In the
previous posting on this subject we began by complaining about a
book without embarrassing the author by giving the title or the name of the
author. The book exists, though, even if
it does not appear to have sold very well.
 |
| Leo XIII |
That does not,
however, reflect on the quality of the writing or the subject matter, at least
in our opinion. The plain truth is that
the book said nothing really new, and did not attempt to shock people, except
possibly by the fact that once one starts looking closely at the ideas expressed, they start to make the careful reader a little queasy, possibly even
doubtful about the soundness of the ideas themselves.
That can then
lead to other thoughts, such as why or how these ideas took root so deeply in
Catholic social teaching as well as the rest of society. We refer, of course, to the principles of
socialism, modernism, and New Age thought, which in many cases have attained
the status of unquestioned assumptions. From
a Just Third Way perspective we have a solution to this problem, which is what
this posting is all about.
As we closed the
previous posting on this subject, we had finished our explanation of what (in
our opinion) made Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum so revolutionary.
That was a proactive program to counter the new things of socialism,
modernism, and the New Age instead of merely condemning them.
Leo XIII’s
solution was to declare that capital ownership by “as many as possible of the
people" would bring about a just society.
Moreover, it would do this without trying to change the truth of the
natural law, the role of Church, State, or Family, or by demoting God to put
collective man in God’s place.
 |
| Say: Production = Income, no surplus value. |
And therein lies
the rub. Leo XIII countered the new
things of socialism, modernism, and the New Age with the old things of natural
law, life, liberty, and especially private property. The problem was that the suggested means to finance
expanded ownership — an increase in wages — was not realistic or even remotely
feasible.
There are good
reasons for this. As any accountant can
tell you, increasing the cost of production leads to increasing prices to
consumers. Wages are a cost of
production, so it necessarily follows that increasing wages increases
prices. Since wage workers and their
families make up most consumers, a raise in wages only means that workers and
their families pay more for consumer goods, which nullifies the increase in
wages.
But what about
the “surplus value” allegedly stolen from workers and consumers by the
capitalists by charging more for their goods and services than they are
worth? If capitalists would keep prices
to the consumer low and pay workers out of profits, wouldn’t that solve the
problem?
Well . . . yes,
but there are a few difficulties. For
one, the concept of “surplus value” is a no-starter in natural law. A thing is worth not what I, the producer say
it’s worth, but its value to you the consumer.
It’s all very well to say that this wonderful loaf of bread is something
into which I put my heart and soul and all my labor for hours, days, and
weeks. My cost of production could
easily be in the thousands of dollars for a single loaf of the most amazing
bread in the world.
If all you want
is some bread to make a sandwich, however, not an unparalleled gastronomic
experience that rivals the ambrosia of the gods as a cosmic comestible, you
will probably go down the street to buy a kaiser roll for half a buck to hold
your salami and cheese rather than fork over $2,385.72 to me, regardless how
much it cost me to produce my Wonder Bread.
In a free market, a thing is only worth what the consumer says it is,
not the producer. If something is not
worth producing — that is, it costs more to produce than its value to the consumer — it
will not be produced.
 |
| Pius XI |
There is another
problem. Only owners have a natural right to profits. The right to control and enjoyment of the
fruits is inseparable from private property, the right to be an owner. The compensation package to workers might
include a profit-sharing provision, but that is not by natural right. It can be taken away as easily as it was
granted, absent coercion.
That is why Pope
Pius XI’s pontificate is so significant.
He devoted himself to the task of countering the threat of the new
things. His first encyclical, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, “On
the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ,” was essentially throwing
down the gauntlet to those who were working to change fundamental principles of
natural law and Catholic doctrine.
There were two
things that Pius XI named as the most dangerous of the new things. These were, one, the theory of human society
that shifted sovereignty from flesh and blood human beings to the abstraction
of the collective. Two, the attack on
private property.
Worse than the
actual theories, however, were those who “believe in
or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such
questions,” but who in reality —
. . . speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were
not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full
force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many
documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius
X, and Benedict XV.
(Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, §
60.)
Not that this was
in any way surprising. Every pope since
Gregory XVI had seen his teachings twisted and distorted by both liberals and
conservatives in an effort to change the Church into a vehicle for advancing
the new things or attempting to return to a fantasy Church that had never
existed except in their imaginations — an effort that has gained in force down
to the present day.
This is because
what both Leo XIII and Pius XI identified as the principal means of defending
the dignity of the human person and countering the new things — widespread
private property in capital — seemed to virtually everyone an impossible dream
or utopia . . . unless what the popes were “really”
doing was redefining private property!
 |
| Gregory XVI |
After all, how
could everyone become an owner of capital if only the rich can afford to
finance new capital? Logically (not
really, although there is a certain twisted logic operating), “because” new capital formation can only
be financed out of savings, and savings are the excess of production over
consumption, then “obviously” if the
popes said that as many as possible of the people should own, they meant
socialism. This would allow “the poor”
to confiscate what “the rich” have and redistribute it to “the poor.” All the condemnations of socialism in the
encyclicals were just a way of fooling the capitalists. Catholic social teaching is really just a
kinder, gentler form of socialism.
Except that it’s
not socialism at all, nor has private property been redefined or
abolished. Every pope since Gregory XVI
has been rather clear on that point.
Yes, within the current economic and financial paradigm (known as the
“British Currency School” for reasons we won’t get into right now) the iron
assumption is that only the rich or the State have the ability and means to
finance new capital formation, which means the only two alternatives are
socialism and capitalism. Period.
Thus, the only
way for one person to have something is to take it from somebody else. If private property is the mechanism by means
of which one set of persons robs another set of persons, the robbery is called
capitalism. If abolition of private
property is the mechanism by means of which one set of persons robs another set
of persons, the robbery is called socialism.
No other arrangement is possible.
Or is there?
That is what we
will look at in the next posting on this subject.
#30#
