VERY REV. PRIOR McNABB AND THE NEW SOCIALISM

New Zealand Tablet, 21 September 1911, Page 1845

VERY REV. PRIOR McNABB AND THE NEW SOCIALISM

A CRITICISM (For the N.Z. Tablet by the Rev. Father Fitzgerald.) In the Catholic Times of July 21, 1911, is a lengthy article on the New Socialism of J. Ramsay Macdonald, written by the Very Rev. Prior McNabb, O.P. Inter alia, the writer gives Mr. Ramsay Macdonald’s definition of Socialism, in these, words: ‘ Socialism is the creed of those who, recognising that the community exists for the improvement of the individual and for the maintenance of liberty, and that the control of the economic circumstances of life, means the control of life itself, seek to build up a social organisation which will include in its activities the management of those economic instruments such as land and capital that cannot be left safely in the hands of individuals ’ (The Socialist Movement, by R. Macdonald, p. 11). Further on Prior McNabb says, referring to the author’s distinction between Socialism and Communism, ‘ This serves as a significant commentary on the words of the Rerum Novarum. Hence it is clear that the main tenet of Socialism—community of —must be utterly rejected. It would seem that the New Socialism has succeeded in avoiding that Communistic Socialism condemned by the Rerum Novarum .’ Further on again. Prior McNabb states; ‘This chapter, will doubtlessly give matter for astonishment to some of its readers. The Rerum Novarum (i.e., Encyclical on Labor) concludes its critical portion with the memorable words: “ The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the ' ‘ inviolability of private property.’ The new Socialism is almost a reecho of this Magna Charta of Pope Leo XIII., etc. Then the Prior concludes, ‘ The Socialism which has to be refuted by proving man’s right to private property is not the new Parliamentary Socialism of the hundreds of thousands who would subscribe the creed of Bernstein• and Macdonald.’ Now, with all due respect to Prior McNabb, I beg to disagree with him most emphatically. This much is certain, that the substance of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald’s definition of Socialism, lies in these words, ‘ land and capital.’ Such economic instruments that cannot be left safely in the hands of individuals, for instance, land and capital, are to be owned and managed by the community. Land and capital at least, are to be nationalised; practically speaking, all means of production are to become common property ; labor, manual and mental, come under the heading of capital. In other words, the Socialism of Ramsay Macdonald aims at The Abolition of Private Property in the means of production, and the substitution in its place of collective or State ownership of land and capital (which is practically the same thing, as saying the means of production). It aims at communism in the means of production. (N.B. Whoever owns and controls the means of production, also owns and controls the means of distribution and exchange.) Prior McNabb evidently holds that community of the means of production does not come under the heading of ‘ community of goods,’ the main tenet of Socialism, as described by Leo XIII. in his Labor Encyclical. I, on the contrary, hold that it does. Prior McNabb evidently holds that the abolition,, of private property in land and capital, does not come under the heading of the abolition of private property as understood by Leo XIII. I, on the contrary, hold that he who advocates the abolition of the right to private property in land and capital—i.e., in the means of production—is advocating the abolition of the right to private property, in the sense understood by Leo XIII., and in its theological sense. In a few words this ■ kind of Socialism attacks the very foundation of the VII. and X. Commandments; It attacks the Natural Law of private property, which law has received the Divine positive sanction by these two precepts of God, How

am I going to prove my contention ? Father Cathrein, S.J., a recognised authority on Socialism, gives the following definitions: ‘ Communism has a Wider Significance than Socialism. By Communism in its wider sense we understand that system of economics which advocates the abolition of private property and the introduction of community of goods, at least as far as capital or means of production is concerned. Communism in this broad sense admits of various forms, the chief of which are the following: (1) Negative Communism is restricted to the negation of private property. According to this form of Communism all goods should equally be put at the disposal of all. This preposterous form of Communism is no longer advocated by anyone, at least not to our knowledge, for it is evident that a system which does not exclude others from the use of those things, which individuals have appropriated to themselves, would ruin all industry and* bring about a state of universal misery and utter disorder. For who would till a field if others were permitted to come at will and to reap the harvest (2) Positive Communism demands the total or partial transfer of all property to the community which is to be the owner, administrator, and distributor of all the products. This Communism may be of two, or rather three different kinds: (a) Extreme positive Communism advocates the transfer of all goods without exception to one great common administration. All production, and the use of all goods should be common —common meals, common dormitories, common hospitals, etc. This system was advocated by some of the earlier communists and by some religious sects, (b) Moderate positive Communism advocates only the abolition of . private property as far as capital or the materials of labor, or productive goods.in contradistinction to non-productive goods— concerned. By productive goods are meant real estate, all kinds of raw materials, factories, machines, tools, means of transportation, in fine, everything not intended for immediate consumption. These goods should be handed over to and be administrated by some sort of commonwealth. This moderate form of positive Communism is at present the only one having adherents. They are divided into two large groups bitterly hostile to each other— . Anarchism and Socialism. (a) Anarchism (Anarchist Communism) demands the transfer of productive property to independent groups of working men (communities). In these groups, united to each other by mere federation, each individual is to receive the entire product of his work. Moreover, all governmental functions are to cease, for Anarchists desire to realise absolute liberty and equality to their full extent. Nevertheless, Anarchism , does not imply Anarchy or disorder, etc. (b) Socialistic Communism, or simply Socialism, advocates the transformation of all capital, or means of production, into the common property of society, or of the State, and the administration of the produce, and the distribution of the proceeds by the State. Since modern Socialists, and chiefly the followers of Karl Marx, intend to realise this scheme entirely upon a democratic basis, they call themselves social democrats, ' and their system 'Social Democracy. Social Democracy may be defined -as that system of political economy which advocates the inalienable ownership on the part of the State of all capital or materials of labor, as also the public administration of all economic goods, and the distribution of all produce by the democratic. State. , We call Socialism a system of political economy, not as if it did not also lead to many political and social changes, but because the gist of Socialism consists in th,e nationalisation of property and in the public administration and distribution of all goods. Socialism, at least as it is conceived by its modern defenders, is in the first instance an economical system, and secondarily and subordinately a political svstem affecting society, the State, the family, etc.’ Then, further on, Father Cathrein (p. 20) says: ‘ In the meaning which we have assigned to it, the ..term Socialism (See definition, Socialistic Communism , or simply Socialism: this is my own comment ) is current not only in German and English, but also in French Italian, and Spanish, especially so in works of a scien-

tific character. Also Pope Leo XIII. in his Encyclicals on the social question Quod Apostolici', December 28, 1878, and Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891 —employs the word Socialism exactly as we do. Wherever Socialism exists at present, it is also democratic, aiming at the introduction of the greatest possible equality: therefore the terms Socialism and social democracy may be. regarded as synonymous. In French and English, Socialism is often spoken of as Collectivism.' On.page 352, Father Cathrein says: ‘Socialists, it is true, plead that they demand not the renunciation of property, that they only desire to establish property upon the basis of justice. These are fair words, but without meaning. He who wishes to abolish private property in all the materials of labor, substantially abolishes private ownership. Property in mere articles of use must of its very nature be limited, and is not sufficient to secure to man the necessary freedom of action and movement. If man is deprived of private property in the materials of labor he is thereby made an integral part of the great public industrial machine, and thus loses all independence of action. Leo XIII. on the Condition of Labor 5 Just apply this text to Leo XIII. 5 s own words (My own comments are given in parentheses.) v.g.: ‘lt is surely undeniable that when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one hires out to another his strength (manual labor) or skill (mental labor), he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for sustenance and education; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration (goods for use and immediate consumption) , but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases (goods for profit —i.e., means of production). Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land in such case, is only his wages under another form; and consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavouring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, & and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his stock and of bettering his condition in life. What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For every man has by nature the right, to possess property as his own.’ Leo XIII. develops this point. Cardinal Manning in explaining the Labor Encyclical says: ‘ The law of property or of private ownership both in land and in the product of his own labor is founded on nature and cannot be abolished by any human authority without a violation of the Divine order of natural society. Neither land nor wage can

be nationalised. Property existed before the nation, and rests immediately on nature itself. This does nob deny the lawfulness of taxing all property by the State for the safety or welfare of the commonwealth. It denies only the lawfulness of uprooting the right of property which is in its origin founded on nature itself. There are many kinds of nominal Socialism, which wo need not deal with now; but of the original Socialism there are two sections—the one that holds the lawfulness of nationalising both land and the wages of labor, the other that holds the lawfulness of nationalising the land only, but admits the right of private property in the wages and products of personal labor. The Encyclical denies both these, claims. Socialism, therefore, affects to reconstitute human society upon a new foundation and by new laws, and this, whether accomplished by force or by fallacy, is destructive of the natural and normal society of man ' (English C.T.S. penny publication, Leo XIII. on the Condition of Labor, By Cardinal Manning). With Cardinal Manning as guide, Leo XIII.'s remarks on Socialism and private property will be as clear as daylight. Father Slater, S.J., in his Moral Theology, written in English, says: ' Animals and the earth together, with all that they produce, may become man's absolute property. God has imposed on him the obligation of maintaining himself and those who are dependent upon him, and he has a consequent right to make his own, whatever is necessary and useful for that purpose, if it has not been appropriated by some one else. He has a right to provide not only for his immediate wants, but for the future also; hot only for himself but for his offspring. . In other words, nature herself gives man the right of private property. This right is not given by the State; it is anterior to the State, and its preservation and defence is one of the chief reasons for the existence of the State. It may indeed be regulated by the State as far as is necessary for the common good, but it is beyond the power of the State to do away with it. No Catholic is at liberty to deny the lawfulness of private property, and its necessity in the general conditions of the modern world. Socialists, indeed, advocate the nationalisation of the land and of all the means of production and exchange, as a sovereign cure for the economic evils of the world. The plan militates against the right of private property'. {Moral Theology, vol. 1., p. 349). See also Father Coonan's paper at the Catholic Congress, Sydney, 1909, also Archbishop Delaney's and Rev. Professor McCaffrey's papers at same Congress. In conclusion, he who advocates the abolition of private ownership of land and capital is advocating the abolition of private property as understood by Leo XIII. in his Labor Encyclical. Such a person falls foul of the theological teaching concerning private property, and he is trying to sap the very foundation of the Seventh and Tenth Commandments. ,