Editorial: Catholic Social Principles at Work (1942)

Editorial from the September 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Catholic Church claims that it has a special interest in the welfare of the workers and that its social doctrines are superior to those of other bodies, religious and political. It seems reasonable, if this is indeed true and if the doctrines are both practicable and intended to be applied, to expect that the predominantly Catholic countries would be better places for the workers to live in than other countries. The actual condition of affairs in these countries does not support the view that there is any superiority. Portugal may be taken as an illustration The regime there is described by the Statesman’s Year-Book as a “Dictatorship on a corporate basis,” and it is further stated that “the predominant faith is the Roman Catholic”. There is a Legislative Assembly elected by direct vote of the electors, but, on a convenient plan known in a number of totalitarian countries, “in practice the candidates are exclusively those put forward by the Government party” (“Whitaker’s Almanack,” 1942, p. 923). The Government is solely responsible to the President and not to the Assembly. There is also a “Corporate Chamber,” consisting of representatives of local authorities, industrial, commercial bodies and corporations of employers and employed, which is allowed to pass opinion on all bills introduced in the Legislature.

This corporative state is viewed with approval in Catholic circles as the following statement in the “Catholic Herald,” in a comment on the Irish Trades Union Congress, will show : —

“The Trades Union Congress, meeting in Sligo, discussed, but did not adopt, nor yet reject, a resolution submitted by the Belfast representatives, “pledging irreconcilable opposition to Fascism.” A Dublin delegate (not a Catholic) said that there was “a school of moderate Fascism of the Portugal variety which had gained some credence among certain sections”—meaning, perhaps, among nearly all Catholics, since Portugal’s example is admired by clergy and laity alike, though we do not consider it Fascism. (“Catholic Herald,” July 31st, 1942.)

From the ordinary standpoint of capitalist finance the Portuguese State is in a flourishing condition. The Lisbon correspondent of the “Economist” (July 25th, 1942), reporting the very successful loan just raised by the Government, amounting to £3 million, says : —

“Never in the long history of Portugal has the country been so thoroughly solvent. . . . No one can say just how post-war conditions for finance and trade will open when peace does come, but that Portugal will be in an exceptionally favourable situation, created largely by its own financial and commercial integrity, is reasonably certain.”

Now let us see how the workers fare at the hands of Prime Minister Dr. Salazar and at the hands of the capitalists in this corporative State. Recently the workers’ “syndicates” conferred with Dr. Salazar in order to ask for redress of their many grievances. They had drawn attention

“To increasing hardship, the lack of social justice, and the sabotage of the corporative doctrine. They asserted that most employers’ associations had no notion of their duty, but worked for their own selfish interests.” (“Times,” July 25th, 1942.)

The “Times” Lisbon correspondent goes on as follows : —

“Among 4,000,000 workers, it was said, only a few thousands were included in collective contracts or schemes for the relief of the aged and infirm—a state of affairs largely due to the inability of the employers to recognise their responsibilities. Some concerns were making huge profits, which did not help the commonwealth. The cost of living had risen by 44 per cent, without an equivalent rise in salaries.”

It will be noticed that the workers’ complaints are of just the same kind as in other parts of the capitalist world. How then did Dr. Salazar deal with the complaints? The “Times” correspondent tells us: —

“Dr. Salazar, in reply, disclosed that the Portuguese Government intended, first, to attempt to develop the corporative conscience; second, to organise a revision of salaries; third, to permit of increased working hours to compensate for an increase in wages in cases where that could not be done by better industrial organisation; and, fourth, to organise family allowances, although on a small scale to start with. He admitted that most wages were low, but said that to raise them would also increase the cost of production.

He emphasised the benefits of Portuguese economic organisation—internal, social, and economic development and public tranquility. Wages had increased on the whole except during the last few years, when the economic policy had been to oppose further rises pending the new organisation at present under discussion. The weaknesses of present position, he pointed out, were largely due to selfishness which was common to the employer and employee, and it was here that the State must exercise control. People must bear the burden and effect of the war, and the only solution at present was to work more to gain more.”

It is not necessary to comment at length on this cynical reception of their demands. The workers are already suffering from a long existing rise in the cost of living are told they must wait, pending the development of the corporative conscience. They are told that they and the employers are alike selfish; but it will not be overlooked that the concerns “making huge Profits.” whether “selfish” or not, did not have to wait, even when the workers get their promised rise, some at least of them will have to work longer hours for it.

It will also be noticed that the capitalist is never at a loss for an excuse for refusing workers’ demands. If Portugal were at war the excuse would be the war and the need to make sacrifices for it. As Portugal is not at war then the excuse is still the same, and when world peace arrives the excuse will doubtless be the need to make sacrifices for peace, or for armaments for some possible future war, or to capture foreign markets.

Corporative Portugal, admired by Catholic clergy and laity, demonstrates once again that the more capitalism is changed the more it is the same thing, wherever and under whatever religion it operates.