The "Working Person" as Response to the Ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism (Intrusive Government)

The constant conversation concerning the economy at the present moment is dyadic, oscillating between the individual and the social.

1) The individual is the conservatism of free enterprise and entrepreneurship giving free reign to ingenuity, imagination, hard work and the creation of wealth. Its controlling limit is the interplay of the market forces that are driven by the non-virtuous mechanism of supply and demand that work out as if there were a virtuous providential hand. On that Adam Smith remarked:

... In spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose ... be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society.

2) The social takes the form of governmental intervention from top down that regulates the distribution of wealth extrinsically and ideologically thus violating the subsidiarity or autonomous freedom of the person.

3) At most, what I hear is the need for the addition of the moral dimension to be introduced into one, other or both of these economic and social models. However, what is never heard is the position of the Church which is not a mean between the two, nor even merely a moral intervention on the same noetic level of inquiry. The offering of the Church is the working person who “finds self by the sincere gift of self” (Gaudium et spes #24).

In most summary fashion, I would offer that this Christian anthropology of Gaudium et Spes #24 contains within it the seed of the solution to entire social crisis we are in. The “finding of self” corresponds to the principle of subsidiarity, while “sincere gift of self” corresponds to the principle of solidarity. Capitalism is an ideological structure that hides within it, and if not disclosed, masks the internal dynamic that gives it force, i.e. of the person determining self (freedom). Socialism is the other ideological structure that hides within it, if not disclosed, the relational dimension of the person to love and serve the other.

Both ideologies have a root in the Christian anthropology that has its prototype the Person of Jesus Christ. Removed from that Root, they are most pernicious and carry seeds of social death within them. However, as Christ is the root of the truly secular by way of the divinized autonomy of His human nature, so also capitalism and socialism have a true secular nature when embedded in this Christian anthropology.

Hence, we are not dealing with an antinomy between capitalism and socialism, but a complementarity of dimensions when the human person is rightly envisaged and understood as the central life source. In the light of this, consider the following of John Paul II’s “Centesimus Annus:”

“42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.

43. The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.84 For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good. This teaching also recognizes the legitimacy of workers' efforts to obtain full respect for their dignity and to gain broader areas of participation in the life of industrial enterprises so that, while cooperating with others and under the direction of others, they can in a certain sense "work for themselves"85 through the exercise of their intelligence and freedom.

The integral development of the human person through work does not impede but rather promotes the greater productivity and efficiency of work itself, even though it may weaken consolidated power structures. A business cannot be considered only as a "society of capital goods"; it is also a "society of persons" in which people participate in different ways and with specific responsibilities, whether they supply the necessary capital for the company's activities or take part in such activities through their labour. To achieve these goals there is still need for a broad associated workers' movement, directed towards the liberation and promotion of the whole person.

In the light of today's "new things", we have re-read the relationship between individual or private property and the universal destination of material wealth. Man fulfils himself by using his intelligence and freedom. In so doing he utilizes the things of this world as objects and instruments and makes them his own. The foundation of the right to private initiative and ownership is to be found in this activity. By means of his work man commits himself, not only for his own sake but also for others and with others. Each person collaborates in the work of others and for their good. Man works in order to provide for the needs of his family, his community, his nation, and ultimately all humanity.86 Moreover, he collaborates in the work of his fellow employees, as well as in the work of suppliers and in the customers' use of goods, in a progressively expanding chain of solidarity. Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate, however, when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others, in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people.87 Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man.

The obligation to earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow also presumes the right to do so. A society in which this right is systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an ethical point of view, nor can that society attain social peace.88 Just as the person fully realizes himself in the free gift of self, so too ownership morally justifies itself in the creation, at the proper time and in the proper way, of opportunities for work and human growth for all.”[1]


[1] John Paul II, “Centesimus Annus” 42-43.