(Éirigh, February 1970, pp.24-25)
It is a strange fact of experience that the most radically opposed theories can sometimes, if exaggerated, lead to similar and even identical results. It is as if a kind of cycle is completed. This is true in the case of two theories of property.
Liberal theory
Firstly let us take a look at the Liberal theory, which found its highest expression in some of the great monopolies which were formed out of the Industrial Revolution.
Here the jungle law of the survival of the fittest was elevated to the level of a commercial dogma.
In this situation all property was in private hands and any government control was generally discouraged. Ruthless competition, hard bargaining and a complete lack of feeling for the good of the community soon separated the boys from the men in the field of business. Soon property came to be concentrated in the hands of a few. Once this process began, it became increasingly difficult to hinder its development. Large monopolies controlled entire markets and could regulate them at will. This kind of economic dictatorship was the fruit of a complete disregard for the social aspect of property.
Communism
Secondly, at the opposite extreme is Communism, which recognises only public right in property. This doctrine, which holds that all property should be in the hands of the State, was formulated largely as a reaction against the extremes of the Liberal system.
As a theory, Communism sounds like the answer to prayer. After all, the essence of democratic government is that the people should govern; so, says the Communist, why not apply the same principle to the economic order?
Communism claims to do this but in fact it does not. In the Communist scheme of things, where everything, in theory, belongs to “the People,” the actual control over and responsibility for property is vested in the hands of a few. To say, as Communists do, that all property is in the hands of the people is simply an abuse of terms. Decentralization of control is anathema to the men in the Kremlin, even allowing for token signs of a change in their attitude. The impracticality, if not the injustice, of imposing a rigid, centralized control over much of a man’s social life is something which many Communist leaders today are coming to appreciate.
Same results
Where does this lead us? I think it is clear that, in either case, whether in the Liberal system with its disregard for the community, or in the Communist system with its disregard for the individual, the net result is the same. A few control while the majority are controlled. A consideration of these facts has led some people to conclude that the dilemma is inescapable, that sooner or later, by one means or another, all property will end up in the hands of a minority.
Solution?
To attempt a way out of the dilemma, let us take a look again at the two theories. Both are extremes. An extreme is an exaggeration of a particular truth. It is, as it were, a truth which has got too big for itself and has forgotten about other truths. What element of truth is there in Liberalism? There is the truth that property – or some of it, at least – should be in private hands. In Communism there is a truth also, namely, that the public has a right to control property.
Now, with that much in mind, we can, so to speak, put two and two together, and the solution to our dilemma is: the law should favour ownership and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.
As a matter of interest, this last statement is a direct quotation from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum.
Some people object that this solution, while acceptable in theory is very difficult to realize in practice. That there are real difficulties in this matter no one will deny. By way of compromise or a solution to this problem, Pope John said in his realistic encyclical, Mater et Magistra,
‘It is also true that more and more people today, through belonging to insurance groups and systems of social security, find that they can face the future with confidence – the sort of confidence which formerly resulted from their possession of a certain amount of property.’
‘Furthermore, the modern trend is for people to aim at proficiency in their trade or profession rather than the acquisition of private property. They think more highly of an income which derives from work and the rights consequent upon work, than of an income which derives from capital and the rights of capital. And this is as it should be.’ (Paras. 105-107)