|
To Our Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, to the Priests, to the
Religious Families, to the Sons and Daughters of the Church, and to all
Men and Women of Good Will.
Venerable Brothers, and Dear Sons and Daughters, Greetings and the
Apostolic Blessing.
THROUGH WORK man must earn his daily bread[1] and contribute to the
continual advance of science and technology and, above all, to elevating
unceasingly the cultural and moral level of the society within which he
lives in community with those who belong to the same family. And work
means any activity by man, whether manual or intellectual, whatever its
nature or circumstances; it means any human activity that can and must be
recognized as work, in the midst of all the many activities of which man
is capable and to which he is predisposed by his very natures, by virtue
of humanity itself. Man is made to be in the visible universe and image
and likeness of God himself,[2] and he is placed in it in order to subdue
the earth.[3] From the beginning therefore he is called to work. Work is
one of the characteristics that distinguish man from the rest of
creatures, whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called
work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works, at the same time by
work occupying his existence on earth. Thus work bears a particular mark
of man and of humanity, the mark of a person operating within a community
of persons. And this mark decides its interior characteristics; in a sense
it constitutes its very nature.
I. Introduction
Human Work on the Ninetieth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum
2. Since May 15 of the present year was the ninetieth anniversary of
the publication by the great Pope of the "social question", Leo XIII, of
the decisively important encyclical which begins with the words Rerum
novarum, I wish to devote this document to human work and, even more, to
man in the vast context of the reality of work. As I said in the
encyclical Redemptor hominis, published at the beginning of my service in
the See of Saint Peter in Rome, man "is the primary and fundamental way
for the Church",[4] precisely because of the inscrutable mystery of
redemption in Christ; and so it is necessary to return constantly to this
way and to follow it ever anew in the various aspects in which it shows us
all the wealth and at the same time all the toil of human existence on
earth.
3. Work is one of these aspects, a perennial and fundamental one, one
that is always relevant and constantly demands renewed attention and
decisive witness. Because fresh questions and problems are always arising,
there are always fresh hopes, but also fresh fears and threats, connected
with this basic dimension of human existence: man's life is built up every
day from work, from work it derives its specific dignity, but at the same
time work contains the unceasing measure of human toil and suffering, and
also of the harm and injustice which penetrate deeply into social life
within individual nations and on the international level. While it is true
that man eats the bread produced by the work of his hands[5]--and this
means not only the daily bread by which his body keeps alive but also the
bread of science and progress, civilization and culture--it is also a
perennial truth that he eats this bread by "the sweat of his face,"[6]
that is to say, not only by personal effort and toil but also in the midst
of many tensions, conflicts and crises, which, in relationship with the
reality of work, disturb the life of individual societies and also of all
humanity.
4. We are celebrating the ninetieth anniversary of the encyclical Rerum
Novarum on the eve of new developments in technological, economic and
political conditions which, according to many experts, will influence the
world of work and production no less than the industrial revolution of the
last century. There are many factors of a general nature: the widespread
introduction of automation into many spheres of production, the increase
in the cost of energy and raw materials, the growing realization that the
heritage of nature is limited and that it is being intolerably polluted,
and the emergence on the political scene of peoples who, after centuries
of subjection, are demanding their rightful place among the nations and in
international decision-making. These new conditions and demands will
require a reordering and adjustment of the structures of the modern
economy and of the distribution of work. Unfortunately, for millions of
skilled workers these changes may perhaps mean unemployment, at least for
a time, or the need for retraining. They will very probably involve a
reduction or a less rapid increase in material well-being for the more
developed countries. But they can also bring relief and hope to the
millions who today live in conditions of shameful and unworthy poverty.
5. It is not for the Church to analyze scientifically the consequences
that these changes may have on human society. But the Church considers it
her task always to call attention to the dignity and rights of those who
work, to condemn situations in which that dignity and those rights are
violated, and to help to guide the above mentioned changes so as to ensure
authentic progress by man and society.
In the Organic Development of the Church's Social Action and
Teaching
6. It is certainly true that work, as a human issue, is at the very
center of the "social question" to which, for almost a hundred years,
since the publication of the above mentioned encyclical, the Church's
teaching and the many undertakings connected with her apostolic mission
have been especially directed. The present reflections on work are not
intended to follow a different line, but rather to be in organic
connection with the whole tradition of this teaching and activity. At the
same time, however, I am making them, according to the indication in the
Gospel, in order to bring out from the heritage of the Gospel "what is new
and what is old".[7] Certainly, work is part of "what is old"--as old as
man and his life on earth. Nevertheless, the general situation of man in
the modern world, studied and analyzed in its various aspects of
geography, culture and civilization, calls for the discovery of the new
meanings of human work. It likewise calls for the formulation of the new
tasks that in this sector face each individual, the family, each country,
the whole human race and finally the Church herself.
7. During the years that separate us from the publication of the
encyclical Rerum novarum, the social question has not ceased to engage the
Church's attention. Evidence of this are the many documents of the
magisterium issued by the popes and by the Second Vatican Council,
pronouncements by individual episcopates, and the activity of the various
centers of thought and of practical apostolic initiatives, both on the
international level and at the level of the local churches. It is
difficult to list here in detail all the manifestations of the commitment
of the Church and of Christians in the social question, for they are too
numerous. As a result of the Council, the main coordinating center in this
field is the Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace, which has
corresponding bodies within the individual Bishops' Conferences. The name
of this institution is very significant. It indicates that the social
question must be dealt with in its whole complex dimension. Commitment to
justice must be closely linked with commitment to peace in the modern
world. This twofold commitment is certainly supported by the painful
experience of the two great world wars which in the course of the last
ninety years have convulsed many European countries and, at least
partially, countries in other continents. It is supported especially since
World War 11, by the permanent threat of a nuclear war and the prospect of
the terrible self-destruction that emerges from it.
8. If we follow the main line of development of the documents of the
supreme magisterium of the Church, we find in them an explicit
confirmation of precisely such a statement of the question. The key
position, as regards the question of world peace, is that of John XXIII's
encyclical Pacem in terris. However, if one studies the development of the
question of social justice, one cannot fail to note that, whereas during
the period between Rerum novarum and Pius XI's Quadragesimo anno the
Church's teaching concentrates mainly on the just solution of the "labor
question" within individual nations, in the next period the Church's
teaching widens its horizon to take in the whole world. The
disproportionate distribution of wealth and poverty and the existence of
some countries and continents that are developed and of others that are
not call for a leveling out and for a search for ways to ensure just
development for all. This is the direction of the teaching in John XXIII's
encyclical Mater et Magistra, in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes
of the Second Vatican Council, and in Paul Vl's encyclical Populorum
progressio.
9. This trend of development of the Church's teaching and commitment in
the social question exactly corresponds to the objective recognition of
the state of affairs. While in the past the "class" question was
especially highlighted as the center of this issue, in more recent times
it is the "world" question that is emphasized. Thus, not only the sphere
of class is taken into consideration but also the world sphere of
inequality and injustice, and as a consequence, not only the class
dimension but also the world dimension of the tasks involved in the path
towards the achievement of justice in the modern world. A complete
analysis of the situation of the world today shows in an even deeper and
fuller way the meaning of the previous analysis of social injustices; and
it is the meaning that must be given today to efforts to build justice on
earth, not concealing thereby unjust structures but demanding that they be
examined and transformed on a more universal scale.
The Question of Work, the Key to the Social Question
10. In the midst of all these processes--those of the diagnosis of
objective social reality and also those of the Church's teaching in the
sphere of the complex and many-sided social question--the question of
human work naturally appears many times. This issue is, in a way, a
constant factor both of social life and of the Church's teaching.
Furthermore, in this teaching attention to the question goes back much
further than the last ninety years. In fact the Church's social teaching
finds its source in sacred scripture, beginning with the Book of Genesis
and especially in the Gospel and the writings of the apostles. From the
beginning it was part of the Church's teaching, her concept of man and
life in society, and, especially the social morality which she worked out
according to the needs of the different ages. This traditional patrimony
was then inherited and developed by the teaching of the popes on the
modern "social question", beginning with the encyclical Rerum novarum. In
this context, study of the question of work, as we have seen, has
continually been brought up to date while maintaining that Christian basis
of truth which can be called ageless.
11. While in the present document we return to this question once
more--without however any intention of touching on all the topics that
concern it--this it not merely in order to gather together and repeat what
is already contained in the Church's teaching. It is rather in order to
highlight--perhaps more than has been done before--the fact that human
work is a key, probably the essential key, to the whole social question,
if we try to see that question really from the point of view of man's
good. And if the solution--or rather the gradual solution--of the social
question, which keeps coming up and becomes ever more complex, must be
sought in the direction of "making life more human,"[8] then the key,
namely human work, acquires fundamental and decisive importance.
II. Work and Man
In the Book of Genesis
12. The Church is convinced that work is a fundamental dimension of
man's existence on earth. She is confirmed in this conviction by
considering the whole heritage of the many sciences devoted to man:
anthropology, palaeontology, history, sociology, psychology and so on;
they all seem to bear witness to this reality in an irrefutable way. But
the source of the Church's conviction is above all the revealed word of
God, and therefore what is a conviction of the intellect is also a
conviction of faith. The reason is that the Church--and it is worthwhile
stating it at this point--believes in man: she thinks of man and addresses
herself to him not only in the light of historical experience, not only
with the aid of the many methods of scientific knowledge, but in the first
place in the light of the revealed word of the living God. Relating
herself to man, she seeks to express the eternal designs and transcendent
destiny which the living God, the Creator and Redeemer, has linked with
him.
13. The Church finds in the very first pages of the Book of Genesis the
source of her conviction that work is a fundamental dimension of human
existence on earth. An analysis of these texts makes us aware that they
express--sometimes in an archaic way of manifesting thought--the
fundamental truths about man, in the context of the mystery of creation
itself. These truths are decisive for man from the very beginning, and at
the same time they trace out the main lines of his earthly existence, both
in the state of original justice and also after the breaking, caused by
sin, of the creator's original covenant with creation in man. When man,
who had been created "in the image of God....male and female,"[9] hears
the words: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue
it,"[10] even though these words do not refer directly and explicitly to
work, beyond any doubt they indirectly indicate it as an activity for man
to carry out in the world. Indeed, they show its very deepest essence. Man
is the image of God partly through the mandate received from his creator
to subdue, to dominate, the earth. In carrying out this mandate, man,
every human being, reflects the very action of the creator of the
universe.
14. Work understood as a "transitive" activity, that is to say an
activity beginning in the human subject and directed toward an external
object, presupposes a specific dominion by man over "the earth", and in
its turn it confirms and develops this dominion. It is clear that the term
"the earth" of which the biblical text speaks is to be understood in the
first place as that fragment of the visible universe that man inhabits. By
extension, however, it can be understood as the whole of the visible world
insofar as it comes within the range of man's influence and of his
striving to satisfy his needs. The expression "subdue the earth" has an
immense range. It means all the resources that the earth (and indirectly
the visible world) contains and which, through the conscious activity of
man, can be discovered and used for his ends. And so these words, placed
at the beginning of the Bible, never cease to be relevant. They embrace
equally the past ages of civilization and economy, as also the whole of
modern reality and future phases of development, which are perhaps already
to some extent beginning to take shape, though for the most part they are
still almost unknown to man and hidden from him.
15. While people sometimes speak of periods of "acceleration" in the
economic life and civilization of humanity or of individual nations,
linking these periods to the progress of science and technology and
especially to discoveries which are decisive for social and economic life,
at the same time it can be said that none of these phenomena of
"acceleration" exceeds the essential content of what was said in that most
ancient of biblical texts. As man, through his work, becomes more and more
the master of the earth, and as he confirms his dominion over the visible
world, again through his work, he nevertheless remains in every case and
at every phase of this process within the Creator's original ordering. And
this ordering remains necessarily and indissolubly linked with the fact
that man was created, as male and female, "in the image of God." This
process is, at the same time, universal: It embraces all human beings,
every generation, every phase of economic and cultural development, and at
the same time it is a process that takes place within each human being, in
each conscious human being, in each conscious human subject. Each and
every individual is at the same time embraced by it. Each and every
individual, to the proper extent and in an incalculable number of ways,
takes part in the giant process whereby man "subdues the earth" through
his work.
Work in the Objective Sense: Technology
16. This universality and, at the same time, this multiplicity of the
process of "subduing the earth" throw light upon human work, because man's
dominion over the earth is achieved in and by means of work. There thus
emerges the meaning of work in an objective sense, which finds expression
in the various epochs of culture and civilization. Man dominates the earth
by the very fact of domesticating animals, rearing them and obtaining from
them the food and clothing he needs, and by the fact of being able to
extract various natural resources from the earth and the seas. But man
"subdues the earth" much more when he begins to cultivate it and then to
transform its products, adapting them to his own use. Thus agriculture
constitutes through human work a primary field of economic activity and an
indispensable factor of production. Industry in its turn will always
consist in linking the earth's riches--whether nature's living resources,
or the products of agriculture, or the mineral or chemical resources--with
man's work, whether physical or intellectual. This is also in a sense true
in the sphere of what are called service industries, and also in the
sphere of research, pure or applied .
17. In industry and agriculture man's work has today in many cases
ceased to be mainly manual, for the toil of human hands and muscles is
aided by more and more highly perfected machinery. Not only in industry
but also in agriculture we are witnessing the transformations made
possible by the gradual development of science and technology.
Historically speaking this, taken as a whole, has caused great changes in
civilization, from the beginning of the "industrial era" to the successive
phases of development through new technologies, such as the electronics
and the microprocessor technology in recent years.
18. While it may seem that in the industrial process it is the machine
that "works" and man merely supervises it, making it function and keeping
it going in various ways, it is also true that for this very reason
industrial development provides grounds for reproposing in new ways the
question of human work. Both the original industrialization that gave rise
to what is called the worker question and the subsequent industrial and
postindustrial changes show in an eloquent manner that, even in the age of
ever more mechanized "work," the proper subject of work continues to be
man.
19. The development of industry and of the various sectors connected
with it, even the most modern electronics technology, especially in the
fields of miniaturization, communications and tele-communications and so
forth, show how vast is the role of technology, that ally of work that
human thought has produced, in the interaction between the subject and
object of work (in the widest sense of the word). Understood in this case
not as a capacity or aptitude for work, but rather as a whole set of
instruments which man uses in his work, technology is undoubtedly man's
ally. It facilitates his work, perfects, accelerates and augments it. It
leads to an increase in the quantity of things produced by work, and in
many cases improves their quality. However, it is also a fact that, in
some instances, technology can cease to be man's ally and become almost
his enemy, as when the mechanization of work "supplants" him, taking away
all personal satisfaction and the incentive to creativity and
responsibility, when it deprives many workers of their previous
employment, or when, through exalting the machine, it reduces man to the
status of its slave.
20. If the biblical words "subdue the earth" addressed to man from the
very beginning are understood in the context of the whole modern age,
industrial and post-industrial, then they undoubtedly include also a
relationship with technology, with the world of machinery which is the
fruit of the work of the human intellect and a historical confirmation of
man's dominion over nature.
21. The recent stage of human history, especially that of certain
societies, brings a correct affirmation of technology as a basic
coefficient of economic progress; but at the same time this affirmation
has been accompanied by and continues to be accompanied by essential
questions concerning human work in relationship to its subject, which is
man. These questions are particularly charged with content and tension of
an ethical and social character. They therefore constitute a continual
challenge for institutions of many kinds, for states and governments, for
systems and international organizations; they also constitute a challenge
for the Church.
Work in the Subjective Sense: Man as the Subject of Work
22. In order to continue our analysis of work, an analysis linked with
the word of the Bible telling man that he is to subdue the earth, we must
concentrate our attention on work in the subjective sense, much more than
we did on the objective significance, barely touching upon the vast range
of problems known intimately and in detail to scholars in various fields
and also, according to their specializations, to those who work. If the
words of the Book of Genesis to which we refer in this analysis of ours
speak of work in the objective sense in an indirect way, they also speak
only indirectly of the subject of work; but what they say is very eloquent
and is full of great significance.
23. Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the "image
of God" he is a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of
acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself
and with a tendency to self-realization. As a person, man is therefore the
subject of work. As a person he works, he performs various actions
belonging to the work process; independently of their objective content,
these actions must all serve to realize his humanity, to fulfill the
calling to be a person that is his by reason of his very humanity. The
principal truths concerning this theme were recently recalled by the
Second Vatican Council in the constitution Gaudium et spes, especially in
Chapter 1, which is devoted to man's calling.
24. And so this "dominion" spoken of in the biblical text being
meditated upon here refers not only to the objective dimension of work,
but at the same time introduces us to an understanding of its subjective
dimension. Understood as a process whereby man and the human race subdue
the earth, work corresponds to this basic biblical concept only when
throughout the process man manifests himself and confirms himself as the
one who "dominates." This dominion, in a certain sense, refers to the
subjective dimension even more than to the objective one: This dimension
conditions the very ethical nature of work. In fact there is no doubt that
human work has an ethical value of its own, which clearly and directly
remains linked to the fact that the one who carries it out is a person, a
conscious and free subject, that is to say, a subject that decides about
himself.
25. This truth, which in a sense constitutes the fundamental and
perennial heart of Christian teaching on human work, has had and continues
to have primary significance for the formulation of the important social
problems characterizing whole ages.
26. The ancient world introduced its own typical differentiation of
people into classes according to the type of work done. Work which
demanded from the worker the exercise of physical strength, the work of
muscles and hands, was considered unworthy of free men and was therefore
given to slaves. By broadening certain aspects that already belonged to
the Old Testament, Christianity brought about a fundamental change of
ideas in this field, taking the whole content of the gospel message as its
point of departure, especially the fact that the one who, while being God,
became like us in all things[11] "devoted most of the years of his life on
earth to manual work at the carpenter's bench. This circumstance
constitutes in itself the most eloquent "gospel of work," showing that the
basis for determining the value of human work is not primarily the kind of
work being done, but the fact that the one who is doing it is a person.
The sources of the dignity of work are to be sought primarily in the
subjective dimension, not in the objective one.
27. Such a concept practically does away with the very basis of the
ancient differentiation of people into classes according to the kind of
work done. This does not mean that from the objective point of view human
work cannot and must not be rated and qualified in any way. It only means
that the primary basis of the value of work is man himself, who is its
subject. This leads immediately to a very important conclusion of an
ethical nature: However true it may be that man is destined for work and
called to it, in the first place work is "for man" and not man "for work."
Through this conclusion one rightly comes to recognize the pre-eminence of
the subjective meaning of work over the objective one. Given this way of
understanding things and presupposing that different sorts of work that
people do can have greater or lesser objective value, let us try
nevertheless to show that each sort is judged above all by the measure of
the dignity of the subject of work, that is to say, the person, the
individual who carries it out. On the other hand, independent of the work
that every man does, and presupposing that this work constitutes a
purpose--at times a very demanding one--of his activity, this purpose does
not possess a definitive meaning in itself. In fact, in the final analysis
it is always man who is the purpose of the work, whatever work it is that
is done by man--even if the common scale of values rates it as the merest
"service," as the most monotonous, even the most alienating work.
A Threat to the Right Order of Values
28. It is precisely these fundamental affirmations about work that
always emerged from the wealth of Christian truth, especially from the
very message of the "gospel of work," thus creating the basis for a new
way of thinking, judging and acting. In the modern period, from the
beginning of the industrial age, the Christian truth about work had to
oppose the various trends of materialistic and economistic thought.
29. For certain supporters of such ideas, work was understood and
treated as a sort of "merchandise" that the worker--especially the
industrial worker--sells to the employer, who at the same time is the
possessor of the capital, that is to say, of all the working tools and
means that make production possible. This way of looking at work was
widespread especially in the first half of the 19th century. Since then
explicit expressions of this sort have almost disappeared and have given
way to more human ways of thinking about work and evaluating it. The
interaction between the worker and the tools and means of production has
given rise to the development of various forms of capitalism--parallel
with various forms of collectivism--into which other socioeconomic
elements have entered as a consequence of new concrete circumstances, of
the activity of workers' associations and public authorities, and of the
emergence of large transnational enterprises. Nevertheless, the danger of
treating work as a special kind of "merchandise" or as an impersonal
"force" needed for production (the expression "work force" is in fact in
common use) always exists, especially when the whole way of looking at the
question of economics is marked by the premises of materialistic
economism.
30. A systematic opportunity for thinking and evaluating in this way,
and in a certain sense a stimulus for doing so, is provided by the
quickening process of the development of a onesidedly materialistic
civilization, which gives prime importance to the objective dimension of
work, while the subjective dimension--everything in direct or indirect
relationship with the subject of work--remains on a secondary level. In
all cases of this sort, in every social situation of this type, there is a
confusion or even a reversal of the order laid down from the beginning by
the words of the Book of Genesis: Man is treated as an instrument of
production,[12] whereas he--alone, independent of the work he does--ought
to be treated as the effective subject of work and its true maker and
creator. Precisely this reversal of order, whatever the program or name
under which it occurs, should rightly be called "capitalism"--in the sense
more fully explained below. Everybody knows that capitalism has a definite
historical meaning as a system, an economic and social system, opposed to
"socialism" or "communism." But in light of the analysis of the
fundamental reality of the whole economic process--first and foremost of
the production structure that work is--it should be recognized that the
error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever man is in a way treated
on the same level as the whole complex of the material means of
production, as an instrument and not in accordance with the true dignity
of his work--that is to say, where he is not treated as subject and maker,
and for this very reason as the true purpose of the whole process of
production.
31. This explains why the analysis of human work in the light of the
works concerning man's "dominion" over the earth goes to the very heart of
the ethical and social question. This concept should also find a central
place in the whole sphere of social and economic policy, both within
individual countries and in the wider field of international and
intercontinental relationships, particularly with reference to the
tensions making themselves felt in the world not only between East and
West but also between North and South. Both John XXIII in the encyclical
Mater et Magistra and Paul Vl in the encyclical Populorum progressio gave
special attention to these dimensions of the modern ethical and social
question.
Worker Solidarity
32. When dealing with human work in the fundamental dimension of its
subject, that is to say, the human person doing work, one must make at
least a summary evaluation of developments during the ninety years since
Rerum novarum in relation to the subjective dimension of work. Although
the subject of work is always the same, that is to say man, nevertheless
wide-ranging changes take place in the objective aspect. While one can say
that, by reason of its subject, work is one single thing (one and
unrepeatable every time) yet when one takes into consideration its
objective directions one is forced to admit that there exist many works,
many different sorts of work. The development of human civilization brings
continual enrichment in this field. But at the same time, one cannot fail
to note that in the process of this development not only do new forms of
work appear but also others disappear. Even if one accepts that on the
whole this is a normal phenomenon, it must still be seen whether certain
ethically and socially dangerous irregularities creep in and to what
extent.
33. It was precisely one such wide-ranging anomaly that gave rise in
the last century to what has been called "the worker question," sometimes
described as "the proletariat question." This question and the problems
connected with it gave rise to a just social reaction and caused the
impetuous emergence of a great burst of solidarity between workers, first
and foremost industrial workers. The call to solidarity and common action
addressed to the workers--especially to those engaged in narrowly
specialized, monotonous and depersonalized work in industrial plants, when
the machine tends to dominate man--was important and eloquent from the
point of view of social ethics. It was the reaction against the
degradation of man as the subject of work and against the unheard--of
accompanying exploitation in the field of wages, working conditions and
social security for the worker. This reaction united the working world in
a community marked by great solidarity.
34. Following the lines laid down by the encyclical Rerum novarum and
many later documents of the Church's magisterium, it must be frankly
recognized that the reaction against the system of injustice and harm that
cried to heaven for vengeance[13] and that weighed heavily upon workers in
that period of rapid industrialization was justified from the point of
view of social morality. This state of affairs was favored by the liberal
socio-political system which in accordance with its "economistic"
premises, strengthened and safeguarded economic initiative by the
possessors of capital alone, but did not pay sufficient attention to the
rights of the workers, on the grounds that human work is solely an
instrument of production, and that capital is the basis, efficient factor
and purpose of production.
35. From that time, worker solidarity, together with a clearer and more
committed realization by others of workers' rights, has in many cases
brought about profound changes. Various forms of neocapitalism or
collectivism have developed. Various new systems have been thought out.
Workers can often share in running businesses and in controlling their
productivity, and in fact do so. Through appropriate associations they
exercise influence over conditions of work and pay, and also over social
legislation. But at the same time various ideological or power systems and
new relationships which have arisen at various levels of society have
allowed flagrant injustices to persist or have created new ones. On the
world level, the development of civilization and of communications has
made possible a more complete diagnosis of the living and working
conditions of man globally, but it has also revealed other forms of
injustice much more extensive than those which in the last century
stimulated unity between workers for particular solidarity in the working
world. This is true in countries which have completed a certain process of
industrial revolution. It is also true in countries where the main working
milieu continues to be agriculture or other similar occupations.
36. Movements of solidarity in the sphere of work--a solidarity that
must never mean being closed to dialogue and collaboration with
others--can be necessary also with reference to the condition of social
groups that were not previously included in such movements, but which in
changing social systems and conditions of living are undergoing what is in
effect "proletarianization" or which actually already find themselves in a
"proletariat" situation, one which, even if not yet given that name, in
fact deserves it. This can be true of certain categories or groups of the
working "intelligentsia," especially when ever wider access to education
and an ever increasing number of people with degrees or diplomas in the
fields of their cultural preparation are accompanied by a drop in demand
for their labor. This unemployment of intellectuals occurs or increases
when the education available is not oriented toward the types of
employment or service required by the true needs of society, or when there
is less demand for work which requires education, at least professional
education, than for manual labor, or when it is less well paid. Of course,
education in itself is always valuable and an important enrichment of the
human person; but in spite of that, "proletarianization" processes remain
possible.
37. For this reason there must be continued study of the subject of
work and of the subject's living conditions. In order to achieve social
justice in the various parts of the world, in the various countries and in
the relationships between them, there is a need for ever new movements of
solidarity of the workers and with the workers. This solidarity must be
present whenever it is called for by the social degrading of the subject
of work, by exploitation of the workers and by the growing areas of
poverty and even hunger. The Church is firmly committed to this cause for
she considers it her mission, her service, a proof of her fidelity to
Christ, so that she can truly be the "Church of the poor." And the "poor"
appear under various forms; they appear in various places and at various
times; in many cases they appear as a result of the violation of the
dignity of human work: either because the opportunities for human work are
limited as a result of the scourge of unemployment or because a low value
is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a
just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her
family.
Work and Personal Dignity
38. Remaining within the context of man as the subject of work, it is
now appropriate to touch upon, at least in a summary way, certain problems
that more closely define the dignity of human work in that they make it
possible to characterize more fully its specific moral value. In doing
this we must always keep in mind the biblical calling to "subdue the
earth,"[14] in which is expressed the will of the Creator that work should
enable man to achieve that "dominion" in the visible world that is proper
to him.
39. God's fundamental and original intention with regard to man, whom
he created in his image and after his likeness,[15] was not withdrawn or
canceled out even when man, having broken the original covenant with God,
heard the words: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread."[16]
These words refer to the sometimes heavy toil that from then onward has
accompanied human work; but they do not alter the fact that work is the
means whereby man achieves that "dominion" which is proper to him over the
visible world, by "subjecting" the earth. Toil is something that is
universally known, for it is universally experienced. It is familiar to
those doing physical work under sometimes exceptionally laborious
conditions. It is familiar not only to agricultural workers, who spend
long days working the land, which sometimes "bears thorns and
thistles,"[17] but also to those who work in mines and quarries, to
steelworkers at their blast furnaces, to those who work in builders' yards
and in construction work, often in danger of injury or death. It is also
familiar to those at an intellectual workbench; to scientists; to those
who bear the burden of grave responsibility for decisions that will have a
vast impact on society. It is familiar to doctors and nurses, who spend
days and nights at their patients' bedside. It is familiar to women, who
sometimes without proper recognition on the part of society and even of
their own families bear the daily burden and responsibility for their
homes and the upbringing of their children. It is familiar to all workers
and, since work is a universal calling, it is familiar to everyone.
40. And yet in spite of all this toil--perhaps, in a sense, because of
it--work is a good thing for man. Even though it bears the mark of a bonum
arduum, in the terminology of St. Thomas,[18] this does not take away the
fact that, as such, it is a good thing for man. It is not only good in the
sense that it is useful or something to enjoy it is also good as being
something worthy, that is to say, something that corresponds to man's
dignity, that expresses this dignity and increases it. If one wishes to
define more clearly the ethical meaning of work, it is this truth that one
must particularly keep in mind. Work is a good thing for man--a good thing
for his humanity--because through work man not only transforms nature,
adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfillment as a human
being and indeed in a sense becomes "more a human being."
41. Without this consideration it is impossible to understand the
meaning of the virtue of industriousness, and more particularly it is
impossible to understand why industriousness should be a virtue: For
virtue, as a moral habit, is something whereby man becomes good as
man.[19] This fact in no way alters our justifiable anxiety that in work,
whereby matter gains in nobility, man himself should not experience a
lowering of his own dignity.[20] Again, it is well known that it is
possible to use work in various ways against man, that it is possible to
punish man with the system of forced labor in concentration camps, that
work can be made into a means for oppressing man, and that in various ways
it is possible to exploit human labor, that is to say, the worker. All
this pleads in favor of the moral obligation to link industriousness as a
virtue with the social order of work, which will enable man to become in
work "more a human being" and not be degraded by it not only because of
the wearing out of his physical strength (which, at least up to a certain
point, is inevitable), but especially through damage to the dignity and
subjectivity that are proper to him.
Work and Society: Family and Nation
42. Having thus confirmed the personal dimension of human work, we must
go on to the second sphere of values which is necessarily linked to work.
Work constitutes a foundation for the formation of family life, which is a
natural right and something that man is called to. These two spheres of
values--one linked to work and the other consequent on the family nature
of human life--must be properly united and must properly permeate each
other. In a way, work is a condition for making it possible to found a
family, since the family requires the means of subsistence which man
normally gains through work. Work and industriousness also influence the
whole process of education in the family, for the very reason that
everyone "becomes a human being" through, among other things, work, and
becoming a human being is precisely the main purpose of the whole process
of education. Obviously, two aspects of work in a sense come into play
here: the one making family life and its upkeep possible, and the other
making possible the achievement of the purposes of the family, especially
education. Nevertheless, these two aspects of work are linked to one
another and are mutually complementary in various points.
43. It must be remembered and affirmed that the family constitutes one
of the most important terms of reference for shaping the social and
ethical order of human work. The teaching of the Church has always devoted
special attention to this question, and in the present document we shall
have to return to it. In fact, the family is simultaneously a community
made possible by work and the first school of work, within the home, for
every person.
44. The third sphere of values that emerges from this point of
view--that of the subject of work--concerns the great society to which man
belongs on the basis of particular cultural and historical links. This
society--even when it has not yet taken on the mature form of a nation--is
not only the great "educator" of every man, even though an indirect one
(because each individual absorbs within the family the contents and values
that go to make up the culture of a given nation); it is also a great
historical and social incarnation of the work of all generations. All of
this brings it about that man combines his deepest human identity with
membership of a nation, and intends his work also to increase the common
good developed together with his compatriots, thus realizing that in this
way work serves to add to the heritage of the whole human family, of all
the people living in the world.
45. These three spheres are always important for human work in its
subjective dimension. And this dimension, that is to say, the concrete
reality of the worker, takes precedence over the objective dimension. In
the subjective dimension there is realized, first of all, that "dominion"
over the world of nature to which man is called from the beginning
according to the words of the Book of Genesis. The very process of
"subduing the earth," that is to say work, is marked in the course of
history and especially in recent centuries by an immense development of
technological means. This is an advantageous and positive phenomenon, on
condition that the objective dimension of work does not gain the upper
hand over the subjective dimension, depriving man of his dignity and
inalienable rights or reducing
III. Conflict Between Labor and Capital in
the Present Phase of History
Dimensions of the Conflict
46. The sketch of the basic problems of work outlined above draws
inspiration from the texts at the beginning of the Bible and in a sense
forms the very framework of the Church's teaching, which has remained
unchanged throughout the centuries within the context of different
historical experiences. However, the experiences preceding and following
the publication of the encyclical Rerum novarum form a background that
endows that teaching with particular expressiveness and the eloquence of
living relevance. In this analysis, work is seen as a great reality with a
fundamental influence on the shaping in a human way of the world that the
Creator has entrusted to man; it is a reality closely linked with man as
the subject of work and with man's rational activity. In the normal course
of events this reality fills human life and strongly affects its value and
meaning. Even when it is accompanied by toil and effort, work is still
something good, and so man develops through love for work. This entirely
positive and creative, educational and meritorious character of man's work
must be the basis for the judgments and decisions being made today in its
regard in spheres that include human rights, as is evidenced by the
international declarations on work and the many labor codes prepared
either by the competent legislative institutions in the various countries
or by organizations devoting their social, or scientific and social,
activity to the problems of work. One organization fostering such
initiatives on the international level is the International Labor
Organization, the oldest specialized agency of the United Nations.
47. In the following part of these considerations I intend to return in
greater detail to these important questions, recalling at least the basic
elements of the Church's teaching on the matter. I must however first
touch on a very important field of questions in which her teaching has
taken shape in this latest period, the one marked and in a sense
symbolized by the publication of the encyclical Rerum novarum.
48. Throughout this period, which is by no means yet over, the issue of
work has of course been posed on the basis of the great conflict that in
the age of and together with industrial development emerged between
"capital" and "labor," that is to say between the small but highly
influential group of entrepreneurs, owners or holders of the means of
production, and the broader multitude of people who lacked these means and
who shared in the process of production solely by their labor. The
conflict originated in the fact that the workers put their powers at the
disposal of the entrepreneurs and these, following the principle of
maximum profit, tried to establish the lowest possible wages for the work
done by the employees. In addition there were other elements of
exploitation connected with the lack of safety at work and of safeguards
regarding the health and living conditions of the workers and their
families.
49. This conflict, interpreted by some as a socioeconomic class
conflict, found expression in the ideological conflict between liberalism,
understood as the ideology of capitalism, and Marxism, understood as the
ideology of scientific socialism and communism, which professes to act as
the spokesman for the working class and the worldwide proletariat. Thus
the real conflict between labor and capital was transformed into a
systematic class struggle conducted not only by ideological means, but
also and chiefly by political means. We are familiar with the history of
this conflict and with the demands of both sides. The Marxist program,
based on the philosophy of Marx and Engels, sees in class struggle the
only way to eliminate class injustices in society and to eliminate the
classes themselves. Putting this program into practice presupposes the
collectivization of the means of production so that through the transfer
of these means from private hands to the collectivity human labor will be
preserved from exploitation.
50. This is the goal of the struggle carried on by political as well as
ideological means. In accordance with the principle of "the dictatorship
of the proletariat," the groups that as political parties follow the
guidance of Marxist ideology aim by the use of various kinds of influence,
including revolutionary pressure, to win a monopoly of power in each
society in order to introduce the collectivist system into it by
eliminating private ownership of the means of production. According to the
principal ideologists and leaders of this broad international movement,
the purpose of this program of action is to achieve the social revolution
and to introduce socialism and finally the communist system throughout the
world.
51. As we touch on this extremely important field of issues, which
constitute not only a theory but a whole fabric of socioeconomic,
political and international life in our age, we cannot go into the details
nor is this necessary for they are known both from the vast literature on
the subject and by experience. Instead we must leave the context of these
issues and go back to the fundamental issue of human work, which is the
main subject of the considerations in this document. It is clear indeed
that this issue, which is of such importance for man--it constitutes one
of the fundamental dimensions of his earthly existence and of his
vocation--can also be explained only by taking into account the full
context of the contemporary situation.
The Priority of Labor
52. The structure of the present-day situation is deeply marked by many
conflicts caused by man, and the technological means produced by human
work play a primary role in it. We should also consider here the prospect
of worldwide catastrophe in the case of a nuclear war, which would have
almost unimaginable possibilities of destruction. In view of this
situation we must first of all recall a principle that has always been
taught by the Church: the principle of the priority of labor over capital.
This principle directly concerns the process of production: In this
process labor is always a primary efficient cause, while capital, the
whole collection of means of production, remains a mere instrument or
instrumental cause. This principle is an evident truth that emerges from
the whole of man's historical experience.
53. When we read in the first chapter of the Bible that man is to
subdue the earth, we know that these works refer to all the resources
contained in the visible world and placed at man's disposal. However,
these resources can serve man only through work. From the beginning there
is also linked with work the question of ownership, for the only means
that man has for causing the resources hidden in nature to serve himself
and others is his work. And to be able through his work to make these
resources bear fruit, man takes over ownership of small parts of the
various riches of nature: those beneath the ground, those in the sea, on
land or in space. He takes over all these things by making them his
workbench. He takes them over through work and for work.
54. The same principle applies in the successive phases of this
process, in which the first phase always remains the relationship of man
with the resources and riches of nature. The whole of the effort to
acquire knowledge with the aim of discovering these riches and specifying
the various ways in which they can be used by man and for man teaches us
that everything that comes from man throughout the whole process of
economic production, whether labor or the whole collection of means of
production and the technology connected with these means (meaning the
capability to use them in work), presupposes these riches and resources of
the visible world, riches and resources that man finds and does not
create. In a sense man finds them already prepared, ready for him to
discover them and to use them correctly in the productive process. In
every phase of the development of his work man comes up against the
leading role of the gift made by "nature," that is to say, in the final
analysis, by the Creator. At the beginning of man's work is the mystery of
creation. This affirmation, already indicated as my starting point, is the
guiding thread of this document and will be further developed in the last
part of these reflections.
55. Further consideration of this question should confirm our
conviction of the priority of human labor over what in the course of time
we have grown accustomed to calling capital. Since the concept of capital
includes not only the natural resources placed at man's disposal, but also
the whole collection of means by which man appropriates natural resources
and transforms them in accordance with his needs (and thus in a sense
humanizes them), it must immediately be noted that all these means are the
result of the historical heritage of human labor. All the means of
production, from the most primitive to the ultramodern one--it is man that
has gradually developed them: man's experience and intellect. In this way
there have appeared not only the simplest instruments for cultivating the
earth, but also through adequate progress in science and technology the
more modern and complex ones: machines, factories, laboratories and
computers. Thus everything that is at the service of work, everything that
in the present state of technology constitutes its ever more highly
perfected "instrument," is the result of work.
56. This gigantic and powerful instrument--the whole collection of
means of production that in a sense are considered synonymous with
"capital"--is the result of work and bears the signs of human labor. At
the present stage of technological advance, when man, who is the subject
of work, wishes to make use of this collection of modern instruments, the
means of production, he must first assimilate cognitively the result of
the work of the people who invented those instruments, who planned them,
built them and perfected them, and who continue to do so. Capacity for
work--that is to say, for sharing efficiently in the modern production
process--demands greater and greater preparation and, before all else,
proper training. Obviously it remains clear that every human being sharing
in the production process, even if he or she is only doing the kind of
work for which no special training or qualifications are required, is the
real efficient subject in this production process, while the whole
collection of instruments, no matter how perfect they may be in
themselves, are only a mere instrument subordinate to human labor.
57. This truth, which is part of the abiding heritage of the Church's
teaching, must always be emphasized with reference to the question of the
labor system and with regard to the whole socioeconomic system. We must
emphasize and give prominence to the primacy of man in the production
process, the primacy of man over things. Everything contained in the
concept of capital in the strict sense is only a collection of things.
Man, as the subject of work and independent of the work he does--man alone
is a person. This principle is an evident truth that emerges from the
whole of man's historical experience.
Economism and Materialism
58. In the light of the above truth we see clearly, first of all, that
capital cannot be separated from labor; in no way can labor be opposed to
capital or capital to labor, and still less can the actual people behind
these concepts be opposed to each other, as will be explained later. A
labor system can be right, in the sense of being in conformity with the
very essence of the issue and in the sense of being intrinsically true and
also morally legitimate, if in its very basis it overcomes the opposition
between labor and capital through an effort at being shaped in accordance
with the principle put forward above: the principle of the substantial and
real priority of labor, of the subjectivity of human labor and its
effective participation in the whole production process, independent of
the nature of the services provided by the worker.
59. Opposition between labor and capital does not spring from the
structure of the production process or from the structure of the economic
process. In general the latter process demonstrates that labor and what we
are accustomed to call capital are intermingled; it shows that they are
inseparably linked. Working at any workbench, whether a relatively
primitive or an ultramodern one, a man can easily see that through his
work he enters into two inheritances: the inheritance of what is given to
the whole of humanity in the resources of nature and the inheritance of
what others have already developed on the basis of those resources,
primarily by developing technology, that is to say, by producing a whole
collection of increasingly perfect instruments for work. In working, man
also "enters into the labor of others."[21] Guided both by our
intelligence and by the faith that draws light from the word of God, we
have no difficulty in accepting this image, of the sphere and process of
man's labor. It is a consistent image, one that is humanistic as well as
theological. In it man is the master of the creatures placed at his
disposal in the visible world. If some dependence is discovered in the
work process, it is dependence on the Giver of all the resources of
creation and also on other human beings, those to whose work and
initiative we owe the perfected and increased possibilities of our own
work. All that we can say of everything in the production process which
constitutes a whole collection of "things," the instruments, the capital,
is that it conditions man's work; we cannot assert that it constitutes as
it were an impersonal "subject" putting man and man's work into a position
of dependence.
60. This consistent image, in which the principle of the primacy of
person over things is strictly preserved, was broken up in human thought
sometimes after a long period of incubation in practical living. The break
occurred in such a way that labor was separated from capital and set in
opposition to it, and capital was set in opposition to labor, as though
they were two impersonal forces, two production factors juxtaposed in the
same "economistic" perspective. This way of stating the issue contained a
fundamental error, what we can call the error of economism, that of
considering human labor solely according to its economic purpose. This
fundamental error of thought can and must be called an error of
materialism, in that economism directly or indirectly includes a
conviction of the primacy and superiority of the material, and directly or
indirectly places the spiritual and the personal (man's activity, moral
values and such matters) in a position of subordination to material
reality. This is still not theoretical materialism in the full sense of
the term, but it is certainly practical materialism, a materialism judged
capable of satisfying man's needs not so much on the grounds of premises
derived from materialist theory as on the grounds of a particular way of
evaluating things and so on the grounds of a certain hierarchy of goods
based on the greater immediate attractiveness of what is material.
61. The error of thinking in the categories of economism went hand in
hand with the formation of a materialist philosophy, as this philosophy
developed from the most elementary and common phase (also called common
materialism, because it professes to reduce spiritual reality to a
superfluous phenomenon) to the phase of what is called dialectical
materialism. However, within the framework of the present consideration,
it seems that economism had a decisive importance for the fundamental
issue of human work, in particular for the separation of labor and capital
and for setting them up in opposition as two production factors viewed in
the above-mentioned economistic perspective; and it seems that economism
influenced this non humanistic way of stating the issue before the
materialist philosophical system did. Nevertheless it is obvious that
materialism, including its dialectical form, is incapable of providing
sufficient and definitive bases for thinking about human work, in order
that the primacy of man over the capital instrument, the primacy of the
person over things, may find in it adequate and irrefutable confirmation
and support. In dialectical materialism too man is not first and foremost
the subject of work and the efficient cause of the production process, but
continues to be understood and treated, in dependence on what is material,
as a kind of "resultant" of the economic or production relations
prevailing at a given period.
62. Obviously the antinomy between labor and capital under
consideration here--the antinomy in which labor was separated from capital
and set up in opposition to it, in a certain sense on the ontic level as
if it were just an element like any other in the economic process--did not
originate merely in the philosophy and economic theories of the 18th
century; rather it originated in the whole of economic and social practice
of that time, the time of the birth and rapid development of
industrialization, in which what was mainly seen was the possibility of
vastly increasing material wealth, means, while the end, that is to say
man, who should be served by the means, was ignored. It was this practical
error that struck a blow first and foremost against human labor, against
the working man, and caused the ethically just social reaction already
spoken of above. The same error, which is now part of history and which
was connected with the period of primitive capitalism and liberalism, can
nevertheless be repeated in other circumstances of time and place if
people's thinking starts from the same theoretical or practical premises.
The only chance there seems to be for radically overcoming this error is
through adequate changes both in theory and in practice, changes in line
with the definite conviction of the primacy of the person over things and
of human labor over capital as a whole collection of means of production.
Work and Ownership
63. The historical process briefly presented here has certainly gone
beyond its initial phase, but it is still taking place and indeed is
spreading in the relationships between nations and continents. It needs to
be specified further from another point of view. It is obvious that when
we speak of opposition between labor and capital, we are not dealing only
with abstract concepts or "impersonal forces" operating in economic
production. Behind both concepts there are people, living, actual people:
On the one side are those who do the work without being the owners of the
means of production, and on the other side those who act as entrepreneurs
and who own these means or represent the owner. Thus the issue of
ownership or property enters from the beginning into the whole of this
difficult historical process. The encyclical Rerum novarum, which has the
social question as its theme, stresses this issue also, recalling and
confirming the Church's teaching on ownership, on the right to private
property even when it is a question of the means of production. The
encyclical Mater et Magistra did the same.
64. The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is still
taught by the Church, diverges radically from the program of collectivism
as proclaimed by Marxism and put into practice in various countries in the
decades following the time of Leo XIII's encyclical. At the same time it
differs from the program of capitalism practiced by liberalism and by the
political systems inspired by it. In the latter case, the difference
consists in the way the right to ownership or property is understood.
Christian tradition has never upheld this right as absolute and
untouchable. On the contrary, it has always understood this right within
the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the
whole of creation: The right to private property is subordinated to the
right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.
65. Furthermore, in the Church's teaching, ownership has never been
understood in a way that could constitute grounds for social conflict in
labor. As mentioned above, property is acquired first of all through work
in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership
of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property
in order to set it up in the form of "capital" in opposition to
"labor"--and even to practice exploitation of labor--is contrary to the
very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed
against labor, they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake,
because the only legitimate title to their possession--whether in the form
of private ownership or in the form of public or collective ownership--is
that they should serve labor and thus by serving labor that they should
make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely
the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them.
From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labor and of
common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the
socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. In
the course of the decades since the publication of the encyclical Rerum
novarum, the Church's teaching has always recalled all these principles,
going back to the arguments formulated in a much older tradition, for
example, the well-known arguments of the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas
Aquinas.[22]
66. In the present document, which has human work as its main theme, it
is right to confirm all the effort with which the Church's teaching has
striven and continues to strive always to ensure the priority of work and
thereby man's character as a subject in social life and especially in the
dynamic structure of the whole economic process. From this point of view
the position of "rigid" capitalism continues to remain unacceptable,
namely the position that defends the exclusive right to private ownership
of the means of production as an untouchable "dogma" of economic life. The
principle of respect for work demands that this right should undergo a
constructive revision both in theory and in practice. If it is true that
capital, as the whole of the means of production, is at the same time the
product of the work of generations, it is equally true that capital is
being unceasingly created through the work done with the help of all these
means of production, and these means can be seen as a great workbench at
which the present generation of workers is working day after day.
Obviously we are dealing here with different kinds of work, not only
so-called manual labor, but also the many forms of intellectual work,
including white-collar work and management.
67. In the light of the above, the many proposals put forward by
experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest magisterium of the
Church take on special significance:[23] proposals for joint ownership of
the means of work, sharing by the workers in the management and-or profits
of businesses, so-called shareholding by labor, etc. Whether these various
proposals can or cannot be applied concretely, it is clear that
recognition of the proper position of labor and the worker in the
production process demands various adaptations in the sphere of the right
to ownership of the means of production. This is so not only in view of
older situations but also, first and foremost, in view of the whole of the
situation and the problems in the second half of the present century with
regard to the so-called Third World and the various new independent
countries that have arisen, especially in Africa but elsewhere as well, in
place of the colonial territories of the past.
68. Therefore, while the position of "rigid" capitalism must undergo
continual revision in order to be reformed from the point of view of human
rights, both human rights in the widest sense and those linked with man's
work, it must be stated that from the same point of view these many deeply
desired reforms cannot be achieved by an a priori elimination of private
ownership of the means of production. For it must be noted that merely
taking these means of production (capital) out of the hands of their
private owners is not enough to ensure their satisfactory socialization.
They cease to be the property of a certain social group, namely the
private owners, and become the property of organized society, coming under
the administration and direct control of another group of people, namely
those who, though not owning them, from the fact of exercising power in
society manage them on the level of the whole national or the local
economy.
69. This group in authority may carry out its task satisfactorily from
the point of view of the priority of labor; but it may also carry it out
badly by claiming for itself a monopoly of the administration and disposal
of the means of production and not refraining even from offending basic
human rights. Thus, merely converting the means of production into state
property in the collectivist systems is by no means equivalent to
"socializing" that property. We can speak of socializing only when the
subject character of society is ensured, that is to say, when on the basis
of his work each person is fully entitled to consider himself a part owner
of the great workbench at which he is working with everyone else. A way
toward that goal could be found by associating labor with the ownership of
capital, as far as possible, and by producing a wide range of intermediate
bodies with economic, social and cultural purposes; they would be bodies
enjoying real autonomy with regard to the public powers, pursuing their
specific aims in honest collaboration with each other and in subordination
to the demands of the common good, and they would be living communities
both in form and in substance in the sense that the members of each body
would be looked upon and treated as persons and encouraged to take an
active part in the life of the body.[24]
The "Personalist" Argument
70. Thus the principle of the priority of labor over capital is a
postulate of the order of social morality. It has key importance both in
the system built on the principle of private ownership of the means of
production and also in the systems in which private ownership of these
means has been limited even in a radical way. Labor is in a sense
inseparable from capital; in no way does it accept the antinomy, that is
to say, the separation and opposition with regard to the means of
production that has weighed upon human life in recent centuries as a
result of merely economic premises. When man works, using all the means of
production, he also wishes the fruit of this work to be used by himself
and others, and he wishes to be able to take part in the very work process
as a sharer in responsibility and creativity at the workbench to which he
applies himself.
71. From this spring certain specific rights of workers, corresponding
to the obligation of work. They will be discussed later. But here it must
be emphasized in general terms that the person who works desires not only
due rumuneration for his work; he also wishes that within the production
process provision be made for him to be able to know that in his work,
even on something that is owned in common, he is working "for himself."
This awareness is extinguished within him in a system of excessive
bureaucratic centralization, which makes the worker feel that he is just a
cog in a huge machine moved from above, that he is for more reasons than
one a mere production instrument rather than a true subject of work with
an initiative of his own. The Church's teaching has always expressed the
strong and deep conviction that man's work concerns not only the economy
but also, and especially, personal values. The economic system itself and
the production process benefit precisely when these personal values are
fully respected. In the mind of St. Thomas Aquinas,[25] this is the
principal reason in favor of private ownership of the means of production.
While we accept that for certain well-founded reasons exceptions can be
made to the principle of private ownership--in our own time we even see
that the system of "socialized ownership" has been
introduced--nevertheless the personalist argument still holds good both on
the level of principles and on the practical level. If it is to be
rational and fruitful, any socialization of the means of production must
take this argument into consideration. Every effort must be made to ensure
that in this kind of system also the human person can preserve his
awareness of working "for himself." If this is not done, incalculable
damage is inevitably done throughout the economic process, not only
economic damage but first and foremost damage to man.
IV. Rights of Workers
Within the Broad Context of Human Rights
72. While work, in all its many senses, is an obligation, that is to
say a duty, it is also a source of rights on the part of the worker. These
rights must be examined in the broad context of human rights as a whole,
which are connatural with man and many of which are proclaimed by various
international organizations and increasingly guaranteed by the individual
states for their citizens. Respect for this broad range of human rights
constitutes the fundamental condition for peace in the modern world: peace
both within individual countries and societies and in international
relations, as the Church's magisterium has several times noted, especially
since the encyclical Pacem in terris. The human rights that flow from work
are part of the broader context of those fundamental rights of the person.
73. However, within this context they have a specific character
corresponding to the specific nature of human work as outlined above. It
is in keeping with this character that we must view them. Work is, as has
been said, an obligation, that is to say, a duty, on the part of man. This
is true in all the many meanings of the word. Man must work both because
the Creator has commanded it and because of his own humanity, which
requires work in order to be maintained and developed. Man must work out
of regard for others, especially his own family, but also for the society
he belongs, to the country of which he is a child and the whole human
family of which he is a member, since he is the heir to the work of
generations and at the same time a sharer in building the future of those
who will come after him in the succession of history. All this constitutes
the moral obligation of work understood in its wide sense. When we have to
consider the moral rights corresponding to this obligation of every person
with regard to work, we must always keep before our eyes the whole vast
range of points of reference in which the labor of every working subject
is manifested.
74. For when we speak of the obligation of work and of the rights of
the worker that correspond to this obligation, we think in the first place
of the relationship between the employer, direct or indirect, and the
worker.
75. The distinction between the direct and the indirect employer is
seen to be very important when one considers both the way in which labor
is actually organized and the possibility of the formation of just or
unjust relationships in the field of labor.
76. Since the direct employer is the person or institution with whom
the worker enters directly into a work contract in accordance with
definite conditions, we must understand as the indirect employer many
different factors, other than the direct employer, that exercise a
determining influence on the shaping both of the work contract and
consequently of just or unjust relationships in the field of human labor.
Direct and Indirect Employer
77. The concept of indirect employer includes both persons and
institutions of various kinds and also collective labor contracts and the
principles of conduct which are laid down by these persons and
institutions and which determine the whole socioeconomic system or are its
result. The concept of "indirect employer" thus refers to many different
elements. The responsibility of the indirect employer differs from that of
the direct employer--the term itself indicates that the responsibility is
less direct--but it remains a true responsibility: The indirect employer
substantially determines one or other facet of the labor relationship,
thus conditioning the conduct of the direct employer when the latter
determines in concrete terms the actual work contract and labor relations.
This is not to absolve the direct employer from his own responsibility,
but only to draw attention to the whole network of influences that
condition his conduct. When it is a question of establishing an ethically
correct labor policy, all these influences must be kept in mind. A policy
is correct when the objective rights of the worker are fully respected.
78. The concept of indirect employer is applicable to every society and
in the first place to the state. For it is the state that must conduct a
just labor policy. However, it is common knowledge that in the present
system of economic relations in the world there are numerous links between
individual states, links that find expression, for instance, in the import
and export process, that is to say, in the mutual exchange of economic
goods, whether raw materials, semimanufactured goods or finished
industrial products. These links also create mutual dependence, and as a
result it would be difficult to speak in the case of any state, even the
economically most powerful, of complete self-sufficiency or autarky.
79. Such a system of mutual dependence is in itself normal. However it
can easily become an occasion for various forms of exploitation or
injustice and as a result influence the labor policy of individual states;
and finally it can influence the individual worker who is the proper
subject of labor. For instance the highly industrialized countries, and
even more the businesses that direct on a large scale the means of
industrial production (the companies referred to as multinational or
transnational), fix the highest possible prices for their products, while
trying at the same time to fix the lowest possible prices for raw
materials or semimanufactured goods. This is one of the causes of an ever
increasing disproportion between national incomes. The gap between most of
the richest countries and the poorest ones is not diminishing or being
stabilized, but is increasing more and more to the detriment, obviously,
of the poor countries. Evidently this must have an effect on local labor
policy and on the worker's situation in the economically disadvantaged
societies. Finding himself in a system thus conditioned, the direct
employer fixes working conditions below the objective requirements of the
workers, especially if he himself wishes to obtain the highest possible
profits from the business which he runs (or from the businesses which he
runs, in the case of a situation of "socialized" ownership of the means of
production).
80. It is easy to see that this framework of forms of dependence linked
with the concept of the indirect employer is enormously extensive and
complicated. It is determined, in a sense, by all the elements that are
decisive for economic life within a given society and state, but also by
much wider links and forms of dependence. The attainment of the worker's
rights cannot however be doomed to be merely a result of economic systems
which on a larger or smaller scale are guided chiefly by the criterion of
maximum profit. On the contrary, it is respect for the objective rights of
the worker--every kind of worker: manual or intellectual, industrial or
agricultural, etc.--that must constitute the adequate and fundamental
criterion for shaping the whole economy, both on the level of the
individual society and state and within the whole of the world economic
policy and of the systems of international relationships that derive from
it.
81. Influence in this direction should be exercised by all the
international organizations whose concern it is, beginning with the United
Nations. It appears that the International Labor Organization and the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and other bodies too
have fresh contributions to offer on this point in particular. Within the
individual states there are ministries or public departments and also
various social institutions set up for this purpose. All of this
effectively indicates the importance of the indirect employer--as has been
said above--in achieving full respect for the worker's rights, since the
rights of the human person are the key element in the whole of the social
moral order.
The Employment Issue
82. When we consider the rights of workers in relation to the "indirect
employer," that is to say, all the agents at the national and
international level that are responsible for the whole orientation of
labor policy, we must first direct our attention to a fundamental issue:
the question of finding work or, in other words, the issue of suitable
employment for all who are capable of it. The opposite of a just and right
situation in this field is unemployment, that is to say, the lack of work
for those who are capable of it. It can be a question of general
unemployment or of unemployment in certain sectors of work. The role of
the agents included under the title of indirect employer is to act against
unemployment, which in all cases is an evil and which, when it reaches a
certain level, can become a real social disaster. It is particularly
painful when it especially affects young people, who after appropriate
cultural, technical and professional preparation fail to find work and see
their sincere wish to work and their readiness to take on their own
responsibility for the economic and social development of the community
sadly frustrated. The obligation to provide unemployment benefits, that is
to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable for the subsistence
of unemployed workers and their families, is a duty springing from the
fundamental principle of the moral order in this sphere, namely the
principle of the common use of goods or, to put it in another and still
simpler way, the right to life and subsistence.
83. In order to meet the danger of unemployment and to ensure
employment for all, the agents defined here as "indirect employer" must
make provision for overall planning with regard to the different kinds of
work by which not only the economic life, but also the cultural life of a
given society is shaped; they must also give attention to organizing that
work in a correct and rational way. In the final analysis this overall
concern weighs on the shoulders of the state, but it cannot mean one-sided
centralization by the public authorities. Instead, what is in question is
a just and rational coordination, within the framework of which the
initiative of individuals, free groups and local work centers and
complexes must be safeguarded, keeping in mind what has been said above
with regard to the subject character of human labor.
84. The fact of the mutual dependence of societies and states and the
need to collaborate in various areas mean that, while preserving the
sovereign rights of each society and state in the field of planning and
organizing labor in its own society, action in this important area must
also be taken in the dimension of international collaboration by means of
the necessary treaties and agreements. Here too the criterion for these
pacts and agreements must more and more be the criterion of human work
considered as a fundamental right of all human beings, work which gives
similar rights to all those who work in such a way that the living
standard of the workers in the different societies will less and less show
those disturbing differences which are unjust and are apt to provoke even
violent reactions. The international organizations have an enormous part
to play in this area. They must let themselves be guided by an exact
diagnosis of the complex situations and of the influence exercised by
natural, historical, civil and other such circumstances. They must also be
more highly operative with regard to plans for action jointly decided on,
that is to say, they must be more effective in carrying them out.
85. In this direction, it is possible to actuate a plan for universal
and proportionate progress by all in accordance with the guidelines of
Paul Vl's encyclical Populorum progressio. It must be stressed that the
constitutive element in this progress and also the most adequate way to
verify it in a spirit of justice and peace, which the Church proclaims and
for which she does not cease to pray to the Father of all individuals and
of all peoples, is the continual reappraisal of man's work, both in the
aspect of its objective finality and in the aspect of the dignity of the
subject of all work, that is to say, man. The progress in question must be
made through man and for man and it must produce its fruit in man. A test
of this progress will be the increasingly mature recognition of the
purpose of work and increasingly universal respect for the rights inherent
in work in conformity with the dignity of man, the subject of work.
86. Rational planning and the proper organization of human labor in
keeping with individual societies and states should also facilitate the
discovery of the right proportions between the different kinds of
employment: work on the land, in industry, in the various services,
white-collar work and scientific or artistic work, in accordance with the
capacities of individuals and for the common good of each society and of
the whole of mankind. The organization of human life in accordance with
the many possibilities of labor should be matched by a suitable system of
instruction and education aimed first of all at developing mature human
beings, but also aimed at preparing people specifically for assuming to
good advantage an appropriate place in the vast and socially
differentiated world of work.
87. As we view the whole human family throughout the world, we cannot
fail to be struck by a disconcerting fact of immense proportions: the fact
that while conspicuous natural resources remain unused there are huge
numbers of people who are unemployed or under employed and countless
multitudes of people suffering from hunger. This is a fact that without
any doubt demonstrates that both within the individual political
communities and in their relationships on the continental and world levels
there is something wrong with the organization of work and employment,
precisely at the most critical and socially most important points.
Wages and Other Social Benefits
88. After outlining the important role that concern for providing
employment for all workers plays in safeguarding respect for the
inalienable rights of man in view of his work, it is worthwhile taking a
closer look at these rights, which in the final analysis are formed within
the relationship between worker and direct employer. All that has been
said above on the subject of the indirect employer is aimed at defining
these relationships more exactly, by showing the many forms of
conditioning within which these relationships are indirectly formed. This
consideration does not however have a purely descriptive purpose; it is
not a brief treatise on economics or politics. It is a matter of
highlighting the deontological and moral aspect. The key problem of social
ethics in this case is that of just remuneration for work done. In the
context of the present there is no more important way for securing a just
relationship between the worker and the employer than that constituted by
remuneration for work. Whether the work is done in a system of private
ownership of the means of production or in a system where ownership has
undergone a certain "socialization," the relationship between the employer
(first and foremost the direct employer) and the worker is resolved on the
basis of the wage, that is, through just remuneration of the work done.
89. It should also be noted that the justice of a socioeconomic system
and, in each case, its just functioning, deserve in the final analysis to
be evaluated by the way in which man's work is properly remunerated in the
system. Here we return once more to the first principle of the whole
ethical and social order, namely the principle of the common use of goods.
In every system, regardless of the fundamental relationships within it
between capital and labor, wages, that is to say remuneration for work,
are still a practical means whereby the vast majority of people can have
access to those goods which are intended for common use: both the goods of
nature and manufactured goods. Both kinds of goods become accessible to
the worker through the wage which he receives as remuneration for his
work. Hence in every case a just wage is the concrete means of verifying
the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of
checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of
checking, but it is a particularly important one and in a sense the key
means.
90. This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just
remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family
means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly
maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such
remuneration can be given either through what is called a family
wage--that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his
work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse
having to take up gainful employment outside the home--or through other
social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting
themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond
to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as
they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own
lives.
91. Experience confirms that there must be a social re-evaluation of
the mother's role, of the toil connected with it and of the need that
children have for care, love and affection in order that they may develop
into responsible, morally and religiously mature and psychologically
stable persons. It will redound to the credit of society to make it
possible for a mother--without inhibiting her freedom, without
psychological or practical discrimination, and without penalizing her as
compared with other women--to devote herself to taking care of her
children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary
with age. Having to abandon these tasks in order to take up paid work
outside the home is wrong from the point of view of the good of society
and of the family when it contradicts or hinders these primary goals of
the mission of a mother.[26]
92. In this context it should be emphasized that on a more general
level the whole labor process must be organized and adapted in such a way
as to respect the requirements of the person and his or her forms of life,
above all life in the home, taking into account the individual's age and
sex. It is a fact that in many societies women work in nearly every sector
of life. But it is fitting that they should be able to fulfill their tasks
in accordance with their own nature, without being discriminated against
and without being excluded from jobs for which they are capable, but also
without lack of respect for their family aspirations and for their
specific role in contributing, together with men, to the good of society.
The true advancement of women requires that labor should be structured in
such a way that women do not have to pay for their advancement by
abandoning what is specific to them and at the expense of the family, in
which women as mothers have an irreplaceable role.
93. Besides wages, various social benefits intended to ensure the life
and health of workers and their families play a part here. The expenses
involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work,
demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers and
that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge. Another
sector regarding benefits is the sector associated with the right to rest.
In the first place this involves a regular weekly rest comprising at least
Sunday and also a longer period of rest, namely the holiday or vacation
taken once a year or possibly in several shorter periods during the year.
A third sector concerns the right to a pension and to insurance for old
age and in case of accidents at work. Within the sphere of these principal
rights there develops a whole system of particular rights which, together
with remuneration for work, determine the correct relationship between
worker and employer. Among these rights there should never be overlooked
the right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes which
are not harmful to the workers' physical health or to their moral
integrity.
Importance of Unions
94. All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves
to secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association,
that is, to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital
interests of those employed in the various professions. These associations
are called labor or trade unions. The vital interests of the workers are
to a certain extent common for all of them; at the same time, however,
each type of work, each profession, has its own specific character which
should find a particular reflection in these organizations.
95. In a sense, unions go back to the medieval guilds of artisans,
insofar as those organizations brought together people belonging to the
same craft and thus on the basis of their work. However unions differ from
the guilds on this essential point: The modern unions grew up from the
struggle of the workers--workers in general but especially the industrial
workers--to protect their just rights vis-a-vis the entrepreneurs and the
owners of the means of production. Their task is to defend the existential
interests of workers in all sectors in which their rights are concerned.
The experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are an
indispensable element of social life, especially in modern industrialized
societies. Obviously this does not mean that only industrial workers can
set up associations of this type. Representatives of every profession can
use them to ensure their own rights. Thus there are unions of agricultural
workers and of white-collar workers; there are also employers'
associations. All, as has been said above, are further divided into groups
or subgroups according to particular professional specializations.
96. Catholic social teaching does not hold that unions are no more than
a reflection of the "class" structure of society and that they are a
mouthpiece for a class struggle which inevitably governs social life. They
are indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice, for the just
rights or working people in accordance with their individual professions.
However, this struggle should be seen as a normal endeavor "for" the just
good: In the present case, for the good which corresponds to the needs and
merits of working people associated by profession; but it is not a
struggle "against" others. Even if in controversial questions the struggle
takes on a character of opposition toward others, this is because it aims
at the good of social justice, not for the sake of "struggle" or in order
to eliminate the opponent. It is characteristic of work that it first and
foremost unites people. In this consists its social power: the power to
build a community. In the final analysis, both those who work and those
who manage the means of production or who own them must in some way be
united in this community. In the light of this fundamental structure of
all work--in the light of the fact that, in the final analysis, labor and
capital are indispensable components of the process of production in any
social system--it is clear that even if it is because of their work needs
that people unite to secure their rights, their union remains a
constructive factor of social order and solidarity, and it is impossible
to ignore it.
97. Just efforts to secure the rights of workers who are united by the
same profession should always take into account the limitations imposed by
the general economic situation of the country. Union demands cannot be
turned into a kind of group or class "egoism," although they can and
should also aim at correcting--with a view to the common good of the whole
of society--everything defective in the system of ownership of the means
of production or in the way these are managed. Social and socioeconomic
life is certainly like a system of "connected vessels," and every social
activity directed toward safeguarding the rights of particular groups
should adapt itself to this system .
98. In this sense, union activity undoubtedly enters the held of
politics, understood as prudent concern for the common good. However, the
role of unions is not to "play politics" in the sense that the expression
is commonly understood today. Unions do not have the character of
political parties struggling for power; they should not be subjected to
the decision of political parties or have too close links with them. In
fact, in such a situation they easily lose contact with their specific
role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the framework
of the common good of the whole of society; instead they become an
instrument used for other purposes.
99. Speaking of the protection of the just rights of workers according
to their individual professions, we must of course always keep in mind
that which determines the subjective character of work in each profession,
but at the same time, indeed before all else, we must keep in mind that
which conditions the specific dignity of the subject of the work. The
activity of union organizations opens up many possibilities in this
respect, including their efforts to instruct and educate the workers and
to foster their self education. Praise is due to the work of the schools,
what are known as workers' or people's universities and the training
programs and courses which have developed and are still developing this
field of activity. It is always to be hoped that, thanks to the work of
their unions, workers will not only have more, but above all be more: in
other words that they will realize their humanity more fully in every
respect.
100. One method used by unions in pursuing the just rights of their
members is the strike or work stoppage, as a kind of ultimatum to the
competent bodies, especially the employers. This method is recognized by
Catholic social teaching as legitimate in the proper conditions and within
just limits. In this connection workers should be assured the right to
strike, without being subjected to personal penal sanctions for taking
part in a strike. While admitting that it is a legitimate means, we must
at the same time emphasize that a strike remains, in a sense, an extreme
means. It must not be abused; it must not be abused especially for
"political" purposes. Furthermore, it must never be forgotten that when
essential community services are in question, they must in every case be
ensured, if necessary by means of appropriate legislation. Abuse of the
strike weapon can lead to the paralysis of the whole of socioeconomic
life, and this is contrary to the requirements of the common good of
society, which also corresponds to the properly understood nature of work
itself.
Dignity of Agricultural Work
101. All that has been said thus far on the dignity of work, on the
objective and subjective dimension of human work, can be directly applied
to the question of agricultural work and to the situation of the person
who cultivates the earth by toiling in the fields. This is a vast sector
of work on our planet, a sector not restricted to one or other continent
nor limited to the societies which have already attained a certain level
of development and progress. The world of agriculture, which provides
society with the goods it needs for its daily sustenance, is of
fundamental importance. The conditions of the rural population and of
agricultural work vary from place to place, and the social position of
agricultural workers differs from country to country. This depends not
only on the level of development of agricultural technology but also, and
perhaps more, on the recognition of the just rights of agricultural
workers and, finally, on the level of awareness regarding the social
ethics of work.
102. Agricultural work involves considerable difficulties, including
unremitting and sometimes exhausting physical effort and a lack of
appreciation on the part of society, to the point of making agricultural
people feel that they are social outcasts and of speeding up the
phenomenon of their mass exodus from the countryside to the cities and
unfortunately to still more dehumanizing living conditions. Added to this
are the lack of adequate professional training and of proper equipment,
the spread of a certain individualism and also objectively unjust
situations. In certain developing countries, millions of people are forced
to cultivate the land belonging to others and are exploited by the big
landowners, without any hope of ever being able to gain possession of even
a small piece of land of their own. There is a lack of forms of legal
protection for the agricultural workers themselves and for their families
in case of old age, sickness or unemployment. Long days of hard physical
work are paid miserably. Land which could be cultivated is left abandoned
by the owners. Legal titles to possession of a small portion of land that
someone has personally cultivated for years are disregarded or left
defenseless against the "land hunger" of more powerful individuals or
groups. But even in the economically developed countries, where scientific
research, technological achievements and state policy have brought
agriculture to a very advanced level, the right to work can be infringed
when the farm workers are denied the possibility of sharing in decisions
concerning their services, or when they are denied the right to free
association with a view to their just advancement socially, culturally and
economically.
103. In many situations radical and urgent changes are therefore needed
in order to restore to agriculture--and to rural people--its just value as
the basis for a healthy economy, within the social community's development
as a whole. Thus it is necessary to proclaim and promote the dignity of
work, of |
