The Longest Economics Textbook

The Longest Economics Textbook - Inside The Vatican 6/2/24, 8:12 pm
The Longest Economics Textbook

Deborah
The longest economics textbook ever written is

a five-volume work in German by a Jesuit priest
named Heinrich Pesch. It contains 3,969 pages
as it appeared in its final edition. Published in
several editions between 1905 and 1926 by the
distinguished Herder publishing house in Frei-
burg, Germany, it is entitled Lehrbuch der
Nationalökonomie, which translates literally as A
Teaching Guide to Economics. Its author was
born on September 17, 1854, virtually in the
shadow of the great Gothic cathedral in
Fr. Heinrich Pesch Cologne, Germany. Pesch died in a residence
for aging and infirm Jesuits located in
Valkenburg, Holland, on April 1, 1926. His grave is unmarked. In 1945,
when the Nazi SS troops evacuated the Jesuit property which they had
seized and occupied early in World War II, they bulldozed all of the graves
at the site.
One reason why the Lehrbuch is largely unknown in the English-speaking

world is the fact that it was not translated into the English language until
recently. The translation, entitled Lehrbuch der
Nationalökonomie/Teaching Guide to Economics, was done by the writer
of this article after he retired from teaching in 1985. It was published in a
10-book format between 2002 and 2003 by the Edwin Mellen Press of
Lewiston, New York (USA).
The question which deserves to be addressed at the outset is why anyone

would want to devote the countless hours and inestimable energy
required to translate into English an obscure, lengthy German work for
https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/culture/the-longest-economics-textbook/ Page 1 of 16
which the last publication date was 1926. First of all, I was made aware
early in my university years that essential elements of Pesch’s solidaristic
economic system became a part of the Catholic Church’s social
teachings. They included the principle of occupational organization, the
principle of subsidiarity, and the twin social virtues of social justice and
social charity. This was accomplished largely through two Jesuit
understudies of Heinrich Pesch, Oswald von Nell-Breuning (1890-1991)
and Gustav Gundlach (1892-1963). They were the principal aides to Pope
Pius XI in the drafting of his landmark 1931 social encyclical
Quadragesimo Anno (Reconstructing the Social Order). Many years later
Blessed John Paul II devoted a significant portion of his encyclical
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) to explaining the meaning and importance
of solidarity in Catholic social teachings, declaring it to be “undoubtedly a
Christian virtue” (40). Then, in Centesimus Annus (1991), the third of his
great trilogy of social encyclicals, he identified what he now referred to as
the principle of solidarity with the virtue of social charity (C.A. 10) that
Pius XI had presented, along with social justice, as the “lofty and noble
principles” required to restore social order (Q.A. 88).
Beyond that important connection, the

Lehrbuch is an exceptionally expansive
work containing substantial portions of the
economic knowledge accumulated since
the science began to take on some
semblance of systematic structure from the
18th century onward. The late Professor
Franz H. Mueller of St. Thomas University in
St. Paul, Minnesota (1900-1994), who as a
young student came to know Pesch
personally in Berlin, referred to it as a
“Summa Oeconomia.” Pope Pius XI
At least equally important, the Lehrbuch happens to be one of very few
works in economics that proposes a form of economic system. Its author

referred to that as the solidaristic system of human work, or solidarism.
This places Heinrich Pesch in a select league with Adam Smith (Wealth of
Nations, 1776), and Karl Marx (Communist Manifesto, 1848, and Das
Kapital, 1867). With regard to Marx, it is worth noting that Pesch was in
the somewhat unique position where he could evaluate Marxist theory
before it emerged as a historical reality, as well as after its actual
installation under Lenin. The first volume of the Lehrbuch, containing a
critique of Marxian socialism, was published in 1905. In the subsequent
1924 edition of that first volume, Pesch was already able to judge key
elements of the socialist system as it had been established in Russia by
the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
Also noteworthy are certain parallels in the paths traveled by Heinrich

Pesch, a Jesuit priest who was the son of a German tailor, and Karl Marx,
an atheist who stemmed from a Jewish rabbinical family in Trier, Germany.
Both began their academic studies at the University of Bonn where each
at first pursued legal studies. Subsequently, Marx studied philosophy and
history at the University of Berlin, then at Jena where he earned his
doctorate. Pesch too, after his ordination as a priest and some already
significant scholarly activity, began three years of economics studies at
the University of Berlin at the age of 47. Prior to that, during the years of
Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, there were laws banning Jesuits from Germany.
Therefore, from 1885 until 1890, Pesch went into exile for his theological
studies near Liverpool, the industrial heart of England. Marx, after being
exiled from continental Europe for his revolutionary activities successively
from Germany, from Belgium, and from Paris, also took refuge in England
where he then published the first volume of Das Kapital. Thus, both the
revolutionary and the Jesuit had the opportunity to observe first-hand the
wretched conditions of the English working class where industrial
capitalism was in an advanced stage.
The experience prompted Pesch to request from his superiors that he be
assigned the mission of working toward improving the lot of the working
class. The appearance in 1891 of Leo XIII’s labor encyclical, Rerum
Novarum, contributed to that decision.
The third economic system-builder, Adam

Smith (1723-1790) of Scotland, is widely
regarded as having provided the social
philosophy for liberal or free market
capitalism, with its reliance for guidance
on each individual’s self-interest, or what
he termed “an invisible hand.” Smith dealt
a lethal blow to any sense of personal
responsibility toward the common good
by his cynical statement: “I have never
known much good done by those who
Adam Smith affected to trade for the public good.” He
assumed that in this important matter the
optimum common good would result automatically if each person were
left to strive for his own individual good without regard for the general
welfare.
Early in its social teachings, the Catholic Church placed great emphasis
on the requirement that each individual contribute to the common good.
In 1961, Pope John XXIII, now Blessed John XXIII, rendered a timely
service to the social teachings of his Church by defining the common
good as “…the sum total of social living whereby men are enabled more
fully and more readily to achieve their own perfection” (Mater et Magistra
65).
In other words, the common good is far greater than the sum total of what
individuals acting by and for themselves could possibly accomplish.
Pesch had cited the importance of the practice of the virtues of social
justice and social charity for the realization of the common good in
economic life (II, 1, 295-308). Marx

(1818-1883), on the other hand, had
advocated a radical disbanding of the
capitalist class which he perceived as
ruthlessly exploiting the working class.
That was based on his labor theory of
value according to which all value on the
market is the result of labor. Yet labor is
paid only its subsistence, while all the
surplus value is appropriated by the
capitalists. Therefore a dictatorship of
the proletariat will arise and righteously Karl Marx
overthrow the capitalist order, and
eventually a classless society will take its place.
Mainly on the basis of his influential work, General Theory of Employment,

Interest and Money (1936), some would undoubtedly rank the British
economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) among the economic
system-builders. No one should doubt his influence on economic policy
as well as on the theoretical formulations of the science during the Great
Depression and afterwards. Nevertheless, by his own admission, Keynes
did not intend to usher in a new form of economic system. In his essay,
The End of Laissez Faire (1926), he wrote: “For my part, I think that
Capitalism, wisely managed, can probably be made more efficient for
attaining economic ends than any alternative system yet in sight…”
Capitalism, understood as the overall societal predominance of those who

own and control capital, actually emerged before the free market era
during what is known as the mercantilistic era. That was characterized by
significant government influence in economic life in order to acquire gold
and silver by, among other things, assuring a positive balance of trade for
one’s national economy. Keynes’ proposals could actually be perceived as
a reversion to capitalism in its earlier, “wisely managed,” pre-free market
form. In any case, it did not take long, after massive government deficit-
spending during World War II put a definite end to the Great Depression,
before the free market forces re-emerged triumphantly. Eventually their
mischief worked its way, once again by means of the greed-inspired
antics of bankers, to bring about the virtual collapse of capitalism in what
is now being called the Great Recession.
The Jesuit Pesch opposed the capitalist system

as well as the Marxian scheme. Like both Smith
and Marx, he concurred that the wealth of
nations stems in the first instance from the work
of human beings – labor being the original active
factor of production. That is why he referred to
the system which he was proposing as the
solidaristic system of human work. That, aside
from his immense disheveled beard, is mainly
what Pesch had in common with Karl Marx.
He did not agree with Marx that all value on the

A poster encouraging citizens
market is due to labor, or that private ownership
to trust and invest in their
country’s economic system of the material factors of production was to be
(much like similar efforts
today). abolished and taken over by the state. Instead of
antagonism and conflict between the classes, he
stressed the immanent solidarity among human beings as is evident from
their inherent interdependence at all levels of society. That ranges from
the family, to the workshop and the various occupational groupings to
which people belong, up to the level of the nation, and beyond to the
community of nations. Based on that principle of solidarity, individual self-
interest needs to be subordinated to the common good and not left to
result from the action of something like Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” Nor
is the state to be entrusted with the impossible task of being the
administrator of all productive property.
With regard to that aspect of Pesch’s commentary on socialism, the Jesuit

waxed prophetic. In the first edition of his Lehrbuch (1909) he wrote:
“While we do not assert the impossibility of a socialistic order, one thing is
certain: the communistic society cannot last long, not only because it
presents the central administration with super-human demands, while
sacrificing freedom in the process, but because it cannot possibly do
justice to the distribution of goods in a manner that accords with the
varieties of work performed, and as will satisfy the various workers”(II, p.
198). That was written eight years before the Bolshevik Revolution in
Russia!
A Soviet Union poster from the 1930s in praise of the social benefits brought to Russia by
socialism.
Marx never used the word capitalism. It was not yet a time for isms. He
employed the terms capital, capitalists, and capitalistic. Pesch, on the
other hand, not only used the term capitalism; he, in fact, gave a definition
of it that was both concise and precise. In his fourth volume we find: “…in
general: capitalism is the dominion over the national economy by the
acquisitive interests of those who own capital” (IV, 2, 158). That avoids the
frequent simplistic confusion of capitalism with mere private ownership of
the means of production, the free market economy, etc.
Nor was the Jesuit any more sympathetic to capitalism than Karl Marx! In
an earlier volume of his Lehrbuch Pesch

wrote: “The capitalistic system of free
enterprise was able to propel production to a
high level, but it was not capable of
distributing the product throughout all of
society in a manner which would bring about
the material well-being of a nation. It not only
robbed a man of his dignity, but all too often
also of the price of his efforts. Unrestrained
competition ended up in monopolization.
Speculation shaped the market and
determined the price structure. Excessive One from 1957 which criticizes
capitalism for leaving the poor
profits took the place of the fair return to
without even basic necessities, like
labor. Even someone who rejects the Marxian milk.
concepts of value and surplus value will have
to recognize how dangerous is the capitalistic and speculative
appropriation of surplus value, which bears no relationship to any real
services rendered to society. It is simply not possible for an entire nation
to go on working indefinitely for the well-being of a handful of capitalist
magnates and speculators” (II, 1, 252).
Pesch also pointed out that capitalism “controls the press, the sciences,
the arts, the schools,” and that such control over the general culture
“undermined individual as well as social morality, devastated family life,
contaminated social intercourse, and divided people and nations into
hostile armed camps…”
Now the Lehrbuch purports to be, first of all, not a tirade against
capitalism, but a description of what an economic system is all about, and
what it is supposed to accomplish. In the process of presenting an
exposition of the principles, processes, and institutions that define
economic life, the Jesuit economist also established the components,
including the underlying social philosophy (solidarism), for the economic
system which he termed the solidaristic system of human work. He

juxtaposed that to the two economic systems: individualistic capitalism
stemming to an important degree from the thinking of Adam Smith
(followed by figures like David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill), and
collectivistic socialism as envisioned by Karl Marx.
From its very first page, the Lehrbuch establishes that it is unlike any other
economics textbook ever written.
Pesch opens with the heading: “Man as the Lord of the World According
to God’s Ordinance.” That made him the first and only architect of an
economic system where God matters. Since his position derived in the
first instance from the Bible, and since he was a Jesuit priest, he was
before long accused by some of his peers of “theologizing” economics. In
the Foreword of subsequent editions of the second volume, Pesch
remonstrated against the charge by noting that “economics has always
been under the sway of one or the other Weltanschauung.” At first and for
a long time “…it was the materialistic-Enlightenment point of view which
had a decisive influence on bourgeois and socialistic economics.” He
added, “And those too, in our own time, who do not want to hear about a
normative science are for the most part under the influence of a
positivistic, naturalistic, world-view.” In what some in our time would reject
as an unecumenical posture, the Jesuit was quite blunt in expressing what
was his own Catholic Christian world-view. For example: “I openly and
unreservedly acknowledge my conviction that the grave conditions which
today afflict nations stem from the de-Christianization of economic life,
and that a remedy is to be expected only if the Christian world-view will
again become predominant in the lives of people, nations, and specifically,
also in economic life. Only then, if solidarity in the Christian sense again
applies, can we expect that the universal idea of a community of workers
will become a salubrious, practical possibility which adequately meets
both individual and social needs, and that the antagonisms among people
which have prevailed until now will be replaced by cooperation for and
with one another among individuals, classes, and nations” (II, 1, iii).
Pesch went on to establish “Man as the Lord of the World Within the
Framework of Society,” again in accordance with Genesis. The
precautionary admonition that “the world will always be God’s property”
could be seen as an early warning about environmental responsibility:
“Herein lies the reason why man is never and nowhere the absolute lord,”
and also “…why his dominion over this earth never and nowhere exists
without its corresponding obligation” (I, 2, p. 21). That appeared first in
the Lehrbuch in 1905, long before environmental concern took on the
importance that it occupies in contemporary society. It also runs counter
to the notion that the right of private ownership of property generally, or of
the means of production specifically, is absolute as it came to be regarded
in the world of individualistic capitalism.
There is much that is original and refreshing throughout Pesch’s

systematic presentation of how the national economy should operate. It
reflects, among other things, the solid training in philosophy and theology
which Jesuits received in that era. For example, Pesch departed from the
standard textbook presentation of three primary factors of production,
“land, labor and capital,” as if they were somehow on a par with each
other. He referred to them as man (German, Mensch; Latin, homo), nature,
and capital, in that order.
While he addressed the position of man and his dominion over nature at
the very beginning of the first volume, the meaning of the non-original
factor, capital, was dealt with much later, in the fourth volume (IV, 1, 353-
360). There Pesch, using the language of Aristotelian-Thomistic
metaphysics, refers to capital as a causa efficiens instrumentalis of
production, as opposed to “all human intellectual and physical labor
power and work” – the factor which is a causa efficiens principalis. He
termed it a “devastating thing that the ‘independence’ of capital during
the period of free enterprise capitalism, elevated capital so that it was on
a par with the original factors of production.” He went on to state:

“Inasmuch as the work of those who carry out instructions was gradually
deprived of its status as work by the free-wheeling power of those who
owned capital and who directly or indirectly took over the management of
production, so that such work was degraded to being a quasi-
instrumental cause in the production process and at the same time to a
commodity that was for sale, we opened up the door to the source from
which the misery and plight of their workers and ultimately their revolt
would stem” (IV, 1, 359).
The economic crisis of our time brings into question for many their hopes for a secure
economic future.
In this analysis of causes as applied to the factors of production, there is a

remarkable concordance with what Blessed John Paul II wrote in the first
of his trilogy of social encyclicals, Laborem Exercens. Referring to “a
principle that has always been taught by the Church: the principle of the
priority of labor over capital,” the Polish Pope stated that “labor is always
the primary efficient cause, while capital, the whole collection of means of
production, remains a mere instrument or instrumental cause” (52). That

important distinction subsequently established the foundation for Pesch’s
just wage principle, i.e., “…that what ethics determines as being the just
wage is, at the same time, the economically correct wage” (Vol.V, 2, 78). It
also corresponds with what John Paul II wrote about the just wage in
Laborem Exercens: “… 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” (89).
The concordance between Pesch’s solidarist economics and the Pope
John Paul trilogy of social encyclicals suggests that frequent reference to
him as the Pope of Solidarity is based not merely, or even mainly, on the
brief historical interlude involving his support for the Polish labor union,
Solidarity.
Pesch’s analysis of causes also led to his juxtaposition of the three

principles around which contrasting economic systems were shaped:
individualism with emphasis on Adam Smith’s liberalism; collectivism
based on Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism; and solidarism based on the
principle of solidarity as introduced by Pesch early in the first volume of
his Lehrbuch. “When we speak of solidarity with regard to social life, we
have in mind in a most general sense, first of all, social interdependence,
the actual mutual dependence on one another” ( I,1, 36).
With the principle of solidarity as his foundation, Pesch went on to outline

specifically his solidaristic economic system in Volume II, Book I, of the
Lehrbuch. It is there that we find the various concepts and principles
which would surface soon afterwards in papal social encyclicals starting
with Quadragesimo Anno in 1931. These included specifically the virtues,
social justice and social charity, which were established there by Pope
Pius XI as the “lofty and noble principles” necessary for restoring social
order (88). Perhaps because of the loose manner in which the term social
justice came to be used, the virtue of social justice was defined by that
Pope in his 1937 encyclical Divini Redemptoris (On Atheistic
Communism): “It is of the very essence of social justice to demand from

each individual all that is necessary for the common good” (51).
It was not until 60 years later in Centesimus Annus that Pope John Paul II
identified social charity as “what we nowadays call the principle of
solidarity…”(10). And that principle of solidarity, as cited above, was first
clearly presented near the beginning of the first edition of the first volume
of the Lehrbuch.
The principle of occupational organization (Q.A. 82-87) is also Pesch’s

organizational principle for his solidaristic system. According to it, people
are not to organize simply on opposing sides of the labor market like
warring parties. Instead, all who work in a particular craft, industry or
occupation should eventually organize according to craft, industry or
occupation for the common good of that group, always in accordance with
the good of society overall. There has been some shifting in terminology,
and variations in expressing the Latin term ordines. One translation has
tried to capture the essence with the term “functional groups” and also
“vocational groups.” In Mater et Magistra, Blessed John XXIII used the
term “intermediary bodies” (65). After his successor, Pope Paul VI, used
the term “intermediate groups” (33) in Populorum Progressio, that
appears to have become the established term for the present. Pius XI
represented the concept as natural. “For as nature induces those who
dwell in close proximity to unite into municipalities, so those who practice
the same trade or profession, economic or otherwise, constitute as it were
fellowships or bodies” (Q.A. 83).
The origin of that notion as expressed here is Peschian. Pesch introduced

the notion of occupational solidarity in the first volume of his Lehrbuch.
There he alluded to “Solidarity Among Colleagues at the Occupational
Level and in Vocational Groups” (I, 2, 222). It appeared there as the fourth
variety of solidarity in the overall pattern starting with “the universal
solidarity of the entire human race.” It is integral to his solidaristic system,
among other reasons, because he considered it essential for the proper

functioning of yet another principle that was integral to his solidaristic
system: the principle of subsidiarity.
The principle of subsidiarity, which established the position of the state in

the economy, first appeared with that specific name in Quadragesimo
Anno (80). However, the nature and purpose of the state was already
presented clearly and concisely by Pesch in the Lehrbuch (I, 1, 207 ff.).
There we find: “According to the simple and clear teaching of Christian
philosophy, the state must provide the kinds of advantages that they have
attained, but which they cannot achieve by their own powers, by the
capacities of their families or other social bodies of narrower scope.” (The
actual German word, subsidiär, in the relevant sense is used by Pesch in
that part of the discussion, p. 218.)
Thus it is clear that the state is neither to control all aspects of the
economy as under socialism, nor to absent itself from social control as in
liberal capitalism. That important aspect of the Peschian proposal for a
solidaristic system of economy appeared in the first edition of the first
volume of the Lehrbuch in 1905.
Finally, the all-important just wage principle in

its basic form was already established by
Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum in 1891.
Pesch therefore could already build on it and
incorporate it as an essential feature of his
solidaristic system of human work, as could
his understudies who were involved in
developing the Pius XI encyclical
Quadragesimo Anno. Although the doctrine
was cited and reaffirmed by all pontiffs who
followed and presented social encyclicals up
to the most recent one by Pope Benedict XVI Blessed John Paul II, Pope from
1978-2005.
(Caritas in Veritate 63), it was in

Quadragesimo Anno (63-76) that the just wage doctrine received its
fullest development in the Catholic Church’s social teachings.
Blessed John Paul II subsequently put the highest emphasis on the just
wage in the first of his great trilogy of social encyclicals—his own labor
encyclical, Laborem Exercens: “…a just wage is the concrete means of
verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system…” (LE, 89).
Commemorating, as it did, the 90th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, it
turned out to be his own “labor encyclical” and it is in remarkable
concordance with Pesch’s solidarist economics. One has only to read
those words in Laborem Exercens alongside what Pesch wrote in his
Lehrbuch about wages in 1923: “…an unbiased approach to this problem
will show that what ethics determines as being the just wage is, at the
same time, the economically correct wage” (V, 2, 78).
In conclusion, no one who is familiar with the

development of the economic science
should resent the intrusion of a Catholic
priest into the august circle of the “dismal
science.” Long before the Jesuit Pesch
joined their ranks with the longest economics
text ever written, there was the dour
Anglican curate, Thomas Robert Malthus
(1766-1834). His brief essay with its lengthy
title, the Essay on the Principle of Population
as It Affects the Further Improvement of
British philosopher Thomas R. Society, appeared in 1798. The theme that
Malthus (1766-1834). there is a persistent tendency for population
growth to outstrip food supply established a widespread fear which
persists until now. It appears to resurface whenever there is starvation for
whatever reason anywhere in the world. Marx dismissed Malthus’ notion
cynically as providing a convenient excuse for what is really the
exploitation of workers by capital as is endemic to capitalism. Pesch

replied to the pessimistic schema with a proposition that seems perhaps
more appropriate for a clergyman: “Thus we may say: where care has
been taken to safeguard the quality of a nation’s people, generally there
will be no need for concern about their quantity” (II, 2, 193)! His treatment
of the matter in 1909 suggests that Pesch was closer to the pulse of the
matter than Malthus with his alleged clash between the “geometric
growth” of population vs. the “arithmetic growth” rate of the food supply.
That holds also for the Jesuit’s proposal that greater population
density itself provides greater incentive for people to improve their
productivity than would be the case where population is sparse. That
proposition, incidentally, has been supported by recent population/food
supply experts like the British economist Colin Clark (1905-1989) who
had access to far more hard statistical data than were available in Malthus’
time. Unfortunately, the bleak Malthusian scenario provided the pretext for
the Victorian historian, Thomas Carlyle, to designate economics, perhaps
forever, as the “dismal science.
Dr. Rupert J. Ederer is a retired professor of the State University College

at Buffalo, New York, USA.

The Longest Economics Textbook - Inside The Vatican

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Longest Economics Textbook - Inside The Vatican

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Longest Economics Textbook - Inside The Vatican 6/2/24, 8:12 pm

The longest economics textbook ever written is

One reason why the Lehrbuch is largely unknown in the English-speaking

The question which deserves to be addressed at the outset is why anyone

Beyond that important connection, the

At least equally important, the Lehrbuch happens to be one of very few

works in economics that proposes a form of economic system. Its author

Also noteworthy are certain parallels in the paths traveled by Heinrich

The experience prompted Pesch to request from his superiors that he be

The third economic system-builder, Adam

economic life (II, 1, 295-308). Marx

Mainly on the basis of his influential work, General Theory of Employment,

Capitalism, understood as the overall societal predominance of those who

The Jesuit Pesch opposed the capitalist system

He did not agree with Marx that all value on the

With regard to that aspect of Pesch’s commentary on socialism, the Jesuit

an earlier volume of his Lehrbuch Pesch

system which he termed the solidaristic system of human work. He

There is much that is original and refreshing throughout Pesch’s

a par with the original factors of production.” He went on to state:

In this analysis of causes as applied to the factors of production, there is a

production, remains a mere instrument or instrumental cause” (52). That

Pesch’s analysis of causes also led to his juxtaposition of the three

With the principle of solidarity as his foundation, Pesch went on to outline

Communism): “It is of the very essence of social justice to demand from

The principle of occupational organization (Q.A. 82-87) is also Pesch’s

The origin of that notion as expressed here is Peschian. Pesch introduced

among other reasons, because he considered it essential for the proper

The principle of subsidiarity, which established the position of the state in

Finally, the all-important just wage principle in

(Caritas in Veritate 63), it was in

In conclusion, no one who is familiar with the

exploitation of workers by capital as is endemic to capitalism. Pesch

Dr. Rupert J. Ederer is a retired professor of the State University College

You might also like