The Priority of Labor: A Commentary on Laborem Exercens

Introduction

Gregory Baum

(1982)

Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Laborem exercens, has lifted Catholic social teaching to a new height. The first Polish Pope in history, a citizen of the second world, brings to his task a special sensitivity and his own political experience. In the critical treatment of industrial society and its present crises he constantly looks in two directions—toward the communist countries of Eastern Europe and toward the capitalist societies of the West. In his encyclical he wants to find principles of social justice applicable to Eastern and Western societies and at the same time relevant to the third world. This is a daring undertaking. We shall see that while the encyclical remains in continuity with the Church’s social teaching, it introduces new ideas, derived from a critical and creative dialogue with Marxism, which allow the author to reread the Catholic tradition in a new light and raise the Church’s social message to an unprecedented height. We shall see throughout this commentary that Pope John Paul II permits himself to be impressed by certain Marxist insights. Yet in the discussion of these insights he opens them up, overcomes their rigidity, expands them toward new meaning, and thus produces a social philosophy that transcends Marxism from within.

This turn to a dialogue with Marxism comes as no surprise. The Polish Church has long been engaged in a struggle for freedom against the communist government identified with a determinist, atheistic version of Marxism. Among Polish Catholics there were two distinct approaches to Marxism, one which repudiated Marxism altogether and wanted nothing to do with it, and the other which was open to dialogue, appreciated certain positive elements, and tried to overcome the errors of Marxism with arguments drawn from Christian personalism [1]. Karol Wojtyla, the present Pope, formerly Archbishop of Cracow, was close to this second group. What is this Christian personalism? It is an approach to man in society, derived to a large extent from the French Catholic thinker, Emmanuel Mounier, founder of the review Esprit, which was critical both of capitalist individualism and Marxist collectivism. Against the individualists, personalism argued that the person was essentially social: a person came to be through collaboration with others. And against the Marxists, personalism argued that even in the joint effort to build society, people remained persons, subjects, bearers of an inner life of transcendent value. Especially after World War II, Emmanuel Mounier advocated a form of socialism, built on the social ownership of the industries, which recognized the inwardness and freedom of people not just as a concession to individualism but as an essential dimension of the joint socialist project. The personalism of Esprit was influential among a group of Polish Catholics. They wanted to correct and enrich Marxism with the help of personalist insights. This group was vehemently opposed by the intellectual circles close to the Polish government; it was also criticized by conservative Catholics, some of them in high places, who preferred the total repudiation of Marxism. Karol Wojtyla protected the personalist group.

Karol Wojtyla took this approach to the Chair of St. Peter. His early publications as Pope John Paul II revealed his critical opinion of Marxist thought. While the Pope repudiated the authoritarianism, the atheism and the bureaucratic rigidity of the communist countries, he was quite willing to draw upon socialist arguments to criticize the capitalist society of the West. In one place the Pope argued that the present capitalist system no longer sufficed to provide the world’s population with the basic requirements of existence; what was needed was a carefully planned economy, one based on the cooperation of the nations [2]. In another place the Pope argued that workers in modern industrialized society have been “alienated” from the fruit of their labor: they have no share in the ownership of their products nor are they entitled to participate in the policy-making of their industries [3]. This line of thought drawn from Marx’s writings is given a central position in the present encyclical. On several occasions the Pope has severely criticized “the consumerism” of modern Western society. This word refers to the importance assigned in capitalism to commodities, to the comforts of life and the standard of living: capitalism creates a consciousness that evaluates human life in terms of private material satisfactions. A century earlier Marx had referred to this as “commodity fetishism.” Marx had then argued that this form of materialism was inherent in capitalist production. It is no great surprise, therefore, that in the present encyclical Pope John Paul II engages in a critical and creative dialogue with Marxist thought.

The immediate occasion for writing the present encyclical was the ninetieth anniversary of Rerum novarum, Pope Leo XIII’s social encyclical of 1891, the starting point for what is usually known as “papal social teaching.” Drawing upon the social thought of progressive Catholic movements in the nineteenth century, often referred to as social Catholicism, Pope Leo XIII initiated a social philosophy that was open to the modern world, criticized secularization and economic injustices, and provided guidelines for the political involvements of Catholics in society. Subsequent Popes have developed this social teaching. To commemorate the fortieth anniversary of Rerum novarum, Pius XI published the encyclical Quadragesimo anno (1931) dealing with the economic crisis of the depression. Forty years later, Paul VI commemorated the anniversary with a special letter Octogesima adveniens (1971) addressed to Cardinal Roy, then president of the Vatican Secretariat for Justice and Peace, in which the Pope dealt with the social conditions of the time. This letter recognized the changes going on in the third world after the end of the colonial era and for the first time acknowledged socialism as a rational option for Catholics. This was new. Octogesima adveniens warned Catholics against forms of socialism committed to a total world view such as Marxism, but remained open to forms of socialism that were pluralistic and left room for the religious dimension. Since Laborem exercens places itself in the context created by Octogesimo adveniens, it is important to recall at this point the evolution of the Church’s teaching on socialism [4].

For Leo XIII socialism was an atheistic and materialistic doctrine at odds with Christian faith. The Pope was also critical of capitalism, especially the laissez-faire capitalism of this day, because it had divided society into two classes, owners of industry and workers, and inflicted upon the workers inhuman conditions of life. Leo XIII thought that a strong government dedicated to the protection of the common good should contain and steer the economy of the nation, encourage the unionization of labor, and make laws to protect workers from exploitation. Pope Pius XI, writing during the great depression, offered a more extended critique of the capitalism of his day, which by that time had become largely dominated by trusts and monopolies. Capital, the Pope argued in his encyclical, has become concentrated in the hands of a small elite, so powerful that it controls the flow of money, fixes prices and rates of interest, and exercises a power over the economy that prevents national governments from protecting the well-being of their people. According to Pius XI, monopoly capitalism generates ever greater economic empires and leads to conflict between nations and eventually destructive war. He spoke of the new imperialism of money [5]. At the same time, Pius XI did not wholly condemn the capitalist system. He still believed that strong governments dedicated to the promotion of the common good could control the economy by adequate legislation, tame and restrain the capitalist system, protect workers and the poor by appropriate laws, and thus assume responsibility for the well-being of their people. Pius XI, moreover, endorsed the condemnation of socialism. He specified that his condemnation referred to the revolutionary socialism of Russia as well as the democratic socialism of the Western European socialist parties. The Pope recognized that the social policies of democratic socialism resembled the social policies advocated by Catholic reformists, yet he argued that socialism in any of its forms bears within it the seed of atheism and class war and hence remains dangerous even in its moderate, democratic form. Socialism in any of its forms was out of bounds for Catholics. It was only in the pontificate of John XXIII, especially in his encyclical Pacem in terris, that papal teaching took a more open approach to the socialist tradition [6]. Under appropriate historical circumstances, John XXIII argued, socialism evolves beyond its materialist and atheist errors and becomes for Catholics a significant partner in dialogue. In 1971, Paul VI repeated this argument [7]. In fact, Paul VI went further by acknowledging that there were indeed forms of socialism which were appropriate for Catholic participation [8].

In the following commentary on Laborem exercens I wish to clarify the encyclical’s social teaching and situate it in the contemporary debate over social theory. The focus of the encyclical, as the title suggests, is on human labor. Man is defined as worker. Man creates his own history through labor. Man is the subject of labor, and through his labor is meant to become more fully subject of his world. Man’s self-constitution through labor is a moral task. The Christian recognizes that God is graciously present to this task. From these reflections the encyclical draws a number of moral principles. The central one of these, summing up the Pope’s central message, is the priority of labor over capital. Capital is meant to serve labor, which means serve the workers in the industry, the expansion of the industry and the entire laboring society. The violation of this principle in Western capitalism and in Eastern collectivism is the source of oppression and misery in society. The workers’ struggle for justice must aim at a social system in which the priority of labor over capital is observed. This happens only through the introduction of the co-ownership of labor on the one hand, and of a responsibly planned economy on the other. The struggle for justice, carried on by the exploited joined in solidarity, must be supported by those who love justice, which includes the entire Church. Only through such a struggle will justice come into society. The encyclical examines the role of technology in human labor. It also shows that family life, national identity and religion serve man laboring in becoming fully the subject of his history. At the end of my commentary, I try to clarify precisely what kind of socialism Laborem exercens recommends.

One more word before we start. Since the encyclical constantly speaks of man, of his labor and his destiny without indicating that “man” is used generically and that “his” always includes “her,” the papal message may have a slightly alienating effect at least on North American readers. However, in some contexts, and I believe in this one, it is important to retain the term “man”’ as a generic reference. Yet when this is done it is equally important for the reader to recall that “man” is always to be understood as referring to both men and women in the text and also in the commentary.

Let us now turn to the encyclical. At first Pope John Paul II tries to clarify the historical situation in which he addresses himself to Catholics and all people willing to listen. What is taking place at this time is not simply an economic crisis and the decline of culture; there are also new, positive developments that offer a challenge to human society. The Pope thinks that we are ‘“‘on the eve of new developments in technological, economic and political conditions” (n.1) that will influence the world of work and production no less than did the industrial revolution of the last century. We are experiencing the beginning of a second industrial revolution, based on new forms of advanced technology. Some writers have labeled this, misleadingly it seems to me, as “post-industrial society.”” How does the encyclical describe the present turning point? It speaks first of the introduction of automation and computer control in the sphere of industry and organization; then it mentions the increasing costs of energy and raw materials, the acknowledgement of the limits of nature and the discovery that wide sections of this nature have already been polluted; and finally it recognizes the emergence on the political scene of peoples who have previously been subjugated and who now demand their rightful place among the nations. These radical changes will demand a profound reorganization of the economy. The immediate consequences of this may be unemployment for millions of workers. The encyclical foresees that these changes will lead to a slowdown or even regression of the industrial development of Western nations, including the United States and Canada, accompanied by a decline of wealth and standard of living; at the same time, the same changes could allow millions of people, until now condemned to shameful and unworthy poverty, to gain access to greater economic development (n.1). This is the picture of the present situation, including decline and recovery.

What wisdom does the Church have to offer to people at this juncture of their economic history? The encyclical argues that it is not the Church’s task to engage in the scientific task of analyzing the present trends and examining the possible consequences; at the same time, since social and economic change involves people, the Church has always held that it must address itself to these issues. It is the Church’s task as guardian of man’s dignity to examine the historical conditions of human life from the viewpoint of social justice (n.1).

Notes
[1] Cf. John Hellman, “John Paul II and the Personalist Movement,” Cross Currents, 30 (Winter 1980-81) 409-419.
[2] In his first encyclical, Redemptor hominis, n. 15, Pope John Paul II advocated a planned economy. For an analysis see G. Baum, “A Pope from the Second World,” The Ecumenist, 18 (Jan.—Feb. 1980), p. 25.
[3] Cf. Pope John Paul II’s address to the United Nations (1979), n. 18.
[4] For the papal teaching on socialism see G. Baum, Catholics and Canadian Socialism, Paulist Press, New York, 1980, pp. 71-96.
[5] Quadragesimo anno, n. 109. See Baum, op. cit., p. 81.
[6] Pacem in terris, n. 159. See Baum, op. cit., p. 88.
[7] Octogesima adveniens, n. 30. See Baum, op. cit., p. 88.
[8] lbid., n. 31.