WAGE SYSTEM, REGIME. – It is the social regime characterized by the predominance, in the world of labor, of the wage form of remuneration over other contractual forms, and thus of the condition of wage-earner among workers (v. WAGE). In contrast to the few entrepreneurs and capitalists who respectively organize and finance labor and share in its profits, and to the few technical and administrative managers who hold sufficiently stable positions commensurate with performance, there exists in this regime a multitude of material executors of labor, remunerated by time or by piece, without job security.
I. CRISIS OF THE WAGE SYSTEM
Such a regime, being precarious, is morally unsatisfactory for the worker, who, as his professional training and social awareness increase, feels the affront of remaining excluded from the life of the enterprise to which he contributes an ever-growing measure of intelligence, diligence, and initiative. More than from economic hardship—immediately felt and easily expressed—the wage system is thus marked by a deep spiritual malaise, less precisely perceived and more difficult to articulate. It is for this reason that the social question assumes a virulence or erupts in vindictive forms that are not generally proportionate to the declared economic causes—insufficient wages or the like. The dissatisfaction of even the best-paid workers stems precisely from the impossibility of satisfying spiritual needs through purely economic means, and above all from the lack of security for the future. Entrepreneurs and capitalists, in the century of materialism and economic liberalism, failed to foresee or comprehend the rapid maturation of these needs and thus allowed the levers of social progress to slip from their grasp (v. PROGRESS). The workers, for their part, by heeding political agitators—products of the same century—were mistaken in framing the issue on a single-track revolutionary path that stiffened the employing class in its defense and multiplied its reasons for resistance. Hence some ask whether the agitations of a century have hastened or retarded the evolution of relations among the elements of production: enterprise, capital, and labor. Certainly the problem was posed in too radical a manner, aiming at reforms of the internal structure of enterprises that cannot succeed if carried out in an overheated atmosphere of struggle; and in any case, such reforms cannot be realized to the same degree or according to a uniform model for all the most varied types and sizes of enterprise, for all situations, and for all countries.This intrinsic difficulty has in fact acted as a brake on the adoption of reforms now universally desired. The threat of imposing them through union or political action—always lacking in objectivity or tainted by demagoguery—has needlessly alarmed the employing class, which, though largely convinced of the desirability and expediency of reforms, is equally convinced of their danger if carried out by force and not accompanied by other economic measures capable of ensuring tranquil and normal conditions for industry and agriculture and of making productive labor and commerce less difficult and risky.
The professional and moral maturity of workers must also be gradually raised to the level of their new tasks and responsibilities.
II. TOWARD NEW SOLUTIONS
Faced with the threat of an authoritarian and therefore crude solution, and with the insidious, now current, politico-unionist solutions that go by the name of co-management—whereby new structures would be born tainted by hatred and error—there arises the need for prompt, voluntary, intelligent initiative on the part of individual entrepreneurs, within the limits of the real possibilities offered by each enterprise. Different forms and degrees of collaboration, association, and co-ownership seem capable of coexisting, much as the progress of transport methods has allowed all forms—from the most ancient to the most modern—to coexist, with appropriate selection of labor.The deadlock can and must be overcome, and in Italy and abroad there are already not a few examples of such courageous corporate initiatives. Christian spirit and solidarity among entrepreneurs constitute the best disposition for such work: the success of the “Union internationale des patrons catholiques” (UNIAPAC) (v.) proves this, its purpose being precisely the study, encouragement, and realization of such initiatives. The evolution of the wage system toward the above-mentioned forms has in fact been presented as a conflict between capital and labor, that is, between capitalists and workers, forgetting the preeminent figure and social function of the entrepreneur (v.): it is he, as the one who calls capital and labor to collaborate with his idea and initiative, who has the privilege of preserving or restoring harmony between the two factors through harmony between each of them and the enterprise to which they contribute. If the figure of the entrepreneur has often been confused with that of the capitalist, this is perhaps due to the abuse of joint-stock companies, in which those who supply capital are also co-owners of the enterprise but do not exercise its functions. Social justice is realized by placing the three factors of production on an equal footing, without privileges, distributing profit proportionally to merit. This proportion, however, is not constant, either with respect to the various types of industry or over time: for the entrepreneur and capitalist, for example, it is generally greatest in the initial period of the enterprise, when risks and uncertainties reach their highest level, but it can also be high for the most solid enterprises in certain political, economic, and social contingencies. Just as the entrepreneur can free himself from surplus labor, so should he be able to free himself from capital that has become too costly in the phase of normal and secure life of the enterprise, replacing it with cheaper capital.
III. FORMS OF THE WAGE SYSTEM
As for the forms toward which the wage system is evolving, the principal ones may be mentioned. Continuous wages, mixed wages, and incentive pay can still be improved and organized to the point of giving rise to small quasi-autonomous enterprises within the main enterprise; profit-sharing (v. PARTICIPATIONISM), worker shareholding, and varying degrees of worker (including white-collar) collaboration in management, decentralization and autonomy of departments or services, and the manifold types of participation contracts and associations, of redemption and co-ownership—whether of the product or of the means of production—offer a very wide range of possibilities. To these must be addedthe emphyteusis (v.) and sharecropping (v.) in the agricultural field; all forms that have sporadically always existed and that, even in the era of integral capitalism, have permitted and still permit notable upward mobility from the condition of wage-earner to independent positions as small, medium, or even large entrepreneurs, merchants, traders, and landowners.
Cooperative forms, where compatible with the productive process, always constitute a fertile field open to workers aiming at independent and responsible labor: better professional selection and more effective credit organization would undoubtedly allow for much wider development, especially in the fields of craftsmanship, small industry, commerce, and transport.
IV. MARXIST AND CATHOLIC APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM
The dynamic Marxist position on the evolution of the social question (r. s.) is well known: the illusion that the abundance of private ownership of the means of production and its transfer to the State in the name of workers will prevent their exploitation in terms of wages, and will make them feel true owners of enterprises, is the main obstacle to a relaxation of relations among the different factors of production, as well as to an objective examination of the situation and its problems. Moreover, Marxist ideology, while envisaging the dictatorship of the proletariat, does not at all contemplate the abolition or transformation of the social question (r. s.), and in practice rejects any form of association between enterprise, capital, and labor, or of participation in industrial profits.The error in approach and method lies in this: that while historical and environmental circumstances linked to a certain stage of economic civilization have produced or allowed the establishment of structures and institutions, today one pretends to change such structures and institutions without concern for transforming the economic environment that has determined them—an environment essentially tied to technical progress in production, transport, communications, exchange, credit, and currency, as well as to morality and the degree of cultural maturity. If these general problems, and the specific economic problems of value measurement, safeguarding savings, capital mobility, rational financing of enterprises, and the improvement of stock exchanges and markets, are not addressed and resolved (by economic or moral means, not political), any new social structure will find itself having to struggle against the same difficulties that afflict the old structures.
The Catholic Church, declaring that the social question (r. s.) is not in itself contrary to justice and morality, has always favored its natural evolution, hastening it through social works and study conferences (v. SETTIMANE SOCIALI) according to the formula: "All owners!" instead of the other that would have all protected. And this has been the case since the common interpretation of the principles of the French Revolution did not allow workers to organize and act in defense of their interests (v. SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH).
In 1889 the Catholic University of Fribourg was founded, which soon became the center of Christian social studies. After two international Catholic congresses on social works (Liège 1887 and 1890), the activities promoted, the aspirations cultivated, and the studies matured, together with the suggestions of G. Toniolo (v.) Manning (v.) GIBBONS, JAMES (v.) of Baltimore, found concrete expression and sovereign sanction in the encyclical *Rerum Novarum* (v.) of Leo XIII (1891), from which date a worldwide movement of workers’ rebirth inspired by the true integral needs of a better human and Christian life.
In the congresses held in those same years, the need was projected to steer the social question (r. s.) toward new forms, and proposals were made for family wages, profit-sharing, and workers’ stock ownership (Congress of Milan, 1894), giving vigorous life to the cooperative movement.
Today, the evolution of the social question (r. s.) toward new forms can be accelerated and refined, not only by real economic progress, but also by intelligent social initiatives on the part of entrepreneurs, by professional education, and by moderation on the part of workers, and finally by the seriousness of intent of both.