Chapter Three
Capitalism and
Social Ideas
(Capital, Human
Labor)
It is not possible to judge what
kind of action is demanded by the events of the times without the will to
be guided in this judgment by an insight into the basic forces of the
social organism. The preceding presentation is an attempt to arrive at
such an insight. Measures based on a judgment which derives from a
narrowly circumscribed field of observation cannot have positive results
today. The facts which have grown out of the social movement reveal
disturbances in the foundations of the social organism, and by no means
superficial ones. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at insights which
penetrate to these foundations.
When capital and capitalism are
spoken of today, they refer to what proletarian humanity considers to be
the causes of its oppression. It is only possible to form a worthwhile
judgment concerning the way in which capital furthers or hinders the
social organism's circulatory processes by perceiving how individual
human capabilities, rights legislation and the forces of economic life
produce and consume capital. When human labor is spoken of it refers to
the function that, together with the natural base of the economy and
capital, creates the economic values through which the worker becomes
conscious of his social condition. A judgment as to how this human labor
must be introduced into the social organism in a manner which does not
disturb the worker's sense of human dignity will only result from
observing the relation which human labor has to the development of
individual capabilities on the one hand and to rights-awareness on the
other.
People are asking today — and rightly
so — what is the first step to be taken in order to satisfy the demands
which are arising in the social movement. Even the first step will not be
taken in a worthwhile manner if it is not known what relation this step
should have to the foundations of a healthy social organism. One who
knows this will be able to find the appropriate tasks wherever he happens
to be, or wherever he decides to go. Acquisition of the insight referred
to here has been prevented by what has passed over, during a long period
of time, from human will into social institutions. People have become so
accustomed to these institutions that their views about what should be
preserved in them and what should be changed in them is determined by the
institutions themselves. Their thoughts conform to the things, instead of
mastering them. It is necessary today to perceive that it is only
possible to arrive at factual judgments through a return to the
fundamental thoughts which are the basis for all social
institutions.
If adequate sources are not present
from which the forces that reside in these fundamental thoughts
constantly flow into the social organism, then the institutions take on
forms which inhibit rather than further life. The fundamental thoughts
live on, more or less unconsciously, in human instinctive impulses
however, while fully conscious thoughts lead to error and create
hindrances to life. These fundamental thoughts, which manifest themselves
chaotically in a life inhibiting world, are what underlie, openly or
disguised, the revolutionary convulsions of the social organism. These
convulsions will not occur once the social organism is structured in such
a way that the tendency is prevalent to observe at what point
institutions diverge from the forms indicated by the fundamental
thoughts, and to counteract such divergences before they become
dangerously powerful.
In our times, divergences from the
conditions required by the fundamental thoughts have become great in many
aspects of human life. The living impulse of these thoughts stands in
human souls as a vocal criticism, through events, of the form the social
organism has assumed during the last centuries. Good will is therefore
necessary in order to turn energetically to the fundamental thoughts and
not to underestimate how damaging it is, especially today, to banish them
from life as impractical generalities. Criticism of what modern times
have made of the social organism exists in the life and in the demands of
the proletarian population. The task of our times is to counteract the
one-sided criticism by finding, in the fundamental thoughts, the
direction to be taken in order that events be consciously guided. For the
time is gone in which humanity can be satisfied with what instinctive
guidance is able to achieve.
One of the basic questions that has
developed in contemporary criticism is how to put an end to the
oppression which proletarian humanity has experienced through private
capitalism. The owner, or manager, of capital is in a position to put the
physical labor of other people at the service of whatever he undertakes
to produce. It is necessary to differentiate between three sectors in the
social relationship which arises through the cooperation of capital and
human labor: the managerial activity, which must be based upon the
individual abilities of a person or a group of persons; the relationship
of the manager to the worker, which must be a legal one; the production
of an article which acquires commodity value in economic circulation.
Managerial activity can only participate soundly in the social organism
when forces are active in this organism which allow individual human
abilities to manifest themselves in the best possible manner. This can
only occur if there is a sector of the social organism which allows
capable individuals free initiative to exercise their abilities and
enables the evaluation of these abilities to be made through the free
understanding of others. It is evident that the social activity of a
person utilizing capital belongs in the sector of the social organism in
which spiritual life provides the laws and administration. Should the
political state participate in this activity, then a lack of appreciation
of the effectiveness of individual abilities must necessarily become a
co-determining factor. The political state must be based upon, and occupy
itself with, those requirements which are common and equal to all. It
must, in its area, ensure that each individual is able to assert his
opinion. The appreciation or non-appreciation of individual abilities is
not one of its functions. Therefore, what takes place within its
framework may not influence the exercise of individual human abilities.
Nor should the prospect of economic profit be the determining factor in
the exercise of individual abilities through the use of capital. Many
critics of capitalism lay particular stress on this economic profit
factor. They assume that individual abilities can only be actuated by
this incentive. As ‘practical’ people, they refer to ‘imperfect’ human
nature, which they pretend to know. It is true that, within the social
order which contemporary conditions have occasioned, the prospect of
profit has attained enormous importance. But this fact is no less the
cause of the conditions which are now being experienced. These conditions
call urgently for the development of some other motivation for the
actuation of individual abilities. This motivation will have to be found
in the social understanding which issues from a healthy spiritual life.
With the strength of free spiritual life the schools, education will
equip the individual with impulses which, by virtue of this inherent
understanding, will enable him to put his personal abilities into
practice.
This opinion is by no means
fantastic. Certainly fantastic notions have caused as much damage in the
field of social will as in any other. But the view expressed here, as can
be seen from the foregoing, is not based upon the delusion that ‘the
spirit’ will work wonders if only those who think they are endowed with
some. talk as much as possible about it; it is rather the result of
observing the free cooperation of human beings in spiritual fields of
endeavor This cooperation, when it is able to develop in a truly free
manner, acquires, through its own essence, a social form.
Only the unfree kind of spiritual
life has, until now, prevented this social form from emerging. Spiritual
strength has been cultivated within the ruling classes in a way that has
antisocially restricted its achievements to these classes. What was
accomplished within these classes could only be transmitted artificially
to proletarian humanity. And this part of humanity could draw no
soul-sustaining strength from spiritual life because it did not really
participate in these spiritual values. Institutes of popular adult
education, leading the people to an appreciation of art, and similar
actions, are not really valid means for the propagation of spiritual
values as long as these spiritual values retain the character they have
taken on in recent times. The innermost human essence is not to be found
in such values. The working classes can therefore only look on from an
outside observation point. What holds true in respect of spiritual life
proper is also the case with the ramifications of spiritual activity
which flow into economic life along with capital. In a healthy social
organism the proletarian worker should not merely stand at his machine
concerned with nothing but its operation, while the capitalist alone
knows the fate of the produced commodities in economic circulation.
Through fully active participation the worker should be able to develop a
clear idea of his own involvement in society through his work on the
production of commodities. Regular discussions, which must be considered
to be as much a part of the operation as the work itself, should be
arranged by management with a view to developing ideas which circumscribe
employer and employed alike. A healthy activity of this kind will result
in an understanding by the worker that correct management of capital
benefits the social organism and therewith the worker himself. By means
of such openness, based on free mutual understanding, the entrepreneur
will be induced to conduct his business in an irreproachable
manner.
Only someone who cannot sense the
social effect of a common undertaking's united inner experience will hold
what has been said here to be meaningless. Someone who can sense this
effect will see how economic productivity is stimulated when the
capital-based management of economic life has its roots in the free
spiritual sector. The interest in capital for the purpose of making and
increasing profits can only be replaced by an objective interest in the
production of commodities and in achievement if this prerequisite is
met.
The socialistic minded strive for the
administration of the means of production by the state. What is justified
in their efforts can only be attained when this administration becomes
the responsibility of the spiritual sector. The economic coercion which
the capitalist exercises when he develops his activities from the forces
of economic life will thereby become impossible. And the paralyzing of
individual human abilities, as is the case when these abilities are
administered by the political state, cannot occur.
The proceeds from the use of capital
and individual human abilities must derive, as is the case with all
spiritual effort, from the free initiative of the doer on one side, and
the free recognition by those others who require his efforts on the
other. The determination of the amount of these proceeds must be in
agreement with the doer's own free insight into what is suitable, taking
into consideration his preparation, expenditures, and so forth. His
claims in this respect will be satisfied only when his efforts are met
with recognition.
Through the kind of social
arrangements described here, the ground can be prepared for a truly free
contractual relationship between manager and worker. This does not mean
an exchange of commodities, i.e. money, for labor-power, but an agreement
as to the share each of the persons who jointly produced the product is
to receive.
What is achieved for the social
organism with capital as its basis depends, by its very nature, on how
individual human abilities intervene in this organism. The corresponding
impulse for the development of these abilities can only be obtained
through a free spiritual life. In a social organism in which the
development of these abilities is harnessed to a political state or to
the economy, the real productivity of everything requiring the
expenditure of capital depends upon free individual forces overcoming
these paralyzing conditions. But development under such conditions is
unsound. Free deployment of individual abilities in the use of capital
has not been the cause of conditions in which labor has become a
commodity; the fettering of these abilities by the political state or
economic interests is responsible for these conditions. Unprejudiced
comprehension of this fact is a prerequisite for everything which should
come about in the field of social organization. Modern times have
produced the superstition that the means for making the social organism
healthy can emerge from the political state or the economic sector. If
humanity continues in the direction indicated by this superstition,
social institutions will be created which will not lead humanity to what
it strives for, but to an unlimited increase in the oppression which it
seeks to avert.
People began thinking about
capitalism at a time when it was seen as the cause of a deterioration in
the social organism. One experiences this deterioration and sees that it
must be fought against. It is necessary to see more. One must become
aware that the illness has its origin in the draining of the effective
forces in capital by the economic process. Only by avoiding the illusion
caused by the manner of thinking which sees the management of capital by
a liberated spiritual sector as the result of ‘impractical idealism,’ is
it possible to work in the direction which the evolutionary forces of
contemporary humanity are beginning to demand.
Certainly people are poorly prepared
at the present time to directly relate the social ideas, which are to
guide capitalism along a healthy course, with spiritual life. Only
economic life is taken into consideration. It is easily seen how, in
modern times, commodity production has led to large-scale industrial
enterprises, and this in turn to the contemporary form of capitalism.
Cooperatives, which work to satisfy the needs of the producers, are
supposed to take the place of this economic form. Since modern means of
production are obviously to be retained however, the concentration of all
enterprises in one great cooperative is called for. In such a system, it
is thought, each person would produce on behalf of the community, which
could not be exploitative because it would be exploiting itself. And
because one must, or wants to, relate to what already exists, one looks
to the modern state, which is to be transformed into an all-embracing
cooperative.
It is not realized that what is
expected of such a cooperative is less likely to occur the larger it
becomes. If the integration of individual human abilities into the
cooperative organism is not structured as described here, then the common
management of labor cannot lead to the social organism's
recovery.
The present meager inclination toward
an unbiased judgment as far as the intervention of spiritual life in the
social organism is concerned, is the result of people having become
accustomed to imagine the spiritual as being as far removed as possible
from everything which is material and practical. They will not be few who
will find something grotesque in the view expressed here, that the
actuation of capital in economic life should partially manifest the
effects of the spiritual sector. One can well imagine that the members of
the hitherto ruling classes are in agreement with socialist thinkers on
this point.
In order to recognize the importance
for the recovery of the social organism of what they consider grotesque,
one must direct one’s attention to certain contemporary currents of
thought which, in their way, derive from honest impulses of the soul, but
hinder the development of real social thinking wherever they find
entry.
These currents of thought flow — more
or less unconsciously — away from what gives inner experience the right
impulse. They strive after a philosophy and an inner life of the soul and
intellect which accords with the search for scientific knowledge, but
which is like an island in the sea of human existence. They are not able
to build a bridge from that life to the everyday life of reality. One can
see how many people nowadays find it fashionable to reflect, in their
ivory towers, in scholastic abstractions on all kinds of
ethical-religious problems; one can see how people reflect on how man can
acquire virtues, how he should behave lovingly toward his fellow-men, and
how he can become inspired with an inner meaning of life. But one also
sees the impossibility of realizing a carry-over from what people call
good and loving and benevolent and right and moral to what surrounds
humanity in everyday external reality in the form of capital, of labor
remuneration, of consumption, of production, of commodity circulation, of
credit, of banks and stock markets. One can see how two universal
currents also flow alongside each other in human thought-habits. One
current is that which remains at divine-spiritual heights, so to speak,
and has no desire to build bridges between what constitutes a spiritual
impulse and the realities of the ordinary dealings of life. The other
lives, devoid of thought, in everyday life. Life, however, is a unity. It
can only prosper if the strength from ethical-religious life works down
into the commonplace, profane life, into that life which, to many, may
seem less fashionable. For if one fails to erect a bridge between these
two aspects, one falls into mere fantasy, far removed from true everyday
reality as far as religious and moral life and social thinking are
concerned. These true everyday realities then have their revenge. From
out of a certain spiritual impulse man strives towards all kinds of
ideals, towards what he calls good; but he devotes himself without spirit
to those other instincts based on the ordinary daily necessities of life
which must be satisfied through economic activities. He knows of no
practicable way from the concept of spirituality to what goes on in
everyday life. Therefore this life takes on a form having nothing to do
with ethical impulses, which remain at fashionable, spiritual heights.
But then the revenge of the commonplace is such that the
ethical-religious life constitutes an inner lie, for it remains at a
distance from the commonplace, out of direct contact with practical life,
without this fact even being perceived.
How many people there are nowadays
who, through ethical-religious high-mindedness, demonstrate the best will
to live correctly together with their fellow-men, wishing them only the
very best. They fail, however, to adopt the necessary sensibilities, for
they cannot acquire the concrete social concepts which affect the
practical conduct of life.
It is people such as these,
fantasists who think they are practical, who in this historical moment
when the social questions have become so urgent, hinder all real
progress. One can hear them speak as follows: ‘It is necessary for
humanity to rise up from materialism, from the external material life
which has driven us into the catastrophe of the world-war, and turn to a
spiritual conception of life.’ In order to show the path to spirituality,
they never tire of citing the personalities of the past who were
venerated for their spiritual way of thinking. If, however, one tries to
indicate what the spirit must necessarily accomplish today in practical
life, how daily bread must be produced, it is immediately contended that
first of all people must be brought to once again acknowledge the spirit.
But the heart of the matter today is that the guidelines for the recovery
of the social organism are to be found in the strength of spiritual life.
For this it is not sufficient that people occupy themselves with the
spirit as a sideline. For this it is necessary that everyday life become
spiritually oriented. The tendency to treat spiritual life as a sideline
has led the hitherto ruling classes to acquire a taste for social
conditions which have resulted in the current state of
affairs.
In contemporary society, management
of capital for the production of commodities is closely allied to the
possession of the means of production, which is also capital.
Nevertheless, these two relationships of man to capital are quite
different as far as their effects within the social organism are
concerned. Management through individual abilities, when they are
properly exercised, supplies the social organism with goods in which
everyone who belongs to this organism has an interest. Whatever a
person's situation in life, it is in his interest that nothing be lost of
what flows from the sources of human nature in the form of individual
abilities, by means of which the goods are produced that purposefully
serve human life. The development of these abilities can only ensue when
their possessors are able to activate them with their own free
initiative. The welfare of humanity is, at least to a certain extent,
deprived of whatever is not able to flow from these sources in freedom.
Capital is the means by which such abilities are made effective for wide
areas of the social organism. Everyone within a social organism must have
a real interest in the sum total of capital being managed in such a way
that particularly gifted individuals or groups have this capital at the
disposal of their own free initiative. Every person, whether his work is
spiritually creative or that of a laborer, if he wishes to objectively
serve his own interests, would like a sufficiently large number of
competent persons or groups of persons not only to have capital freely at
their disposal, but also that it become accessible to them through their
own initiative. For only they can judge how their individual abilities,
through the mediation of capital, will purposefully produce goods for the
social organism.
It is not necessary to describe
within the framework of this book how, in the course of human evolution,
private ownership developed out of other forms of ownership in connection
with the activation of individual human abilities. In recent times,
ownership has developed within the social organism under the influence of
the division of labor We are concerned here with contemporary conditions
and their necessary further development.
However private ownership may have
arisen, through the exercise of power, conquest and so forth, it is a
result of social creation bound to individual human abilities.
Nevertheless, the current opinion of the socialists is that the
oppressive nature of private ownership can only be done away with through
its transformation into common ownership. The question is put so: How can
the private ownership of the means of production be prevented in order
that the resulting oppression of the unpropertied cease? Whoever puts the
question in this way overlooks the fact that the social organism is
constantly becoming and growing. It is not possible to ask how something
that grows should be organized in order that this organization, which is
thought to be correct, be preserved into the future. One can think in
this way about something which remains unchanged from its beginnings. But
it is not valid for the social organism. As a living entity it is
constantly changing whatever arises within it. To attempt to give it a
supposedly best form, in which it is expected to remain, is to undermine
its vitality.
One of the conditions of the social
organism is that those who can serve the community through their
individual abilities should not be deprived of using their free
initiative. Where such service requires that the means of production be
freely at their disposal, the hindering of this free initiative would
only be harmful to the general social interest. The usual argument, that
the entrepreneur needs the prospect of profit as an incentive and that
this profit is closely related to ownership of the means of production,
is rejected here. The kind of thinking from which the opinions expressed
in this book derive, that there is a further evolution of social
conditions, must see in the liberation of spiritual life from the
political and economic sectors the possibility that this form of
incentive can cease to exist.
Liberated spiritual life will,
necessarily, develop social understanding, and from this understanding
will result quite different forms of incentive than the hope of economic
advantage. However, it is not a question of which impulses arouse
sympathy for private ownership of the means of production, but whether
the free disposition of these means or that disposition which is
regulated by the community is what corresponds to the vital needs of the
social organism. Moreover, it must always be kept in mind that the
conditions which are thought to be observed in primitive human societies
are not applicable to the contemporary social organism; only those
conditions which correspond to today's stage of development are
applicable.
At this present stage, a fertile
activation of individual abilities cannot be introduced into the economic
process without free disposition over capital. If production is to be
fruitful, this disposition must be possible, not because it is
advantageous to an individual or a group of individuals, but because,
when utilized with the proper social understanding, it can best serve the
community.
The human being relates to what he
produces, alone or together with others, as he relates to the dexterity
of his own limbs. The undermining of free disposition over the means of
production is equivalent to crippling the free application of dexterity
in his limbs.
Private ownership is, however,
nothing other than the medium for this free disposition. As far as the
social organism is concerned, the only significance of ownership is that
the owner has the right of disposition over the property through his own
free initiative. One sees that in society two things are bound together
which have quite different significance for the social organism: the free
disposition over the capital base of social production, and the legal
relationship through which he who exercises this disposition, by means of
his right of disposition, precludes others from the free utilization of
this capital base.
It is not the original free
disposition which leads to social damage, but only the prolongation of
the right of disposition when the appropriate conditions which connect
individual human abilities to this disposition have ceased to exist.
Whoever sees the social organism as something evolving, growing, will not
misunderstand what is indicated here. He will seek possibilities whereby
that which serves life can be administered so that its effects will not
be harmful. What lives cannot be fruitfully established without
disadvantages occurring during the process of becoming. And should one
work on an evolving entity, as man must on the social organism, then the
task may not be to hinder a necessary facility in order to avoid damage,
for then one would undermine the possibilities for life of the social
organism. It is a matter of intervening at the right moment, when what
has been appropriate is about to become harmful.
The possibility of free disposition
over the capital base through individual abilities must exist; it must be
possible to change the related property rights as soon as they become a
means for the unjustified acquisition of power. We do have a facility
which partially fulfills this requirement in respect of so-called
intellectual property. At a certain time after its creator's death it
becomes community property. This corresponds to a truly social way of
thinking. Closely as the creation of a purely intellectual property is
bound to an individual's talents, it is at the same time a product of
human society and must, at the right moment, be handed over to this
society. It is in no way different with respect to other property. That
which the individual produces in the service of the community is only
possible in cooperation with this community. The right of disposition
over a property cannot be administered separate from the community's
interests. A means of eliminating the ownership of the capital base is
not to be sought, but rather a means of administering this property so
that it best serves the community.
This means can be found in the
threefold social organism. The people, united in the social organism, act
as a totality through the rights-state. The exercise of individual
abilities pertains to the spiritual organization.
Everything in the social organism,
when viewed realistically and without subjective opinions, theories,
desires and so forth, indicates the necessity for the threefold formation
of the social organism. This is particularly true as regards the relation
of individual human abilities to the capital base of economic life and
the ownership of this capital base. The rights-state will not have to
prevent the formation and administration of privately owned capital as
long as individual abilities remain bound to the capital base in a way
that constitutes a service to the whole of the social organism.
Furthermore, it will remain a rights-state in regard to private property,
never making private property its own, but ensuring that rights of
disposition are transferred at the right moment to a person or a group of
persons capable of restoring the appropriate individual relationship to
the property. The social organism will thereby be served from two
completely different angles. The democratic rights state, which is
concerned with what affects all people in an equal manner, will guard
against property rights becoming property wrongs. Because this state does
not itself administer property, but ensures its transfer to individual
human abilities, these abilities will develop their productive powers for
the totality of the social organism. Through such organization, property
rights, or the disposition over them, may retain a personal element as
long as seems opportune. One can imagine that the representatives in the
rights-state will, at different times, enact completely different laws
concerning the transference of property from one person, or group of
persons, to others. At the present time, when a great mistrust of all
private property is widespread, a radical transference of private
property to community [state] property is contemplated. Should this way
be followed, it will be seen to impair the vital potentialities of the
social organism. Taught by experience, another way will then be taken. It
would, however, doubtless be better if arrangements were undertaken now
which would, in the sense indicated here, bestow health on the social
organism. As long as a person alone, or in connection with a group,
continues the productive activity which procured for him a capital base,
his right of disposition over the capital accumulation which results from
operating profits on original capital will have to remain in effect when
it is used for an expansion of production. From the moment such a person
ceases to manage production, this capital accumulation should pass to
another person, or group of persons, to be utilized for the same or some
other type of production which serves the social organism. Capital gains
which are not used for expansion should be similarly treated. The only
thing personally owned by the individual who operates an enterprise
should be what he receives in accordance with the terms agreed to when he
takes over responsibility for production, and which he feels are
appropriate to his individual abilities; and which, furthermore, seem
justified by the confidence of others in granting him the use of capital.
Should the capital be increased through the activities of this
individual, then he would be entitled to a portion of the increase, which
would correspond to an interest-like percentage. When the first
administrator no longer can or will manage an enterprise, the capital
with which it was established will either be transferred to a new
administrator, along with all obligations or, depending on the wishes of
the original owners, be returned to them.
Such arrangements concern the
transference of rights. The legal provisions by which these transfers are
to take place are the province of the rights-state. It will also have to
see to their execution and administration. One can safely assume that the
detailed determinations which regulate such transfers will vary according
to what rights-awareness considers correct. A realistic way of thinking
will never desire more than to point out the direction that such
regulation can take. If this direction is taken with understanding, the
appropriate action for specific individual cases can always be found. The
correct solution will always have to be in accordance with the spirit of
the thing as well as whatever special conditions practical considerations
may impose. The more realistic a way of thinking is, the less it will
seek to establish laws and rules from predetermined requirements. On the
other hand, the spirit of such a way of thinking will necessarily lead to
certain requirements. One such result will be that the rights-state will
never take over the disposition of capital through its administration of
transfer rights. It has only to provide for the transfer to a person or
group of persons whose individual abilities seem to warrant it. In
general, it follows that it should at first be possible for someone who
proposes to effect such a capital transference under the circumstances
described to freely choose his successor. He will be able to choose a
person, or group of persons, or transfer the disposition rights to an
establishment of the spiritual organization. A person who has
purposefully served the social organism through the management of capital
will determine the future use of this capital with social understanding
derived from his individual abilities. Furthermore, it will be more
advantageous for the social organism to depend upon this determination
than to dispense with it and have settlements made by people not directly
concerned with the matter.
Settlements of this kind will pertain
to capital accumulations exceeding a certain amount which are acquired by
a person or group through the use of means of production (to which real
estate also belongs), and which are not included in what Is originally
agreed upon as compensation for the activities of individual
abilities.
Such earnings, acquisitions and
savings which result from the individual's own work will remain in his
personal possession until his death, or in his descendants' possession
until a later date. Until this date interest (the amount of which is to
be determined from rights-awareness and set by the rights state) will be
paid by whoever receives such savings for the procurement of means of
production. In a social order based upon the principles described herein,
it will be possible to completely separate the proceeds which result from
the use of means of production from assets acquired by means of personal
(physical and mental) work. This separation accords with rights-awareness
as well as the interests of the social community. What someone saves and
makes available for production serves the general interest, for it makes
the management of production through individual human abilities possible
in the first place. Capital increase through the use of means of
production – after the deduction of legitimate interest – owes its
development to the overall social organism. It should therefore also flow
back into it in the way described. The rights-state has only to ensure
that the transference of the capital in question takes place in the
manner indicated; it will not be incumbent upon it to decide which
material or spiritual production is to have disposition over transferred
capital or over savings. That would lead to a tyranny of the state over
spiritual and material production, which is best administered through
individual human abilities. In case someone does not wish to personally
select the receiver of capital accumulated by him, he will be able to
delegate this function to a unit of the spiritual
organization.
After the death of the earner, or at
a certain time thereafter, assets acquired through savings, along with
the corresponding interest, also go to a spiritually or materially
productive person or group – but only to such a person or group and not
to an unproductive person in whose hands it would constitute a private
pension – to be chosen by the earner and specified in his will). Here
again, if a person or group cannot be chosen directly, the transfer of
disposition rights to an establishment of the spiritual organism will
come into consideration. Only if someone does not himself effect a
disposition will the rights-state step in and, through the spiritual
organization, make the disposition for him.
In a social order arranged in this
way the initiative of the individual as well as the interests of the
social community are taken into account. Indeed, such interests are fully
satisfied by individual initiatives being placed at their service. Under
such an arrangement, someone who entrusts his labor to the guidance of
another will know that the results of their joint efforts will serve the
community, and therewith the worker himself, in the best possible way.
The social order meant here will create a healthy, sensible relationship
between capital, as embodied in means of production, together with human
labor on the one hand, and the prices of the articles produced by them on
the other. Perhaps imperfections are contained in what is presented here.
Then let them be found. It is not the function of a way of thinking which
corresponds to reality to formulate perfect programs for all time, but to
point out the direction for practical work. The intention of the specific
examples mentioned here is to better illustrate the indicated direction.
A productive goal can still be attained as long as improvements coincide
with the direction given.
Justified personal or family
interests will be brought into concordance with the requirements of the
human community through such arrangements. It is of course possible to
point out that there will be a strong temptation to pass on property to
one or more descendants during the original owner's lifetime. Also, that
although descendants could be made to look like producers, they would
nevertheless be inefficient compared to others who should replace them.
This temptation could be reduced to a minimum in an organization governed
by the arrangements described above. The rights-state has only to require
that under all circumstances property transferred from one family member
to another must, upon the lapse of a certain period of time after the
death of the former, devolve upon an establishment of the spiritual
organization. Or evasion of the rule can be prevented in some other way
through the law. The rights-state will only insure that the transfer
takes place; a facility of the spiritual organization should determine
who is to receive the inheritance. Through the fulfillment of these
principles an awareness will develop of the necessity for offspring being
made qualified for the social organism through education and training,
and of the socially harmful results of transferring capital to
unproductive persons. Someone who is really imbued with social
understanding will have no interest in his relation to a capital base
passing to a person or group whose individual abilities do not justify
it.
No one with a sense for the truly
practicable will consider what is presented here as utopian. The only
arrangements proposed are those which can develop in accordance with
contemporary conditions in all walks of life. It is only necessary to
decide once and for all that the rights-state must gradually relinquish
its control over spiritual-cultural life and the economy, and not to
offer resistance when what should happen really happens: that private
educational institutions arise and the economy becomes self-sustaining.
The state-owned schools and economic enterprises do not have to be
eliminated overnight, but the gradual dismantling of the state
educational and economic apparatus could well develop from small
beginnings. Above all, it is necessary for those who are thoroughly
convinced of the correctness of these or similar social ideas to provide
for their dissemination. If these ideas find understanding, confidence
will arise in the possibility of a healthy transformation of present
conditions into others which are not harmful. This is the only confidence
that can bring about a really healthy evolution, for whoever would
acquire this confidence must perceive how new institutions could be
practically merged with existing ones. The essential element of the ideas
developed here is that they do not advocate the advent of a better future
through even greater destruction of society than has already occurred,
but that the realization of such ideas is to come about by building upon
what already exists. Through this building, the dismantling of the
unhealthy elements is induced. Explanations which do not instill
confidence of this sort cannot attain what absolutely must be attained: a
course in which the value of what has hitherto been produced, and the
abilities which have been acquired, are not simply thrown overboard, but
are preserved. Even those who think in a very radical way can acquire
confidence in a new social structure which carries over existing values
if the ideas which accompany it are capable of introducing truly healthy
developments. Even they must realize that, regardless of which social
class attains power, it will not be able to eliminate the existing evils
if its impulses are not supported by ideas which make the social organism
healthy and viable. To despair because one does not believe that a
sufficiently large number of people, even in the present troubled
circumstances, can find understanding for such ideas even if sufficient
energy is dedicated to their dissemination, is to despair of human
nature's susceptibility to purposeful and health-giving impulses. This
question, whether one should despair or not, should not be asked, rather
only this: How can ideas which instill confidence be explained in the
most effective possible way?
An effective dissemination of the
ideas presented here will meet opposition from the thought-habits of
contemporary times on two grounds. Either it will be argued that to tear
asunder uniform society is not possible because the three sectors which
have been described are, in reality, interrelated at all social levels;
or that the necessary autonomous character of each of the three sectors
can also be attained in the uniform state, and that what is presented
here is no more than a fantasy The first objection unrealistically
supposes that unity can only be achieved in a community by means of
directives. Reality, however, demands the opposite. Unity must arise as
the result of activities streaming together from various directions. The
developments of recent years have run counter to this reality.
Furthermore, what lives in human beings has resisted the order brought
into their lives from without, which has led to the present state of
affairs.
The second prejudice results from an
inability to perceive the radical difference in function inherent In the
three sectors of society. It is not seen how the human being has a
special relation to each of the three sectors, each one separate from the
other two but cooperating with them, on which this relation can take
form. According to the physiocratic theory of the past, either
governments take measures concerning economic life which are in
contradiction to its self-development, in which case such measures are
harmful; or the laws coincide with the direction economic life takes when
it is left alone, in which case they are superfluous. Academically, this
view is antiquated; as thought-habit however, it still devastatingly
haunts people's brains. It is thought that if one sector of life follows
its own laws, then everything necessary for life must arise from this
sector. If, for example, economic life were regulated in a way that
people found satisfactory, then the appropriate rights and spiritual
sectors would also result from this orderly economic foundation. But this
is not possible, and only thinking which is foreign to reality can
believe that it is possible. There is nothing in the economic sector to
provide the motivation necessary to regulate what derives from the
rights-awareness of a person-to-person relationship. If this relationship
is regulated according to economic motivation, then the human being,
together with his labor and with the disposition over the means to labor,
is harnessed to economic life. He becomes a cog, a mechanism of the
economic system. Economic life tends to move in one direction only, and
this must be compensated for from another side. Legal measures are not
necessarily good when they follow the direction determined by the
economy, nor are they necessarily harmful when they run counter to it;
rather, when the direction of economic life is continually influenced by
the law, in its application to human beings as such, an existence worthy
of humanity will be introduced into economic life. Furthermore, only when
individual abilities are completely separated from economic life, when
they grow on their own foundation and unceasingly supply economic life
with the strength which it cannot produce within itself, will it be able
to develop in a manner which is beneficial to humanity.
It is noteworthy that in everyday
life one easily sees the advantage of the division of labor. One does not
expect a tailor to keep his own cow in order to have milk. As far as the
comprehensive formation of human life is concerned however, one believes
that only a uniform structure can be useful.
It is inevitable that social ideas
which correspond to reality will give rise to objections from all sides,
for life breeds contradictions. He who thinks realistically will seek to
institute facilities the contradictions of which are compensated for by
other facilities. He may not believe that a facility which to his mind is
ideally good will, when put into practice, be without contradictions.
Contemporary socialism is thoroughly justified when it demands that the
modern facilities which produce profits for individuals be replaced by
others which produce for the consumption of all. However, the person who
fully recognizes this demand cannot come to modern socialism's
conclusion: that the means of production must pass from private ownership
to common state ownership. Rather, he will come to a quite different
conclusion: that what is privately produced through individual competence
must be made available to the community in the correct way. The impulse
of modern industry has been to create income through the mass production
of goods. The task of the future will be to find, through associations,
the kind of production which most accords with the needs of consumers and
the most appropriate channels from the producers to the consumers. Legal
arrangements will ensure that a productive enterprise remains connected
to a person or group only as long as the connection is justified by their
individual abilities. Instead of common ownership of the means of
production, a circulation of these means – continually putting them at
the disposal of the persons whose individual abilities can best employ
them for the benefit of the community – will be introduced into the
social organism. In this way the connection between individuality and
means of production, hitherto effected through private ownership, is
established on a temporary basis. The manager and sub-managers of an
enterprise will have the means of production to thank for the fact that
their abilities can provide them with the income they require. They will
not fail to make production as efficient as possible, for an increase in
production, although not bringing them the full profit, does provide them
with a portion of the proceeds. As described above, the profit goes to
the community only after an interest has been deducted and credited to
the producer due to the increase in production. It is also in the spirit
of what is presented here that when production falls off the producer's
income is to diminish in the same measure as it increases with an
expansion of production. Additional income will always result from the
manager's mental achievement, and not from the forces inherent in
community cooperation.
Through the realization of such
social ideas as are presented here, the institutions which exist today
will acquire a completely new significance. The ownership of property
ceases to be what it has been until now. Nor is an obsolete form
reinstated, as would be the case with common ownership, but an advance to
something completely new is made. The objects of ownership are introduced
into the flux of social life. They cannot be administered by a private
individual for his private interests to the detriment of the community,
but neither will the community be able to administer them
bureaucratically to the detriment of the individual. Rather will the
suitable individual have access to them in order therewith to serve the
community.
A sense for the common interest can
develop through the realization of impulses that put production on a
sound basis and safeguard the social organism from the dangers of crises.
Also, a management which only occupies itself with economic processes
will be able to carry out the necessary adjustments. For example, should
a company which is fulfilling a need not be in a position to pay its
creditors the interest due them on their savings, other companies, in
free agreement with all concerned, could make up whatever is lacking. A
self-contained economic process which receives both its legal basis and a
continuous supply of individual human abilities from outside itself will
be able to restrict its activities to the economic sector. It will
therefore occasion a distribution of goods which will ensure that each
receives what he is entitled to in accordance with the community's
welfare. If one person appears to have more income than another, this
will only be because this ‘more’ benefits the community due to his
individual abilities.
In a social organism which functions
in accordance with the manner of thinking presented here, the
contributions necessary for the upkeep of rights institutions will be
arranged through agreement between the leaders of the rights sector and
the economic sector. Everything necessary for the maintenance of the
spiritual organization, including remuneration, will come to it through
the free appreciation of the individuals who participate in the social
organism. A sound basis for the spiritual organization will result from
free competition among the individuals capable of spiritual
work.
Only in a social organism of the kind
described here will the rights administration be able to acquire the
understanding necessary for a just distribution of goods. An economic
organism which does not lay claim to human labor according to the needs
of the various branches of production, but which has to operate in
accordance with what the law allows, will determine the worth of
commodities according to the work of the men who produce them. Commodity
values, which are unrelated to human welfare and dignity, will not
determine human work-performance. Rights in such an organism will result
from purely human relations. Children will have the right to education;
the working head of a family will have a higher income than a single
person. The ‘more’ will come to him through arrangements established by
agreement of all three social organizations. The right to education could
be arranged in that the economic organization's administration, in
accordance with the general economic situation, calculates the amount of
educational income possible, while the rights-state, in consultation with
the spiritual organization, determines the rights of the individual in
this respect. Once again, this indication is meant as an example of the
direction in which arrangements can be made. It is possible that quite
different arrangements would be appropriate in specific cases. However,
they can only be found through the purposeful cooperation of the three
autonomous members of the social organism. Contrary to what often passes
for practical today but is not, this presentation wishes to find the
truly practical, namely, a formation of the social organism which enables
people to strive for what is socially desirable. Just as children have
the right to an education, the elderly, the infirm and widows have the
right to a decent maintenance. The necessary capital must be provided for
in the same way that it is for the education of those who are not yet
productive. The essential point of all this is that the income of the
non-earners Is not determined by the economic sector; on the contrary,
the economic sector becomes dependent upon the results of
rights-awareness. Those who work In an economic organism will receive
that much less from the results of their work as more flows to the
non-earners. However, this ‘less’ will be borne equally by all
participants in the social organism if the social impulse described here
is realized. The education and support of those who are incapable of
working is something which concerns all humanity, and, through a
rights-state detached from the economy, it will be so, for every
individual who is of age will have a voice in the
rights-organization.
In a social organism which
corresponds to the manner of thinking characterized here, a person's
surplus performance, made possible by his individual abilities, will be
passed on to the community just as the legitimate support for the deficit
performance of the less capable will be drawn from this same community.
‘Surplus value’ will not be created for the enjoyment of individuals, but
for the increased supply of intellectual or material wealth to the social
organism; and for the cultivation of what is produced within this
organism but which is not of immediate use to it.
Whoever is of the opinion that
keeping the three sectors of the social organism apart would only have an
ideal value, and that this condition would come about ‘of itself’ in a
uniformly structured state organism or in an economic cooperative which
Includes the state and is based on the common ownership of means of
production, should direct his attention to the special kind of social
facilities which must result from a realization of the threefold
formation. The legitimacy of money as a means of payment, for example,
would no longer be the responsibility of the government, but would depend
upon measures taken by the administrative bodies of the economic
organization. Money, in an healthy social organism, can be nothing other
than a draft on commodities produced by others, which the holder may
claim from the overall social organism because he has himself produced
and delivered commodities to this sector. An economic sector becomes a
uniform economy through the circulation of money. Each produces for all
on the roundabout path of economic life. The economic sector is only
concerned with commodity values. Activities which originate in the
spiritual or state organizations also take on a commodity character for
this sector. A teacher's activity with respect to his pupils is, for the
economic process, of a commodity nature. A teacher is no more paid for
his individual abilities than the worker is paid for his labor-power. It
is only possible to pay for what they both produce as commodities for the
economic process. How free initiative and the law should contribute to
the production of commodities lies just as much outside the economic
process as the effects of the forces of nature on the grain yield in a
bountiful or in a lean year. As far as the economic process is concerned
the spiritual organization, in respect to its economic requirements, and
also the state, are simply commodity producers. What they produce within
their own sectors are not commodities however; they only become such once
they enter into the economic process. Their activities are not commercial
within their own sectors; the economic organism's management carries on
its commercial activities using the achievements of the other
sectors.
The purely economic value of a
commodity (or service), in so far as it is expressed in the money which
represents its equivalent value, will be dependent upon the efficiency
with which economic management functions. The development of economic
productivity will depend upon the measures taken by this management, with
its spiritual and legal foundation provided by the other two members of
the social organism. The monetary value of a commodity will then express
the fact that the facilities of the economic organism are producing these
commodities in an amount which corresponds to the need for them. Should
the suggestions contained in this book be realized, then the economic
impulse to accumulate wealth through sheer quantity of production will no
longer be decisive; rather will the associations adapt the production of
goods to actual need. In this way a need-oriented relation between
monetary values and the production facilities in the economic organism
will develop. In the healthy social organism money will really only be a
measure of value, since commodity production, the only means through
which the possessor of money will have been able to attain it, will back
every coin and bank note. Due to the nature of these relations,
arrangements will have to be made whereby money loses its value for its
possessor once it has lost this significance. Such arrangements have
already been alluded to. Property in the form of money passes on to the
community after a certain length of time. In order to prevent money which
is not working in productive enterprises being retained through evasion
of the economic organization's measures, a new printing could take place
from time to time. One result of such measures is that the interest
derived from capital would diminish in the course of time. Money will
wear out, just as commodities wear out. Nevertheless, such a measure will
be a just and appropriate one for the state to enact. There cannot be any
‘interest on interest.’ Whoever has accumulated savings has surely also
rendered services which entitle him to claim reciprocal services in the
form of commodities, just as present day efforts give claim to reciprocal
efforts; but these claims are subject to limits, for claims originating
in the past can only be satisfied by performance in the present. They may
not be allowed to turn into means of economic power. Through the
realization of these conditions, the currency question is given a healthy
foundation. Regardless of what form money takes due to other
considerations, currency as such depends on the rational administration
of the overall social organism. No political state will ever solve the
currency question in a satisfactory manner by making laws.
Contemporary states will only solve
it by renouncing their efforts at reaching a solution and leaving the
necessary measures to an autonomous economic organism.
Much has been said about the modern
division of labor, about its time-saving effects, its contribution to
perfecting the production process and the exchange of commodities, etc.,
but little attention has been paid to how it influences the individual's
relation to his work performance. Whoever works in a social organism
which is based on the division of labor never really earns his income by
himself; he earns it through the work of all the participants in the
social organism. A tailor who makes his own coat does not do so in the
same sense as a person living in a primitive society who must provide for
all his necessities himself. He makes the coat in order to be able to
make clothes for others; and the coat's value for him depends on the
others' work performance. The coat is actually a means of production.
Some would call this hair-splitting. They cannot, however, continue to
hold this opinion as soon as they observe how commodity values form in
the economic process. They then see that it is not even possible to work
for oneself in an economic organism based on the division of labor One
can only work for others, and let others work for oneself. One can no
more work for oneself than one can devour oneself. Arrangements may be
made which are in contradiction to the principle of the division of labor
however. This occurs when goods are produced merely in order to turn over
to an individual as property what he is able to produce only because of
his position in the social organism. The division of labor exerts
pressure on the social organism which has the effect of causing the
individual in it to live according to the conditions prevalent in the
overall organism; economically, it precludes egotism. Should egotism be
present nevertheless in the form of class privilege and the like, an
untenable situation arises which leads to severe disturbances in the
social organism. We are living under such conditions today. There may
well be many people who think little of a demand that the law and other
facilities conform to the egotism-free working of the division of labor
They should then realize the consequences of this attitude: that one can
do nothing at all; the social movement will lead to nothing. One can
certainly do nothing with this movement without respecting reality. The
manner of thinking from which the writing of this book is derived intends
that the human being strive toward what is necessary for the life of the
social organism.
Someone who can only form concepts in
accordance with customary practices will be uneasy when he hears that
labor-management relations should be disengaged from the economic
organism. He will believe that such a disengagement would necessarily
lead to currency devaluation and a return to primitive economic
conditions. (Rathenau expresses such opinions, which seem justified from
his point of view, in his book Nach der Flut.) [Dr.
Walther Rathenau. His book Nach der
Flut was published in
1919. As foreign minister in Germany's post-war government, he was shot
dead in the street on 24 June 1922. His books were burned by the Nazis
when Hitler became chancellor.] But this danger will be counteracted through the
threefold formation of the social organism. The self-sustaining economic
organism, in cooperation with the rights organism, will completely
separate the monetary element from rights-oriented labor relations. Legal
facilities will not have a direct influence on monetary affairs, for
these are the province of the economic administration. The legal
relationship between management and labor will not express itself in
monetary values which, after the abolition of wages (representing the
exchange relation between commodities and labor-power), will only measure
commodity (and service) values. From a consideration of the social
threefold formation's effect on the social organism, one must conclude
that it will lead to arrangements which are not present in the political
forms which have hitherto existed.
Through these arrangements, what is
currently referred to as class struggle can be eliminated. This struggle
results from wages being an integral part of the economic process. This
book presents a social form in which the concept of wages undergoes a
transformation, as does the old concept of property. Through this
transformation a more viable social cooperation is made
possible.
It would be superficial to think that
the realization of the ideas presented here would result in time-wages
being converted into piece-wages. A one-sided view could lead to this
opinion. However, what is advocated here is not piece-wages, but the
abolishment of the wage system in favor of a contractual sharing system
in respect of the common achievements of management and labor — in
conjunction, of course, with the overall structure of the social
organism. To hold that the workers' share of the proceeds should consist
of piece-wages is to fail to see that a contractual sharing system – in
no sense a wage system – expresses the value of what has been produced in
a way which changes the workers' social position in relation to the other
members of society. This position is completely different from the one
which arose through one-sided, economically conditioned class supremacy.
The need for the elimination of the class struggle is therewith
satisfied.
In socialist circles one frequently
hears that evolution will supply the solution to the social question,
that one cannot express opinions and then expect them to be put into
practice. This must be answered as follows: Certainly evolution must
supply the necessary social adjustments, but in the social organism the
impulses behind human ideas are realities. When the times are more
advanced and what today can only be thought is realized, only then will
what has been thought be contained in evolution. However, it will then be
too late to accomplish what is already demanded by today's events. It is
not possible to consider evolution objectively as regards the social
organism. One must activate evolution. It is therefore disastrous for
sound social thinking that current opinion desires to prove social
necessities in the same way that natural science proves things. Proof, as
far as social conceptions are concerned, can only be attained if one's
views can assimilate not only what exists now, but also what is present
in human impulses as striving to be realized.
One of the effects through which the
threefold formation of the social organism will prove itself to be based
on the essential nature of human society is the severance of judicial
activities from state institutions. It will be incumbent on the latter to
establish the rights between persons or groups of persons. Judicial
decisions however, will depend upon facilities formed by the spiritual
organization. This judicial decision making is, to a large extent,
dependent on the judge's ability to perceive and understand the
defendant's situation. Such perception and understanding will be present
if the confidence which men feel towards the facilities of the spiritual
organization is extended to include the courts. The spiritual
organization might nominate judges from the various cultural professions.
After a certain length of time they would return to their own
professions. Within certain limits, every person would then be able to
select the nominee, for a period of five or ten years, in whom he has
sufficient confidence to accept his verdict in a civil or criminal case,
should one arise. To make such a selection meaningful, there would have
to be enough judges available in the vicinity of each person's place of
residence. A plaintiff would always be obliged to direct himself to a
competent judge in the respondent's vicinity.
Just consider the importance such an
arrangement would have had in the Austria-Hungarian districts. The
members of each nationality in mixed-language districts could have chosen
judges from their own people. Whoever is familiar with the Austrian
situation will recognize what a compensatory effect such an arrangement
could have had in the life of those peoples. Aside from the nationality
question, there are other areas in which such arrangements can contribute
to sound development. Officials selected by the spiritual organization's
administration will assist the judges and courts with technical points of
law, but will themselves not hold decision-making authority. Appeal
courts will also be formed by this administration. An essential
characteristic of such an arrangement is that a judge, because of his
life outside his judgeship – which he could only hold for a limited
period – can be familiar with the sensibilities and environment of the
defendant. The healthy social organism will everywhere attract social
understanding to its institutions, and judicial activities will be no
exception. The execution of sentences is the responsibility of the
rights-state.
It is not possible to enter into a
description of the arrangements which would become necessary in other
areas of life as the result of implementing these suggestions. Such a
description would obviously require an almost unlimited amount of
space.
The individual examples used will
have shown that the exposition of these views does not constitute an
attempt to revive the three estates – food producers, military, and
philosophers – as some have mistakenly assumed upon hearing my lectures
on the subject. The opposite of such a structure is intended. Human
beings will not be segregated into classes or estates; the social
organism itself will be appropriately formed. Through this formation man
will be able to be truly man. The threefold formation will enable him to
participate in all three social sectors. He will have a professional
interest in the sector which includes his occupation; and he will have
vital connections with the others, necessitated by the nature of their
institutions. The external social organism which forms the foundation for
human life will be threefold; each individual will constitute a binding
element for its three sectors.
Last Modified: 02-Nov-2024
|
The Rudolf Steiner e.Lib is maintained by:
The e.Librarian:
elibrarian@elib.com
|
|