Consume Product

So this is basically communism. But to elaborate:

1. You need someone who is in charge of a thing, and has the possibility to make major moves with assets as needed. In my case, assuming I'll be a successful entrepreneur with selling my game, I'd want to stay in charge of it and everybody who works on it. While other people might get important roles, I'd want to keep my vision as it is as to what the product should be and evolve. I'd accept changes to it, but I want to decide if and what to change.

2. There is no way to enforce shared ownership. What, I'd hire some people to draw some images, do the UI, do some technical aspects, and suddenly I am held at gunpoint by the government to relinquish ownership and therefore leadership of the company to everyone, even the janitor? And from there on every decision made must go through a council where my role as the one who worked on it for many years and brought it to life is 1/n? Which means the best case for the project is stagnation, so that my vision isn't ruined too much? Only a tyranny can enforce that, that meddles with the concept of property itself, and how people can form business relations.

Apply this to everything, even things like owning land with crops. You hire workers to plant or harvest, and suddenly you can meet your new co-owners of your business?

In Hungary the way this worked (former communist era, as told by my parents and relatives) is that there was the TSZ ("termelőszövetkezet" = "production association"), where people worked as part of a manual work force. Their payments were calculated based on "work units", which they did, and then the profits were distributed based on that. You could say it was quite an "equal" distribution among the workers based on merit.

And in essence this is not a bad idea. But the problem is - what if this is not popular? So it has to be enforced by government, forcing regular people to play along. In my case, it's like having to hire from a cluster of programmers and designers from a government agency, who'd work only temporarily, with fixed prices. And I'd have little to no say in the selection process. Here, you get nigger programmer #243 now, have fun.

The problem is, in the realm of programming and other intellectually demanding work areas, you need time for people to get into it. A programmer is said to become productive after 1 year of working at a company, meaning before that he costs more than he provides, because he is in the learning process and can only do minor things, and slower than normal. He'll also make mistakes which cost time for him and others.

"Distributionism", just as other forms of collectivization measures simply do not work with that. These worked half a century ago, where most work was still physical in nature, where you could be immediately productive and your productivity scaled with time spent working.

When this socialist system in Hungary collapsed, things fell apart. Many people rushed to seize properties from the government, with advantage to those who sat at desks, so corruption and unfairness was rampant. Things got worse from there on even, the very fabric of society got damaged. Many industrial places got abandoned. Things got better later, but it will take several generations to fully recover STILL.

It would result in jews losing their stranglehold on capital, which could only be a good thing, and unlike communism it respects property ownership of the things that actually need to be privately owned.

Yes, distributism is based. It is essentially how capital means were homogenously distributed before jewish banks took over capitalism. We do not work in a capitalist system today (nowhere does, instead it is credititist - this is objectively true because credit is the primary and usually sole means of intializing movement towards profit rather than capital was in the 1800s)