A Catholic Laboring Man’s Reconstruction Programme

New Zealand Tablet, 6 April 1922, Page 9

A Catholic Laboring Man’s Reconstruction Programme

This is tho season for inventory-taking, and it may not bo amiss, therefore, to take stock of our social reconstruction programmes and their results (writes a Catholic laboring man in the Fortnightly Review, St. Louis, U.S.A.) I do not mean to say that in the three years that have elapsed since the period of reconstruction began, it should be possible to place one’s finger on actual results. Nevertheless, certain definite tendencies should be making themselves felt in consequence of these pronouncements. It must not be overlooked that at the time of promulgation conditions favored the workers. The programme of our bishops, based as it was, primarily, on wages, hours, and working conditions, was launched in favorable weather. Since then storms have broken loose, heavy storms, indeed ; the ship’s compass might well be consulted to determine our present bearings, though the storm has by no means abated , as yet. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to retain our jobs, with immense reduction in our purchasing power —in consequence of reduction in hours as well as wages■ have long since ceased to think of “the principle of organisation,” the exterior conditions of our work, and the minimum of wage. At least we are not thinking of them in the same way that the professors of economics and sociology think of them. But we have wondered and are discussing, in our own informal and inadequate manner, the relationship of these things to real social and industrial reform. I do not mean to give the impression that we are discontented with, or inappreciative of, the efforts of our leaders. A group of Catholic laboring men can surely discuss the bearings of the principles of our social reform movements, even though they come from our spiritual leaders, without endangering our reputation for loyalty to the Church we love. It is hardly more than natural that we should discuss the value of such principles in the face of events of the past year. Much has been made in Catholic circles of the pronouncement of the great Pope Leo regarding working men’s associations, or unions, as they are called in this country; little, however, has been made of his statement that there must be a juster distribution of the goods of this world. The difficulty would seem to lie in an exaggerated notion of the results to be obtained from the labor union movement. I can safely say, from my experience and relationship with many workers, that the workers themselves do not place much confidence in organisations as a means to a better order of things. They constitute a source of protection against the tyranny of those who hold the balance of power, though they have also been used unjustly by Labor during times unfavorable to the employer. In fact they perpetuate and accentuate the division of classes, and are incapable, under ‘the present constitution of industrial society, to help effectively to a better ordering of things. I believe I am correct, therefore, when I state that the laborer expects little from “the principle of organisation,” though organisations are perhaps necessary, for the time being, as a means of protection. The present period of depression has brought out clearly the futility of the whole labor union movement. A philosophy of action having as its objectives higher wages, better working conditions, and shorter hours, is obviously bootless at a time like the present. Unless we can get at

the causes of the commercial stagnation, little will be accomplished. Likewise with the host of other proposals inserted in our reform platforms. What, for example, has the minimum wage to do with true reform, when all wages are the plaything of economic forces which we seemingly do not understand? What is the value of the various housing proposals, when the question of land monopoly is left untouched and unearned increment is shunned like a contagious disease. How much will come of the co-operative movement, so long as the ownership of our natural resources, the source of all wealth, is left unquestioned? Suppose, in this connection, that a group of workers did come into the possession of the tools of production of a certain commodity. Would not the increased profits and benefits silently and quickly flow into the coffers of Privilege? Some years ago, Mr. Ford inaugurated a new era in our industrial world. He paid a minimum wage far in excess of even the maximum of many industries. What happened? Did not rents, land prices, and commodity prices soar? The increased earnings were capitalised by Privilege many years in advance. And again, what have the milk and water proposals regarding a more socialised rural life to do with true agrarian reform, while land monopoly grows ever stronger in these United States? Only 40 per cent, of our population now live on farms, and of these the vast majority are renters, and they are on the increase. What will stop it? Surely not social centres built around the district schoolhouse or the country church! Thus it is that, while we run down the list of reform proposals and view them in the light of these dour days, we begin to have a feeling that after all these externals — like wages, hours, conditions of work and life—are to a great extent beyond our control; that behind these there must be something else, which, if properly adjusted or reconstructed, would automatically take care of these externals; that, in short, we have started at the wrong end of the line. By this time some one will have sensed something “radical.” A young man at the “plant,” whose education took him into Latin roots, told us at one of our noon-hour gatherings that the word “radical” came from a word meaning “root.” Perhaps a “radical” then, in one sense at least, is ho who goes to the root of things. However that may be, I can assure you that in the accepted meaning of the term, the vast majority of workers, in my experience, are decidedly non-radical. We look for no overthrow of existing conditions nor for a sudden revolution, which would turn all things to our unskilled direction. Even though we should awake to-morrow to find Labor at the helm, several decades would elapse before the great body of workers would be sufficiently educated for the new regime. I do not mean that the laborer spurns organisations, welfare work, regulation of hours, wages and conditions as a temporary means of amelioration. But he doe.-', in my experience, look with disfavor upon these as permanent remedies. The fundamental difficulty seems to Ik? in the ignorance of what is at the bottom of our ills. A thorough diagnosis. must be made first. After that the remedy will be easy at least wo can proceed intelligently. ' With these thoughts in mind, I recently formulated a Reconstruction Programme” at one of our informal noonhour meetings. Its strange departure from traditional Programmes may not rob it of interest to your readers. I had in mind Catholic workers primarily, though the application, with a few changes, could be made universal. 1. The establishment of a School of Sociology, where unadulterated principles of Catholic philosophy and theology might be fearlessly applied to modern data, from which would arise a truly Catholic sociology. It would seem that absolute freedom and fearlessness must be the first characteristics of such a school. The workers themselves must provide the funds; freedom from, obligation for financial patronage must be absolute. 2. The training in the proposed school of leaders, who would act as an educational force. 3. The organisation of Catholic laborers along parish lines. Well-trained leaders in a truly Catholic sociology would have an adequate message to bring to the hungry multitudes. ■ , , * . & J

This, then, is my “Reconstruction Programme.” Surely there is nothing “radical” here. Isn’t it worth a fair trial, in view of the disheartening experience with prevailing proposals? Why talk of the co-operative movement, guilds, unionism, and legislative reform, when we are obviously in the dark concerning the diagnosis of our present ills? Is it not yet clear that the first characteristic of a reconstruction programme must be educational? For lack of this many Catholic laborers are losing the true filial spirit and allegiance to the Church.