Solidarism

Heinrich Pesch was a Jesuit and a Roman Catholic priest; thus, his economics, based on his ethics, sprouts from his acceptance of the truths of the Catholic Church. So right from the start, he acknowledges God in his economic theories.

That’s something you don’t hear much of on the nightly news.

Modern economics, in its quest for mechanical, mathematical predictability, doesn’t really care about the nature of man, family, or society.

This is wrong. It needs to be changed.

As stated in yesterday’s post, ethics has to be the starting point of all economic theory. What is the starting point for ethics? For Pesch, it is the will of God, found in the eternal law, or, more explicitly, in Jesus’ Great Commandment (Mark 12:28-34), the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17), and manifested in man by the virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, faith, hope, charity). All this leads, on this earthly sphere of our existence, to the need and desire for cooperation of all with each other for the common good. In solidarism, our own good is inextricably linked to the good of the family, the community, and the state.

Okay, I don’t think many would argue with that on paper. Man is a social being, and healthy social lives are needed for our perfection. But man is also a fallen being. One could use that as an argument for the economic conditions we now find ourselves in, all over the globe. Pesch offers an alternative.

The three pillars of society, to Pesch, are the family, the state, and private property. Let’s start with the family, probably his most radical contribution to the study of economics as seen from our postmodern world.

Regarding man’s social life, the first elementary unit of this is the family. Family is the central focus of solidarism. The partnership of man and woman, marriage, results in the procreation of children, and the creation of family. This is according to the will of God. After the family, the next social unit is the community, and the next one beyond that is the state.

Because of the importance of the family, the middle and working classes must be maintained and strengthened. Pesch argues for the following:

* Social policy that would allow the woman to return to the home
* An end to Sunday labor
* A shorter workweek so the father could spend more time with the family
* A just wage to enable the father to be the sole source of economic support

In solidarism, the proper end of the economy is to provide for the material welfare of people. Not power. Not even profit. Material wealth as an end is, of course, rejected. Because ultimately, life on earth is but a brief preparatory step for eternity. Thus, the material (profit and perhaps power) must be subordinate to the immaterial.

What are some concrete aspects of solidarism?

An important concept is the just wage. Too great a discrepancy of income is an evil. A country can’t function ethically divided into two halves: one a half with too much, the other with too little. I think most can see the wisdom in this, yet many today see this as something impossible to implement. Pesch didn’t think so. The key is the development of occupational organizations, known as guilds in his day, the more the better. These community-level organizations would get together, where everyone’s interests, from owners to producers to workers to consumers, are validly and completely expressed, and set not only the just wage but the just price. (Pesch does not believe there is a natural law of supply and demand and, therefore, no mechanism for price determination.) Too idealistic? Perhaps taken by itself. But it fits in with the interlocking interrelationships that are central to solidarism.

Look at a modern extreme: China. Many products we import from China are dirt cheap, undercutting domestic producers, for the simple reason that the Chinese often pay their workers little more than a slave wage. How is that desirable for the well-being of society? To avoid such evils a living wage must be paid to the worker so that he is be able to support his family at a decent affordable level. Wages are much, much more than simply another cost. They are a prime factor in the justifiability of a business venture. If one truly appreciates the inherent dignity of man then one can understand that labor is not just another commodity one buys.

The relationship between capital and labor, between owners and workers, also needs to be readdressed. Business enterprise is a noble calling, despite Pesch’s critique of capitalism. However, while profitability is obviously essential, it is wrong and evil if it is the only concern of a business.

Capital and labor are mutually dependent on each other. Really. So, in theory there shouldn’t be any fundamental conflict between them. When the interests of both advance, the interests of society as a whole advances. One’s gains benefit the other. Therefore, employees must honestly be considered as associates in a business venture. Co-partners. Remember, solidarism is all about relationships. The worker and the owner must have a true one-to-one relationship.

To those owners fearful of the masses, recognize that in solidarism work is both a duty and a gift. It is both God’s gift to us as well as our obligation. Everyone must work in some capacity. Everyone must work as best he can in the work that he does. In a one-to-one relationship, we give the other our best, freely and fairly. In this way we participate in the creative process, the creation of value for our employers and the consumers of our products.

Private property is one of the three pillars of society. It is a fundamental, guaranteed right. However, it does not trump all other rights. Pesch, in line with Catholic teaching, holds two other fundamental rights higher: the right to life and the right to the necessary means of subsistence.

To those capitalists fearful of a state takeover of your property, Pesch developed what he calls the principle of subsidiarity: the integrity of each community (be it family, civic grouping or occupational organization) must not be interfered with, even to the extent that a higher unit should not do anything that the lower one can and should do for itself.

Examining this at the smallest end of the scale, the principle of subsidiarity points to welfare as being, and only as being, a “hand-up” and not a “hand-out.” From a larger perspective, this limits the state to the functions of protection and a very limited capability for assistance. The state must only do what the smaller entities cannot do for themselves. The state does not exist for its own sake but to protect its members from private interests. This legal protective aspect and nothing more. If a family or an occupational organization can do it, the state has no business doing it. This runs quite counter to the concept of state currently espoused by all spectrums of political thought today.

Nature is regarded, rightly so, as God’s masterpiece. But man has dominion over it; a dominion with responsibilities and obligations. The virtue of prudence is foremost in man’s dealing with nature in his economic life.

Solidarism is the alternative to capitalism and socialism. I have never lived under the socialist yoke, nor would I ever want to, but I do see and experience firsthand the shortcomings of our capitalist system. There is a symbiotic relationship inherent in solidarism; the individual exists and functions for the benefit of society as a whole, and vice versa. The common good is not opposed to any one’s good, and vice versa. Is this a better way?

I am very intrigued …

[Background reading for this post and for further information can be found here, here, and here.]