it was all right for a grocer to have one shop

< Previous | Next >

ShareisBeauty

Senior Member
Chinese
(On Ezra Pound's statement: you can live infinitely better with a very little money and a lot of spare time, than with more money and less time.)
There is no doubt that the 'Marxian cycle' imprisoned millions of lives in the Western world, but what practical alternative could Ruskin in the Victorian age or Belloc and his friend G. K. Chesterton or the radical fascism of Ezra Pound offer in the twentieth century? The idea that more freedom would result if everyone had three acres and a cow was not one which any existing political system would realistically promote. The Distributists, as the enthusiasts for this way of thinking called themselves, could think negatively: it was all right for a grocer to have one shop, but not when he wanted to own two shops, or a chain of a hundred. (A.N. Wilson After the Victorians
Q: " it was all right for a grocer to have one shop, but not when he wanted to own two shops, or a chain of a hundred": Does "it was all right for " mean what Pound insisted having more leisure with less money? "not"=it was not all right for =having less leisure with more money?
Thanks.
 
  • Myridon

    Senior Member
    English - US
    The Distrbutists want everything to be distributed equally among the people. Everyone should have one thing; one person should not have many things.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top