Twenty Articles From
The Newspaper:
The Threefold Social Order
International Aspects of the
Threefold Social Order
An
objection often made to the idea
of a threefold organization of society is that any state that organizes
itself on the threefold system must necessarily disturb its international
relations with other states. Whether this objection makes sense can only
be determined by examining the actual character of present-day
international relations. In looking at the situation, what strikes one
most is that in recent years the actual economic facts have developed
along lines that are no longer congruent with national boundaries.
Historical circumstances that determined these national boundaries have
very little to do with the interests of the economic life led by the
people living in those states. As a result, the national governments
determine international relations in areas where it would be more natural
for the economic groups directly concerned to do so. An industrial concern
that needs the raw materials of a foreign nation ought to be able to
obtain them by negotiating directly with the owners; everything pertaining
to this arrangement should remain entirely within the economic cycle. It
is plain to see that recently economic life has assumed forms tending
towards this kind of self-contained functioning, and in this
self-contained cycle of economic life (which is gradually tending to
become a worldwide unity) the intervention of national interests
represents a disturbing element. What have the historical circumstances
that gave England dominion over India to do with the economic
circumstances that make a German manufacturer go to India for his
goods?
The
catastrophe of World War I plainly shows that the life of modern humanity,
as it strives toward the unity of worldwide economy, will not bear
disturbance through national territorial interests. This disturbance lies
at bottom of the conflicts Germany became involved in with Western
nations. It also plays a part in the conflicts with Eastern countries.
Economic interests required a railway running from the Austro-Hungarian
territory toward the southeast. The national interests of Austria and of
the Balkan countries asserted claims, and the question arose whether that
which the economy required ran counter to these national interests.
Capital, which is supposed to serve the economy, thus becomes involved
with national interests. The states want the capitalists to be at their
service; the capitalists want the concentrated power of the state to serve
their economic interests. Thus the economy is imprisoned by national
territories; while in the latest phase of its own development, it is
striving to spread beyond all national borders into a unified economic
life.
This
internationalism of the economy indicates that in the future the various
regions of the world economy will need to enter into relations independent
of the relations that various people may have through life interests
outside the economic sphere. The states will need to leave the
establishment of economic relations to those persons or groups engaged
in economic activity.
If the
cultural relations of the civilized world are not to fall into total
dependence on economic interests, these relations will need to
develop an international life of their own that is subject to their
own special conditions. It is certainly not intended here to dispute
the fact that economic relations may also supply a basis for cultural
intercourse. However, it must be recognized that the cultural intercourse
brought about in this way can be fruitful only if, at the same time,
other relations are formed between the various peoples that arise solely
from the needs of cultural life itself. In each of the various peoples,
the cultural life of individuals emancipates itself from the economic
conditions on which it rests, and takes all manner of forms that have
nothing to do with the forms of economic life. The forms it takes must
be free to enter into relations with corresponding forms of cultural
life among other peoples — relations growing out of cultural life
itself. There is no denying that at the present moment of human evolution,
the international structure which culture is striving to assume is opposed
by the egotistical impulse of the various peoples to shut themselves
within their own nationalities. People endeavor to construct political
entities whose boundaries are those of their nationalities. And then
this endeavor is carried further—namely, an attempt is made to
turn the closed national state into a closed economic domain as well.
The aforementioned tendency towards a world economy will in the future
work against these national egotisms. If these countertendencies are
not to give rise to incessant conflict, the spiritual and cultural
interests arising within these peoples must administer themselves in
accordance with their own cultural identity, independent of economic
conditions. International contacts should then arise out of these
independent administrations. This can be done only if a region, governed
by a common cultural life, marks its own boundaries that will be relatively
independent of the boundaries that arise from the given conditions
of economic life.
Now, of
course, the question immediately presents itself: How is the cultural
life to draw necessary support from the economic life if the administrative
boundaries of their two spheres do not coincide? To find the answer,
one need only reflect that a self-governing cultural life confronts
the independent economic life as an economic corporation. As an economic
corporation, it can enter into agreements for its economic support with
the economic administrative bodies of its regions, regardless of any
larger economic region to which these administrative regions may belong.
Anyone whose concepts of what is possible in practice is limited to
what he has already seen, will look upon these proposals as “gray
theory.” He will think, too, that the necessary arrangements will
prove too complicated to work. Whether the arrangements prove complicated
or not will depend entirely on the skill of the particular people
who arrange them. However, no one should oppose measures demanded by the
present-day necessities of the world for fear of supposed complications.
(Compare this to what is said on the subject in Chapter 4 of my book
Toward Social Renewal.)
The
international life of humanity is struggling to shape the cultural
relations of the various peoples and the economic relations of the various
parts of the world independently of each other. The threefold organization
of the social organism takes this necessity of human evolution into
account. In this threefold order, the legal sphere, founded on a
democratic basis, constitutes the link between economics (where
international relations are directed by economic necessities) and the
life of spirit, which shapes international relations out of its own
forces.
Habits
of thought engrained by the prevailing political and social forms might
lead one to believe that a transformation of these forms is “pragmatically
impossible.” But historical evolution will march on, destroying
everything — even new measures — that arises from these
old habits of thought. The vital necessities of modern humanity dictate
that any further amalgamation of the spiritual, legal and economic spheres
is an impossibility. That it is impossible was shown by the catastrophe
of World War I: economic and cultural conflicts became conflicts between
states that were then obliged to resolve themselves in a way that is
impossible when cultural life opposes only cultural life, and economic
interest opposes only economic interest.
That it
is possible to put the threefold system into practice in any single
nation without damaging international relations (even though this nation
will at first stand alone in the attempt) may be shown as follows. Suppose
a certain economic region wanted to fashion itself into a massive association
within the framework of a national state. It would be unable to maintain
profitable relations with foreign countries that remained capitalist.
Institutions like those of a government and subject to central boards
of economic control, do not give management the power to supply foreign
countries with products that fulfill their needs. However a free hand
may be given to the managers with respect to the taking of orders, they
must adhere to the association's rules regarding procurement of raw
materials. To be hemmed in between requirements from abroad and red
tape at home would lead in practice to an impossible state of affairs.
The same kind of difficulties would beset both the import and the export
trades. Anyone who wants to prove that no fruitful economic intercourse
is possible between a country that wishes to work on abstract socialist
principles and capitalistic countries abroad, has only to point to such
things. Every unprejudiced person will be obliged to admit that he is
right.
The idea
of the threefold social order cannot be touched by such objections.
It does not impose a state-like structure upon relations that are determined
by economic interests themselves. According to the threefold idea, the
managements of allied economic concerns will join together in associations;
such associations will then link up with others that will distribute
them according to the needs of consumers within that particular economic
sphere. The management of an export business can act on its own perfectly
free initiative in its foreign trade; and at home it will be in a position
to make the most advantageous agreements with other associations for
the procurement of requisite raw materials, and so on. The same will
hold true for an import business. The only guiding rule in creating
such an economic order will be that dealings with foreign countries
should not lead to the producing or importing of goods whose production
cost or selling price might injure the standard of living of the native
population. Workers producing goods for export must receive what
is required to maintain their standard of living as compensation for
what they produce. Products that come from abroad must, generally speaking,
be available at prices that allow the native worker who needs them to
purchase them. It might happen (no doubt owing to the difference in
economic conditions at home and abroad) that certain products,
which must be obtained from abroad, may have too high a price. However,
on careful examination one will find that situations such as these are
taken into account in the ideas underlying the threefold social order.
If the reader turns to Chapter 3 of my
Toward Social Renewal
he will find it said of a similar economic problem: “Moreover,
an administration that occupies itself solely with economic processes
will be able to bring about adjustments that show themselves within
these economic processes to he necessary. Suppose, for instance, a business
concern were not in a position to pay its investors the interest
on the savings of their labor, then — if it is a business that
is nevertheless recognized as meeting a need — it will be possible
to arrange for other industrial concerns to make up the deficiency
by the voluntary agreement of everyone concerned.” In the same
way, the excessively high price of an imported product can be balanced
by contributions from businesses that are able to yield returns higher
than the requirements of those they employ.
Anyone
who strives for new ideas about the main aspects of economics will not
— especially if these ideas are to be practical — be able
to give indications for every special instance because in economic life,
such special instances are innumerable. However, he will have to frame
his thoughts such that anyone who applies them in the right way to a
special case will find that they work in practice. One will find that
the proposals put forward in my
Toward Social Renewal
work better the more one is mindful of their particular context of
application. In particular, it will be found that the proposed form of an
economic body belonging to the threefold social order permits unhampered
economic intercourse with foreign countries, even though these countries
do not have the threefold system.
Only someone
who failed to perceive that self-administration must be a necessary
consequence of the inherent movement of economic life toward world unity
could raise doubts as to the possibility of such commerce. In actual
fact, a world economy that has been forced into the straight-jacket
of separate political entities is striving of itself to break free.
Any economic region that is the first to act in accordance with this
striving cannot possibly be at a disadvantage compared to others that
resist the universal trend of economic evolution. On the contrary, the
only result will be that in the threefold social order the profits of
foreign trade raise the standard of living of the entire population,
while in the capitalist community the profits will benefit only a few.
That the threefold social organism apportions it differently among the
populace will not affect the balance of trade itself.
Thus it may be seen that the threefold social order does not represent
a reclusive utopia, but rather a number of practical impulses that one
can begin to realize anywhere in life. That is what distinguishes this
“idea” from the abstract “demands” of the various
socialist parties. The socialists look for scapegoats for all the things
that have become unbearable in social life. Having discovered a scapegoat,
they declare it must be eliminated. The threefold social order speaks
of the ways in which the existing order must be altered if that which
is unbearable is to disappear. The threefold order is intent upon building
up, in contrast to other ideas that can indeed criticize and destroy,
but offer nothing constructive whatsoever. This becomes especially clear
to any open-minded person who reflects on the foreign trade policy that
would have to be implemented by any country adopting such destructive
political principles alone. Besides destructive tendencies at home,
disastrous foreign relations would result.
There
is no doubt that the economic conditions of any single country under
the threefold social order cannot fail to act as a model for foreign
countries. The circles concerned about a socially just distribution
of wealth will strive to bring about the threefold system in their own
country when they see how expediently it works for others. As the idea
of the threefold commonwealth gains ground, the end that modern economic
life strives for, through its own inherent tendencies, will be realized
more and more. And although national interests unfavorable to these
tendencies are still powerful in many parts of the world, the people
in any field of economic life who have an understanding of the threefold
social order need not for that reason be deterred from introducing it.
The foregoing has shown that difficulties in international economic
trade will not result from the threefold social order.
|