Is Distributism Agrarian?

There’s not a vast philosophical literature on Distributism. My question in this piece is prompted by an online discussion, not a philosophical journal.1 I trust, however, that the question is sufficiently interesting in its own right to sustain a philosophical essay. Moreover, it’s a question that has been with us for a long time— I suppose for as long as Distributism has been with us (as a matter of explicit doctrine rather than lived experience).2 So let’s get to it. First things first: Is Distributism agrarianism? This question has a simple answer: no. The two are not the same thing, even if Distributism is agrarian. There could be an agrarian communist or an agrarian capitalist society. So what is agrarianism? Let me suggest the following: an agrarian society is one in which agriculture and its practitioners have a determinative influence on society. Agrarianism, then, is the notion that society ought to be agrarian. You can combine this notion with additional motivation— typically, an agrarian will suggest something like this: “Agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society.”3 (Why else would you think a society ought to be agrarian?) But you don’t need to, and for my purposes, that’s not involved in agrarianism, properly speaking. Agrarianism does not suggest that everyone ought to be a farmer (or otherwise engaged in agricultural pursuits). It doesn’t set an arbitrary lower