Distributism: A Manifesto

by Arthur Penty, David Boyle (Introduction)

In 1937, the guild socialism pioneer Arthur Penty was asked by the Distributist League if he would write them a manifesto. This radical document is the result. Distributists - the followers of Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, and the Ditching artists and crafts-people - had been thinking and campaigning for more than two decades, and the League itself for eleven years, so this is a considered and mature piece - the last thing that Penty ever wrote.It reveals a creed that is more radical and more spiritual than any mainstream politics today. It still has the power to inspire now when, arguably, we need it all the more.

42 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 21, 2019

Reviews

[Zak Schmoll · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very quick read. It is not my favorite take on Distributism as I think it is a bit more extreme than the version that Chesterton and Belloc would necessarily advocate for. Still, the ideas are very similar, so if you want a primer, this would be worth a few minutes of your time to read. Funny, I didn't use it for my dissertation really whatsoever, but I had it just as reference because I mention Penty at one point, but I never ended up using it. Still, I just finished it straight through.

[Jon Knebel · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a general believer in Distributist principles, I have to give this manifesto more than 2 stars because it brings some exposure to the ideas behind the philosophy, but, unfortunately, this Manifesto has probably done more harm to Distributism than anything else.

In comparison with all I’ve read about Distributism by G K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, the ideas and justifications and talent for communication of the ideas in this manifesto are not only far inferior, but quite different. It’s a fair argument that this is more a manifesto for Guild Socialism than for Distributism, and it’s unfortunate the manifesto wasn’t written by one of the other two authors I mentioned.

This said, it still brings up some interesting ideas and points about the potential pitfalls of free trade and other modern ideas, but the arguments are mostly flawed and, again in my view, not representative of a mature or polished view of Distributism.

It’s also important not to be too hard on the author in consideration of the fact that his ideas held more validity in the setting of time and place in which they were written.