Social Policy and resolution of the social conflicts in Spanish Conservative Political Philosophy of the 19th Century

Podolskiy Vadim Andreevich PhD in Politics Researcher; Department of History of Political Philosophy; Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences 109240, Russia, Moscow, Goncharnaya str., 12 p. 1 deomniscibili@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. Social issue and social conflict.

The relevance of this research lies in the analysis of the relationship between social conflicts and social policy. Social policy expenditures in modern states, both in Russia, the European Union and the United States, currently account for about a third of GDP and usually account for most of the budget expenditures. The aging of the population and the decline in the birth rate simultaneously lead to an increase in social spending and make it difficult to increase it due to a decrease in the proportion of the working population. Reducing social spending is considered politically unacceptable, as it leads to an increase in social tension. Limiting the role of government redistribution in social policy has been discussed in recent decades by representatives of neoconservatism, a movement that emerged in the United States and Britain in the 1970s as a reaction to the rapid growth of social spending. Representatives of this movement called for a reduction in social spending, since, contrary to expectations, their increase in the 1950s and 1960s did not lead to a decrease in the number and severity of social conflicts ^{[23, p. 381]}.

Neoconservatism and distrust of large-scale government intervention have also spread in continental Europe and influenced a number of decisions in the field of social policy. In Spain, Manuel Fraga Iribarne (1922-2012), a politician, publicist and the most famous Spanish conservative of the late 20th century, was a proponent of limited state participation in the economy in the 1980s. Fraga Iribarne tried to promote Spain's smooth transition to democracy and wrote a number of works on political philosophy, including a history of conservative thought in Spain, to justify the new political system. He relied on the ideas of Carl Schmitt when he proposed to direct existing conflicts into a peaceful course through a competitive party system ^[21], as well as on the experience of historian and politician Antonio Canovas del Castillo (1828-1897), who created a two-party system in Spain at the end of the 19th century ^{[1, p. 105]}.

Lewis Kozer, one of the key theorists of conflictology, developed the ideas of Georg Simmel and Edward Ross on the structure of society and conflicts in his book The Functions of Social Conflicts (1956). Kozer came to the conclusion that the coexistence of multiple group identities and interests related to economic and religious affiliation provides protection from the disintegration of society, since the split between two economic groups can be offset by their solidarity on a religious issue and vice versa ^{[17, p. 78-79]}. When a society is split on the same basis – for example, into rich and poor – conflict between groups can threaten its existence. Spanish conservatives believed that the neutralization of threats to society related to the "social issue" as a conflict between employees and employers was possible due to the unifying and reconciling influence of religion. Many of them also believed that the State should promote social stability by setting rules for social policy. According to Ralf Dahrendorff, after the political inequality of status was eliminated in the 19th and 20th centuries, the "attenuation" of social conflict occurred due to a developed social policy that supports the purchasing power of all citizens ^{[5, p. 59]}.

Research on the topic. Methodology.

Social policy in Spanish conservatism was mainly studied by authors from Spain ^[19],[22]. In English-language literature, legitimism in 19th-century Spanish conservatism and the political philosophy of Donoso Cortez are usually studied ^[6]. In Russian science, research on Spanish conservatism is mainly represented by the works of Yu.V. Vasilenko from the Higher School of Economics, both on the current state of conservative political philosophy in Spain ^[1] and on the views of past authors – Balmes ^[2], Donoso Cortez ^[3], Bravo Murillo ^[4].

To analyze the attitude of Spanish conservatives towards social policy as a means of resolving social conflicts, their perception of the structure of society, attitudes towards inequality, property, the origin of power, the role of religion and charity, and state redistribution are studied. The history of the formation of social policy in Spain is briefly considered both to indicate the context in which conservatives developed their proposals, and to reflect the influence of conservative political philosophy on social policy.

The development of social policy in Spain before the 20th century.

In Spain, as in other European countries, legislation in the social sphere developed on the basis of religious charity established in the Middle Ages. The process of transferring social protection functions from religious organizations to municipalities, common to Europe, was accelerated in Spain in the XV-XVI centuries due to the example of Muslims, in which charitable institutions were managed by secular authorities and charity received targeted funding ^{[30, p. 19-20]}.

The second feature of Spain, which distinguished the country from most European countries before the 19th century, was the active participation of the central government in the organization of charity. In the XV-XVI centuries, on the initiative of the kings of Spain, as well as the local Cortes, the process of uniting small charitable institutions into large hospitals began. Hospitals turned from orphanages into specialized medical institutions, many of which still exist today ^{[7, p. 163-164]}. Councils were responsible for the functioning of the combined institutions, which usually included representatives of the church and the wealthiest citizens. Sometimes members of the councils were appointed by the monarch ^{[27, p. 181]}.

One of the first theorists of secular social policy in Europe was the Spanish-born philosopher Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540), who developed a municipal social protection program while living in Bruges. A similar program was adopted in Ypres, and then in a number of other neighboring cities in Flemish, which was then under Spanish control. The experience of Northern European cities and competition with Protestants led to the fact that in 1531, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, Charles V Habsburg, issued an edict according to which the municipal authorities had to organize fundraising to help the poor ^{[30, p. 14-15]}.

In the 18th century, the ideas of enlightenment thinkers became popular in Spain, who criticized charity, believing that it harms progress, promotes idleness and perpetuates poverty. Educators linked giving to rising crime and defiance of the authorities. Restrictions were imposed on the collection of alms, because it was believed that the ability to collect alms for the poor leads to the fact that they refuse to work. In the 18th century, many practices that had existed since the Middle Ages were also abolished: charity chests, which collected grain so that those in need could sow it, dowry fees for orphaned girls, and food distribution at the gates of palaces and monasteries. Religious worship of the poor was disappearing. Restrictions were imposed on hospitals that arose on the Santiago pilgrimage route in northern Spain in the Middle Ages, based on the fact that hospitals did not provide effective medical care ^{[15, p. 114-115]}.

One of the manifestations of the popularity of Enlightenment ideas was the reforms of the Spanish Finance Minister, the Marquis of Escilache in the 1760s, aimed at replacing traditional Spanish clothing with French, which was considered more modern. The population responded with a riot, as the demand for a change of clothes coincided with a rapid increase in bread prices. To appease the population, the cities of Extremadura began to lease municipal land to those in need, and the practice gradually spread throughout the country ^{[25, p. 34-37]}. At the same time, the Jesuits were expelled from the country, and at the end of the century, the state appropriated the property of the order, as well as a number of other religious organizations, which significantly affected higher education, mainly organized by the Jesuits ^{[26, p. 24]}.

From the beginning of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, Spain was constantly experiencing political upheavals, during which the new authorities reversed the decisions of their predecessors, many articulated initiatives in the field of social policy remained unrealized, but the general course towards expanding social programs remained. The Cadiz Constitution of 1812 proclaimed the right to public education, health care and social protection ^{[28, p. 15]}.

In the middle of the 19th century, mutual aid societies began to appear in Spain, aimed at supporting the elderly, the disabled, and widows. These societies were supported by the church, and in Catalonia they were provided with subsidies from the state. In 1853, these societies were integrated into the municipal social protection system ^{[28, p. 15-16]}. Secularization of the property of religious organizations and restrictions on their activities by the state led to the fact that they continued to lose income and disappear, and the role of state charity increased. In 1855, a law was passed on the confiscation of church property. The seizure of property of fraternities, orders, churches, and charitable organizations was so large-scale that the sale of state-owned property was carried out for several decades, until the beginning of the 20th century. According to the law of 1856, some of the resources were allocated to municipalities for social support ^{[20, p. 43-48]}.

In the 1880s and 1890s, state commissions studied the situation of workers and peasants and formulated a number of proposals to create social insurance mechanisms in imitation of the German model ^{[28, p. 17]}. But the measures actually implemented in Spain already in the 20th century combined Italian and Belgian experience. In these countries, social support for workers was provided by enterprises that received government subsidies for this. Until the end of the 20th century, social policy in Spain – pensions, unemployment benefits, and healthcare – developed on the basis of corporate programs ^{[16, p. 25-30]} with minimal government involvement. Social policy was based on the ideas of solidarity and Catholic ethics. The Church was the coordinator of social programs ^{[28, pp. 29-37]}.

The attitude of Chaime Balmes to social policy.

Social Catholicism in the 19th century was a reaction to the deteriorating situation of workers during the Industrial Revolution. Many Catholics argued with the prevailing laissez-faire ideology at the beginning of the 19th century for both religious and socio-political reasons. The religious component, in turn, was associated with three prerequisites. Firstly, if, from the point of view of classical political economy, alms harmed the labor market, since it hindered the mobility and motivation of the workforce, then from the point of view of Catholicism, alms was the fulfillment of a religious duty. Secondly, supporters of the abolition of medieval rules in the economy often opposed church property. Thirdly, many of the supporters of changing the old order and abolishing class privileges were hostile to the church in principle. The protection of order and property was the main subject of conservative political philosophy. Conservatives proceeded from the fact that society is characterized by inequality, and opposed egalitarian doctrines and projects of social change. Material inequality was a reflection of natural and acquired differences in people's abilities and the relevance of their functions. Spanish conservatives believed that material inequality could be smoothed out not through redistribution, but only by the unifying influence of religion.

Priest and publicist Jaime Balmes (1810-1848) was the most prominent representative of social Catholicism in Spain. His main work, "Comparing Protestantism and Catholicism in their Influence on the Civilization of Europe" (1845), was largely written as a response to Francois Guizot's "General History of Civilization in Europe" (1828), in which Guizot spoke about the role of Protestantism in the development of civilization. Balmes believed that the monopolization of public charity by the state in Protestant countries had damaged the spirit of charity in Europe. Charity was not only a means of fulfilling the demands of religion, but also a way to achieve harmony in society. If the institutions created by the Catholic Church had not been destroyed, as under Henry VIII in England, then, Balmes believed, the problem of poverty in Europe would not have become so serious ^{[31, p. 51]}.

Balmes' arguments partly repeated the ideas of Rene Chateaubriand, expressed by him in The Genius of Christianity (1802). Like Chateaubriand, Balmes wrote that the ancient world did not know organized aid to the poor before Christianity. Slavery and infanticide were used to solve social problems in ancient times. There was no charity as a way to help those in need, and compassion was unknown to society. When Christian charity spread throughout the world, people's needs were met more often and more effectively than before.

Jesus Christ gave the commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself and confirmed his teaching by example. He fed the hungry and visited the sick. Christ, Balmes notes, could manifest his power and confirm his divinity with the help of miraculous movements of the stars or changes in the laws of nature, but he performed such miracles, thanks to which the unfortunate received comfort and the sick received healing. The Savior's earthly life is described in a phrase from the Acts of the Holy Apostles (10:38)–"He went about doing good."

Christian charity tried to help children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor who could not support themselves with their work. Christians created institutions, extensive systems, so that as few issues as possible were decided at the discretion of individuals. Authority preserves the unity and constancy of faith, and the rule of trusting all institutions ensures the strength and duration of all its affairs.

The spread of charitable organizations in Europe was associated with the activity of the Catholic Church. According to Balmes, if we consider Protestantism as a separate church, then we can see its fruitlessness, since wherever Protestantism has preserved a hierarchical organization, it acts as an instrument of secular authorities. Therefore, Protestantism cannot act on its own. Protestantism denies religious organizations, which makes it lose the most important means available to Catholicism for carrying out the most laborious tasks related to charity. In order to do works of charity, freedom from worldly attachments and selfishness is required. To the greatest extent, such qualities are characteristic of those people who are engaged in charity work in religious institutions.

The Catholic Church took care of those in need, not because it was pushed to do so by secular authorities, but because it saw this as its important duty. Since the Middle Ages, there have been laws and decrees of cathedrals that referred hospitals to the sphere of competence of bishops, determined the position of churches, institutions for the support of the poor, prescribed the creation of hospitals and protected their property, mentioned donations from monarchs for the maintenance of hospitals. Anyone who violated the rules related to the functioning of hospitals was accused of murdering the poor. Lists of those in need were compiled in order to regulate the distribution of part of the funds at the disposal of the church. Archdeacons or rectors of churches visited prisoners on Sundays. The deacons had to learn about the needs of the prisoners and provide them with food through an intermediary, who was appointed on the recommendation of the bishop.

Balmes was convinced that if European civilization had continued to develop under the conditions of a single religion, if Europe had not been shaken by constant cycles of revolutions and reactions due to the Reformation, then a common and large-scale system of charity would have been formed in the Catholic Church. This system would respond to the changes that have occurred in society as a result of technological progress, and could prevent or heal the ulcers of pauperism that plague modern states. In cases where Christian charity is not enough, it is reasonable to expect punctuality and other qualities from secular help, which, according to the rules of good governance, should be shown by people who receive money for their work. But money cannot buy the most important and irreplaceable thing in church charity, namely love. Like Chateaubriand, Balmes distrusted philanthropy. Balmes called philanthropy a counterfeit coin. He believed that the church should have a direct influence on all branches of charity, since the church knew better than others how to use charity to help those in need and suffering ^{[8, p. 184-189]}.

Balmes believed that inequality in society exists by necessity and is related to the nature of man and society. Inequality is a good thing because it ensures the functioning of the State, but excess inequality harms society. Social classes have competed at all times and in all countries. A new situation has arisen due to the development of industry and trade. The middle class has strengthened and risen, but the proletarian class has also multiplied. The gap between classes is growing due to the spread of pauperism, which poses a threat to modern society. If the means necessary for survival had become more accessible, many political upheavals would have been corrected, and policy issues would have become a matter of material interest.

Balmes saw the problem in the fact that wealth, as the least organic and rational of all elements of social status, became the basis for hierarchy in society. Bourgeois structures were extremely fragile. The new rich had no class properties. They were random groups of families who had only recently left the darkness and poverty, and soon they would drown again in the same place and give way to new ones who would be waiting for the same thing. There is nothing permanent or sustainable about them. They live by the day, don't think about the future, unlike the old aristocracy. Therefore, the bourgeoisie could not cope with the problem of mass poverty among the working classes, and industrialists were in no hurry to create mutual aid funds or kindergartens.

The doctrines of liberals, Balmes noted, would hardly find a response from the fathers of families who endure harmful conditions and hard work all day, and at the same time receive so little money that they do not have enough to spend on themselves and on the maintenance of families. When the workers return home, they do not get rest and relief, but they are greeted by the crying of their wives and children begging for bread. This was the case with freedom and equality – although the proletarians were considered neither slaves nor servants, the disadvantages of their condition almost outweigh the benefits. It is not Christian to consider society as a simple sum of production and consumption. A person is more than a production machine.

Balmes pointed out that the wealthy classes were not fulfilling their duties. The rich were supposed to support the poor in their hardships, and the poor were supposed to respect the property of the rich. The emergence of proletarians and paupers is caused by many reasons, but if social reforms are not properly implemented, a general revolution will occur. Both the phenomenon of proletarianization and its consequences went beyond the actions of individuals. The private duty of giving alms was no longer enough. The society had serious and strict responsibilities. In order to prevent the confrontation between proletarians and property owners, between rich and poor, from turning into a war, it was necessary to reconsider the organization of economic and social relations, to combine freedom and security.

Balmes studied materials on disputes between industrialists and workers in France, Germany, Belgium, Britain and the USA. He was aware of the works of the socialists who preceded Marx. Balmes explored the ideas of socialists, primarily from France and England, in his essay "Socialism" (1844), which he published in his own journal, Society. The main goal of the socialist school was to destroy the existing order in society and create a new one organized on a different basis. Therefore, Balmes pointed out, it was necessary to protect the eternal principles that preserved society so that the world would not turn into chaos.

Balmes' criticism of socialists in general and Owen in particular is connected with both the condemnation of materialism and the analysis of economic principles. Balmes disagreed with the labor theory of value and proposed a theory of scarcity. He defended property rights. Balmes recognized that property rights are often associated with abuse, but the experience of all times has shown that the disappearance of the inviolability of property leads to the disintegration of society. The right of ownership has always been recognized in all States. It is based on natural law and is supported by divine law, and is therefore sacred and inviolable. The right of ownership is inherent in all people, it is in demand in connection with the most valuable interests of society and the individual. During the bourgeois revolution, significant inconsistencies were allowed, since the principle of property was defended or ridiculed, depending on when it was beneficial. A large-scale looting of the clergy's property was carried out. Balmes pointed out that if the clergy's property was attacked, then it would be impossible to save the rest. It is only possible to interfere with property rights with extreme caution, even in cases where this interference is carried out for reasons of humanity or public benefit.

Reflecting on the options for solving the "social issue", Balmes referred to the experience of mutual aid societies created by workers, as well as attempts to peacefully resolve labor conflicts through the joint efforts of employees, employers and the authorities. According to Balmes, the upper classes should not have delegated to the state the responsibilities related to taking care of the workers' situation. The owners themselves had to contribute to improving the welfare of the workers ^{[22, p. 85-91]}.

The political philosophy of Juan Bravo Murillo and social policy.

Criticism of socialism as a threat to Christian civilization and the defense of religion as a means of uniting society were key elements of the political philosophy of the publicist and politician Juan Bravo Murillo (1803-1873). He was elected to the Spanish Parliament, served as Minister of Justice, Finance, and headed the Spanish government for almost two years, in 1851-1852. Bravo Murillo published several newspapers, in particular, he worked on the Pilot edition with Juan Donoso Cortez (1809-1853), a well-known conservative politician and publicist. Bravo Murillo has done a lot trying to solve the most acute social problems in Spain. He established the Department of Commerce, Education and Public Works. He promoted the development of railways in Spain. He promoted the spread of school education in rural areas. The order proposed by Bravo Murillo was based on conservative-liberal principles, protection of property, competition, and the involvement of small and medium-sized businesses in fulfilling government orders ^{[4, pp. 99-106]}.

In one of his speeches in Parliament, Bravo Murillo talked about socialism and the threats to property. The very name of socialism, he noted, contradicts its content. The chimerical projects proposed by the Socialists represented the opposite of society and denied it. Property is the foundation of society, without which society is impossible and will not exist, and socialism was incompatible with property. Both property and society are God's business. Therefore, society will not perish, but in case of encroachment on property, a storm may occur that will harm society, and even if this storm is brief, the result will be the death of people and the destruction of many interests ^{[9, p. 85]}.

Bravo Murillo linked the solution of the "social issue" and the protection of property with religion. One cannot go beyond the teachings of Jesus Christ as set forth in the Gospel. The poor were required to humble themselves, and the rich were required to give alms. It was necessary to recall the parable of the greedy rich man, who was eternally punished for his pride, and of the poor man who collected the crumbs of bread that fell from the rich man's table, but could count on eternal glory.

The Socialists convinced the poor that everyone could become rich. The poor believed them, and from this mistaken belief is just one easy and almost natural step to rebellion, both moral and armed, which will lead to complete disorder in society. The disappearance of the poor is impossible, Bravo Murillo believed. And the disappearance of the rich is bound to happen under socialism.

To claim that no one in society is poor and everyone is rich is the same as saying that there are no soldiers in the army, but all the generals, or that there are no foundation stones in the building, but all the materials must be placed on the roof. Socialism would turn a public building into a pile of ruins. Socialism would lead to bestial hostility between people, and all people would be poor and unhappy. Differences, classes, and order must exist. It is absolutely impossible that there are no rich and poor in society. You cannot preach earthly happiness and promise that everyone will achieve absolute prosperity. It is necessary to alleviate suffering and need, because the religion of Jesus Christ requires it. Charity should be recommended to the rich, and humility should be recommended to the poor, according to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ. Laws should be brought in line with this teaching and the commandments. It is necessary to protect and strengthen the rights of owners, strictly punish crimes against property, and instruct owners. The situation of the needy must be alleviated by providing jobs to the poor classes and drafting appropriate laws on public welfare ^{[9, p. 88-89]}.

Religion and social policy in the ideas of Juan Donoso Cortez.

All Spanish conservatives of the 19th century condemned socialism, but the most ambitious theoretical understanding of socialism was proposed by Donoso Cortez. His perception of the role of religion in history and society was influenced by such works as "The Two Cities" by St. Augustine, "General History" by Bossuet, "New Science" by Vico, as well as the works of de Maistre ^{[24, p. 125-126]}. To describe the dynamics of social processes, Donoso Cortez used Hegel's dialectic ^{[24, p. 268]}. Donoso Cortez argued about unity and diversity in society and in the organization of power, following Leibniz ^{[24, p. 281]}. Donoso Cortez began to show attention to social issues during his stay in France and after getting acquainted with the works of representatives of social Catholicism, de Lamennais ^{[24, p. 125-126]}, Charles de Montalembert and Frederic Ozanam ^{[24, p. 115]}. Ozanam founded a charitable society in honor of Saint Vincent de Paul, a famous Catholic philanthropist and preacher of the 17th century, in Paris, and Donoso Cortez, following Ozanam's example, helped organize the society in Madrid ^{[24, p. 119]}. Donoso Cortez gave generously, but tried to keep his donations secret. According to journalist Louis Veillot, Donoso Cortez supported the activities of charitable organizations and helped the poor with them. Montalembert claimed that in Madrid, Donoso Cortez gave a sixth of his income to the poor ^{[24, p. 120]}. Donoso Cortez visited the poor in their homes and hospitals on Sundays ^{[24, p. 123]}.

Donoso Cortez considered the "social issue" not only economic or political, but also moral. In Parliament, far ahead of John Stuart Mill, he agreed with the Socialists that the main problem of society is related to the fair distribution of wealth. He anticipated Marx's claim that a liberal competitive economy would develop a monopolistic tendency to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands until a revolution broke out. Donoso Cortez condemned the socialist solution, the universal confiscation, and the transfer of all public wealth into the hands of the state. Instead, he proposed a Christian solution, in the spirit of mercy and justice. He warned that if people were not driven by these ideals, the social problem would remain unsolvable, and a socialist revolution would become inevitable ^{[24, p. 226]}. They needed the ideas with which Christianity had once civilized Europe, the ideas of the inviolability of power, the sanctity of obedience ^{[24, p. 154]}

During the "Moderate Decade" (1844-1854) Donoso Cortez developed a system that combined Spanish values, to which he attributed Catholicism, monarchy and democracy, but he did not define democracy through political rights. Just as the "Tory democracy" in Britain arose thanks to Disraeli, so did Donoso Cortez propose social democracy. Donoso Cortez was secretary of the commission that drafted the constitution of 1845, and he added a formula to the draft that ran counter to the prevailing spirit of laissez-faire. He argued that the masses of the poor have the right to expect the Government to ease their suffering and lend them a helping hand in the name of fraternity among Spaniards. He defined the term "democratic" as the government's duty to educate the working classes, primarily meaning moral and religious education, to guarantee them the right to bread and other benefits, and finally to grant them full participation in all local and material interests, but to keep them out of political power ^{[24, p. 60-61]}.

Cortez said that there is inequality between people, and this inequality must be maintained in power relations. In order to establish a hierarchy, God made people's gifts unequal. In order for the law of equality to be observed, God demanded more from the one to whom He gave more, and less from the one to whom he gave less ^{[18, p. 106]}. Cortez believes that the idea of equality leads to the destruction of the family, since the family creates the concept of nobility. The suppression of the family entails the suppression of property. The earth, which is eternal in itself, can belong only to the dead, who always live, that is, families or religious associations. Liberalism suppresses religious associations explicitly, family associations implicitly, and, consequently, excludes land ownership. Ties with the past and the future and solidarity with the country are being destroyed ^{[18, pp. 252-256]}.

Liberalism opposes family solidarity and hereditary aristocracy, but recognizes national solidarity, which Cortes sees as a contradiction ^{[18, pp. 250-251]}. The socialist school rejects the solidarity of lower orders, family, political, national, religious, but recognizes a higher, human one ^{[18, p. 260]}. Socialism, which excludes property, continues the work of liberalism ^{[18, p. 255]}. Socialism is strong because it is theology and will prevail over the liberal school, since it is antitheological and skeptical ^{[18, p. 175]}. Donoso Cortez is convinced that religion is the foundation of society ^{[18, p. 10]}. Politics is connected with theology ^{[18, p. 12-13]}.

The Church in the past was strong enough to eradicate heresies. The heresy of the 16th century created a deadly threat to society. Revolutions emerged from the Protestant heresy. They are so destructive because they are based on a distortion of the divine word ^{[18, pp. 267-268]}. Donoso Cortez recalls that the sophists are followed by the executioners ^{[18, p. 12-13]}. Communism excludes any idea of the freedom of individuals, who, being placed under the jurisdiction of an omnipotent and infallible government, can be nothing but slaves ^{[18, p. 274]}.

Naturally, not a fatherly attitude, but force, that is, slavery. The Fatherland is from God ^{[18, p. 32]}. When man became the son of God, he ceased to be a slave of man ^{[18, p. 28]}. From God, man's freedom and individuality, freedom of association. In paganism, man is absorbed by the totality, the environment ^{[18, p. 57]}. From the Catholic point of view, society is a collection of people united by laws and institutions. Good and evil in society come from people, and the eradication of evil is working with people ^{[18, p. 201]}.

The Church reconciles, and war is a natural state for secular authorities ^{[18, p. 51]}. Under the rule of the church, sciences flourished, morality was purified, laws were improved, and all great institutions, political and social, flourished. She defended freedom from those who sought to turn power into tyranny ^{[18, p. 38]}. The church's intolerance of doctrines saves the world from chaos ^{[18, p. 42]}. Thanks to the church, social unity is achieved while maintaining hierarchy and diversity, and free social communication between people, families, groups, and classes. There is no atomism, there is brotherhood. Many municipalities are united in the unity of the nation. Nations led by kings are united by the church ^{[18, pp. 45-46]}. The Catholic blessing of power means deliverance from pride, and, consequently, from rebellions and tyranny ^{[18, p. 30]}. Cortez points out that when handing over royal power, the church instructs monarchs to love justice, hate lawlessness and support the weak ^{[18, p. 28]}.

Donoso Cortez recommended public alms to the royal court to set an example for the rich. If the situation of the poor is not alleviated, socialism will come, class war between rich and poor, the destruction of the monarchy and the confiscation of wealth ^{[24, pp. 233-234]}. Donoso Cortez expected that the spirit of Catholicism would be restored in the economic and political legislation of Spain and in education in order to ensure justice and preserve society. The state can provide external conditions, but the Church must reach the minds and hearts ^{[24, p. 234]}.

The monarchical, clerical and conservative forces of Europe could undermine the strength of the revolutionary movement, achieve popular loyalty through socio-economic reforms and plebiscite democracy, and prevent socialist revolutions and anarchy ^{[24, p. 218]}. Since such a struggle would require forceful measures, Donoso Cortez was ready to sanction the dictatorship ^{[24, p. 227-228]}. He spoke about the choice between the dictatorship of the government and the dictatorship of the crowd, and believed that the dictatorship of the government should have been chosen ^{[29, p. 74]}. Bravo Murillo's mistake, Donoso Cortez said, was that he did not seek support from the people, that is, he did not accept a plebiscite authoritarian democracy like Louis Napoleon ^{[24, p. 239]}, who was supposed to carry out socio-economic reforms, rid France of socialism and set an example for Europe. Bismarck and Disraeli subsequently embodied the ideas of social conservatism outlined by Donoso Cortez ^{[24, p. 190-191]}.

The social and political philosophy of Antonio Canovas del Castillo.

Like Donoso Cortez, Canovas del Castillo linked social and religious issues ^{[13, p. 115]}. Canovas del Castillo served as Prime Minister and managed to achieve peace and stability in Spain at the end of the 19th century after a series of civil wars and coups, contributing to the restoration of the monarchy in 1874 and the drafting of the constitution in 1876. He took into account the British experience and was guided by Burke's political philosophy. He created a two-party system in which the power of the Liberal-Conservative Party he established was replaced by the power of the Liberal Party.

Canovas del Castillo saw a great threat in democratization and sought to minimize it. In his opinion, the extension of suffrage to the proletariat in Europe in the second half of the 19th century was a mistake. Universal suffrage and property cannot exist together ^{[12, p. 94]}, suffrage will either turn into fraud or lead to communism ^{[12, p. 97]}.

The masses have abandoned Christianity and are left to the mercy of the laws of political economy. The proletarians will rebel not only against God, but against all authority and norms. Philosophers teach the proletariat that it has nothing to hope for and nothing to fear ^{[13, p. 182]}. Democracy declares that people have the same ability to make laws when they reach an arbitrary age, recognizes superiority only in numbers, and considers fair only what the majority desires ^{[14, p. 490]}. When, against the background of hardships, injustice and failures, theories spread that one should only enjoy life, that there is no other life beyond this one, that there is no higher justice, people will join the International ^{[11, p. 392]}.

In addition to poverty and material need, people's rivalry, greed, and envy will not be silenced by the abstract consideration that the good of humanity requires that some have a larger and others a smaller share ^{[13, p. 134]}. The inequality of wealth under political equality torments the most intelligent and cultured among the workers. Poverty often leads to humility, while satisfaction of needs gives the courage to demand more. German workers who support socialism are not those who fight for life, but those who want to be on a par with the most successful ^{[14, p. 513]}. Socialism does not come from hunger, which suppresses, but from envy, which angers ^{[13, p. 134]}.

Having gained power, the proletariat would strive to improve its position, since power is based on property ^{[12, p. 88]}. Canovas del Castillo cited the experience of Ancient Greece ^{[11, p. 412]} and Rome, where the desire for equality and the triumph of the plebs caused the extinction of freedom and Caesarism ^{[14, p. 496]}. According to Canovas del Castillo, the right to vote should be based on censorship ^{[12, p. 96]}, otherwise militarization ^{[11, p. 410]} and dictatorship ^{[11, p. 448]} will be used to protect property. The struggle against socialism is being waged by conservatives out of fear for freedom and for the fate of the masses, whom the Socialists are leading to unnecessary sacrifices and deaths ^{[11, p. 408]}. He considered the contemporary inter-class conflict to be the most dangerous in history ^{[13, p. 135]}. Experiments and attempts at social reforms aimed at a chimerical goal are too expensive, they generate too much suffering and irreparable mistakes ^{[12, p. 59]}.

The Socialists argued that the state should have taken away the benefits from the owners and distributed them to the poor. Redistribution subordinated a person to the external will. Neither man nor society can deprive a person of property. The state is necessary in order to protect the rights of people, among which the right of ownership is the most important ^{[19, p. 614-615]}. Property is the basis of ancient and modern society, a condition of political order ^{[11, p. 421]}, continuity, and responsibility to descendants, which collectivists who live in the present do not understand ^{[12, p. 73-75]}.

The social issue has become a consequence of industrialization and competition. The right of ownership has come into conflict with the right to life ^{[14, p. 456]}. Canovas del Castillo started from the Malthusian notion that population grows faster than resources. He said that for every loaf of bread mixed in the world, two people are born ^{[13, p. 134]}. The proletariat was in an extremely difficult situation, and employers were under pressure from competition with other powers, which would put the country in which attempts were made to improve the situation of those in need in a losing situation compared to those countries where pure laissez-faire would be preserved ^{[14, p. 511]}.

Canovas del Castillo did not support unlimited competition and considered protectionism appropriate ^{[14, p. 488]}. A worker dies through no fault of his own as soon as a commodity called labor becomes superfluous. The future harmony of capital and labor, which science promises him, does not compensate him for his current sufferings ^{[13, p. 132]}. Problems related to human passions will not be solved by means of laissez-faire ^{[11, p. 419]}.

Conservatives sympathize with the workers, but socialism and the International, as its representative, oppose any measures to improve the condition of workers, such as cooperatives, since such measures create new owners and give strength to conservative classes ^{[11, pp. 412-413]}. The International is the greatest danger that human societies have ever been exposed to ^{[11, p. 405]}. The International does not want partial or gradual reforms. The International demands all or nothing that the issue of all working people be resolved once and for all, and calls this human solidarity ^{[11, p. 437]}.

The imposed brotherhood of the International should not be confused with the voluntary brotherhood that is brought into the world by the Gospel, and the element whose condition and fruit is alms ^{[11, p. 412]}. Charity is the key to any solidly built economic system and the closest and most reliable link between social classes ^{[13, p. 154]}.

It is said to the poor: "Do not covet the good of others." It is said to the rich: "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor" ^{[11, p. 416]}. Under the protection of these principles, the economic law of free competition would have no fear of poverty or barbaric communism. Do not worry, Jesus preached what to eat, or what to drink, or what to put on, seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. According to divine Providence, work can be sufficient for subsistence, but on condition that human society is organized according to the laws of God ^{[13, p. 157-158]}.

Christianity sanctified poverty and hardship, and promised retribution to the poor in heaven. Christian charity is an intermediary between rich and poor, softens the confrontation between workers and capitalists in a competitive economy. Outside of Christian civilization, there was only one solution in history for the eternal antagonism between rich and poor, namely pagan slavery ^{[13, p. 152]}.

Christianity is addressed to the individual, not to an indefinite humanity ^{[11, p. 391]}. The concept of humanity worsens rather than mitigates social conflicts ^{[13, p. 153]}, and will not protect against the threats of socialism ^{[13, p. 141]}. Without religious faith, any idea of justice is incompatible with the laws of political economy ^{[13, p. 139]}. The conflict is aggravated by widespread religious disbelief among the workers ^{[14, p. 460]}. When the lower classes generally believed in God, they had solace in adversity. There must be losers in competition, and nothing but religion will comfort them ^{[11, p. 415]}. Political economy needs to add to its laws the theory of the imperfection of earthly life, combined with the dogma of immortality, which promises perfection in another, better life ^{[13, p. 151]}.

When religious feeling and inner judge are preserved, rights are preserved and the dictatorship and tyranny of the state are not allowed ^{[11, p. 390-391]}. Morality without religion is arbitrary and changeable, justice is relative, and law is an expression of power, not duties, since duties can only be before God ^{[12, p. 64]}. It is one step from the struggle against religion to barbaric communism ^{[13, p. 158]}.

The Socialists argued that inequality was mitigated by religiosity – the lords did not command out of selfishness, but had authority from God, the creator of inequality in society. The servant was inferior in civil society, but spiritually they were equal to the master ^{[13, p. 162]}. Therefore, the Socialists called for the destruction of the idea of God, and after it everything they hated or envied would disappear – capital, property, family ^{[13, p. 163]}.

Canovas del Castillo considered inequality to be natural and derived from God ^{[19, p. 614-615]}. Physical and intellectual abilities are not equal from birth. Education depends on the background ^{[13, p. 128]}. Reasonable minorities will always rule the world ^{[11, p. 446]}. Aristotle said that it is not the alignment of states that should be discussed, but the alignment of passions. Neither desires, nor the ability to work, nor morale, will align. These inequalities are the great wealth of the human race. People are free and active, struggle and contrasts are a condition for progress and a life that stagnation will kill ^{[11, p. 440]}.

The volume of material wealth is increasing, but the division between rich and poor persists, and relative poverty will always persist. The sufferings of the least well-off were inevitable and related to human nature, as well as diseases ^{[19, p. 614-615]}. There will always be the last rung on the social ladder, the proletariat, which will have to be restrained in two ways: by charity, education, moral resources, and when there are not enough of them, by force ^{[11, p. 439]}.

Canovas del Castillo's attitude towards government intervention and the organization of social support has changed over the last decades of the 19th century. He said that it is difficult to separate which part of the work of a person cooperating with others belongs to him, which belongs to the association, which belongs to the state ^{[12, p. 68]}. The state can perform the function of social support where mercy has failed ^{[12, p. 71]}, but for the sake of human benefit and dignity, everything that he can do individually or collectively, he must do without requiring or receiving any help from the state ^{[12, p. 69]}.

In the 1870s, he categorically objected to state aid to those in need, and said that even the introduction of universal compulsory education was a step towards socialism. The state should not create public welfare, because welfare will grow only as a result of the free development of productive forces and moral abilities. Any industrial reform that does not proceed from individual inequality, claiming to balance the different living conditions of people, is false. Political economy rightly links distribution with innate inequality ^{[13, pp. 130-131]}.

Canovas del Castillo considered the measures proposed in these years to address the social issue – cooperatives and patronage, developed by Frederic le Pleu – ineffective in reducing social discontent ^{[14, p. 461]}. But he considered them more successful than workhouses ^{[13, p. 150-151]}, and more fruitful than other solutions, as shown by the experience of England and Germany ^{[14, p. 461]}.

Economists suggested that workers overcome poverty by becoming owners, but this meant that poverty was insurmountable, since savings were impossible with low wages and unemployment. Production is cosmopolitan and beyond the limits of individual foresight. Competition multiplies benefits where the competing state defeats others, such as England ^{[14, p. 480-481]}.

He believed that the only way to preserve social peace was to restore religiosity and charity, since religion reconciled the poor to their lot and established harmony between classes, prescribing alms to the rich.

But in the 1890s, he said that charity was not enough ^{[10, p. 553]}, and the church alone could not solve the social issue ^{[10, p. 557]}. He highly appreciated the experience of Switzerland ^{[14, p. 463]} and Germany in the field of labor regulation, especially the experience of Bismarck, who called his reforms "practical Christianity" ^{[14, p. 507]}, but still warned about restrictions, since the popularity of socialism in Germany has not weakened ^{[14, p. 462]}.

Canovas del Castillo said that the time was approaching when the political regime would be evaluated for its ability to regulate the relationship between labor and capital and promote their agreement ^{[22, p. 129]}. Let political economy and morality be coordinated in economic policy under the supervision of the state, and in everything for which Christian charity and its imitation, altruism, are not enough ^{[14, p. 486]}.

In Spain, according to Canovas del Castillo, the state of the labor issue was better than in other countries. Employers took care of the condition of the workers, the problems of rising prices, illnesses, the unemployed, and the disabled. Employers believed that it was impossible to create a service to help all those who were suffering, but it was necessary to help those who could not provide for themselves with work ^{[14, p. 520]}. Canovas del Castillo himself was the chairman of the commission dealing with social laws, and his initiatives developed Spanish initiatives rather than imitating Germany ^{[10, p. 549]}.

He said that if the Spanish state is unable to subsidize the protection of workers until their financial situation improves, then workers can receive help from the laws, as well as religion, individual charity and the activity of employers ^{[10, p. 553]}. The government should be in contact with reasonable workers. The duty of the rich is to help governments without selfishness, contributing to the spread of the benefits of modern civilization for all ^{[14, p. 515]}. Additional organization of individual initiative is needed, coming from great social forces ^{[14, p. 522]}. An example is a shelter for the disabled created by the royal family ^{[10, p. 553]}. The Church should spread private charity, protect and create pious societies ^{[10, p. 557]}.

Conclusion.

Spanish conservatives of the 19th century believed that the settlement of the conflict between rich and poor in a broad sense and the solution of the "social issue" of the era of industrialization in particular was possible primarily due to religion. While in Protestantism poverty began to be perceived as a problem requiring solution and intervention by secular authorities, in Catholicism poverty was treated as a variant of asceticism and social service. For all conservatives, the key idea is inequality, which is associated with different natural qualities of people, as well as with different acquired skills and the different importance of social functions performed. Social support measures are therefore designed not to overcome poverty per se, but to alleviate the situation of the poor in such a way that it does not create conflicts that threaten social order and property. Conservatives did not agree with the laissez-faire liberal position, according to which market forces would distribute benefits in the best possible way, and the state should not interfere in the activities of economic entities. Conservatives also criticized socialist projects to solve the "social issue" through redistribution and were usually distrustful of government intervention. The main subject of social support, according to conservatives, should have been religious charity, followed by mutual aid and corporate support societies, and only then the state. The Conservatives did not trust the idea of universal solidarity expressed by the Socialists, and believed that reconciliation of interests was possible only in a common space of religious solidarity. The conservative welfare state that developed in Spain in the 20th century relied on mutual aid societies, religious charity and corporate solidarity, according to the proposals of representatives of the Spanish conservative political philosophy.