Nuosavybės samprata XX a. pradžios lietuvių katalikų sociologų darbuose
ENLithuanian Catholic sociologists applied a Christian value attitude on the ideas of natural freedom, non - interference of the state into private affairs propagated by economic liberalism. They recognised the importance of private ownership and personal initiative in creating the country's welfare. However, they understood this freedom as the responsibility of an individual to the society and other individuals, but not as the freedom to manifest one's egoism, which can only be curbed by an invisible omnipotent hand of the market. In this case, an individual is left alone against the employer reserving the most important right - to employ individuals for an established payment. However, alongside with the rights, there are also obligations neglected by the liberals. The obligation to take care of one's brethren is imposed by the ownership itself. Whereas the right to ownership is conferred on an individual by God, the supreme owner of all assets. He is the sole proprietor of all the belongings while the individual is only a temporary manager thereof. For the sake of the society property may be expropriated. Thus, ownership is not absolute, all the more - not a privilege of any kind. It should be connected with serving the society and one's brethren, also with obligations to be performed with respect to workers. These obligations arise from the Christian conception of ownership. Lithuanian Catholic sociologists adhered to the Christian attitude of labour. An individual serves as the initial basis of labour evaluation. Liberals and socialists emphasized the objective value of labour which is, from the Christian standpoint, of secondary importance. Therefore they spoke about labour in terms of manpower as a commodity. By the assertion of Lithuanian Catholic sociologists, workers right to work is a natural right, and not a grace granted by an employer. Whereas employers cannot do without employees, in this respect they are partners.Therefore a worker must receive not only the settled payment but also part of the profit. But there were differences in opinions as to who should have a prerogative of doing this. Some authors (K. Paltarokas, K. Šaulys) considered that an employer mušt distribute part of this profit at his own choice and good will. Other authors (S. Šultė, following G.Sorel and A.de Mun) asserted that this mušt be fixed by a corresponding agreement. Promoting the working people as social partners, the Catholics appeased both the liberals defending all-powerful employers' rights without any obligations and socialists glorifying the all-powerful state, which enslaves the society. Catholics recognised that the society is in fact divided into ranks and strata. But belonging to any rank (class) is only a display of an individual's social existence; while before God all the individuals are equal. On the other hand, social status of an individual is not a privilege. Belonging to a class is not eternal, fatal, but depends upon personal features, capabilities and efforts of an individual. The duty of the state is to ensure real possibilities to each person to rise gradually on the social ladder according his/her work and abilities, independently from the initial living conditions. In this manner the Catholics destroyed the myth cherished by the socialists declaring that the workers are doomed and the class struggle is inevitable. By emphasising the necessity of an effective public use of property, Christian obligations of the rich to the society and their brethren Catholics encouraged the society to look for social consensus and the workers - to exhibit more independence in de fending their lawful economic requirements, not taking the advice from the outside, to practice positive creation and not struggle as the only possible way of salvation, propagated by the socialists. [From the publication]
