SOCIALISM
66
SOCIALISM
The point, then, to be observed is that the spiritual
life is really the economic hfe. From the Christian
point of view material necessities are to be kept at a
minimum, and material su]5erfluities as far as possible
to be dispensed with altogether. The Christian is a
Boldier and a pilgrim who requires material things only
as a means to fitness and nothing more. In this he
has the e.\ample of Christ Himself, Who came to earth
with a minimum of material advantages and persisted
thus even to the Cross. The Christian, then, not
only from the individual but also from the social
standpoint, has chosen the better part. He does not
•despise this life, but, just because his material desires
are subordinate to his spiritual ones, he lives it much
more reasonably, much more unselfishly, much more
beneficially to his neighbours. The point, too, which
he makes against the Socialist is this. The Socialist
wishes to distribute material goods in such a way as
to establish a substantial equality, and in order to do
this he requires the State to make and keep this dis-
tribution compulsory. The Christian replies to him:
"You cannot maintain this widespread distribution,
for the simple reason that you have no machinery for
inducing men to desire it. On the contrary, you do
all you can to increase the selfish and accumulative
desires of men: you centre and concentrate all their
interest on material accumulation, and then expect
them to distribute their goods." This ultimate dif-
ference between Christian and Socialist teaching must
be clearly understood. Socialism appropriates all hu-
man desires and centres them on the here-and-now,
on material benefit and material prosperity. But
material goods are so limited in quality, in quantity,
and in duration that they are incapable of satisfying
human desires, which will ever covet more and more
and never feel satisfaction. In this Socialism and
Capitalism are at one, for their only quarrel is over the
bone upon which is the meat that perisheth. Social-
ism, of itself and by itself, can do nothing to diminish
or discipline the immediate and materiaUstic lust of
men, because Socialism is itself the most e.xaggerated
and universalized expression of this lust yet known to
history. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches
and practises unselfish distribution of material goods,
both according to the law of justice and according to
the law of charity.
Again, ethically speaking. Socialism is committed to the doctrine of determinism. Holding that society makes the individuals of which it is composed, and not vice versa, it has quite lost touch with the invigorating Christian doctrine of free will. This fact may be il- lustrated by its attitude towards the three great insti- tutions which have hitherto most strongly exemplified and protected that doctrine — the Church, the Family, and private ownership. Socialism, with its essentially materialistic nature, can admit no raison d'etre for a spiritual power, as complementary and superior to the secular power of the State. Man, as the creature of a material environment, and as the subject of a mate- rial State, has no moral responsibilities and can yield to no allegiance beyond that of the State. Any power which claims to appropriate and discipline his interior life, and which affords him sanctions that transcend all evolutionary and scientific determinism, must ncce.-!sarily incur Socialist opposition. So, too, with the Family. According to the prevalent Socialist teaching, the child stands between two authorities, that of its parents and that of the State, and of these the State is certainly the higher. The State therefore is endowed with the higher authority and with all powers of interference to be used at its own discretion. Contra-st this with the Christian notion of the Family — an organic thing with an organic life of its own. The State, it is true, must ensure a proper basis for ita economic life, but beyond that it should not inter- fere: its business is not to detach the members of the family from their body in order to make them sepa-
rately and selfishly efficient; a member is cut off
from its body only as a last resource to prevent or-
ganic poisoning. The busine.'is of the State is rather
that of helping the Familj- to .1 healthy, co-operarive,
and productive unitj'. The State was never me.ant to
appropriate to itself the main parental duties, it wds
rather meant to provide the parents, especiaUj- poor
parents, with a wider, freer, healthier family sphere in
which to be properly parental. Sociahsm, then, both
in Church and Family, is impersonal and determinis-
tic : it deprives the individual of both his rehgious and
his domestic freedom. And it is exactlj' the same with
the institution of private property.
The Cliristian doctrine of property can best be stated in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "In re- gard to an external thing man has two powers: one is the power of managing and controlling it, and as to this it is lawful for a man to possess private property. It is, moreover, necessary for human life for three rea- sons. First, because everyone is more zealous in looking after a thing th.at belongs to him than a thing that is the common property of all or of many; be- cause each person, trying to escape labour, leaves to another what is everybody's business, as happens where there are many servants. Secondly, because there is more order in the management of men's afTairs if each has his own work of looking after defi- nite things; whereas there would be confusion if every- one managed everything indiscriminately. Thirdlj', because in this way the relations of men are kept more peaceful, since everyone is satisfied with his own pos- session, whence we see that quarrels are commoner between those who jointly own a thing as a whole. The other power which man has over ex-ternal things is the using of them; and as to this man must not hold external things as his own property, but as everyone's; so as to make no difficultj', I mean, in sharing when others are in need" (Summa theologica, II-II, Q. \xvi, a. 2). If man, then, has the right to own, control, and use private property, the State cannot give him this right or take it away; it can only protect it. Here, of course, we are at issue with Socialism, for, according to it, the State is the supreme power from which aU human rights are derived; it acknowledges no inde- pendent spiritual, domestic, or individual power what- ever. In nothing is the bad economy of Socialism more evident than in its derogation or denial of all the truly personal and self-directive powers of human nature, and its misuse of such human qualities as it does not despise or deny is a plain confession of its material and deterministic limitations. It is true that the institutions of religion, of the family, and of private ownership are hable to great abuses, but the perfection of human effort and character de- mands a freedom of choice between good and evil as their first necessary condition. This area of free choice is provided, on the material side, by private ownership; on the spiritual and material, by the Christian Family; and on the purely spiritual by re- ligion. The State, then, instead of depriving men of these opportunities of free and fine production, not only of material but also of intellectual values, should rather constitute itself as their defender.
In apparent contradiction, however, to much of the foregoing argument are the considerations put for- ward by numerous schools of "Christian Sociahsm", both Catholic and non-Catholic. It will be urged that there cannot really be the opposition between Socialism and Christianity that is here suggested, for, as a matter of fact, many excellent and intelligent per- sons in all countries are at once convinced Christians and ardent Socialists. Now, before it is possible to estimate correctly how far this undoubted fact can alter t he conclusions arrived at above, certain premises must be noted. First, it is not practically po-S-sible to consider Socialism solelj' as an economic or social doc- trine. It has long passed the stage of pure theory and
