As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, Fulton Sheen strongly supported the idea that
the only way to counter both communism (and socialism) and capitalism is to
have a society in which capital ownership is widespread. As he stated, “Because the ownership of external things is the sign of freedom, the
Church has made the wide distribution of private property the cornerstone of her social program.” (Fulton
J. Sheen, Freedom Under God. Arlington, Virginia: Economic Justice Media,
2013, 33.)
The problem, of
course (as was noted in the previous posting on this subject) is where the
money is to come from. If the only
source of financing is past savings (money not spent on consumption), then only
the rich can afford to own the increasingly expensive new technologies displacing
labor. If we respect the natural right
of private property, we cannot simply take what the wealthy have and
redistribute it to the poor, for that would destroy private property in the name
of preserving it.
Fortunately,
however, there is a way out of the slavery of past savings, and one that we think Sheen would immediately have appreciated. We believe
that the problem is, in large measure, the result of the evolution of a social,
monetary, tax, and financial system that operates for the benefit of a few, and
to the detriment of the many. This flawed system creates barriers to economic opportunity (primarily ownership of capital) out of outdated methods of
finance and money creation
as well as a failure or refusal to understand the results of advancing
technology.
 |
| Mortimer J. Adler |
To be precise,
the principal reason for the rapid growth of moral relativism in the world
today, and the cause of the shift from social Christianity to Christian socialism, is that the system as it
developed failed to include the essential triad of principles of economic
justice. Louis O. Kelso, inventor of the Employee
Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), and
the Aristotelian philosopher
Mortimer J. Adler first articulated the basis of three
interdependent principles that, like the legs of a tripod, combine to form a
mutually supportive, interconnected and logical system for sustaining a just,
balanced, and free economic system. Kelso and Adler described these principles in Chapter 5 of
their best-selling collaboration, The Capitalist Manifesto. As we describe and explain them,
1. Participative Justice. This is how one makes “input” to the economic process in order to make a living.
It requires equal opportunity in gaining access to private property in
productive assets as well as equality of opportunity to engage in productive
work. Participative justice does not guarantee equal results, but requires that
every person be guaranteed by society’s institutions the equal human right to
make a productive contribution to the economy, both through one’s labor (as a
worker) and through one’s productive capital (as an owner). Thus, this
principle rejects monopolies, special privileges, and other exclusionary social
barriers to economic self-reliance and personal freedom.
2. Distributive Justice. This is the out-take principle described in legal terms as the form of
justice “which
should govern the distribution of rewards and punishments. It assigns to each
person the
rewards which his or her personal merit or services deserve, or the proper
punishment for his crimes.” (“Justice,” Black’s
Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1951.)
Distributive
justice is based on the exchange or market value of one’s economic
contributions — that all people have a right to receive a proportionate,
market-deter-mined share of the value of the marketable goods and services they
produce with their labor contributions, their capital contributions, or both. In contrast to a
controlled or command economy, this respects human dignity by making each
economic “vote” count.
 |
| Karl Marx |
This
understanding of distributive justice based on inputs must be clearly differentiated
from definitions that base distribution on need. Sheen makes this clear when critiquing the Marxist
dictum, “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” (Freedom Under God, 65. This is more
usually rendered, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to
his needs,” as Marx expressed it in his Critique
of the Gotha Program (1875).) Distribution on need is a valid principle for
charity, a moral
responsibility,
but not for justice, which (of
course) is also a moral responsibility.
Charity does have its proper role, however. As Pope
John Paul I stated in a talk given during a “general
audience” during his brief pontificate, “Charity is the soul of justice.” (John Paul I, General
Audience, Wednesday, September 6, 1978.) Nevertheless, as Augustine of Hippo observed, “Charity is no substitute
for justice withheld.” Charity should never be regarded as
a substitute for justice, but as the fulfillment of justice. As Moses Maimonides explained,
The greatest level [of charity], above which there is no greater, is to support [your fellow
man] by endowing him with a gift or loan, or entering into a partnership with
him, or finding employment for him, in order to strengthen his hand until he
need no longer be dependent upon others. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Charity, 10:7-14.)
3. Social Justice. This is the feedback
principle that rebalances
participative justice and distributive justice when the system violates either essential
principle. Social justice includes a concept of limitation that discourages personal greed and prevents
social monopolies. Social justice holds that every person has a personal responsibility to organize with others to correct their
organizations, institutions, laws and the social order itself at every level whenever the principles
of participative justice or distributive justice are violated or not operating properly.
Thus, as Sheen hinted, we can trace the moral decay of
society and the
decline of civilization to the growing economic displacement of
ordinary people resulting from the failure to adhere to the principles of economic
justice. The primary cause of this failure is ownership and control by a tiny elite of labor-displacing physical and
social technologies and natural resources. This imposes on propertyless people
throughout the world “a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.” (Rerum Novarum, § 3.)
The displacement
of most people from capital ownership prevents or inhibits their full participation in economic activity or even, as with actual
slavery, the whole of social life. The existence of artificial
financial and legal barriers to equal ownership opportunities prevents or inhibits most people
in the world from acquiring and developing virtue through the exercise of
humanity’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
Many people are thereby
cut off from the “economic common good.” This economic common good is composed, in part, of democratic access to
money and credit for productive purposes, the rights to and of private property, access to free market competition,
and the sanctity of contract (free association/liberty).
And what that
means we will see when we return to this subject.
#30#
