In the
previous posting on this subject, we noted that there are four primary
aspects of socialism: philanthropy, communitarianism, reform or abolition of
religion, and abolition of private ownership.
We also noted that a particular form of socialism may not include all or even
any of these aspects, and yet still be true socialism. As Pope Pius XI noted,
 |
| Pope Pius XI |
But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and
modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no
longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its
contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds
many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they
clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or
diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to
decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines
that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in
a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude,
may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a
doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly
Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which
we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic
Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian
truth. (Quadragesimo Anno, §
117.)
In other words, just as a human being need not have any actual
virtues or other “accidentals” to be fully human and human in the same way as
all other humans, socialism does not have to include any of its accidentals to
be truly socialism. That, of course,
raises the question as to what is socialism?
What is the concept of society utterly foreign to Christian truth of
which Pius XI spoke?
This is because, as we also noted in the previous posting
on this subject, the essence or substance of socialism is not any of the
characteristics, but the thing that makes the characteristics what they
are. And that is? The shift of natural rights, especially life,
liberty, and private property, from the human person to the collective.
Including philanthropy under socialism might at first seem
contradictory, but it makes perfect sense once we understand the essence of
socialism. The impression is that
socialism (and, of course, socialists) is hostile to the wealthy.
 |
| Robert Owen |
That, however, was never the case as a characteristic of
socialism, although a goodly (or badly) number of socialists do take a
doctrinaire rejection of the wealthy as a standard line . . . until they get
some of the wealth directed at them or their particular causes. It comes as a distinct shock to many
doctrinaire capitalists as well as socialists that Robert Owen, considered by
many authorities to be England’s first modern socialist, was also one of
England’s wealthiest industrialists. He
is also one of the few socialists (if not the only one) to finance his own
schemes of social betterment out of his own pocket . . . once he was unable to
get funding from other philanthropists or the government (many members of which
were appalled at Owen’s religious views and his demand for the abolition of
religion).
Virtually all of the early socialists, such as Henri de
Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Félicité de Lamennais, sought wealthy patrons
or government
funding to finance their visions of the Kingdom of God on Earth. It was only when the rich and
the government failed to give them the money they wanted to reform Church,
State, and Family that socialists turned against them and began condemning them
instead of importuning them.
To this day, the wealthy who use their wealth in ways
deemed appropriate by the reformers (usually giving money to the socialists or
their causes) escape opprobrium. Of
course, the distinction between the wealthy who give their money to socially
acceptable individuals and causes, and those who give to the wrong individuals and
causes is often unclear, depending on circumstances and the right kind of PR.
 |
| Félicité de Lamennais |
The bottom line is that philanthropy is actually something
of a bridge between socialism and capitalism, suggesting that the two systems
might not be as far apart as adherents like to think.
In both socialism and capitalism, philanthropy is a major
component of an individualistic version of “social justice,” which in common
parlance is a euphemism for redistribution as a replacement for traditional
justice and charity. The only question
is whether redistribution is voluntary or involuntary. If redistribution is voluntary, it is termed
philanthropy. If redistribution is
involuntary, it is termed “distributive justice” (a term only very distantly
related to its meaning in classical philosophy).
True social justice, of course, is the particular virtue
directed to the institutions of the common good, not to the good of
individuals, regardless how many are affected.
True social justice is not a replacement for traditional justice and
charity, but a means of making traditional justice and charity once again
effective.
This explains why both socialists and capitalists often prefer
philanthropy to charity. Charity is
considered a temporary helping hand, the highest form of which (according to
Maimonides’s Eight Orders of Charity) is to lend someone money to go into
business so that he can become productive and able to give alms and be charitable
himself.
In contrast, philanthropy is often viewed not as a
temporary expedient on the way to a just solution, but itself as the solution
by both capitalists and socialists. The
only question is how much money the rich can afford to give without harming
their own interests and making the well go dry.
This is not only self-defeating, but it puts the recipient in a
condition of dependency on the giver.
To impose dependency is an offense against human dignity,
but that, too, is common ground on which capitalism and socialism meet. In the next posting on this subject we will
look at communitarianism, another surprising area of common ground between the
two presumably opposed systems. As
Hilaire Belloc predicted, capitalism and socialism continue to draw ever-closer
together in forming what he called “the Servile State,” although not in the
form he envisioned.
#30#