Just to be clear, I am a distributist, so I am somewhat biased.
That being said: the damage this book does to Distributism is not that it effectively refutes any of the theory's claims, but that it states the same old misconceptions about Distributism, such as the myth that distributists want a return to medieval times and a medieval economy.
The author also subscribes to the canard that Distributism is inherently agrarian, and repeats this claim throughout the book constantly, all whilst simultaneously trying to show that Distributism is not as heavily based on the Popes' writings as we would like to think.
The author states in one part "One supporter of distributism recently pointed to small-scale agrarian life as the ideal that could once again become the norm.", then quotes a Distributist blog whilst also clipping out half of said quote that reveals the full context of it.
What the author failed to mention, the context that he stealthily removed, is that said blog was quoting and agreeing with Pope Leo XIII's statement that land ownership could help bridge the gap between vast wealth and sheer poverty.
LEO XIII's quote, not the blogger themself but the Pope said blogger is quoting, further states that "Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, and those that are dear to them. . . "
This is the Pope being quoted, not the blogger's own writing.
Confused yet? Don't worry, it gets worse.
Woods, the author of the book, then states in response to this, "Now if people want to recommend a semiautarkic agrarian lifestyle over one more engaged with the international division of labor, they should be free to do so. It is, however, incorrect to insist that no good arguments can be raised against such a lifestyle, or that Catholicism demands such an approach to economic life. It does not, and it is wrong to trouble the consciences of good Catholics by claiming it does."
This is a blatant strawman against not only the blogger, but the THE POPE HIMSELF, as neither he nor the blogger imply that no criticisms may be made.
Woods of course fails to mention the Pope at all while talking about the blogger he was disparaging, despite the blogger relying on the Pope Leo XIII quite heavily in the section Woods focused on. The reason for this is simple, Woods' book is an attempt to critique the connection between Distributism and Catholic Social Teaching. Naturally, if Woods were to admit these two things were in any way supportive of each other, his critique would be weakened. So he instead attempts to lie through omission.
The entire problem with Woods and the blogger he was strawmanning was contained within a single page of this ebook.
I'm not even sure if I could muster the willpower to disect this entire thing but most of the book is filled with similar writing, so I'll end my analysis here.
Woods also likes to rely on Zoric for lots of his arguments and sources.
Zoric is also fond of the old Distributism = Agrarianism myth.
Of the dozens of distributists I have met since becoming a distributist myself, not a single one supports even half of the things this book claims they do.
That being said, I will admit that Woods' critique of guilds and description of "guild mentality" does hold some water.
Finally, the book tries to paint followers of Distributism as leftists even though many leftists consider Distributism to be "reactionary" and "capitalist".
Make of that what you will.
Report an issue with this product or seller
