home to Catholic Social Teaching, recently published by Sophia Institute Press. This is a collection of essays from some of the finest thinkers in Christianity on Distributism and Catholic social teaching.
Peter J. Floriani’s book Subsidiarity offers another significant contribution, focusing on the structural and philosophical underpinnings of this key Distributist principle.
Although no longer active, the Distributist Review archive remains a resource for past essays and commentary. You can still access its wealth of articles at distributistreview.com.
Distributism in Practice
Beautiful Ideal or Unworkable Fantasy?
While the principles of Distributism are generally considered admirable, there is a fierce debate as to their practicability. Many argue that Distributism is too idyllic and utopian. Consequently, it would be unworkable in real life. A core critique of Distributism is that it is inefficient. The reason we have megacorporations like Amazon and Wal-Mart is that they can provide goods and services more efficiently than smaller enterprises. In other words, whether we like it or not, big corporations serve the interests of the consumer. Forcing all economic activity into small-scale operations would be vastly less efficient. As a result, this would lead to higher costs and shortages of products and labor. In other words, to a poorer standard of living. Distributists argue that these are mischaracterizations: even if small enterprises are favored, Distributism leaves room for larger business operations, provided they are employee-owned on a cooperative model.
Has It Ever Worked?
Much of the debate about the practicability of Distributism hinges on how distributed an economy needs to be in order to be considered Distributist. Distributists say that Distributism has already been proven successful in various pre-modern economies. For example, both late medieval England and colonial North America met the criteria for Distributist societies. Both were stable economies with a high standard of living relative to the era. Both of these examples were preindustrial, however, so their applicability is debated. In modern times, Distributists point to the success of large employee-owned cooperatives, such as the Mondragon cooperative in Spain or the Antigonish Movement in Nova Scotia. Both are massive worker cooperatives that employ tens of thousands of workers and generate millions of dollars in revenue, while providing consistently high wages.
Digital Tech and Internal Divides
The rise of the digital economy has also proved uncertain for the Distributist thesis. On one hand, the tools of digital technology have made it vastly easier for independent creators to bring their work to a wider audience, entirely bypassing middlemen and corporate gatekeepers. On the other hand, digital technology has allowed the emergence of massive tech conglomerates of unprecedented size and influence. Additionally, it has provided the federal government with surveillance capabilities unheard of in human history. Digital technology has paradoxically brought the Distributist vision closer to realization while simultaneously threatening its emergence.
It should be noted that even Distributists dispute how Distributism would best work. There are some known as statist Distributists who believe that a Distributist society could only be attained by considerable government legislation to remodel the economy according to Distributist principles. Others, however, known as libertarian or anarchist Distributists, argue that a Distributist society would emerge naturally if government regulations supporting the current system were simply removed, dismantling the barriers to entry that inhibit so many small businesses from thriving.
From a Catholic Perspective
Distributism aligns closely with Catholic social teaching. This is especially true in the writings of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, which emphasizes the dignity of the human person and the importance of the family. Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno (1931) builds on Leo XIII’s work by affirming the principle of subsidiarity. Distributism’s emphasis on widespread property ownership reflects the Catholic belief that private property is a natural right. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2302), this right supports human freedom and responsibility, enabling families to flourish without depending on large corporations or the state. The Distributist model of small-scale, family-centered enterprises and cooperatives echoes the Church’s call for economic systems that prioritize human needs over profit. This vision is clearly reflected in the writings of Belloc, Chesterton, Dorothy Day, and Fr. Vincent McNabb, all of whom drew deeply from Catholic moral theology.
Distributism promotes local autonomy and community-based solutions to political problems. In doing so, it embodies the principle of subsidiarity by ensuring that economic and social issues are addressed at the most immediate level. This approach fosters solidarity and justice in a way that aligns with Catholic principles. For these reasons, Distributism enjoys broad sympathy among many Catholics today.
Its appeal is not universal, however. Some Catholics argue that Distributism’s idealized vision of society is impractical and unsuited for the complexity of the modern economy. Catholic critics like Thomas E. Woods Jr. note that, while Distributism’s rejection of concentrated wealth aligns with the Church’s critique of unchecked capitalism, its resistance to large-scale corporate structures could hinder innovation, which also contributes to human flourishing.
Ultimately, Distributism’s alignment with Catholic principles is best exemplified in its commitment to human dignity, subsidiarity, and the moral ordering of economic life. However, its feasibility as a genuinely viable economic system remains a matter of hotly contested debate.
Living Distributism in Daily Life
Living a Distributist lifestyle can be challenging. However, there are practical steps one can take to align their choices with Distributist principles. One of the most effective ways is by consciously supporting local and family-owned businesses whenever possible. Choosing a neighborhood restaurant over a big chain, buying produce from local farmers, or hiring independent tradespeople helps keep wealth within the community and strengthens small business ownership.
Individuals can also pursue ownership themselves, whether by starting a small business, freelancing, or participating in a cooperative. Additionally, living simply, practicing mindful consumption, and investing time in family and community life all reflect the Distributist ideal of prioritizing human dignity and relationships over material gain. Even within a capitalist system, we can make choices that move society closer to a Distributist vision—one transaction, one household, and one neighborhood at a time.
When Homeschool Connections first launched, the founders adopted a Distributist model in how they work with instructors. Most HSC teachers create their own courses. They are treated as independent professionals, retaining control over their intellectual property and earning compensation that reflects their expertise and value. It’s a small but meaningful way they’ve put Distributist principles into practice.
In the Homeschool Connections Catalog
If you’re interested in diving deeper into the ideas behind Distributism, I cover the topic in several courses offered through Homeschool Connections. You’ll find it explored in my economic courses, as well as in my focused study of Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State:
- Introduction to Catholic Social Teaching
- Economics as if People Matter
- Hilaire Belloc’s Servile State
Homeschool Connections also offers a wide range of literature courses on the works of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, two of the most important voices in Distributism. These courses allow students to experience their rich legacy of thought firsthand.
In Closing
Distributism offers a compelling alternative to the binary tug-of-war between capitalism and socialism. It is a model that aims not for revolution, but restoration. Grounded in Catholic social teaching, it invites us to reimagine economic life in a way that places human dignity, family, and community at the center. While critics debate its viability, its value may lie not in perfect implementation, but in reminding us that economics is not just about efficiency. It’s about people. Whether one fully embraces Distributism or not, its insights challenge us to think more morally and humanely about the structure of our society.
What are your thoughts or questions on this topic? To continue the discussion, join me and other homeschooling parents at our Homeschool Connections Community or our Facebook group. I’d love to hear from you!
