Labour has priority over Capital - the Christian understanding of work and significant statements of the encyclical Laborem Exercens

Labour has priority over Capital - the Christian understanding of work and signifi-
cant statements of the encyclical Laborem Exercens
Hubert Tintelott, General Secretary of the International Kolping Society

  “One thing is certain for believers: individual and joint human work, the tremendous endeavour of people over decades to
continually improve their living conditions is, in fact, in accordance with God’s plan. Man, created in the image of God, has
been appointed by Him to master the earth and all it entails, to reign the world in justice and holiness and, by recognizing
God as the creator of everything, orientate himself and society as a whole towards God, so that he has dominion over every-
thing and God’s name be glorified all across the world.”

  These words in the Pastoral Constitution of Vatican II Gaudium et Spes describe the value of human work. This description
of the values of human work and the indication that human work in all its forms corresponds to God’s will is clearly contradic-
tory to the understanding of work, as prevailed in antique times. With its value concepts of work, the classical antique di-
vided people according to the kind of work they did. It was inconceivable that, for instance, a free citizen of Athens would do
heavy physical work. Heavy physical work was left to the slaves, and Athens’ free citizens concerned themselves with phi-
losophy, with science, with statesmanship, with work that would now belong into the area of community work.

  But the example of Jesus himself makes it already clear that, according to the Christian understanding the kind of work be-
ing done – whether heavy physical work or intellectual work – has no bearing on the value and the dignity of the person who
does this work. Probably until he was 30 years old, Jesus himself worked as a carpenter with his father, St. Joseph. As fish-
ermen, the apostles were also used to heavy work, and St. Paul is even proud that he was able to earn his living making tents
and did not have to become a burden to the communities he lived in.

   This remains a first important point, which has to be remembered regarding the Christian understanding of work: The dig-
nity and value of the working individual are independent of the kind of work he or she does.

                                                                                                                              1

Work as participation in God’s creation

  Human work is a characteristic that differentiates the human being from other living beings. It also is not simply an activity,
but the Gospel’s narration of creation already calls on human beings to subdue the earth. Man has therefore been given by
God the very specific task to use the goods of the earth. The encyclical Laborem Exercens points out that this God-given task
also means that, by fulfilling this task, human beings participate in God’s creation, because the expression “subdue the
earth” has an immense range. “It means all the resources that the earth contains and which, through the conscious activity
of man, can be discovered and used for his end” (LE 4).

  Work is therefore not a curse in line with the motto “In the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat” but a task given
to man which brings about a special connection to God and His creation. But this does not mean that work is not associated
with toil and sweat. Even though in many areas very heavy and physical work is done by machinery today, and the literal
meaning of pouring sweat is no longer the characteristic of much of human work, the work done at desks, on monitoring
screens in the factories are also causing stress, conflict, and crises. Thus, work gives dignity to the individual on the one hand
while, at the same time, it is a burden, brings stress, and sometimes even causes suffering and leads to unfair treatment.

  In spite of this potentially negative side, work is not something one can either endure or avoid, but from the Christian un-
derstanding it is also an obligation; and not only in view of St. Paul’s statement that whoever does not work should also not
eat, but rather from the point of view that God has assigned us a task to participate in His creation and that makes work an
obligation for us.

  The statement with regard to the words in Genesis “subdue the earth” also means that, according to the Christian under-
standing, human work is more than just gainful employment but includes work in the family or for the community, which is
now called civic commitment. Thus the model of EFC – employment, family work, and civic commitment - which Kolping
Germany has publicly supported over the past few years is completely in agreement with the Christian understanding of work.

  In the International Kolping Society’s Guidelines for the World of Work and Occupation, the attempt was made to express
the Christian understanding of work on the basis of biblical statements and the texts of the Catholic Social Teachings in a
short and precise form. There it says: “Work is the unfolding of our God-given mental and physical strengths through their
utilization towards a serious and sincere goal. Through their work, human beings participate in God’s plan for creation.
Accordingly, work is much more than just gainful employment.
  In allegiance with the teachings of the Catholic Social Teachings, the Kolping Society bases its endeavours on a three-
dimensional concept of work. Accordingly, work is simultaneously:
  -        opportunity and purpose for the development of the human person,
  -        service to the community and for the common good,
  -        responsible interaction with the Creation”.

  Priority of Labour over Capital

  This Christian view of work, which makes the human being a participant in God’s creative work, makes it clear that the
human being is always the subject of work and therefore the primary basis for the value of work itself. This priority status of
man in the shaping of the world of work was being questioned more and more as industrialization progressed and tools,
machinery, and means of production attained greater importance with regard to the economic success of work. Thus the
objective view of work – the result of work – attained an ever-increasing importance and the significance of the subjective
character of work was continuously forced into the background: “Man is treated as an instrument of production” (LE 7). This
point of view was also the basis for the still enduring conflict between Labour and Capital, which even today crucially influ-
ences the efforts to shape and re-organize the world of work. In the best scenario, today’s debate puts the production factor
“Labour” on an equal status with the production factor “Capital” and is not treated as a mere tool.

  However, with regard to “Capital” within the framework of the economic process, i.e. the tools and machinery, it must be
remembered that this “Capital”, that these tools and machinery can be produced only through the work of human hands and
can also be utilized only through human work. But here appears already the first indication of a crucial problem: From its very
beginning, work entails ownership. Whoever wants to have dominion over natural resources must take ownership of some of

                                                                                                                                 2

these resources. The fisherman who starts making a net from fibres takes possession of one of nature’s plant resources and
produces a tool – a net – a means of production. Or when people discovered that fire could be used to gain metals from
different ores, and that these metals could then be made into tools - that was taking possession of a natural resource, namely
the ore. But all these steps are based on the interaction of human beings with nature’s resources and therefore the riches of
God’s creation. Only the conscious effort of human beings transforms natural resources into working tools and later machin-
ery and computers and robots today. On the basis of these reflections, Pope John Paul II states in his encyclical Laborem
Exercens, that “all these means are the result of the historical heritage of human labour” (LE 12). Everything that makes work
possible, everything that is utilized as means of production in today’s state of technology is, in the last analysis, a fruit of
labour. So if man uses today’s modern means of production from the computer via robot to the fully automatic production
unit, he must first of all take spiritual ownership of the fruit of the labour of those people who have developed, constructed,
and continually perfected these means of production. The human being, his work, his share as subject of work even in the
creating of means of production, is therefore always the starting point. This strongly emphasizes the priority of Labour over
Capital, and the Church therefore stresses the precedence of the human being over things, over Capital. This viewpoint also
makes it clear that there is no real conflict between Labour and Capital. It rather becomes evident that in their work people
at all times come into a two-fold heritage: on the one hand, the interaction of man with the natural resources and their us-
age and, on the other hand, their relationship to everything their predecessors have produced out of these riches of creation.
Labour and Capital therefore permeate each other. Laborem Exercens presents this complete picture that recognizes God, as
the creator of man, as the basis for the understanding of the production process, and it points out that the two opposing
production factors, Labour and Capital, have proven to be in competition with each other with respect to their priority status
only when seen from a purely economic point of view.

  This development of the conflict between Labour and Capital can be seen, on the one hand, in the economic theories that
started at the beginning of the 18th century, but on the other hand, also in the fact that during this period of time the use of
machinery brought about a large increase of material wealth, which led people to lose sight of the objective of all economic
efforts, namely that all wealth - or as expressed in technical terms, all means of the working process - have to serve man.

  Significance and limits of private property

 The conflict between Capital and Labour, which intensified during the 19th century, re-kindled a question which has re-
mained contested in connection with the problem of work, namely the question regarding private property.

   The already mentioned production process - namely individuals taking possession of natural resources and, through the
work of their hands, making them into tools or food items - already raises the question of private property. Who is the owner
of the world’s natural resources, and who owns the products that human hands have made. This basic question became even
more acute at the start of the 19th century, when the owners of the means of production appropriated for themselves an ever-
growing portion of the results of the production process, which led to a situation when the wages for even hard and qualified
work of the people within this production process were no longer enough for a worker to make a living for himself and even
less for his family.

   This development led to the economic opposite, i.e. Communism, which aimed to completely eliminate private property and
instead establish a national ownership, the communal property. The Catholic Social Teachings deal with this problem already
in 1891 in the first Social Encyclical “Rerum Novarum” and, contrary to collectivism, emphasize the right of the individual to
property even with respect to the means of production, since this is in accordance with human dignity, and also opens up
areas of personal freedom and participation and therefore corresponds to his status as a person, who takes responsibility for
his actions. However, as important this statement of the Catholic Social Teachings is and as much as this standpoint can be
suitably used to differentiate against any form of collectivism, one really needs to take into consideration that this declaration
of the Catholic Social Teachings also has a fundamental limitation with respect to private property where means of production
are concerned. The Catholic Social Teachings have always ranked the right to private property lower than the common right of
all people to benefit from the natural resources. The Church therefore speaks about “socialized ownership”, the social obliga-
tion of property. The private owner has to use the property in such a way that it is not detrimental for the community. There-
fore, as an example, the big landowner who leaves part of his land fallow, despite the fact that people in the region go hun-
gry and could and want to cultivate this land, acts against this principle of “socialized ownership”; or whoever owns apart-
ment complexes in the cities and leaves them empty and uses them for speculative purposes only, despite the fact that the

                                                                                                                                3

living quarters are urgently needed, acts against the principle of “socialized ownership”. The Church has also tried to contain
the conflict between Capital and Labour through promoting and demanding, for instance, the workers’ co-ownership of the
means of productions. All forms of capital-building on the part of the worker, profit-sharing, and employee shares, etc. are
the results of that thinking.
   The problem of private property and its assessment regarding the common utilization of the resources continues to be very
relevant. In the world-wide debated and ratified human rights catalogues, i.e. in the fundamental rights guarantees of most
national constitutions, the right to own private property is considered a human right, one which cannot be taken from an
individual. However, according to Christian concept, this human right, which is also recognized by the Church, has as its
counterpart another human right, one which has, from the Christian point of view, a higher priority, namely the right to hu-
man dignity. Where an order of ownership exists, in which, through the use or non-use of their private property, a small
number of people jeopardize the human dignity of many, intervention in this order of ownership and in the private property is
appropriate and necessary. This does happen in many different ways, such as through income and inheritance taxes, the
proceeds of which can then be used to help people whose human dignity is threatened.

  In how far these interventions are appropriate and imperative where human dignity is actually violated through egotistical
and purely exclusive utilization of private property for the benefit of the owner, that is a question that has to be solved, as the
case arises, on a practical, political, and ethical level.

  The right to form associations

   However, the solution to these questions always depends on the balance of power, and especially at the time, when this
question was of particular urgency in the 19th century, it was very clear that Capital, and thereby the groups of society who
owned the means of production, exploited their power to such an extent that broad sections of society were reduced to abso-
lute poverty and depravation, with their human dignity therefore anything but guaranteed. Individually, each worker was too
weak to do anything about this power of those who owned the means of production. It was only when the weak started to
stand together, that something could be done. In connection with the ‘Social Question’, a completely new sense of solidarity
arose among the workers during the 19th century. The associations that came to life from this feeling of solidarity among the
workers were a reaction to the humiliation of people and their exploitation, which shaped the working conditions in Europe
then and still does in many parts of the world today. This exploitation was also helped along through the system of Liberalism
which, according to its monetary principles, exclusively strengthened the economic initiative of the Capitalists and understood
human work merely as means of production, but the Capital as the basis and objective of production (LE 8).
   On the basis of this economic situation, the first Social Encyclical “Rerum Novarum’ explicitly awarded the workers the right
to form associations and even economic measures – such as strikes – as justifiable instruments to achieve more justice and
human dignity. But here, too, the Catholic Social Teachings set a small counter-accent. The legitimate and necessary forming
of associations must not lead to class warfare; the principle of dialogue also applies to these necessary debates. Neither side
has the right to boycott the dialogue and the collaboration with the other. This principle of dialogue is also the decisive basis
of the ILO (International Labour Office), which in its basic understanding works on the premise of the three-party-dialogue,
the dialogue between employers, employees, and government representatives. This principle of a three-party-dialogue makes
it clear that, in the final analysis, these disputes in the work world must always focus on the fostering of the common good.

  The role and significance of unions

  An important part of the associations representing workers’ rights and interests are the trade unions. They have a consid-
erable share in finding solutions to many social problems in the industrialized nations, for instance, providing protection
against everyday risks through social insurances, fair wages, working conditions in keeping with human dignity, etc.

  However, as commendable as the efforts of the trade unions were in the past and still are today, several problems in the
work done by the unions need to be recognized. Even demands made by the unions can reflect a group or class egotism and
thereby be in contradiction with the common good and the welfare of all working people. This applies above all when occu-
pational groups, which are relatively small but have a key role in the production process, attempt unilaterally to push through
their demands, for example air traffic controllers, airline pilots, and Germany’s railway engineers just a short time ago. But
this applies above all to the unilateral representation of working people to the detriment of those who are unemployed. This
problem is particularly grave in the countries where more than 50% of working people belong to the so-called “informal

                                                                                                                                  4

sector” and thereby are outside the normal reach of the trade unions. It is precisely in these situations that the trade unions
should look after the interests of all working people which, in turn, gives rise to yet another problem, since the trade unions
depend on the dues of their members, who expect get to something for their dues and for the solidarity substantiated by their
paying these dues. Of great interest, particularly in this area, is the collaboration between trade unions and self-help organi-
zations working for non-union workers or those who are yet to be unionized.
   The encyclical Laborem Exercens (LE 20) rightfully allocates to the trade unions the task to complement the protection of
the workers’ justified demands with measures in the area of training and instruction. It is precisely a wide-range program of
training and instruction that will raise the dignity of the marginalized workers.

   The trade unions are currently facing completely new challenges that are caused by the growing globalization. The econ-
omy is ever-more organized internationally and can be controlled less and less through national regulations or through tariff
contracts ratified on the national level. It rather evades these regulations by moving into countries with weak unions and low
social standards. This practice of the economy is not only to be criticized but it should be countered with the development of
an opposing force. This attempt is actually made by the ILO through corresponding agreements, such us against exploitative
child work, against forced labour, for the right to form associations, etc., but the implementations and enforcement of these
agreements leaves a lot to be desired. It seems that this could be achieved only through a collaboration of large parts of the
civic society – the Churches – and the trade unions.

  Joint responsibility for a fairer work world

  Just looking at the role and functions of the trade unions makes it clear that in our globalized world it is necessary to take
the whole world into consideration in the attempts to create a more just world of work. If in former times the Social Question
focussed on the problem of class, today the world is at the centre of the problem.

   Considering the international economy is not the only thing that makes it clear that many forces are participating in the
shaping of just relationships in the field of labour. What is involved here is not merely the dispute between trade unions and
associations of employers, but the framework for the shaping of the economy is being determined by many forces. In this
context, the encyclical Laborem Exercens talks about “indirect employers” (LE 17). This means elements that influence, along
with the direct employers, the shaping of working conditions, such as the state, Chambers of Commerce, social insurances,
consumer associations, human rights organization, political institutions, such as the European Union, the World Bank, the
World Health Organization, etc. Since particularly in a globalized world, with an economy that is operating world-wide with
rapidly shifting capital flows, these ‘indirect employers’ become ever-more important for the shaping of a just world of work,
the Church with her Catholic Social Teachings and the Christian organizations which take directions from these Teachings
must come to terms with this new situation. For example, the International Kolping Society, as an organization with consulta-
tive status at the ILO, has to increase its presence there and help to implement the ratified regulations for more social justice,
for an improvement and enforcement of workers’ rights, and for the overcoming of unemployment and exploitation.

   While the encyclical Laborem Exercens can provide very important stimuli for the value of work and the path to more jus-
tice, it requires a sequel. Since the publication of this encyclical in 1981, the world of work has changed radically. The mere
term “globalization” was not in use at that time and the problems in the work world generated by it were mostly unknown.
The problem of the growing gap of income between people both in the national states as well as world-wide is also a new
challenge. And the problem of the so-called ‘share holder values’ and with it the priority of Capital over all other interests in
the world of work, be they those of employees, location, the national states, etc., also requires new answers with regard to
socialized ownership.

  The Catholic Social Teachings as well as the Kolping Society as a Catholic social movement have to come to terms with
these questions. This requires fundamental educational work in the National Kolping Societies. Kolping has to familiarize its
members with the basic principles of the Christian concept of work and also help to work towards practical solutions for solv-
ing these problems.

                                                                                                                                5