Socialism - Rerum Novarum Revisited

My opposition to "socialism"is grounded on papal teachings.

To remedy economic inequalities, socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, strive to do away with private property.

They hold that by transferring property from private individuals to the state, the present inequitable state of things will be set right.

Each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy.

But where socialist theories they are carried into effect, the working man is always among the first to suffer.

Socialist remedies are unjust. In addition to robbing the lawful possessor, they distort the functions of the state, and create utter confusion in the community.

When a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work are to obtain property. And to hold it as his own.

If a man hires out his strength or skill to another, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return that which is necessary to satisfy his needs.

He therefore intends to acquire a full, real right, not only to the remuneration, but also the right to dispose of that remuneration as he pleases.

If he saves money, and invests his savings in land, that land is only his wages under another form.

His little estate so purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor.

It is precisely in the power of disposal that ownership obtains - whether the property consist of land or chattels.

Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the state, strike at the interests of every wage-earner.

They would deprive him of the liberty to dispose of his wages, and the possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

What is of far greater moment, however, is that the proposed socialist remedy is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.

Man is endowed with reason.

Therefore, it must be within his right to possess things not merely for momentary use, but to hold them in permanent possession. He must have not only things that perish in the use, but also those which continue to be useful for future use.

Man precedes the state. He possesses, prior to the formation of any state, the right of providing for the substance of his body and family.

The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property.

For though God has granted the earth to mankind in general; no part of it was assigned to any one in particular. The limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races.

Socialists assert that it is right for private persons to have the use of the soil and its various fruits, but that it is unjust for anyone to possess (own) outright the land on which he has built or brought under cultivation.

They do not perceive that they are defrauding man of what his own labor has produced.

Soil which is cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition. It was wild before; now it is fruitful. Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by any one else?

The principle of private ownership is in conformity with human nature, and conductive to the peace and tranquility of human existence.

The contention that the civil government should exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a pernicious error.

True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth.

Should the socialist philosophy prevail, no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry. The equality about which socialists dream would result in the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.

The main tenet of socialism - "community of goods" - must be utterly rejected. It injures those whom it is meant to benefit. It is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind. It would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal.

The first and most fundamental principle is, therefore, that if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, private property must be inviolate.

Whose teachings?

Leo, XIII's: Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891.

My words are his.


Posted: QCOline.com Nov. 7, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea