Question One: On the Private Right of Possessing External Goods

S. Th. II-II, q. 66, a. 1 and 2.

391. State of the question. - Man naturally is lord of external things, not indeed as regards their nature, which is not subject to human power but to divine power, to which they obey at will: for man cannot annihilate the nature of things nor immediately change it as he wills, but only use their powers and thus mediately bring about a certain transformation of things; - but as regards the use of things, possession is natural to man, because through reason and will he can use them for his own utility, since imperfect things are for the sake of more perfect things. And thus man not only has the power of using, or useful dominion, but also direct dominion or possession, but in order to the power of using.

We have already proved this where we treated the object of dominion. But from this it is not yet demonstrated that that right of dominion is to be exercised by a private man rather than by all together or by the community, so that it is licit for someone to possess things as his own. Socialists deny this. But Catholic doctrine holds that in the present order, after original sin in the state of fallen nature, to possess things privately is legitimate and morally necessary.¹

¹ Among other special works there can usefully be compared: E. de Laveleye, Le Socialisme contemporain; Thonissen, Le Socialisme dans le passe; Schaeffle, Quintessenz des Sozialismus (French trans.); Capart, La Propriete individuelle et le Collectivisme; Castelein, Le Socialisme et le Droit de Propriete; Bourdeau, L'Evolution du Socialisme; Winterer, Le Socialisme contemporain; Schrijvers, Manuel d'Economie politique; Antoine, Cours d'Economie sociale; Schwalm, Lecons de Philosophie sociale; Vermeersch, Quaestiones de Iustitia; Nicotra, Le Socialisme; Drijvers, Eigendomsrecht; Garriguet, Introduction a l'etude de la sociologie; La propriete privee; Deploige, La theorie thomiste de la propriete; Van Overbergh, Les caracteres generaux du socialisme scientifique, in R. Neo-scolastique, 1898; Pottier, De Iure et Iustitia; Cathrein, Der Sozialismus; Biederlack, Die soziale Frage (Dutch trans.); Sertillanges, Socialisme et Christianisme; Bourguin, Les systemes socialistes et l'evolution economique; Rutten, Manuel d'Etudes et d'Action sociales; La Doctrine sociale de l'Eglise; Horvath, Eigentumsrecht.

392. Socialism is opposed to individualism, and therefore etymologically designates every regime which favors association and intends the improvement of social conditions. Yet in a more restricted sense it is now customarily taken, and thus it is the complex of systems which intend to overturn the present order of society and to substitute for it another new order, in which dominion over temporal goods is exercised by all in common or by society itself, principally if not exclusively: thus by making a step from individual dominion to social dominion, namely toward a general renewal of the world, and not toward a merely economic one.

There is a threefold principal form of this: 1) communism, in which all temporal goods, even those destined for consumption, are common and to be distributed equally among citizens; - 2) collectivism, which distinguishes two genera of goods: some, which are called means of production or exchange, as lands, instruments of labor, railways, etc., and are to be retained by the community or State, whence industries and commerce are to be administered commonly;² others are means of consumption and remain under private dominion; - 3) State socialism, which while it retains private dominion even as regards means of production, introduces universal and continuous intervention of the State in all business, and thus too greatly restricts the activity and rights of private persons.

² Hence Schaeffle wrote: the alpha and omega of Socialism is the suppression of private capital and the substitution of one collective capital.

From these anarchism differs essentially, which pursues the overthrow of the whole of society, not its transformation.

For since man is good by nature, and has been made evil only by the institution of society and authority, hence all authority must be abolished and society overthrown. Men can indeed enter into free and private associations; but civil society itself is to be destroyed by all means, even violent ones.³

³ Thus among others Bakounine, Kropotkine, E. Reclus, Cipriani, Malato, Seb. Faure.

Already in antiquity traces of communism are found: in the practical order, at Sparta in the time of Lycurgus; in the speculative order, in Plato, who in the work on the ideal Republic and on the Laws has communism as the best means of establishing concord in the city.

But among Christians, in the first centuries, certain Gnostics and Apostolics; in the Middle Ages, Albigenses and Waldenses introduced community of goods after the example of the primitive Jerusalem community; which the Anabaptists and certain other few among Protestants renewed.

But in the sixteenth century Thomas More (1478-1535) again proposed the system of Plato in the book De nova Insula Utopia (1516), yet by expunging it from many vices, such as from the community of wives; likewise in the seventeenth century Campanella in his work Civitas solis.

Yet these systems scarcely had moment in the history of the human race. But now from the nineteenth century Socialism has been propagated widely and has obtained innumerable followers.

393. The causes of present-day socialism are reduced to an evolution and profound change in the industrial matter, in the philosophico-political matter, and in the religious matter.

I. The evolution in the industrial matter, which Leo XIII describes briefly thus, in the encyclical Rerum novarum, 15 May 1891: "the new increases of industry and the arts going by new paths; - the changed mutual relations of masters and wage-earners; - the abundance of riches among a small number, poverty among the multitude; - the greater confidence of workers in themselves, and also a closer connection among themselves; - moreover morals turned for the worse, have brought it about that conflict broke out." The evolution began about the middle of the eighteenth century:

1. By the invention of more perfect instruments in manufactured things; from which a) greater industries were born and the separation of capital and labor arose; for since only the rich were able to acquire the new inventions, society was soon divided into two very distant orders: capitalists and masters who possess the instruments of labor; and proletarians or workers who labor not for themselves but for others. b) Moreover there followed a more intense production of things, or overproduction, no longer measured by the necessities of men, but ordered to a more abundant making, more than could be sold, of goods and riches. From these things it came about that workers depended more on masters, so that for the whole of life they would for the most part have to work in the workshops of others, could be driven away from labor at the nod of the masters, and, on account of unlimited production, would be dismissed for a time and reduced to poverty.

2. Hence the relations between masters and workers were fundamentally changed. Masters who preside over many hundreds or thousands of workers cannot care for each of them and their families and deal paternally with each; consequently difficulties and disputes that have arisen are not so easily composed, all the more because, on account of stricter dependence upon masters and the worse condition of poverty, workers have become readier for rebellion.

3. The distance between the conditions of capitalists and workers also has been much increased: the latter, often receiving a scanty wage, scarcely were able to support themselves and their own; the former, hiring the labor of many workers, became very rich and indulged in luxury. Hence, says Leo XIII, "the abundance of riches among a small number, poverty among the multitude..., the greatest part of men of lowest lot... are unworthily situated in miserable and calamitous fortune..." Which "has divided cities into two classes of citizens, an immense difference having been interposed between each: on one side a faction very powerful because very rich,... on the other a needy and weak multitude."

4. Hence the workers came together into one for their own defense. "The old guilds of artisans having been destroyed in the previous century, and no protection having been substituted in their place,... gradually it happened that the time handed over the workers, solitary and defenseless, to the inhumanity of masters and to the unbridled greed of competitors. Voracious usury increased the evil, which, although more than once condemned by the judgment of the Church, nevertheless is exercised under another appearance by greedy and profit-seeking men in the same way (and is now tolerated by civil law). To this are added both the hiring of works and the commerce of all things reduced almost into the power of a few, so that a very few wealthy and very rich men have placed an almost servile yoke upon the infinite multitude of proletarians." Understanding this now, the workers entered new associations, deprived of the Christian spirit, by which they try to improve their condition through the radical transformation of the social order and the diffusion of socialism. Whence the workers' greater confidence in themselves, a closer connection among themselves, and a more intimate solidarity.

5. From all these things, morals were turned for the worse. The life of workers has been much changed: on one side, on account of the perfection of industrial machines and the division of labor restricted to one kind, they exercise their own talent much less; whence in many this has been blunted, whose intellectual life has suffered a certain atrophy; - on the other side the life of the family has been weakened: for since the husband, wife, and children often are forced to labor in various workshops, they can cohabit only for a few hours; the wife can scarcely attend to the domestic matter and the education of the children, the husband finds a sordid home and a domestic economy unhappily managed, and thus family life is overturned. Whence workers, lacking intellectual life and finding no happiness at home, have deserted the household hearths, have frequented taverns, and think of overturning the social order.

II. The evolution in the philosophico-political matter has pervaded the whole of Europe. With J. J. Rousseau especially as guide, a) they hold man to be by nature essentially good, but made evil by the present social order of things; b) all men to be equal by nature and endowed with the same rights; which the French upheaval reduced to the practical order, proclaiming the rights of man, with duties passed over in silence, and establishing the political equality of all citizens; c) from which the princes of the liberal economic school concluded that, as regards the manner of producing and pursuing riches, unlimited liberty must be left to the natural tendencies of men, from which necessarily and of itself there arises a social economic state, than which none better here and now is possible.⁴

⁴ The liberals say: 1) In man there is a natural inclination to pursue without limit his own good and advantage and proper utility. But it is good to follow the inclination of nature, which is essentially good. Response: In man there is a natural inclination to pursue his last end, which befits rational nature, and the means necessary and useful for this end; but not to pursue without limit material and temporal goods, which cannot constitute the end of rational nature. And it is right to follow the inclination of nature as rational; but not of animal and sensible nature, except insofar as it is subordinated to rational nature and its end. 2) Happy is he who follows his inclinations. Response: if he is considered in the abstract and according as he is an individual, let it pass: for not all inclinations are good; if he is considered in the concrete, according as he is a social being, I deny it: for thus he ought to tend toward the social good, but this does not always agree with the good of man insofar as he is an individual. 3) Proper utility is the sole motive of acting for all. Response: Experience establishes that there are other motives, namely passions, the rational good and the good of virtue, indeed abnegation of self for a noble cause. 4) Unlimited economic liberty is the best means to the economic end: the production of riches. Response: Experience shows the multiple defects and evils which have arisen from unlimited liberty: these are among the causes of socialism, as has been said. Nor is the end of economy the sole unlimited production of riches, but their adaptation to the necessities of men and equitable distribution.

From this it is logically inferred that the right of property is to be abolished, as necessarily leading to the inequality of men; for equality is vain, and liberty is vain, unless all things are common. And indeed they concluded thus the more easily because, after Hobbes, they held civil law alone as the origin of the right of private property, or even with Kant, as the origin of every right.

Thus already Babeuf (1762-1797) wished all goods to be possessed by the State, - all citizens to be compelled to labor, - and fruits to be distributed according to the necessities of each one; thus many socialists after him. Whence socialism has arisen from liberalism, not by a certain reaction, but by logical evolution. For

a) in the speculative order of ideas, liberalism

1. falsified the notion of the last end, which it placed in earthly and material happiness;

2. falsified the notion of civil society and authority, since it derives all power from the people and founds right in external force;

3. falsely taught that economic value arises solely from labor, which alone can be the source of property: thus, among others, A. Smith, Ricardo, Bastiat;

b) in the practical order of facts,

4. it destroyed the old guilds of workers and established economic individualism, by which solitary workers would be left to the greed of masters;

5. by political institutions, founded on full liberty, equality, and suffrage, it established an efficacious means of socialistic organization.

III. An evolution in the religious matter likewise had place among many masters and workers. Unbelief from the eighteenth century invaded the minds of many, and faith in another life having been removed or diminished, they desire an earthly paradise in this life and an Eden of pleasures; from which harmful consequences have arisen:

1. "Not a few masters, whose desires are no longer moderated by the bridle of religion, not rarely regard workers as slaves, or instruments of production, use them and abuse them for acquiring riches more quickly, imposing more work than their strength can bear, and giving a wage which scarcely suffices for sustenance.

2. On the opposite side, many workers, who no longer expect an eternal reward, often indulge drunkenness and lust; and, since the wage furnished to them is unequal to procuring the pleasures which they desire, they denounce capitalists as guilty of injustice, and desire to divide their spoils among themselves."⁵

⁵ Tanquerey, Th. M. III, De Virtute Iustitiae, n. 53.

394. The evolution of present-day socialism consists in three stages: the romantic phase preceded, the more scientific followed, finally the political and practical arrived.

I. The romantic epoch is of utopian imagining and of solitary and local action. It began in France.

1° Saint-Simon (1760-1825), father of modern socialism, not having gone beyond the sphere of speculation, taught that value flows from labor as from its proper and single source, that the first place in society ought to be occupied by workers, and that a common organization of industry under a paternal regime should be instituted. His disciples said that the right of inheritance, private dominion, and marriage were to be abolished, whence it would follow that there would be a free union of man and woman and the fruits of labor common, to be divided according to the works and merits of each one.

2° Charles Fourier (1772-1837) held the principle: that inclination to pleasure is natural and therefore good. But for common happiness and universal harmony he devised a certain form of communism, in which families would coalesce into economic societies, called phalanxes, which would not exceed 2,000 persons and would live together in a spacious common building, namely, a phalanstery; several phalanxes would form series, and the series multiplied throughout the world, under the regime of the supreme president, the omniarch, would procure the common good of humanity. In any phalanx, goods would be possessed in common, agriculture and the arts would be exercised, and all, even the lazy, would receive necessities, but the industrious would obtain more according to the merit of each one. But an experiment of the system made in the village of Conde-sur-Vesgre had an unhappy outcome.

3° E. Cabet (1786-1856) proposed a more radical Communism in the work Voyage en Icarie; according to which all goods would be constituted under the dominion of the republic; individual citizens, led by fraternal love, would labor with equal spirit; the fruits of works would be divided equally among the members of the community. An attempt to reduce the system to practice in the region of Texas, after some months, had an unhappy outcome.

4° Louis Blanc (1811-1882) followed a mitigated form of communism. Since to each man there is connatural a right to labor,⁶ national workshops are to be instituted, in which work would be divided according to the powers of each one, fruits according to the necessities of each one: thus private dominions are gradually to be abolished and the State will be lord of all things.

⁶ From the fact that man has a right to life, there is also a right to labor and the faculty of seeking labor and a right that he not be impeded in it; - but not a right of demanding labor from this or that master. And although this master can sometimes be held from charity, nevertheless not from justice.

5° Proudhon (1809-1865) on the contrary defended a system not unlike anarchism. [Original misprint: 1365.] He declared that the dominion of property is theft, that the State is to be abolished, that every authority is to be taken out of the midst. Citizens nevertheless can retain and transmit to heirs all those things which they are able to use personally, all other things being abandoned; but the fruits of labor are to be divided according to the time consumed in working.

6° Robert Owen (1791-1858), who proclaimed man's irresponsibility, in England was a supporter of mitigated communism, of which he tried certain experiments: he instituted a certain cooperative society in Scotland rather happily, but communist associations founded in England and America soon collapsed.

7° More recently E. Bellamy, in America, vividly depicted collective organization and happiness in two works: Looking Backward and Equality.

II. The epoch of scientific synthesis and international action had its origin in Germany. From the works of economists and predecessors they built a scientific system to which they gave as foundation historical materialism, according to which every human evolution, even intellectual and religious, is fatal and depends upon economic and material evolution.⁷ Hence in fact they are atheists and have the sole religion of humanity, although the economic system does not depend essentially on this theory and can be conceived without this basis and is conceived by some.

⁷ The materialistic conception of history is not proper to this socialism, but is found among others, as in de Molinari, who is of the liberal economic school. - The refutation of historical materialism can be seen in Vermeersch, Quaestiones de Iustitia, n. 181. Cf. also V. Falon, Principes d'Economie sociale.

The master of the school is held to be Jagetzow (1805-1875), who under the pseudonym Charles Rodbertus taught that all economic goods are the fruit of labor, and are not to be esteemed at more than the labor by which they have been produced and, as it were, created; and therefore that society must be transformed in such a way that no dominion now exists except that which has arisen from labor itself.

Marx and Engels perfected and propagated the system; in the year 1848 they published the program (manifesto) of the communist party.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) is the chief doctor of socialism, who in the work Das Kapital (1867) reduced all principles into one synthesis. Capital, he says, or whatever is preserved for the new production of goods, is nothing except the fruit of labor unjustly taken away from workers.

For a double value of things is distinguished: one merely personal and usual (Gebrauchswerth; valeur d'usage; bruikwaarde) which consists in the natural utility of the thing; the other commutative (Tauschwerth; valeur d'echange; ruilwaarde) which alone is economic and is estimated by the price of things. But the foundation of just exchange is equivalence between the things exchanged. Yet the useful qualities of things do not constitute this equivalence, since they are diverse and opposed. Therefore labor alone is the one cause of the economic value of things; not indeed labor in fact expended, but that which of itself and generally is necessary for making, discovering, or transporting the thing: value is labor incorporated in the thing and, as it were, crystallized.

Now capitalists, by hiring workers, buy their faculty of laboring for a determined wage, which does not equal the price of the things produced but the daily support of the workers. For workers produce more than is necessary for their own support; this surplus value (Mehrwerth; plus-value; meerwaarde) is retained by capitalists for the new production of things. And thus capital is born and grows from the spoliation of proletarians, that is, by theft at least material.

Marx did not invent these ideas: he borrowed the notion of value from Smith; the notion of surplus value from Thompson, and that capital is theft from Proudhon; but he himself ordered them into a new synthesis.

But by natural and fatal evolution, industries and capitals are increased daily and are converted into monopolies, by which they more and more oppress the multitude which is reduced to greater poverty. But the extreme evil brings the remedy: when very few shall have possessed all instruments of labor and riches, the expropriation of those men will seem necessary and collectivism will arrive. It is necessary to assist the evolution, so that the new ordering of society may happen more quickly; the apt means for this is the struggle of the social orders, which will bring on economic change.

Engels (1820-1895) described socialism in its evolution in the book Die Entwickelung des Sozialismus; Lassalle (1825-1864), who therefore is called the apostle of socialism, defended it among the people. He, borrowing ideas from Ricardo, expounded the so-called iron law of wages (eherne Lohngesetz; loi d'airain; ijzeren loonwet).

In the present economic order, by ineluctable necessity and as by an iron law, it happens that wages never for long exceed that which is necessary for one's own support and the sufficient propagation of the human species. For if wages are increased, a greater number of children is begotten, therefore there will be a greater influx of workers, and soon, by the ineluctable force of competition, less price will be paid to workers. Whence the economic system of competition leads to emigration, depopulation, and neo-Malthusianism, and condemns workers to a state of misery in which they have nothing except the necessities of life. Against this no valid or useful remedy exists. Therefore it is necessary to join capital and labor, and for this to institute cooperative societies of production, which will be the first stage of transformation.

To break the rule of capitalists and more quickly bring on the new order of society, Marx instituted the international society of workers (not political), which from the year 1866 held international congresses; but in the year 1873, on account of internal dissensions that had arisen, it was dissolved.

Engels, Bebel, Liebknecht, Singer propagated the doctrine of Marx; the things Lassalle taught concerning the iron law are with difficulty reconciled with the doctrine of Marx and were also abandoned by socialists. Bernstein and Vollmar, after the war De Man, subjected the principles and system of Marx to critique and softened them; others defended them, among whom Kautsky and Vandervelde.⁸

⁸ Zur Psychologie des Sozialismus, Jena 1926; turned into French 1927: Au dela du Marxisme. A compendium of the work was made by P. Th. Trinon, O.P., La Liquidation du Marxisme, in the collection: Etudes religieuses, 1928. - Therefore a double diverse tendency is found among the disciples of Marx; nevertheless even the milder ones retain the struggle of the social classes and for the most part preserve the terminology (Wortschatz) but in a somewhat mitigated sense: they temper historical materialism, to which now a merely didactic value is attributed, and determinism and fatal evolution; they explain the reduction of the multitude to poverty as relative poverty because proportionately it is less enriched; the concentration of capitals will happen with less speed and evolution will proceed more slowly and more gradually, etc.

III. The political and practical epoch, or of the realization of reforms and of political and national action, began after the year 1873 and endures even to the present day. Now understanding that the total change of economy and society cannot be obtained at once, they prepare it by progressive effort and strive to bring it about; hence:

a) The so-called Reformists, by apt means, even by seizing political power and by intervention of law, try to make the condition of workers better, but that of capitalists worse, to impose progressive burdens upon the richer, to collect greater industrial enterprises and mines into social dominion, to oppose the federation of masters by confederated associations of workers, and slowly to bring their theories into practice.

b) Others, however, think that the better condition of workers can come about only by violent means, with every distinction between masters and workers removed, and they strive to prepare it.

Many cooperative and syndical societies were erected by socialists, and the more celebrated congresses, national and international, have been held.

395. The principal present-day forms of Socialism are:

1° State Socialism, which does not admit the collective dominion of all things, at least, but an excessively universal and continuous intervention of the State, from which it happens that the liberty of citizens and the right of private property are restricted more than is fair.

It was proposed by professors of universities, who therefore were called socialists of the chair (Kathedersozialisten). They contend that the solution of the present-day social question and economic reformation are to be expected almost solely from the intervention of the State, which would dominate the whole economic activity of the nation in every sphere. So that, with intermediate social organisms removed, the State would enjoy a certain quasi-omnipotence. This contradicts the natural institution of political society, whose mission is not to impede the activity of individuals and associations, but only to supply for their defect.

Thus many who favored democratic socialism in Germany, such as A. Wagner and Ebert, and those who are called radical-socialists in France. But now also those who glory in being called national socialists.

2° Agrarian Socialism was first proposed in Ireland and in the confederated States of America. It had H. George as its principal patron: he contended that not all means of production are to be possessed by the State, but only land estates, because land, like the sea and air, is not capable of private dominion, but ought to be common to all.

But lest public order be disturbed, possessors of fields will not be despoiled, but will pay a tax which corresponds to the price of lease and which is foreseen to be sufficient for paying all public expenses. Whence other taxes, which are unjust, are taken out of the midst.

Today the system generally is considered as unequal to solving the social question.

Even de Laveleye, who is among moderate liberal economists, admitted collective possession of land.

3° Collectivism or Marxism, according to which: a) the State or municipalities, or associations subject to the State, ought to retain in dominion all means of production: lands, workshops, mechanical instruments, money, etc. b) Their use and administration will be in the power of public authority, by which the production of things is to be ordered so that nothing useless is made, and nevertheless provision is fully and sufficiently made for the necessities of all citizens and of the whole of society. c) By public authority the fruits of labor are to be distributed among citizens: either, as some say, according to perfect equality; or, as seems equitable to others, according to the labor and merit of each one; or, as others prefer, according to the necessities of each one. But the goods which are received by each one are reserved for consumption, and cannot be employed for producing new things, lest capitalism revive under another form. d) But part of the goods is reserved for the necessities of the state for those things which are of common utility; besides which no taxes will be imposed. e) Since there will not be economic exchanges among citizens, the use of money does not subsist in this society; but labor tickets will be handed over by which citizens will be able to obtain in public workshops all things necessary for themselves.

Concerning the manner of reducing the system to practice, collectivists do not agree:

Some, the Possibilists or Reformists, and Evolutionists, reject violent means and wish to attain the end by legal means: by monopoly of the State in the principal industries, determination of the price to be paid to workers, universal and obligatory insurance, obligatory affiliation to guilds of workers, etc. These do not differ much from the followers of State socialism, except in the end, namely, expropriation.

On the contrary, the Seditious intend that public authority is to be obtained, so that they may authoritatively and by public force seize and divide all means and fruits of production.

4° Seditious Syndicalists fear the tyranny of the State just as the tyranny of masters, and they wish the means of production to be handed over to guilds of workers. To this end the education of workers must provide, and the aid of experts must be obtained, so that the ejection of masters from industries and a new ordering of things may come about.

For attaining this, it is necessary to use even violent means, for example, a strike even general, by which sedition may be prepared, by which the new order will be established. Then State and municipalities will cease; the management of things will be among workers and associations of workers, municipal, national, international. And thus there will be rightly ordered production by which all necessities are abundantly provided for, and earthly happiness.

To seditious syndicalism also belong the Bolshevists, imbued with the principles of Marxism; who nevertheless, under the pretext of the necessity of the State, provisionally instituted the tyrannical power of the police and in practice rejected for a time the sole direction of the guilds of workers.

396. Thesis. The private, permanent, and exclusive right of dominion over external goods and over the land itself, circumscribed by just limits, flows from natural law, and therefore is legitimate, and in the present state morally necessary. - It is said:

1. the private right of dominion, i.e., dominion not only useful but full, belonging to individual men independently of the State, not to society itself: for although society can possess certain goods as its own, nevertheless the right of dominion belongs also to private persons, indeed primarily to them;

2. permanent and exclusive, in such a way that it is exercised not only transiently but in a stable manner and can be transferred to others, or also to natural heirs; and that it is so proper that the owner is able to exclude all others from his possession;

3. over external goods, whether movable or immovable, whether ordered to the new production of things, or to use or consumption;

4. circumscribed by just limits: that right is not absolute, but, like other rights, is limited by its immediate end. That end is that for which earthly things have been created, namely, that all may be able to live from them. But it is limited in three ways:

a) in a case of extreme necessity, each one can occupy that which is necessary for the support of himself and his own;
b) by reason of the common good, social authority can decree fitting laws, so that no prejudice be brought to the end of things, which is that all may be able to live from them; and at times it can restrict private dominion, or partially take it away if this is necessary for the good of the whole republic, though this last cannot be done without a grave cause, nor regularly without due compensation;
c) charity toward one's neighbor demands that the rich give to the poor out of their superfluities.

This is the doctrine of St. Thomas, which Leo XIII made his own: "Concerning an external thing two things belong to man: one of which is the power of procuring and dispensing (dominion), and as to this it is lawful that man possess things as his own...; but the other... concerning external things is the use of them, and as to this man ought not to have external things as his own, but as common, namely, so that one may easily communicate them in the necessity of others."⁹ II-II, q. 66, a. 2.

⁹ Yet this necessity of the poor man is not a right, otherwise there would be an obligation of justice; but it is a title for obtaining that they be assisted from superfluities, because superfluities by natural ordination are destined for them, in such a way that the rich have a strict obligation of giving them generously from charity.

These obligations of owners can also proceed from legal debt, inasmuch as it pertains to the common good not only that in extreme necessity all be assisted and no one be deprived of necessary things, but also that there be a good use of superfluities in society and that from superfluities there be given to the needy.¹⁰ - Whence human law, on account of the common good, can compel to this: for no one has superfluous goods except for their good use and good dispensation; and therefore society could take away the dispensation from one who does not use well, as from one unworthy. "Wherefore," says Pius XI, in the encyclical Quadragesimo anno, May 15, 1931, "what, with the reality of the common good considered, is lawful for those who possess, what is unlawful in the use of their goods, public authority, with natural and divine law always shining before it, can investigate more accurately."

¹⁰ Thus conformably to St. Thomas, q. 118, a. 4, ad 2, and to the commentaries of Cajetan. This also P. Vermeersch conceded, his confreres dissenting, while the controversy stood which arose on occasion of the book of P. Horvath, O.P., Eigentumsrecht, and of certain writings by others, concerning which see Theol.-Prakt. Quartalschrift, Linz, 1929.

5. flows from natural law, and therefore is legitimate. For it is not a primary natural right, which belongs to nature considered in itself and absolutely; but it follows by way of conclusion from the consideration of human nature, and for this reason is legitimate.¹¹

¹¹ The law of nature comprises those things which are required by the nature of things. If the nature of the things to be possessed is considered in itself and absolutely, the division of possessions is not required: there is not in them a requirement that they be possessed by one or by another, in common or in particular. Private dominion is neither required nor excluded; whence it is not against nature. Only this is required by the nature of things considered in itself, that the things to be possessed not be turned aside from their immediate and intrinsic end, which is that they serve the necessities of all men: the land does not cease, says Leo XIII, to serve the common utility of all, and there is no one who is not nourished from those things which it produces. Whence in a case of extreme necessity, private dominion ceases and all things are common: the division of possessions cannot prejudice such necessity, and from the human application of the law of nature the primary end cannot be impeded... But private dominion is of natural law according to something which follows from nature and is concluded by reasoning. Thus Pottier, o. c.

To this it is no obstacle that, according to St. Thomas and many scholastics, the right of private dominion arises from the law of nations. According to the ancients, natural law designates only that which is required by the nature of things considered according to itself and absolutely; the law of nations designates that which, not according to itself, but in order to a certain end, or in a certain supposition, is derived from the nature of things by reason, according to a certain utility, fittingness, and consequent moral necessity, as a necessary conclusion, not very remote, so that the nations easily agree in it (I-II, q. 95, a. 4). According to more recent authors, both are called natural law, namely, primary and secondary; and rightly, for according to St. Thomas, the law of nations has something of its force from the natural law (I-II, q. 95, a. 2), and "natural reason instituted it" (II-II, q. 57, a. 3, ad 3). Whence Ethics V, lect. 2: "Whatever follows from the naturally just as a conclusion, is naturally just."

6. in the present state morally necessary. A state of things is possible in which common possession in a certain place or in a certain society would sufficiently provide for the necessities and happiness of men: thus in the state of innocence or original justice, among pastoral tribes, when men are not many. But in the present condition of things, in which men with their defects commonly seek only themselves, and have little care for their neighbor and for society, and given the state of present-day civilization, in which men cannot lead a pastoral life but, being greatly multiplied, need great labor to procure necessities for themselves, private dominion is now morally necessary for the happiness and perfection of citizens and for the peace of society, as will be clear from the demonstration of the thesis.

Therefore the division of goods has arisen not from civil law, as Hobbes, Bentham, Montesquieu said; - nor from a social pact, as Grotius, Puffendorf, Heineccius held; - nor from a merely human institution, or from theft as Proudhon proclaimed, but from natural necessity. Whence Leo XIII: "to possess things privately as one's own is a right given to man by nature"; and to divide the land and to possess it privately, "the universality of the human race... has found in the very law of nature the foundation of the partition of goods, and has consecrated private possessions by the usage of all ages, as things which most of all accord with man's nature and with peaceful and tranquil living together."

If, however, the nature of things is considered not in itself but in order to the necessities of men, and they are considered together with the very nature of man, which must be regarded not in a certain ideal state but in the concrete and actual condition and according to its proper psychology, then there arises a requirement for the partition of goods which positive law must determine from natural law.

Cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 66, a. 2, ad 1: "Community of things is attributed to natural law, not because natural law dictates that all things are to be possessed in common and nothing is to be possessed as one's own; but because according to natural law there is no distinction of possessions, but rather according to human agreement, which belongs to positive law... Whence the property of possessions is not against natural law, but is added to natural law by the devising of human reason."

It is concluded: "The division of goods and the appropriation of things... has proceeded not according to natural law, but rather from human agreement, which pertains to positive law. Whence the property of possessions is not against natural law; but it is added to natural law by the devising of human reason" (II-II, q. 66, a. 2, ad 1), i.e., from a requirement of human nature, dependently on natural law.

397. The thesis is proved. Demonstrations are taken from the Scriptures, from Tradition, and from reason: the Scriptures and Tradition show the legitimacy of private dominion, reason also its necessity.

A. The Scriptures suppose and acknowledge the right of private dominion to be legitimate. God, in creating men, indeed handed earthly things over to them undividedly (Gen. I, 28-30), but so that they would be possessed in the manner more apt for procuring for themselves the necessary and useful things of life; but that the manner of possessing by private dominions is legitimate is shown:

1° In the Old Testament: a) the first division of goods already appears among the sons of Adam, since Abel is presented as a shepherd of sheep, offering to the Lord from the firstborn of his flock, Cain as a farmer, offering from the fruits of the earth, and afterward building a city which was his own and which he called by the name of his own son Henoch (Gen. IV, 2, 4, 17).

b) At the time of Abraham the right of private dominion already existed widely: Abraham was rich in possession of gold and silver; - Lot had flocks of sheep, and herds, and tents (Gen. XIII, 1-2, 5); fields and caves were under private dominion, since Abraham bought the field of Ephron and the double cave in it, that he might bury Sarah there when she had died (XXIII, 1-20), with a stable and permanent right indeed, so that Abraham, Isaac, Leah, and Jacob were buried there; just as Joseph was buried in the part of the field which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hemor (Jos. XXIV, 32). But pastures were common; yet when, because of the multitude of flocks, a quarrel arose between the shepherds of Abraham and of Lot, they were separated, one from his kinsman (Gen. XIII, 7-11).

c) The right of private dominion was confirmed as legitimate by the divine law itself, which not only prohibits theft but also the very covetousness of another's good (Ex. XX, 17), wherefore it strictly forbids that the boundaries by which fields are circumscribed be transferred (Deut. XIX, 14); but the earthly possessions of each family, which had been sold, could be redeemed, and when the year of the great jubilee recurred they returned to the former possessor (Lev. XXV, 23-28).

2° In the New Testament: a) Christ confirmed the law, by condemning theft; and he gave only the counsel of selling all things and giving the price to the poor (Mt. V, 3); but to those possessing he commanded the good use of goods, by generous almsgivings (XXV, 41-43).

b) The Apostles, applying the counsel of the Lord, instituted common possession of goods in the first communities (Acts IV, 34-35); nevertheless Peter himself proclaimed that the renunciation of possessions is of counsel only, not of precept, when addressing Ananias: "While it remained, did it not remain to thee, and when sold was it not in thy power?" (V, 4). Whence, when the disciples had been multiplied, community of goods did not endure, and provision was made for the necessities of the poor by collections of alms (XI, 28-30). Hence Paul admonishes that it must not be prescribed to the rich to leave their goods, but that they "not be high-minded, nor trust in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God..., to be rich in good works, to give readily, to communicate, to treasure up for themselves a good foundation unto the future" (I Tim. VI, 17-19).

From these it is established that, according to the Scriptures, a) the right of private property such as existed is legitimate; b) nevertheless it is in some measure limited by the precept of almsgiving.

B. The Tradition of the Church acknowledges and vindicates the right of private dominion:

1° The Church has always condemned the adversaries of private dominion: in the third century the Apostolics, who, with Augustine as witness (book On Heresies, 40), "most arrogantly called themselves by this name, because they would not receive into their communion those using marriages and possessing their own things... But these men are therefore heretics, because, separating themselves from the Church, they think that those who use these things have no hope"; - in the thirteenth century, the Waldenses, against whom Innocent III prescribed this profession of faith: "we confess and believe that those remaining in the world and possessing their own things, giving alms and other benefactions from their own things, and keeping the precepts of the Lord, are saved"; - in the fifteenth century, Wicleff and Hus, who denied the legitimacy of possessions in ecclesiastical men (Council of Constance, sess. 8, a. 10; interrog., a. 34-36); - in the nineteenth century, the Socialists, who were reproved by Pius IX (Qui pluribus, November 9, 1856), by Leo XIII proclaiming, in the encyclical Rerum novarum (May 15, 1891), that their doctrine concerning expropriation is unjust, inept, and subversive of order, and by Pius XI in the encyclical Quadragesimo anno.

2° The Fathers explain that riches are not evil nor prohibited, but are unequally given by God, so that they might be for the richer an occasion of kindness and charity, but for the poor an occasion of patience and of greater merit.

But if the celebrated preachers of the fourth¹² and fifth centuries, such as Basil, Chrysostom, Nyssen, Ambrose, etc., most eloquently proclaim that goods are common, that what is due from them is to be rendered to the poor, that all riches descend from iniquity, that those who deny alms are thieves and guilty of injury; - this is rather to be attributed to the oratorical manner of speaking.

¹² Thus, for example, Basil: "Is God unjust, who has distributed to us unequally the necessities of life? Why, when you are rich, is that man poor? Is it not certainly so that you may receive the reward of kindness and faithful dispensation, and he may be endowed with great rewards of patience?" on that passage of Luke: "I will destroy," n. 7. - And Chrysostom: St. Paul "besides knew that riches are not forbidden, if one has used them as he ought. For as I have said: wine is not an evil thing, but drunkenness is evil; so riches are not an evil thing, but avarice is evil, cupidity is evil." Whence to sell all things is a counsel, not a precept (hom. 2 to the people of Antioch, n. 5). Hence the pastors of churches do not excommunicate the rich, but urge them to assist the needy. Cf. on this argument Vermeersch, Quaestiones de Iustitia, n. 210.

For, when occasion is given, the same Fathers expressly assert the right of private dominion; - they wish goods to be common by destination and use, so that they yield to the utility of others, not so that they be possessed by all; - they hold alms as a debt of charity; - whence those who deny them are guilty of injury in the wider sense, insofar as they wound justice understood in the general or metaphorical sense, or even legal justice, the more so because in those times of plague, drought, and great calamity many were poor even in urgent necessity; - but they rightly maintain that riches are from iniquity because from original sin and the corruption of morals the division of goods became necessary, and in fact they have often had their origin from injustice and usury. Besides, the orators of the seventeenth century in France said similar things, and nevertheless most certainly admit the legitimacy of private possessions.

C. Reason demonstrates the legitimacy and at the same time the necessity of private dominion. To this end one can argue thus:

The form of dominion or government of external goods to which nature strongly inclines man, and which the common good demands, is legitimate, indeed necessary, by natural law. But such is the regime or form of private dominion in the present condition of things. Therefore.

The minor is proved as to the first part: Nature inclines man to the possession of external things, both that he may govern himself and provide for himself even for the future, and that he may provide for his children even after his death, and that he may vindicate for himself the fruit of his labor (as we demonstrated when speaking of the object of dominion, n. 168).

But nature impels the individual and private man to this, not civil society; for

a) The individual man and the family are prior in nature and in time to the State itself: "for man is older than the republic," says Leo XIII; "wherefore he must have had by nature his right to protect life and body before any city came together."

b) Society has not been constituted in order to deprive individual men and families of rights, or to restrict their activity and substitute itself for them, but to protect their rights, foster activity, and promote its exercise.

Therefore according to nature the right of dominion belongs primarily to individuals, not to the State, and therefore private dominion is legitimate.

The second part of the minor is proved: Nature demands and requires the regime which is necessary for the common good, or which appears as the one apt means by which the end may be obtained. But the regime of private dominion is morally necessary and the only apt means both for stirring up man's labor, and for procuring the progress of labor, and for preserving social peace.

Therefore the regime of private dominion is morally necessary by natural law.

The minor is proved from St. Thomas q. 66, a. 2:¹³

¹³ Cf. Aristotle, Politics, c. V.

"a) First indeed, because each one is more solicitous in procuring something which belongs to himself alone, than that which is common to all or to many: because each one, fleeing labor, leaves to another what pertains to the common, as happens in a multitude of servants.

b) In another way, because human affairs are handled in a more orderly manner (and therefore with greater care and perfection), if the proper care of procuring some thing is incumbent upon each individual;¹⁴ (whence private dominion is a stimulus of progress in labor, which progress in turn it procures by bringing in division of labor). But there would be confusion if anyone indiscriminately procured anything.

¹⁴ "Each one will increase his possession more, attending to it as his own." Politics II, lect. 4.

c) Third, because by this the state of men would be preserved more peaceful, while each one is content with his own thing. Whence we see that among those who possess something commonly and undividedly, quarrels arise more frequently."

Therefore private dominion is morally necessary for more abundant production, for more perfect production, and for peaceful possession.

398. The necessity of private dominion can also be shown in this way, in a manner more adapted to present-day necessities: The regime of private dominion is morally necessary and the one means which effectively procures and protects abundant economic production of goods, an equitable distribution of these, and the legitimate liberty of citizens.¹⁵ Therefore the regime of private dominion is morally necessary by natural law.

¹⁵ Cf. on these Antoine, Schrijvers, Vermeersch, and Tanquerey, in o. c.

The minor is proved: 1. A certain abundance of goods is necessary for prosperity, for the exercise of virtue, for avoiding sickness, sadness, and envy, and for applying oneself to the intellectual works of sciences and arts. But men, when they labor to increase their own resources and to transmit them to children or friends, labor eagerly and with great zeal, from which the riches of the state are increased; on the contrary, when they expect no private profit, many remain idle and sluggish, trusting in the labor of others, so that little by little resources are diminished and vanish. This partly also comes from the fact that the administration of common goods of the whole society is too complex. Whence various attempts at communism, although strengthened by necessary subsidies and by a large economic apparatus, perished through the laziness of members and internal dissensions.

2. An equitable distribution of goods, namely, one instituted according to the merit of each one and the proportion of work rendered, can be had in the regime of private dominion, but in a collective regime it cannot be done. For a) if it is done according to the merits of each, as it has seemed to some, the inequality which socialists wish to remove returns under another form; nor will there be an equitable judgment concerning the merits of others in a society in which administrators are chosen by votes and those to be vexed have greater will because of contrary partisan interests. - b) If goods are distributed according to the necessities and requirements of each one, who again will pronounce an equitable judgment concerning them? And indeed those who labor more and receive less will certainly not complain unjustly. - c) Finally, if it is dispensed equally to all and to each, there will now be lacking the stimulus necessary for labor, and many will indulge idleness. As Leo XIII says: "a way would be opened to mutual envy, to detractions and discords; with the stimuli of the talent and diligence of individuals taken away, the very fountains of riches would necessarily dry up; and that equality which they fashion in thought would in reality be nothing other than the equally miserable and ignoble condition of all men, without distinction."

3. The legitimate liberty of citizens is a great good which is necessary both to the dignity and to the happiness of men. Private dominion indeed favors this of itself; in a truly collective regime individual liberty is greatly diminished and, as it were, extinguished:

a) Liberty of choosing a profession or condition of life. For this will depend upon the collectivity or the State, since it itself will be the universal distributor of offices and duties; for this there will be necessary an inquiry into the aptitudes and merits of individuals, so that each one may be applied to the fitting art according to the necessities or congruences of the community. But since citizens will often be compelled to complete a kind of work repugnant to them or less pleasing, complaints and envies must necessarily arise, with great detriment to society. And because the community will be the sole mistress and governess of all things, to those who are not content with their lot, having left the home which they do not have the faculty of selling or leasing, nothing will remain except to flee into exile.

b) Liberty of determining one's own necessities or consumption, and consequently the means of sustenance, habitation, instruction, building or construction, etc. No one could live and be educated according to the aspirations and requirements of his personality, since the State would eliminate the necessities which it itself judged superfluous or harmful.

c) External liberty of the press and of thought, and therefore of schools and of the education of children. For since all presses, buildings, and all other things are possessed by the community, no writing will be able to be committed to type, no meeting held, no instruction given or doctrine proposed, unless the permission of the community has acceded and according to the judgment and ideas of those who hold power. A fortiori all external religious liberty will be over.

Therefore since the civil State is the sole lord and master of all, and possesses all things which serve economic production, the omnipotence of the State and its universal providence will have to be acknowledged, by which all private liberty of citizens is taken away.

Therefore the right of private dominion is altogether required for the social and at the same time private good.

399. Corollary. - According to tradition a double aspect of dominion must be distinguished: individual, insofar as it regards individual persons and families, and social, insofar as it regards the common good of all humanity. Whence a double reef is to be avoided: "for just as, from the social and public character of the right of property being denied or attenuated, there is a fall into, or an approach to, what they call individualism; so, with the private and individual character of the same right rejected or attenuated, one must hasten into collectivism, or at least touch its tenets," as Pius XI teaches, in the encyclical Quadragesimo anno.

Now as to the individual aspect, "to preserve the division of possessions and not... to invade another's right, commutative justice commands"; - as to the social aspect, "that owners use their own thing only honestly belongs not to this justice, but to other virtues."

A. As to the individual character:

1. "certain men wrongly declare that dominion and its honest use are contained within the same limits;

2. and much more does it depart from the truth, that by abuse itself or non-use the right of property perishes or is lost...;

3. they are deceived and err who strive to attenuate the individual character of private dominion so much that in fact they destroy it."

B. As to the social character:

Nevertheless "they perform a salutary work and one worthy of all praise who... strive to define the intimate nature and limits of these duties, by which either the right of property itself or the use or exercise of dominions is circumscribed by the necessities of social life." This especially pertains to the republic, which must "compose" private dominions "with the necessities of the common good," lest "private possession of goods... generate intolerable inconveniences," as in the case in which possessions are accumulated "into a certain despotic economic potentate": for thus "a certain social power... against all right has seized and usurped dominion."

But with public power intervening, a determined honest use of private dominion can now be owed by legal debt, not indeed to individuals from commutative justice, but to the republic from legal justice (II-II, q. 118, a. 4, ad 2).

400. - Conclusions. - 1° That the private regime of dominion is lawful is clearly contained in Scripture and Tradition and therefore pertains to the Catholic faith, because in the Decalogue it is proposed as an expression of natural and divine right.

2° He who would affirm the merely human or civil origin of the regime, or would deny that that right can arise from nature, would err, because he would openly teach against the Pontiff declaring in this matter the doctrine of the Church (Leo XIII, encyclical Rerum novarum).

3° He who would affirm that in the present condition of things collectivism can be permitted or legitimately introduced would be rash, because he would contradict the common doctrine of theologians and of the Supreme Pontiff, which declares the necessity of private dominion for peaceful human living together and for their advancement. Therefore socialism is to be rejected not only as repugnant to present times, but as repugnant to all times, the nature of man after original sin being considered, not only on account of connected religious errors but as to the economic regime itself.

This is still true, in present-day times, of the milder form of the reformists' socialism, because, Pius XI testifies, "for the most part they reject neither the class struggle nor the extinction of dominion, but only temper them in some way."

4° But even if "Socialism has been so... amended that concerning these matters nothing in it is now to be reproved,... whether it is considered as a doctrine, or as an historical fact, or as an action, socialism... cannot be composed with the dogmas of the Church, since it imagines society itself to be most alien from Christian truth... Sublime, and wholly ignorant and careless of the end both of man and of society (namely, of the glory of God and of true temporal and at the same time eternal happiness), it thinks that human association has been instituted for the sake of utility alone."

"For from the fact that, by an apt division of works, goods are produced more effectively than by the divided efforts of individuals, socialists

a) infer that economic efficiency (restricted to the abundant production of material goods alone) must of necessity proceed socially. By which necessity

b) they think men must be bound, as to devote and subject themselves wholly to society, so far as the production of goods is concerned. Indeed

c) the possession of the greatest possible abundance of things which serve the conveniences of this life is esteemed so highly that the higher goods of man, liberty itself by no means excepted, are to be set after the requirements of the most efficacious production of goods."

They say that this is done for man's greater good: "But this loss of human dignity, to be undergone in the socialized process of production, they think will easily be compensated by the abundance of socially produced goods, which are poured out to individuals, so that they may freely apply them according to their good pleasure to the conveniences and cultivation of life."

Concerning this system the Pontiff pronounces this grave judgment:

"Therefore society such as socialism imagines, on the one hand, cannot be or be conceived without plainly excessive force; on the other hand, it indulges no less in false liberty, true social authority being banished from it, since that authority does not rest upon temporal and material conveniences, but descends from God alone, the creator and last end of all things."

5° In the state of integral nature in which Adam was created, the division of goods could legitimately have been made by human law, but it was not necessary, and therefore probably would not have been made, because cultivation of the land was slight, and the internal dispositions of man were perfectly ordered. In the state of pure nature it would have been necessary, because in that state there would have been in man concupiscence and defects as now, although perhaps in a lesser degree.

6° The things objected by Socialists against the regime of private dominion are not opposed to the principle itself, but rather are made against the abuse of the regime, and therefore they are not inherent and essential to the system itself but rather extrinsic and accidental, and they proceed from the evil will of men; whence, private dominion standing, a remedy can be brought to them. On the contrary, the things opposed by Catholics to collectivism are difficulties and vices inherent in it, and therefore cannot be avoided.

Even sincere Socialists themselves must confess,¹⁶

¹⁶ Cf. Schaeffle, o. c.

a) the incompatibility of collectivism with the free determination made by each one of his necessities;

b) the greatest difficulty of knowing the necessities of individuals and families, and consequently of regulating national production lest too much be produced;

c) the greatest difficulty of ordering, directing, inspecting, and stimulating that great work of labors which the whole of society needs, and consequently of preserving individual liberty in the choice of profession, domicile, labor, etc.;

d) the absence of a sufficient stimulus to labor in place of personal profit;

e) the insufficiency, indeed the falsity, of the socialistic doctrine concerning value, which is the foundation of the system.

To these can be added the very great difficulty of passing directly from the present social order to the new collectivism.

Hence since the advantages of collectivism are very uncertain and the insuperable difficulties are inherent in it, it would be irrational and unlawful to make an attempt and experiment of socialism, because it would be an action harmful to society. Thus Leo XIII.

7° By nature all goods are said to be common negatively, by the mere absence of division, insofar as nature did not divide things among men and no one received private possession from nature itself; but not positively, by a prohibition of division, except as to use, because things are destined for the common utility of all and all must be nourished from the fruits of the earth, but not as to dominion or property: as if all possessed all things after the manner of one, and the law of nature dictated that all things must be common, and no one could legitimately acquire private dominion (a. 2, ad 1).

8° The tenet of the Socialists is a utopia, because they suppose men to be good of themselves and perfect, and perfectible to infinity, although without supernatural gifts human nature is liable to various defects and to concupiscence, especially after original sin.

401. They object. - 1. E. de Laveleye¹⁷ has proved that original possession of estates among all nations was collective, that it became individual rather late and gradually, by reason of the more intensive cultivation necessary because men were multiplied, and that private dominion was introduced by Roman law, which thereafter prevailed in all Europe. Therefore it was introduced not from natural law but from positive custom and law, and consequently by the same positive will of men it can be abrogated.

¹⁷ De la Propriete et de ses fontes primitives.

Resp. He has not sufficiently proved the assertion. He indeed shows that among certain peoples (Ruthenians, Javanese, ancient Germans, Helvetians), certain things were possessed collectively by a tribe or community; but therefore it cannot be concluded that it was always and everywhere so. On the contrary, history rather contradicts the theory, because it demonstrates that the collective possession of communities gradually decreased and, when men were increased and estates more intensely cultivated, everywhere prepared the way for private dominion; which shows the necessity of this in an evolved society.

Indeed, in possession of estates, a threefold stage can be distinguished:

a) the first is that of pastoral life, in which cattle, tents, and other movable things are possessed exclusively and privately, but pastures collectively by the tribe itself, so that invasions of hostile tribes might be repelled better and more effectively. This regime could endure as long as the grass growing of itself in the pastures was sufficient for nourishing cattle. But when, men being multiplied, the use of pastures cannot be perceived by one without being diminished among others, division is made, as is also narrated in the Scriptures, for example, concerning Abraham and Lot (Gen. XIII, 1-9).

b) The second is that of beginning cultivation: on account of the multiplication of men and cattle, it was necessary to cultivate the land, so that it might produce more abundant fruits. Whence fields are now possessed privately and exclusively by those who cultivated them, not yet however permanently, but during the time running between sowing and harvest, because cultivation was little intense and the fields were divided anew in each year.

c) The third is that of more intense cultivation, which demands immense labors and renders the fields much more fruitful. Hence fields naturally became the permanent dominion of those who improved them. Thus not only in the Roman empire, but among the most ancient peoples: Egyptians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Chinese, and all cultivated nations.

But if among some, by reason of special circumstances, a certain common possession remained for quite a long time, it existed together with the right of private dominion, and did not at all exclude it.

2. Marx demonstrated that capital and the profit of capitalists arise from theft, since labor is the sole source of economic value.

Resp. Economic value is not from labor alone, but also from the intrinsic utility of the thing; for the convenience and pleasure of a thing, just as the qualities and excellence of the matter from which it has been made, exercise a great influence in estimating value and determining price. Thus a vein of gold or a spring of petroleum have great value even if they were discovered with little labor. Nor does it stand in the way that the qualities of things, since they are opposite, are not equivalent, and consequently do not bestow commutative value: for although in themselves they are not equal, nevertheless they can be equivalent in utility, because they are of the same importance for men.

But profit is owed to capital, because it is a cause, not only a condition, in the production of goods. There is namely a threefold cause: the principal efficient cause is labor, both manual and especially intellectual as directive; the instrumental efficient cause is capital, which provides the instruments and the workshops necessary for industry and the arts; the material cause from which things are made consists in the raw materials to be transformed and the land, which cooperate by native powers. Hence to the owners of materials or instruments there is owed not only an indemnity of price for materials conceded, or for instruments to be acquired, repaired, and renewed, but also part of the profit is to be allotted, of which they themselves also have been a cause. But since today capitalists are accustomed both to provide materials and instruments of labor, and by intellectual labor to govern industries, it is no wonder if a great part of the profit can come to them, the more so because they take the danger of the industry upon themselves and thus confer utility upon the workers themselves; as will be shown more fully where the contract of hiring of works is treated.

3. The riches of capitalists have in fact been acquired unjustly.

Resp. a) this does not follow of itself from the regime of private dominion; - b) in cases in which it has been so, restitution must be made, unless by prescription possession has become legitimate, given good faith in those who acquired, or at least in their successors; - c) collectivism is not the one means, but there are others for obtaining a just distribution of goods.

4. The right to the fruit of labor is inalienable. But workers do not receive the whole fruit. Therefore.

Resp. I distinguish: the right to the fruit of labor is inalienable in such a way that they can sell or lease that right, conceded; in such a way that they cannot do this, denied.

5. We can legitimately possess only those things which we acquire by labor; therefore fields cannot legitimately be possessed, because they are not fruits of labor. And indeed, the rent or income which is paid for land has society itself as its cause. Thus H. George.

Resp. Labor is a legitimate mode of acquiring dominion, but it is not the only one nor always the first, because this is generally occupation, as we said above, n. 212. And although the land itself is not the fruit of labor, nevertheless its improvement proceeds from labor. But if it is said: rent has society as its cause, resp.: it has as its cause many private persons who belong to society, distinguish: sometimes, conceded; always, denied; it has the republic itself as its cause, denied.

6. The value of estates increases daily not so much from man's industry as from the progress of society itself:

For in cities or their vicinity, or near railroads, the price of estates in a few years is increased tenfold or twentyfold or even more, because a greater number of citizens is gathered there; but this increase is not owed to private owners of estates, but to the citizens taken collectively and to the city itself.

Resp. that the fact is verified neither always nor everywhere.

a) It is verified only where many inhabitants are joined together; elsewhere, however, the value of estates remains nearly the same, or even decreases. Therefore it is not a universal fact, on account of which the universal regime of dominions must be changed. - b) The fact is not owed to the city alone as such, but also to the private men themselves who are gathered in a determined place. - c) It is a thing of itself aleatory, which can benefit or harm, since before the event they generally do not know for certain that the value of this or that estate is to be increased; but it is not unjust for the increase to come to those who probably foresaw it, or even to others from good fortune, if this happens exceptionally. - d) Nothing prevents the city in the case from imposing special taxes upon owners, so that part of the increased value may benefit society and thus all.

7. In all there is an equal and inviolable right of living; but such a right is empty unless all are in fact equal, and consequently unless the goods which nature brings forth for all are common, such as air, and the sea, the land itself and estates.

Resp. All men according to the essence of their nature are equal, and consequently there must be access of all to the necessary sources of life and life must be inviolate in all, and therefore in extreme necessity all can take for themselves necessary things. But to sources not necessary for life there need not be the same access, whence estates ought not to be possessed by all, for those who do not have them can labor in the estates of others or exercise profitable arts, by which they may acquire for themselves the fruits of fields and other necessary things.

Namely, nature made men altogether unequal according to accidental qualities and conditions, and therefore the rights acquired by them are very diverse, so that all ought not to be of the same condition and family: thus, for example, not all can lay claim to higher culture.

But the comparison adduced with air and sea is not valid: these cannot be effectively occupied and their use is inexhaustible; while estates can be appropriated, and they are easily exhausted and do not bring forth fruits unless they are cultivated. Whence the common good requires that air and sea remain common, but that estates be occupied privately, so that they may be cultivated better.

8. It cannot be denied that according to present-day economic conditions there is a tendency toward establishing collective dominions, as is clear from anonymous societies and multiplied monopolies; but these prepare the way for one universal monopoly of the whole collectivity.

Resp. The tendency is toward a certain collective property, because of a special necessity or fittingness in certain industries or businesses; but it does not follow from this that this transformation will be extended to all things, because such a necessity is not present everywhere.

a) Moreover the aforesaid collective dominions are nevertheless private, for they are constituted by private persons for their own profit and for increasing their own resources effectively, and indeed according to the method of capitalists, not according to the method of collectivists. But the collectivity of the community, if it is constituted, divides profits among all and takes away the effective stimulus of laboring. - b) Monopolies that are too universal seem to progress less happily, because their administration now becomes too complex.

9. At least Catholics are not permitted to attack communism, since they esteem highly community of goods in religious orders.

Resp. There is a threefold difference: a) community of goods is possible in small groups of men, and it does not harm if it exists exceptionally in human society. b) The men who constitute religious communities are chosen from among others, they intend to be more perfect, they lead a simple and humble life, and they bid farewell to their own conveniences and their own will, as also to marriage. - c) Nor is the administration of goods among them always an example of good economic government.

402. Remedies against Socialism and its causes are proposed by Leo XIII. They are to be brought by the Church, by the State, and by private owners together with workers.

1° The Church offers a remedy a) by her doctrine concerning the necessary inequality of human conditions, concerning the necessity of hard labor in punishment of sin, especially original sin, and concerning eternal happiness after this life; b) by moral precepts concerning justice and charity; c) by social institutions for the spiritual and temporal good of men.

2° The State must intervene so that a remedy may be provided for the economic causes of socialism: by fostering public prosperity, protecting the rights of proletarians and at the same time protecting private dominion, restraining abuses in the regime of labor or industry, pursuing a more equitable partition of goods, and by a certain general disposition obtaining that an easier access to private possessions may lie open to all. Those who possess are easily turned away from the doctrines of Socialism.

3° Owners and workers should strive mutually to understand one another with their aspirations. Owners should treat their workers more paternally and charitably and should regard in them the dignity and rights of man; workers, however, should attend to the necessities of industries and to direction in industries. For this purpose the societies both of workers and of owners are very useful, by which they may defend their rights, and harmoniously agree among themselves concerning the conditions of works, while they may settle disputes peacefully or be disposed to submit them to the arbitration of prudent men.