Joe, who is shown above - certainly not the leader-type - does not seem to have overly-developed his personality in spite of membership in his particular association. Quite possibly he has gained certain material benefits: increases in pay (which are soon cancelled out by the increases in costs which immediately follow), shorter work hours, paid holidays all of which are certainly blessings, blessings which have been assured as much by the tremendous progress in techniques as through the efforts of his union.
But as far as capacity for initiative, liberty of choice, the power to make decisions, personal responsibility, Joe has no more of these than had the old gray mare of his grandfather. The mare was looked after and wanted for nothing; but it had no say in what its master did with it.
Is this to say that it is not a good thing for the individual to belong to a group, a union or some other organization? Not at all. But membership must be in some other fashion than that which regulates Joe's relationship with his organization. And the Joe's today are legions and legions!
Every individual is gregarious; that is, he has the instinct to associate with others. For each individual has been created in the image of God, of God Who exists in Three Divine Persons, more closely united than any other possible union of individuals.
Man, by his nature, is sociable. Association answers a need which springs from the very deepest part of man's nature.
No individual can choose his family or the country of his birth or the particular civil society (whether it be a primitive tribe or an advanced nation) to which he belongs on coming into this world. However, during the course of his existence, he finds various organizations ready to welcome him into their ranks; he can, if he does not live under an absolute dictatorship, join one of these or aid in forming with others a new organization, in which, with others, he will pursue an end common to them all.
This is the normal end of every association of men: to achieve more easily that totality of benefits, material, cultural or spiritual, which individually and alone they could obtain only with the greatest difficulty or not at all.
The association exists to make more fruitful the efforts of each in directing these efforts together towards a common goal. This does not result from efforts being merely added together; it results from something extra which results from their association. Always, of course, under the condition that such efforts continue to exist. An association made up only of such characters as our friend Joe above would result in nothing. An association which tended to produce nothing but "Joe's" among its members would be better off not existing at all; for then the Joe's would be obliged to struggle along each by himself, but at least they would not lose their personalities, their individuality.
There are too many factors in our modern life which tend to obliterate the personality. The individual is caught in a world which has grown enormously and which is tremendously complex; and he cannot escape from it. It is a world in which vast production is realized, production enough to satisfy all the material wants, yet a production which can lead to a purely materialistic civilization. What is social in life today can lead to the enrichment of the individual, which is by nature sociable, but there exists a strong tendency to over-collectivize, to kill individuality, to take from the individual his sense of personal responsibility.
The last meeting of the Semaine Sociale de France, which took place at Grenoble from July 12-17, 1960, had as its theme precisely the topic, "Socialisation et personne humaine" ("Socialisation and the human person").
The word "socialisation" as used here, does not signify collectivisation or the act of regimentation as under the Socialistic state. It is used to indicate the relationship of the individual with the social order, which relations are multiplied and intensified by the state of conditions in the world today. As Osservatore Romano of July 29, 1960, says:
"The economic, social, political and cultural movement, by which, since the industrial and agricultural revolution, with all the means of transportation and communications, each and every man tends to become the seat of social relations always growing in number and extent, if not in intensity."
The consequence of this development, of the inumerable discoveries whereby the "horizon of the individual is extended to the very boundaries of the world and of history", can be the source of great enrichment for the individual. But by their very dimensions they can also result in the stifling of individuality, if the individual does not know how to retain possession of his liberty, the sense of conscience and responsibility for his acts. It was this idea which was emphasized in a letter written in the name of Pope John XXIII by Cardinal Tardini for the openning of the conference of the Semaine Sociale:
"Socialisation (in the sense explained above) is not a problem of the force of nature working according to a predetermination which is unalterable. It is the work of man, a free being, with a conscience, responsible for his acts. It should be possible to profit, on the one hand, from the advantages which it brings, but, on the other hand, know how to protect the individual from the very grave dangers which an excessive and uncontrolled development can bring to bear upon him."
It is not a question, therefore of discussing the historic determinism, of which the Communists and the leftists are fond of speaking. Rather it is a question of free men, conscious of their acts and responsible for them, orienting themselves so that they will leave their imprint upon the world in which they live. We must avoid individualism on the one hand and collectivism on the other. The tendency is towards the second for individualism leads to the crushing of the weak. But, on the other hand, collectivism leads to the oppression of all by the State.
"Individualism, which leads to the crumbling away of society, is an error even when in the name of personal liberty. Collectivism which leads to the dissolution of the individual in society, is an error even when it is demanded in the name of social justice." (Osservatore Romano)
We would dearly have wished to present the case of Social Credit at the Grenoble conference, for Social Credit fully respects the liberty of the individual to choose with full responsibility for his decisions, while at the same time it demands for the individual his share in the enrichment which flows forth from life in association, from natural resources which are a common good, and from progress which is the heritage of previous generations, a heritage held in common by all.
The vast and complex organizations of modern industry tend to de-personalize the workers who have no other task but to execute the decisions taken by other individuals. In many cases the worker does not even know for whom or for what purpose are the products which he helps to turn out.
The number and size of cities uproot individuals, tearing them from the country and setting them down in the middle of vast cities and multitudes where he does not even know his neighbor. The larger the city the less the individual citizen has to say in the affairs of that city. He is nothing more than a payer of taxes. The election of those who are supposed to administer the city or the country has become little more than a game; the citizen is asked to choose from among men whom he knows not at all, after an electoral campaign which only results in his being more than ever confused rather than enlightened; he casts a ballot which is completely anonymous and in four cases out of five, the individual voting is not in the least competent to make a decision as to the worth of one or other of the candidates!
To counterbalance this trend to de-personalization it is necessary for man to have:
"Groups disposed to receive him, organisations open to him, making him at home, embracing him, helping him, protecting him, according him discipline; which will give him the feeling of belonging, of participating in activity which will bring out in him initiative and responsibility." (Osservatore Romano)
Such conditions are not to be found in political parties where the masses mean nothing more to the politicians than a source of votes.
We do find them in our Institute of Political Action, into which one enters or leaves freely; where each member develops according to his desire, the true sense of responsibility. The individual finds in our Institute a true formation and the means of sharing in the work of shaping the politics of his country by some other means than the counting of anonymous votes once every four years.
In working for his daily bread, the member of the Institute, like others, may find that he is not free to exercise liberty of choice or the power of decision. But, in the evening or on week-ends, he regains his true self, he becomes the shaper of his decisions and acts in the activity of his choice in the work which the Institute lays before him. And he knows the why and wherefore of such work. Not only does he understand its end but he finds in it an immense satisfaction in that he draws from it self-enrichment while at the same time conferring great benefits upon his fellow-men through his apostolate.
For him it is in a large mesure the realisation of Social Credit. It is, in effect, the enrichment of the personality through association. And he endows others with the overflow of this enrichment which neither bankers nor tax collectors can take from him.