The Soviet occupation of Lithuania which began in 1940 broke off the natural development of Lithuanian intellectual culture and philosophy; the effort to impose a monopoly of Marxist ideology and philosophy lasted more than 50 years. However, the monopoly of the Soviet ideology was established only in the sphere of official structures, where the censorship of the Communist Party was active: it demonstrated itself by strictly issuing regulations and publishing limitations. The influence of the Communist ideology was limited, because intellectual activities were continued by Lithuanian emigrants in the West and by those who stayed in Lithuania until they were repressed, as well as those who came back unbroken by the monstrosity of Soviet prisons. The texts of these writers, of course, could not be published in Lithuania and many of them disappeared (texts were destroyed by writers themselves or by their relatives for safety considerations, or were destroyed by the KGB). Some of these texts, preserved by devoted people in private archives, afterwards were gradually unveiled and published. Social philosophical texts that belonged to the former political prisoners V. Gustainis, D. Cesevicius and others have been published in various Lithuanian journals. Compared to the situation of other subjects, Catholic philosophy had some continuity because it was allowed to be studied at Kaunas Seminary. There until his arrest in 1953, the main subjects in philosophy were taught by professor P. Kuraitis, who, according to his students, wrote many articles. The majority of his manuscripts were destroyed by the KGB (there exists a document testifying to this fact), but some of them survived. Philosophical activities after the World War II were continued by another philosopher famous from the period between the World War I and II, professor V. Sezemanas, whose philosophical convictions were very different from the Marxist philosophy. Hopefully more philosophical texts from this period will be discovered and eventually published in Lithuania.

Professor Fabijonas Kemesis was one of those intellectuals who bravely outlived the Soviet occupation, and started writing during the war the book, Towards a Christian Economy. This was continued during the period of the second Bolshevik occupation and is considered the main work of his life. The work, preserved for 50 years of occupation by Fabijonas Kemesis’s friends, when the author was repressed in 1947 and killed in the Siberian camps in 1954, is now being prepared for publication. The conceptions and main ideas presented in the book are an undoubted continuation of the earlier works of Kemesis, so that they constitute a generalization, systematization and more precise definition of his earlier theoretical convictions. The largest part of the book is devoted to the history of social conceptions and the criticism of capitalist social theories. It is a pity that the work was not finished and its most positive part where the author’s vision of society should have been presented was not written or disappeared. What remained was the author’s methodology, historical evaluation, social insight and sensitive reaction to the contemporary upheavals of the social life and evolution of Lithuanian social philosophy all the pressing problems of today.

Kemesis was an economist educated at the University of Loyola in Chicago and Catholic University of Washington. In 1924 he graduated from the Department of Economics and Pedagogy, University of Chicago, defending his Ph.D. dissertation on cooperative development among Lithuanian immigrants in the USA. The author’s pedagogical activities in the Lithuanian Academy of Agriculture in Dotnuva were also devoted to economics: mostly he lectured on cooperation in agriculture and political economy and at the same time was the head of Department of Economy of Agriculture. However, the main field of interest of Kemesis was not analysis of the structure of economics, but theoretical economics, to which his most important publications of the period between the World War I and II were devoted (Looking For The Way Out, K., 1932; Introduction to Social and Political Economy, K., 1938; numerous articles in Zidinys and Naujoji Romuva). These writings indicate the author’s professional knowledge of the development of political economy and awareness of the social conceptions popular during that time, all of which were the basis for searching for a future model of economics for Lithuania as well as for the best prototype for society in general.

Interest in theoretical economics guided Kemesis into a more general sphere of thought about the nature of a man, his place and role in the world and social structures, inquiries into the basic principles and development of society, and thus into the field of social philosophy. Kemesis was one of the few Lithuanian economists to understand the role of universal principles in social theories and their methodological importance for theories of economy. Hence all his writings in economics clearly include the dimension of social philosophy. This is mostly evident in the last work of Kemesis where he stressed that the wanderings of economics as a science were connected to the "oblivion of the human essence". "Today it is already clear that it is impossible to separate human economy from its spiritual life, that there is a saturated human being who has his moral and material ideas of economics as well as of science, art and religion" (p. 2-3). Kemesis retained the same attitude through all his writings in order to avoid the groundless separation of the social and personal life of the individual, exaggerated atomization and absolutization of the different cultural spheres. That leads to abandoning the unity of the society and individual, which is so characteristic of the positivistic social theories of the 20th century.

The background of the theoretical work of Kemesis and the source of the methodological principles of his inquiry was the tradition of social Catholic philosophy oriented to the ideals of the Christian society, which, according to Kemesis, endured through time, namely, social justice and social love. The ideal was most perfectly realized in the Middle Ages and revived in the Papal Encyclical of the Pope Leo XIII. This was the reason why Kemesis and many other Lithuanian Catholic sociologists founded their description of society on the ideas expressed by St. Augustine, St.Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII. These were presented in the context of the mediaeval and the modern social doctrines, but were applied to the evaluation of social phenomena of the 20th century. Kemesis differed from other Lithuanian social theorists (K. Paltarokas, K. Saulys, A. Maliauskis, etc.) in his familiarity with many secular theories of the 20th century, especially the conception of Max Weber who greatly influenced his writings. His competence and experience as an economist enabled Kemesis sensibly to evaluate existing social theories and construct models of future society.

On the ground of the Christian tradition Kemesis formulated these universal (sometimes called eternal) principles which based his analysis of the problems of social life: social justice, labor and social love.

The principle of social justice regulates the sphere of private property as characteristic of human nature and a necessary condition of free will. Social injustice and inequality emerges because of a bad distribution of private property among individuals which disagrees with human nature. The principle of social justice requires abolishment of this disproportion in the private property: limitation of the rent of land, income and material benefit.

Labor is also considered to be a property of human nature. It is a source of the private property, because it depends on the input or work of the various actors. Kemesis advocated the principle of universal labor and suggested doing away with income received without labor input.

The principle of universal love is based on the conception of the human being as a creation of God: love must be the unitive base of all human relations. The principle of social love should lead people towards obliteration of inequality, contradictions and conflicts. It also has to be the basis for the creation of Christian social solidarity.

Kemesis suggested that the basic principles of human social life discussed above were revealed to people by Jesus Christ, but unfortunately were misunderstood from the very beginning. He blamed early Christians and the Middle Ages for overlooking the economic problems and difficulties of their times, and thus not applying the doctrine of Jesus Christ to economics. The author considered this to be the reason why the ideal of social justice was dampened down in the Christian consciousness, and unjust economic environments affected not only the political but the entire spiritual life of society. Kemesis supported the principles described by Thomas Moore in "Utopia", but disagreed with utopian idealization of the human nature which made social decisions unreal.

The aim of Kemesis was not to look for guilty persons behind Christian society, but neutrally to discuss all the arguments that substantiate different social conceptions. According to him, if Utopists overestimated human nature, then communists underestimated it, because they rejected the divine nature of the human being, leading thereby to the degradation of human values. According to the author, that is why it was necessary to look for another way for the development of society.

Here the question is: who is a man, what kind of social formation does his nature require, what principles will provide the basis of a new social order. "The Importance and meaning of these questions is inestimable. Their successful solution can develop a base for the life and fate of the whole of humankind" (3, 4). The author devoted his last work to answering this problem. He added that, "if this work brings a single ray of light to the solution of these questions the author would feel he had completed the greatest task of his life" (3, 4). Such a modest claim expressed by the writer emphasizes a deep insight into the importance of methodological problems in social inquiry, an insight characteristic of quite a few sociologists. This comment also says a lot about the methodological competence of Kemesis.

The basic principle in the analysis of society by Kemesis is human nature. The main unit in the query is neither the social universe nor the state, nor the social class or nation, but the human being as a person because from the person and his nature all social structures and social relations emerge and evolve. At first sight it seems that the position of Kemesis is very close to liberalism, but this is not the case, because for the writer the human is more than a simple element of society, he is a person. The conception of the person was seen not as a naturalistic phenomenon, but as a creation of God, thus interpreting human nature as consistent and unchangeable. The unchangeable principles of human nature allow one to deduce the universal and eternal principles of social life. Social sciences, including economics, are considered by Kemesis to be sciences of human nature. This kind of theory may be less common at the end of the 20th century, but earlier it was dominant.

Although considered to be divine, human nature was not idealized by Kemesis; this separated him from Utopists. He stressed the two-sidedness of human nature which was born after original sin, whence two contrary elements arose "Elements of good and noble inclinations are always fighting with elements of evil and egoistic passions. In the world one or another element always wins" (3, 70). Against the Christian Utopists (T. Moore and others) Kemesis argued that the elements of individualism and egoism in a human being cannot be eliminated. He said that "Trying to suppress the element of evil is devastating, thus making it even more active and stronger. It is better to reconcile it with the noble one" (3, 45). This view, close to the theory of Max Weber, was a new position for Lithuanian social philosophy.

He saw the two-sidedness of human nature, called material and spiritual. "The contents of the entire human history is a permanent struggle between the two principles — material and spiritual. The spiritual one has to prevail in the divine project; harmony between them can be materialized only if spiritual principle dominates. People misused their free will and let the element of evil rule over society. As often as it dominated, so often did it have harmful consequences" (3, 71). The principle of the two-sidedness of human nature substantiates the evolution of society and its parts in the philosophy of Kemesis.

In his last work the author consistently advocated the conception of social progress and presented his own interpretation of the topic. This idea was not very strongly emphasized in his pre-war writings as progress was not characteristic of Catholic philosophy. However, its reflection can be noticed in the historiosophy of St. Augustine and some other social Catholic doctrines of the 20th century. There is no doubt that the idea of development in the philosophy of Kemesis was inspired by the sociology of Max Weber.

At the end of the 20th century the idea of progress is seen as sound but questionable, and progressivism is considered to be a remanent of the past, but it was common among sociologists in the middle of the century. Kemesis tried to interpret this topic in the Christian framework because the ideas of evolution, progress and revolution were being discussed in Lithuanian Catholic philosophy from the beginning of the century by Adomas Jakstas, Simonas Sulte and others. Despite reflection on the problem in the writings of other authors, this was the first time that the idea of progressive social development was so consistently applied to the social Catholic philosophy, of course with an original explanation.

Kemesis thought that the inspiration for the social progress of people was given by Jesus Christ in proclaiming equality and brotherhood among the people. Thus he gave purpose and direction for the human beings — to try to embody the ideal of Divine Kingdom on the earth. This point of view recalls St. Augustan’s historiosophic conception. The evolution of human history has been extremely slow, even the 20th century is too far from the ideal for many reasons: the two-sidedness of the human nature, immature faith, the influence of the rich, etc. Kemesis blamed Christianity, especially in the Middle Ages, for ignoring earthly troubles, seeing life as a "valley of tears" and leaving all earthly things to the work of evil. This was a big mistake because the ideal of the Divine Kingdom on the earth had to be connected with the ideals of social justice, welfare, peace and happiness. The Renaissance seemed to bring some happiness into society, but its energy was directed not towards the future, but towards the past, despite the emerging idea of progress. Thomas Moore supplied the idea of Christianity with vividness and optimism, but French encyclopaedians brought some dissonance. They made a great contribution to education, but at the same time ignored the role of religion and progress in personal life, "turning away from evolution and following the path of social and political revolution" (3, 145).

The relation of evolution to revolution in the development of society was a very important methodological point of Kemesis’s conception. He was a strict opponent of the revolutionary way of reorganizing society, because it was the way of rejection and destruction, based on compulsion contrary to the point of view of Christianity. The way of Christ and the Church is evolution. More than that, Kemesis introduced dimensions of optimism and pessimism which were not so meaningful in political economy, but of great importance for social philosophy. The way of evolutionary progress was related to optimism, and trust in a person who believes in God; pessimism was associated with the loss of hope and desperation leading to the revolutionary compulsion. The controversy between optimism and pessimism was considered to be a universal characteristic peculiar to all human history. "A controversial phenomena is noted in the course of human history: the eternal combat between optimism and pessimism which is a serious hindrance for progress" (3, 7). The main obstacle, according to Kemesis, was the Renaissance and the humanism of the modern age. These were positive phenomena in general, based on the ideas of Christianity, but at the same time they directed the ideals of the Gospel against Christ and the Church by absolutizing free will in economics and using the gains of science for the assassination and destruction of civilisation. According to Kemesis:

Pessimism has also been advocated in the economic theories of Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and Karl Marx. Real life shows that the profession of pessimistic ideas is destructive. The idea of progress is becoming more and more universal, and optimism and progress are related to the spirit of Christianity. A true Christian cannot be a pessimist; the idea of progress is not hostile to him (3, 10).

 

In other words, Kemesis rejected the revolutionary path of transformation because he believed it to be pessimistic and to induce violence; instead he argued for a reformist and smooth progressive mode of change in society, offering a somewhat unusual version of change:

What we need to do is to find a way out that conforms to the nature of the average person and does not exceed limited human abilities. We need a framework of reforms which should be able to convince the majority of powerful people who would like to accomplish changes according to their free will. In this case the minority will have to accept the majority’s decision and reforms could be implemented without bloodshed (3, 62).

 

It is obvious that such a position directly corresponds to the strengthening of the democratic principles of society.

The above principles were the basis on which Kemesis in his main work analyzed the entire human social development from ancient times until the middle of the 20th century. These principles were also the criteria for his evaluation of existing economic and social philosophical conceptions.

Kemesis also studied and evaluated social utopias, the first time in the history of Lithuanian philosophy that such a detailed analysis of utopias was presented. He supported philosophers’ efforts to create perfect models of society, but his attitude towards them was critical. He treated positively the works of Utopists and their contribution to the understanding of society: they proved to be the most gifted critics of their times, with deep insight and awareness of progress; they understood the nature of the social institutions and the possibility of changing them; they appreciated the material as well as spiritual values of human life and supported education, social experiments and religious tolerance; etc. The basic thing that made their theories unreal was an overestimation of human nature, accepting it in an exclusively positive way. Utopists did not find efficient means to bring their ideas into reality; the ways suggested were compulsive. Moreover as some utopian ideas were really fantastic it is no wonder that endeavors to realize them were not successful.

Most of Kemesis’s writings were devoted to the analysis of the economic structure of capitalism and arguments for it, as well as socialist and Marxist conceptions and their realization. In these works he scrutinised many practical and theoretical problems, demonstrating deep insight that appears to be important for Lithuania now on moving beyond the totalitarian remnants and creating a new society.

In the analysis of social development Kemesis used Max Weber’s principle of progressivism: economic and social progress is based on the development of rationality in the organization of the economy, technique, mode of life and culture. Scrutinising the growth of rationality in different spheres of life he departed from the spirit and Protestant orientation of Max Weber. Being convinced that all spheres of life are saturated by the person with all his spiritual properties, Kemesis kept on emphasizing the "connection between economic, social and spiritual matters as well as the ethical states of affairs," at the same time seeing that "the latter determines one or another kind of social structure" (3, 91). Therefore, economic structures are characterized not only by efficiency, but also by spirituality.

Even the period of the Middle Ages which had been idealized by many authors drew some criticism from Kemesis. He thought that "Christian leaders made unforgivable and fatal compromises, leaving the doctrine of Christ, with faith, prayer and future life, to the theorists, thus leaving to everyday life the pagan, egoistic customs grounded by inequality and abuse" (3, 139). Although, according to Kemesis, mediaeval Catholicism had an advantage for some time in the struggle against the spirit of exploitation and profit, Protestantism tried to reconcile Christianity with it, as was accepted later by the Christian society. Since then the pagan spirit of materialism has dominated.

Kemesis had no doubts that the genesis of capitalism was the result of the development not only of the economy, but also of a spiritual life turned away from the basic principles of Christianity. He agreed with Max Weber that capitalism was created by a manifold rationalization and was successful only because it "silenced, appeased and extinguished human spiritual power, will, feelings and conscience. It turned out that the human mind alone if not controlled by a higher superhuman power, can lead life towards absurdity" (3, 112). For any kind of rationalism to be positive, it has to be accompanied by a Christian ethic.

Pre-capitalist economics was thought to be related to the person whose behaviour was determined by customs. However, the situation changed with capitalism: profit became the most important thing, it also influenced cultural life and personal attitudes. People became labor power, nature became a means of production, heaven and earth were converted into a huge factory, in other words, what before used to be means, afterwards became the objectives, and competition was unrestricted, subject to no moral imperatives. Rationalization usurped all spheres of culture thus making utilitarianism the only dimension of society.

Kemesis formulated the paradox of capitalism: the system which emerged as the result of the growth of rationalism, remained irrational itself, because regulation of the social process was left to the plurality of individual agents. This way economic life was separated from the person and work became depersonalized. Capitalist economic formation could not last very long and in the beginning of the 20th century its crisis of irrationality became obvious. The most brutal characteristics of capitalism such as nationalism, imperialism and military armaments rose to the surface because the state became a factor of social inequality, with no principles of justice and fraternity. Looking through Kemesis’s eyes, this was the reason why so many social theories were created and socialism was tried as a substitute for capitalism. "Tired masses lost their patience and started bloody revolutions. It was the most obvious result of the universal materialism" (3, 73). Thus "capitalistic welfare was closely connected to the moral decadence of people with a perverted and faded world outlook" (3, 91).

Marxist socialism was criticized by Kemesis no less than capitalism itself. From the beginning of the 20th century Lithuanian Catholic sociology paid much attention to the analysis and critique of socialist theories, especially that of Marx. The writings of K. Saulys, K. Paltarokas, A. Maliauskis and other sociologists were based on the ideas expressed in the Papal Encyclical Rerum Novum. Between World War I and II Marxist socialism was analyzed in the broad context of Western philosophy and sociology by I. Tamosaitis, A. Maceina and others, but Kemesis’s analysis was the deepest. It can also be said that his inquiry into socialism was the most original and best part of his work Towards a Christian Economy, with absolutely fundamental insights into social conceptions which remain actual today.

The work began with an overview of the history of social ideas from ancient times showing the methodologically differentiated conceptions and indicating the specific historical aspects of socialism among other social forms. According to Kemesis, Plato was the first to offer a kind of aristocratic communism. This had nothing in common with communism of the 20th century because the former was applied only exceptionally to the sphere of consumption: it did try to reach for equality, nor was it hedonistic; on the contrary it was ascetic, militaristic and limited by the single state. Kemesis investigated almost all socialist movements and doctrines showing them to be very different in comparison to the Marxist socialism. Even regarding the theories of the social utopists of the 19th century, which are considered to be the source of Marxism, Kemesis separated them from the Marxist socialism because they sought compassion and understanding among classes; they did not declare war among them, but sought cooperation based on traditional religious and moral values; they tried also to become neither universal nor scientific, although they really were far more scientific than their followers (3, 166). It is not at all honest to disparage them as utopian socialisms because Marxist socialism proved to be even more utopian.

Some social Catholic philosophers could not give up their preconceived negative attitudes towards the social conception of Marx, and thus were inadequate in disputing it. In contrast, Kemesis was able to retain an objective stance towards the topic of discussion. Having recognized the actuality of the problems formulated in Marxism, the author tried to be scientifically objective, emphasizing positive solutions to the questions and finding as many arguments as possible for their critics. Kemesis’s position had the advantages of both knowledge of the social and philosophical theory of Marx and the competence of an economist. The person of Marx as well as his conceptions were presented in Kemesis’s works as a very important phenomenon of the 19th century which greatly influenced the social development of Europe. He regretted that Christian society in the 19th century did not have such personalities who could have been able to direct the history of Europe and the world along another path (3, 166).

Kemesis scrutinised not only the economic but also the philosophical texts of Marx. In his last work he quoted the "Philosophical-Economic Manuscripts" which were familiar to quite a few people who considered themselves to be Marxists. The most important part of Marxism according to Kemesis was his philosophy and dialectical method. Marx’s theory does not seem to be original, because most of his ideas were taken from other theorists, but his importance was in his ability to synthesize familiar conceptions: "The author formulated not only economic, social and political doctrines, but also presented an entire world view" (3, 180). Although philosophical materialism was not acceptable to Kemesis, he objectively investigated the history and methodological principles of materialism and presented a substantial critique of the dialectical method.

Much of Kemesis’s attention was devoted to the analysis and criticism of social and economic conceptions. In his writings Marx was acknowledged as a famous economist who recognized and properly investigated the problem of social crises, anticipated the elimination of financial capital and financial imperialism, and worried about the solution of social problems. However, the economic conception of Marx was uncritically biased against the classical political economic theory formulated by A. Smith and D. Ricardo, and involved some questionable principles, especially the conception of the value of labor. For these reasons Kemesis considered Marx’s economic theory precarious.

The economic theory of Marx consists of conceptions of value, payment and surplus value (Kemesis called it "value of multitude"). To illustrate this: the conception of value can be compared to the basement of a building, payment to the walls and surplus value to the roof. If the foundation is poor there is danger of the building collapsing. The author criticized the theory of surplus value too, but saw some positive aspects in it. A section of the capitalist surplus value comes not from labor, but from private property (interest and land). He saw there a serious unsolved problem which would influence the future society (3, 252). This kind of surplus should not be a privilege, but a serious obligation towards society.

Numerous the premises of Marx’s theory were not sufficiently founded and the prognosis grounded on them did not seem realistic. "In general, Marx presented a substantial criticism of capitalist society giving some adequate characteristics of the system. But his forecasts were not based on scientific investigations, but built on his own social theory following the way of mere conjecture" (3, 261-262). Hence, his forecasts appeared to be too courageous, one-sided, exaggerated and unconvincing. Especially biased in Kemesis eyes were conceptions of discarding private property, the war of classes and revolutions, the dictatorship of the proletariat, abrogation of the state, the planned socialist economy and others, which were criticized by the author. The author quoted and criticized Marx’s thesis that the development of capitalism inevitably leads to revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is improvable, because human integrity can direct the process of social formation so that it can result in solidarity or restricted forms of private property. A planned economy without a free market, supply and demand, was incomprehensible. Here the author saw restriction of the free will and freedom of choice, as well as an emerging danger of totalitarianism.

Kemesis disclosed inconsistencies and shortcomings of the Marxist social theory, but the main argument against it was the experience of socialism as realized in Russia. Fifty years ago he forecast its downfall.

If Kemesis rejected socialism and communism as systems entirely hostile to social justice, the question arises: what is the future of social development? What kind of social structures have to be created in order to conform to human nature and to realize social justice? It is a pity that this part of Kemesis’s work where he could have exposed his own model of society remained unfinished. The author’s competence in economics and social philosophy would undoubtedly have enabled him to create the most consistent and balanced theory of Lithuanian Catholic social philosophy. Many hints of his social vision are found in his writings from the period between the wars, where he clearly formulated his point of view.

Along with many other social Catholic philosophers Kemesis contributed to the popularization of cooperation during the period between World War I and II. Together with other Lithuanian philosophers he actively tried to bring this into reality for through cooperation they foresaw the realization of a Christian solidarity. Kemesis saw the future political structure of the state in a coordination of democracy and corporativism and so made his future vision one of cooperation in economics and corporative politics. Political corporativism was advocated by many young Lithuanian social philosophers (P. Dielininkaitis, P. Mantvydas, A. Maceina and others). According to Kemesis corporativism was a counterbalance to economic liberalism as well as to the Marxist socialism. Corporativism in his writings is not opposed to democracy, but combines with it. A combination of corporativism and democracy could help to select the best representatives of their professions to take positions in the official institutions, thus improving the political system of the state.

These are the profiles of Kemesis’s vision of the state which can be reconstructed mostly from his early writings. To what extend they would have been changed had the author finished his last book will never be known.

Kemesis’s vision of the future of society can help us to understand but not justify some ideas expressed in the book Looking For The True Way, issued after the Second World War. It strangely appreciated the social politics of the Fascist states, where he saw the efforts for the improvement of society taking the middle way. It seems that "Mussolini and Hitler approached social justice in their countries more than Smith, Ricardo, Marx and Lenin" (3, 339-340), for in a way they tried to create regulated and controlled capitalism, leaving private property to the state. More than that, they appreciated corporativism integrating all social classes into "harmonic and unified cooperation" (3, 365), with moral inducements prevalent over material ones. These efforts at social regulation were accompanied by irrational philosophy "emphasizing human will and feelings over mind and intellect. Power in these systems served argumentation, military means stood for peaceful compromises and propaganda served the impartiality of science" (3, 361). Of course, this evaluation of Fascistic social politics is doubtful and clearly one-sided, but it shows the author’s efforts to find an acceptable model of society in real life.

Kemesis’s ideas of social philosophy, most of which were discussed in his unpublished work Towards A Christian Economy, and other writings from the period between the wars, are unique phenomena in Lithuanian Catholic Philosophy. Of course, after 50 years some of them have only historical value, although some methodological principles which grounded his theoretical social models, his analyses of abundant material from experience, his competent evaluation of economic and social conceptions, especially his fundamental criticism of the social philosophies of liberalism and Marxism, are undoubtedly important even today.

1. F. Kemesis. Looking for the True Way (Kelio beieskant), (Kaunas, 1932).

2. F. Kemesis. Introduction to Social and Political Economy (Socialines bei politines ekonomijos ivadas). (Kaunas, 1938).

3. F. Kemesis. Towards a Christian Economy (Krikscioniskosios ekonomijos linkme). Manuscript, 1940-1946, Archive of the Lithuanian Catholic Academy of Sciences.