Article III. Supplements to the Doctrine

184. Anarchism is to be rejected much more than collectivism: not only that practical anarchism which undertakes war and wills to dominate in the commonwealth by force, but also doctrinal anarchism, which says that dominions and the economic administration of things are to be transferred to perfectly autonomous municipalities. For it adds this to the common vices of socialism: that it does not even think of taking away economic anarchism, which, once a society and authority superior to the municipalities had been denied, would soon become supreme.

185. Although mixed collectivism logically ends in pure collectivism, it is nevertheless not to be refuted by the same arguments; nor can H. George¹ and most who merely will that lands belong to the commonwealth be numbered among the socialists.

¹ “We separate ourselves at once from the anarchists and from the socialists. We judge that they err in opposite senses: the one by failing to recognize the social nature of man, the other by failing to recognize his individual nature.” H. George, Lettre au Pape [Letter to the Pope], French trans., p. 91.

186. Between liberalism and Socialism there prevails, at first appearance, the greatest disagreement, since the former wills private possession of things to be as absolute as possible and does not will arts and commerce to be confined by laws—two things which are plainly contrary to the proposals of socialism. Nevertheless, as we already intimated above, in their other pursuits and doctrines they are so joined that socialism can deservedly be regarded as the genuine offspring of liberalism. And in truth:

1. If we consider what the ideas of Liberalism were:

a) It banished religion among private matters, of which there is no public care, and without regard to which laws are enacted and rules of morals established. These things are plainly approved by the socialists.

b) It assigned to the people the origin of law and of every power, while it attributed an absolute and infinite force to civil decrees, as though they were the supreme rules and sources of rights. Socialism does not act otherwise, except that liberalism considers among the people chiefly citizens of a certain property qualification or learning, while socialism considers the multitude of proletarians. Cf. the things B. Malon wrote concerning the character of the French Revolution, Précis de Socialisme [Summary of Socialism], chap. 5.

c) From the beginning the liberals professed that liberty which denied divine rights; they praised that equality to which every privilege was odious. What do the socialists attempt except to shake off every yoke and to introduce equality of every kind?

d) The things which collectivism thinks to change in the regime of the family and marriage flow down an inclined channel from the theory of perfect divorce—a plague which liberalism generated.²

² “In sum, we do nothing but broaden the arguments which they (the liberals) caused to prevail in our legislation by establishing divorce in it.” Destrée and Vandervelde, Le Socialisme en Belgique [Socialism in Belgium], p. 351.

e) Philosophically, the liberals no less than the socialists celebrate the inborn goodness of man, which, without the restraint of authority or punishments, of itself embraces truth and virtue.

f) No one fails to see of how much use Darwinism³ and the evolutionism of liberal science were to the socialists.

³ Yet contrary to what Darwinism establishes, the evolution which the socialists defend occurs through the selection not of the better individuals but of those who of themselves are inferior and weaker. Cf. Rivista Internazionale, 1900, pp. 187–189.

g) The socialists borrowed their very doctrine concerning value from the liberal economists. Nor does the principle by which labor is regarded as the sole title of property favor them any less. Cf. the things said in Article I.

2. If you consider the deeds of Liberalism, the socialists owe it thanks:

For diminished faith and religious authority;

For “neutral” popular schools, which are seminaries of socialists;

For individualism and egoism, the evils and abuses of which are a most powerful argument for the socialists and most well adapted for persuading the common people of their case.

He who considers these things for a little while will easily see in socialism nothing but Liberalism for the use of the common people (libéralisme à l’usage du quatrième état [liberalism for the use of the fourth estate]).

Cf., concerning this conjunction of liberalism with socialism, Rev. Fathers Pachtler, Cathrein, and Biederlack, cited works.

187. Whether Socialists belong to the genus of Freemasons. The Masonic sect cannot deny its affinity with the associations of socialists, since it “has the principal heads of doctrine in common with them.”⁴ Hence, indeed, the question arose whether those who embraced the cause of the socialists incurred the latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, by which, according to the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, §2, no. 4, the following are punished: “Those giving their names to the Masonic or Carbonarian sect, or to other sects of the same genus which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly; and likewise those furnishing any kind of favor to the same sects, or not denouncing their hidden chiefs and leaders until they have denounced them.”

⁴ Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.

Not a few, perhaps most, of the theologians who treat the question equate socialists with Freemasons. Thus, for example, Most Illustrious D. Gennari,⁵ Génicot.⁶ And they judge that the matter was declared by the Supreme Pontiff in the Encyclical Quod Apostolici, December 28, 1878. Yet, as we already wrote elsewhere,⁷ we cannot assent to that severity; but, relying upon the notions handed down above, we judge that there is need of a distinction by which we attend to the varied doctrine of the socialists and the varied rationale of their association.

⁵ Monitore Ecclesiastico, vol. X, p. 24.

⁶ Theologia moralis, II, 596.

⁷ De prohibitione et censura librorum [On the Prohibition and Censure of Books], no. 13, 9.

For the Supreme Pontiff himself described for us exceedingly well the sects of the Masonic genus in the Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, §“The sects of men are diverse,” etc., where he defined them by these notes:

a) By community of purpose and of principal maxims, they agree in reality with the Masonic sect; b) “Although they now appear to be very unwilling to remain hidden in darkness ... when the matter is thoroughly examined, they retain the genus and custom of clandestine societies. For many things similar to secrets exist among them, which it is the law to conceal with the most exquisite diligence not only from outsiders but even from a good many members: of this kind are their intimate counsels, the supreme leaders of the factions, certain hidden and internal meetings, and likewise their decrees and by what way and by what means they are to be accomplished”; c) they are joined together by a tight bond; hence “those who have been enrolled must promise and undertake that they will be obedient to the word of the leaders and masters with the greatest submission and fidelity; that they will be ready at any nod and signal of theirs to execute the things commanded; and that if they act otherwise, they do not refuse all dire things, even death itself.”

Come now, the first note does not appear to be absent from the associations of socialists. The remaining notes are perfectly adapted to the nihilists, to the socialists who excited disturbances in France in the year 1852,⁸ and to those groups of socialists which, in our days, prepared snares against the lives of rulers. Today, however, it happens that the societies of socialists are in no manner clandestine and that the members are united by no tight bond, so that by the common people and by experts they are equated with a political party such as that of the liberals. If affairs stand in this manner,⁹ we do not see by what compact it is lawful for us to abandon the propriety of speech in order to extend censures and excommunications.

⁸ D. de la Gorce described these in the work Histoire de la seconde république [History of the Second Republic].

⁹ This several learned men confirmed to us concerning the socialists of Belgium. In England, the socialists are most varied in intentions and pursuits. Cf. P. Verhaegen, Les socialistes anglais [The English Socialists], chap. 12.

Certainly, when he issued the Encyclical Quod Apostolici, the Supreme Pontiff appears to have treated socialists, communists, and nihilists as of equal condition.¹⁰ But if you recall that the beginnings of the present party had then scarcely commenced, and indeed that in not a few regions its origin was more recent, you will easily perceive that the later fortunes and forms of socialism cannot be neglected by us. Indeed, the Supreme Pontiff himself, six years later, in the letter Humanum Genus, no longer said that all, but that very many associated groups of communists and socialists deliberately meditate the transformation and overthrow of all things.

¹⁰ Yet immediately they are described as “most closely bound among themselves by an iniquitous compact.”

Nor does it help to say that by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis even societies which plot openly are punished, and that it is consequently not required that they be clandestine. For according to the letter Humanum Genus, the Masonic sects themselves now openly and manifestly attempt the destruction of the Church; and nevertheless “they retain the custom of clandestine societies.” Therefore, we deservedly require this note, especially since in the very article of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis mention is immediately made of the hidden leaders of sects of this kind.

188. By what rationale the present social order is regarded as unjust by the collectivists. From the declared rationales of the socialists, it is sufficiently apparent that those who adhere to scientific socialism do not accuse those who today possess goods, hire workers, etc., of formal injustice.¹¹ For they admit that we, even unwillingly, are subject to the present regime, which not the free will of men but rather the necessary course of things brought about. Therefore, the iniquity against which they inveigh is objective iniquity, which is contained in the excessive inequality of citizens and in the spoliation by which, as they contend, the workers are deprived of a part of the fruits of their labor. These are for them signs of the future conversion to a better order; these they condemn and assail with their reproaches, that they may hasten the birth of a most blessed age.

¹¹ Cf., for example, Schaeffle, Quintessenz des Socialismus [The Quintessence of Socialism], chap. 2. And Marx himself has these words in the Preface of the work Das Kapital [Capital]: “I have not painted the capitalist and the landowner in rosy colors. But persons are at issue here only insofar as they are the personification of economic categories, the bearers of determined class interests and relations. My point of view, according to which the development of the economic formation of society can be assimilated to the course of nature and to its history, can less than any other render the individual responsible for relations of which he remains socially the creature, whatever he may be able to do to disengage himself from them.”

189. The true rationale of opposing socialism. Collectivism, as we have seen, conflicts too greatly with nature for it to be able to prevail for long. Therefore, more than their commonwealth, what is to be feared is the perversity of the opinions and desires with which the popular advocates of socialism infect minds, and the troubled times that threaten society from the vain promises by which they try to attract the common people to themselves.

But if you ask by what means a plague of this kind is especially to be warded off:

a) Their true plans must be made manifest, lest they be able any longer to present themselves as in no way hostile to religion or to modest fortunes;

b) Let us vigorously correct, in morals and institutions, the vices that furnish them with effective arguments by which they seduce the people;

c) Let us also strive to make better, in temporal affairs, the lot of men of slender condition, so that the fewest possible causes of anger may remain;

d) Let us devote our efforts to restoring religion, which alone both gives the mind an account of the present condition of men and persuades souls to endure those evils that cannot be removed.

By this way we shall show by the facts themselves how empty the dogmas of the socialists are, and we shall conceive a serious hope of obtaining respite from fear and protracted dissensions.

190. In Book II of the Politics, Aristotle sets forth several things which, although they attack a form of communism different from ours, can nevertheless fittingly be applied to the present controversy. We shall give a few examples.¹²

¹² We shall cite the passages from the Paris edition of Didot, 1848.

For that one cannot stop at some mixed or agrarian communism, he declares thus in chap. 4 (7), no. 12: “Phaleas of Chalcedon wishes goods to be equalized only in the possession of lands. Yet wealth consists also in slaves, cattle, and money; there is also much wealth in the equipment that is called household furniture, and in many instruments. Therefore, either equality among all these things must be sought, or they must be reduced to some moderate order, or they must all be passed over.”

He himself also objects to Socrates (whom Plato introduces in the dialogue as an advocate of communism) that many things concerning the future state of the city are not defined. “For indeed, what the manner of administering the whole commonwealth will be when all goods are shared among them, Socrates has neither explained, nor can it easily be explained.... But whether these things are equally necessary or not, nothing at all has now been defined by him. Then neither has it been defined concerning the other classes, those nearest and those following thereafter, what their manner and discipline of administering the commonwealth will be, and what their laws. Nor is this easy to discover, and it matters not a little,” chap. 2 (5), nos. 11, 14.

While the same Socrates, anticipating the socialists of today, promised that “his citizens would have need of very few laws indeed because of their discipline and education,” the Philosopher answered: “The accusations and trials or actions, and whatever other evils he says cling to cities, will all be present among these citizens also,” chap. 2, no. 13.

And after describing several disadvantages of communism, he offers, as though for our own use, this conclusion: “Therefore, the proposal of this law might indeed appear attractive and humane; for he who hears it embraces it gladly and eagerly, thinking that there will be a certain admirable friendship of all toward all.... But it appears altogether impossible that this manner of life should endure,” chap. 2, nos. 8, 9. And elsewhere, in chap. 4 (7), no. 5, he says no less wisely that desires should be equalized rather than resources.

191. Whether possessions were originally common. Not infrequently, after the celebrated work of De Laveleye, La propriété et ses formes primitives [Property and Its Primitive Forms], those who favor mixed collectivism contend that lands were at first possessed in common. Although this supplies a futile argument, as though a return should be made to those beginnings, it is nevertheless useful to observe that this assertion is foreign to the truth. Cf. Capart, La propriété individuelle [Individual Property], and Cathrein, Der Socialismus [Socialism]. More recently still, Dr. Richard Hildebrand¹³ has rightly complained that several things are confused by the adversaries: they call things common when instead they are still ownerless; they regard the undivided but private possession of several persons as a collective form; nor do they distinguish the right of enjoyment from the right of dominion, or a certain right of governing goods from public property. The praised author adds that the more lands become comparatively scarce, the more they become private, and that the original form of property is not collective.

¹³ Recht und Sitte auf den verschiedenen wirtschaftlichen Kulturstufen [Law and Custom at the Various Economic Stages of Culture].

192. Concerning the iron law of wages,¹⁴ by which Lasalle contended that wages could not rise for long above the sustenance necessary for life, there is no reason for us to speak. For, repudiated by Marx, this doctrine, whose elements were in turn drawn from classical economics, was expunged from the proclamations of the socialists. Cf. Cathrein, Der Socialismus [Socialism], chap. 3, § 2 (p. 128, 7th ed.).

¹⁴ Das eherne Lohngesetz [The Iron Law of Wages].

193. You will ask what is to be thought of those mitigations by which not a few of the socialists¹⁵ protest that they oppose nothing in small businesses and modest possessions.

¹⁵ Thus, for example, Destrée and Vandervelde, Le Socialisme en Belgique [Socialism in Belgium], pp. 259, 260. Cf., however, already pp. 361, 362.

Response. a) No credence can be given them; for they admit that they readily change their opinion and acknowledge no permanent dogmas. Moreover, there is no agreement at all among them, since the moderation that pleases some is censured by others as a deception.¹⁶

¹⁶ “È una mistificazione” [“It is a deception”], Marioni, in Critica Sociale [Social Criticism]. Cf., in Revue Sociale Catholique [Catholic Social Review], 1900, the articles of D. Vliebergh on agrarian socialism, especially pp. 123-125, 145, 146, 190.

b) That mitigation conflicts with their own principles. For since servants and wage earners are customarily employed even in modest businesses, these differ from larger businesses only in degree and not in kind, and are infected with all the vices that the collectivists propose to eradicate. What of the fact that more abuses have invaded the smaller workshops than the large ones?

c) Private undertakings of this kind, as long as they remained, would be an obstacle to the unity of the conduct of affairs and to the social administration whose advantages they extol with praises. Therefore, if they seriously defend this administration, they must abolish those undertakings.

d) Finally, would the State itself, which in the meantime would conduct the larger businesses, long endure with equanimity that private persons compete with it in skill and industry? This is hardly probable and is contrary to the custom of the State, as we can learn from the hatred with which, after it began to educate the young itself, it pursues private schools.

Therefore, these mitigations are merely devices by which they hope to remove fear from farmers and citizens of slender means, or they are employed by those who are less concerned about socialism than about winning votes for themselves.¹⁷

¹⁷ Socialisme électoral [Electoral Socialism].

But if some sincerely wish merely to restrain present abuses and to remedy the evils that afflict the proletarians, let them see whether they retain anything of the collectivists except the name, and whether they would not act better and more usefully by returning to the camp of Christ the Savior, who embraced the poor with a special love.