The possibility of state ownership of any industry is considered anath- ema by capitalist thinkers. The state, they argue, has no incentive because it has no personal stake in the industry; therefore its products will be of low quality and its prices high, the bugaboo which settles every question in capitalist thinking. However, the Church does not hold such a simplistic view of state ownership, and recognizes that some factors might make the slight reduction in efficiency which state ownership may induce more than worthwhile.
When discussing socialism, Pius XI unequivocally condemns the idea that all forms of property should be reserved to the state. However, he never condemns the idea that no form of property should be reserved to the state. The principle of subsidiarity153 governs here as in all cases:
when the task is so large that no private individual can fittingly perform it, a higher level of society must do so. Sometimes, however, a given task is too large to be entrusted to any private entity. Therefore, Pius argues, it can only be done by the state:
it is rightly contended that certain forms of property must be reserved to the State, since they carry with them an opportunity of domination too great to be left to private individuals without injury to the community at large.154
The state must own certain industries, then, or else the domination of the performer of that task will be too great. The state, however, already dominates its subject and directs all activities to the common good; the danger is lesser than that of a private individual gaining too much power over his fellows.
152See supra, Section 2.1.3, at 54. 153See supra, Section 2.1.3, at 54. 154Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, p. 55.
The industries in which this is true, of course, must necessarily be very limited. Even industries such as automobiles, steel, and other large-scale heavy industries can be effectively operated by means of cooperatives of workers rather than by a myriad of workers laboring on the property of another.155 However, a few are so obvious and so
important that they deserve to be mentioned specifically.
First, of course, is medicine, an industry so large and so vital in our world that it should certainly not be left to the caprice of pri- vate individuals. Arguably, of course, medicine, like education, ought to be run by the institution which historically always has run it, the Church. However, until these dark days of the Church have ended and the heirarchy is capable of making the massive effort to take over the provision of medical services, the state would do well to agregate to it- self this large and important industry. Remember always, however, the principle of subsidiarity; in America, for example, it would be better if the states, rather than the federal government, operated the medical system. Even better, for those that are able, would be counties and cities. It is clear, however, that the good which the medical system serves is common to all, and that the domination which is entailed by private control of that system is so great, that it ought to be controlled by some publicly responsible entity.
Also worthy of mention could be mass transit, at least that between different areas,156 and electrical power systems. Both are enormous
industries; both are impossible to run with even large-scale local enter- prises. It would be much better, then, for the state to run them until and unless some smaller organization becomes equipped to do so. The rapid miniturization of technology may well lead to reactors and power sources which can be operated on a smaller scale; until such time, how- ever, nuclear power stations and similar devices contain such a massive 155The former situation would, by the principle of subsidiarity, be preferable to
the latter. Experiments in this mode of running an industry which have failed should not be taken too seriously, since they failed in an environment in which all competing industries were operating on a more exploitative model, which admit- tedly yields greater profit margins and which does not keep competition within an industry to reasonable limits. If all factories of a given industry were so operated, this problem would not arise, and cooperatives would have no difficulty producing the needed items. While capitalists may scoff at such a notion, there is no evidence to suggest that it is not entirely true.
public benefit as well as massive public risk that entrusting them to pri- vate entities is simply irresponsible. More may be mentioned; perhaps even fewer need actually be run by the state. Fewer, of course, would be better. But it is contrary to Catholic teaching and right philosophy to dismiss the possibility altogether. Catholic distrust of the modern state is well warranted and should be maintained; however, it should not prevent Catholics from making reasonable and informed decisions about the necessity, or lack thereof, of state ownership.