Conclusion

Here we shall bring our investigation of socialism to a close. We trust that the unprejudiced reader who has patiently followed us throughout our exposition has gained the conviction that socialism, even in its most rational and scientific form, is visionary and impracticable. It is based on untenable religious, philosophical, and economic principles, and, far from leading to the glorious results held out by its advocates to the unlearned masses, would prove disastrous to that culture which Christianity has produced, and would reduce human society to a state of utter barbarism. We may, therefore, conclude in the words of Leo XIII. On the Condition of Labor: ‘Hence follows the untenableness of the principle of socialism, according to which the state is to appropriate all private property and convert it into common property. Such a theory can only turn out to the grave disadvantage of the laboring classes, for whose benefit it has been invented. It is opposed to the natural rights of every individual human being; it perverts the true purpose of the state, and renders the peaceful development of social life impossible.’ However, a permanent institution of socialism is not to be feared, since it is in open contradiction with the indestructible instincts and tendencies of human nature.

If socialism is indeed a utopian dream, as we have shown it to be, then it follows that all those who listen to the words of socialist prophets and expect salvation at their hands are wofully deceived, and that the brilliant hopes held out by popular agitators are at best the fruit of ignorance and self-deception. We say “at best,” because we do not care to inquire whether and in how far the doings of demagogues who make their living by propagating socialism are inspired by selfish motives.

But to one point we must call attention. Even if socialism were practicable, the great mass of farmers and artisans who are at present the objects of the most tender solicitude on the part of socialists would have nothing to gain, but everything to lose. Independent farmers, artisans, business men are out of question in the socialist system. Every man would but be a member of an immense state machinery, enjoying indeed equal rights with all the others, but utterly bereft of independence in the matter of gaining his livelihood. It were well for the independent farmer and artisan to bear this in mind.

If socialist agitators were to tell the farmer plainly: Your land and your homestead must be given up to the community; in future you will have no more right to them than any one else in the country; in return, however, you may partake of the general happiness which our endeavors will bring about; if the socialist projects were thus crudely stated, no farmer would listen to them; his land, his independent position, are too dear to his heart.

Socialist platforms and socialist lecturers may make the most flattering promises to the farming class and the small tradespeople. However, “Fine words butter no parsnips.” The middle classes would in no way be benefited by the introduction of socialism. According to socialist doctrines they are doomed to destruction; the concentration of capital and the pauperization of the artisan and farmer are supposed finally to reach a point where conditions become unbearable and “the expropriators are expropriated.” Efficient legal protection of the independent middle classes would be one of the strongest barriers against the spread of socialism. Therefore it is part of the system of orthodox socialists, especially in Germany, to oppose all efforts made for the betterment of the lower classes. It is their policy, as Bebel has worded it, “to retain the wounds of the body social in a festering condition.” In the German parliament most of the legislative measures in favor of the working population were antagonized by socialists under the pretence of their being mere palliatives which would retard the advent of the communist paradise.

It may cause astonishment, that men who boast of having the best interests of the people at heart should be guilty of such conduct. But upon closer reflection the wonder will cease. As soon as any class of people is doing well and has something to lose, it ceases to be socialistically inclined; it begins to fear for its own interests and becomes conservative. Socialists would therefore be sawing off the branch on which they are sitting, if they were to contribute to the passing of measures which are likely to reconcile the lower classes with their situation. Even the trades-unions are looked upon with a suspicious eye; they are too liable to follow in the wake of the bourgeois parties. And thus in the United States the Socialist Labor Party on the one hand stands completely aloof from the trades-unions “pure and simple,” whilst, on the other hand, the Socialist Party is making frantic efforts to control the great labor federations, not, however, for the improvement of labor conditions, but as powerful auxiliaries in the political struggle which is to place the powers of government in the hands of social democracy. Hence also the continual carping of socialists at the existing social order. Every crime, every accident and misfortune, is ascribed to the capitalist system and furnishes a fruitful theme of tirades against our “rotten and bankrupt society.”

For years we have carefully studied thousands of socialist literary productions, but not once have we come across a passage exhorting the workingman to sobriety, patience, laboriousness, thrift, contentment, etc. On the contrary, socialist agitators inveigh against “that cursed frugality and contentment.” Hatred against God, against Christianity and its ministers, against the possessing classes, is the usual text of their daily sermons. But hatred and fury sown among the deluded masses are liable to produce a dangerous crop; and in the social upheaval thence resulting, these new Dantons and Robespierres may easily share the fate of their predecessors in the French Revolution.

In view of the steady growth of the revolutionary parties are we to fold our arms in mute contemplation or raise them to heaven in sheer despair? Not in the least. There is no reason for giving up hope. God has ordained that also for national calamities remedies may be found. There is every expectation of averting the threatening danger, if we are serious about introducing social reforms and reviving the true spirit of Christianity.

1. Social Reform.—Socialist agitators endeavor to inspire the workingman with the idea that Christians, especially Catholics, wish to retain social conditions exactly as they are at present, and that they console the laborer solely by referring him to a life to come. Nothing can be further from our real intentions. We also demand social reform most energetically. We are, however, not like socialists, who find fault with every social improvement however well meant it may be; we gratefully acknowledge whatever is done to raise the laboring classes; but our demands are not all satisfied, there is much still to be reformed. At the same time we guard against falling into the other extreme of socialists; we do not flatter the workingmen with visions of impossible and unattainable happiness, merely in order to rouse for the present their dissatisfaction and to whet their appetite for luxuries far beyond their reach.

By the social reform which we advocate there may be secured for even the lowest of the laboring classes a family life worthy of a human being. For this end it is necessary not only that he receive sufficient wages, but also that sufficient regard be had for his life and health, and therefore that his strength be not overtaxed by immoderate labor. He must be treated not only with fairness, but also with love and consideration. Finally, he must have the assurance that in case of misfortune or ill health he is not abandoned or cast into the street. And since in our days personal effort and private charity are by no means sufficient, public authority must by suitable legislation take the necessary measures for this end. Social reform should aim at such a state of things that the humblest laborer may entertain a well-founded hope by industry and economy to better his condition, and gradually to rise to a higher social standing.¹

¹ Cf. our Moral philosophie, vol. II, book 2, chap. 4; also our article in the Kirchenlexicon: Die soziale Frage.

It may be objected that we have in this work to some extent ignored the just claims of socialism. However, if we consider what is peculiar to socialism as such, in contradistinction to other social reform movements—and this is precisely the point in question—socialism cannot be said to possess any just claims. If there is any justice in the claims of socialists it consists in their opposition to the extreme individualism of the liberal movement.

Man may be conceived under a twofold aspect— as a free and independent individual, and as a social being, destined to live in, and form part of, society. Liberalism—at least in former years—considered man only under the first aspect. It regarded only the individual and his independence, and almost entirely disregarded his social relations. From this standpoint liberalism tended toward the dismemberment of society, and proclaimed the maxim of laissez faire as the highest political wisdom. A reaction against this tendency was justified, and socialism, in as far as it can be viewed as a protest against extreme individualism, is perfectly right. But socialism, for its part, goes to the other extreme, considering only the social aspect of man, and disregarding the freedom and independence of the individual. It deprives the individual of his liberty, by making him the slave of the community—a wheel in the great and complicated mechanism of the social production—which is no less absurd.

As in most cases, here too the truth is midway between both extremes. Both aspects of man— the individual as well as the social—must be taken into consideration and brought into harmony. This is the unshaken principle from which all rational attempts at social reform must proceed. The institution and promotion of corporative associations are, as we have already noticed, the surest and best means to reconcile the claims of the individual with those of society, and thus to bring about harmony between the conflicting elements.

2. The most important and indispensable factor in the social reform, however, is the revival of Christianity among all classes of society. F. A. Lange, the historian of materialism, confesses that “Ideas and sacrifices can still save our civilization and change the way of devastating revolution into a way of beneficial reforms.” But whence is the spirit of sacrifice to come? Legislative measures may produce the external framework of a new social order; but it is only Christianity that can give it life and efficacy. Only on the ground of Christianity can the hostile social elements be brought to a reconciliation. Let us not deceive ourselves: the wisest and most humane legislation will never appease an indolent and grasping mass of laborers. But whence is the laborer to obtain the virtues of industry and economy? Only from the ever-flowing fountain of living Christianity. How can the laborer be expected to bear the toils and hardships that are inseparable from his state, if he has been led to believe that all hopes and fears in regard to the eternal retribution beyond the grave are childish fancies, and that with this life all shall come to an end?

This revival of Christianity, however, must not be confined to the laborer: it must also extend to the higher and more influential classes of society. Is it not bitter irony if our so-called “cultured classes” expect Christian patience and resignation from the laborer, while they themselves disregard the laws of Christianity, and publicly profess the grossest infidelity ? It sounds indeed like irony if the rich preach economy and self-denial to the poor, while they themselves indulge in the most extravagant luxury and dissipation. The wealthy must begin the social reform at home They must come to the conviction that they have not only rights but also duties toward the laboring man—duties of justice and duties of charity. They must bear in mind that they have been appointed by God, as it were, the administrators of their earthly possessions, which should in some way serve for the benefit of all. They should remember that the laborer is not a mere chattel, but a rational being, their brother in Christ, who, in the eyes of God, is equal to the richest and most powerful on earth. It is only this bond of Christian sentiment— of mutual love and reverence between rich and poor, high and low—that can bring about a reconciliation of the social conflicts of our times.

And since the Church is the God-appointed guardian and preserver of the Christian religion, and since she cannot fulfil this task unless she is free to exercise all her power and influence, we must demand for the solution of the social problem the perfect freedom of the Church in all her ministrations. Above all, we must insist on the full freedom of the Church to exercise her saving influence on the schools, from the common school to the university. Liberalism has used the schools and universities to alienate the nations from God. Socialism is beginning to adopt the same policy for the subversion of the social order; and if the Church is to exert her influence for the salvation of society in our day, she must do so chiefly in the field of education.