|
|
|
Rudolf Steiner e.Lib
|
|
World Economy
Rudolf Steiner e.Lib Document
|
|
World Economy
Schmidt Number: S-4941
On-line since: 13th November, 2000
Dornach, 5th August, 1922.
To understand how the sort of thing we discussed last time can be
maintained, we must now turn our attention to certain features in the
economic process which also take a part in the determination of
economic values and which at the same time show how very difficult it
is to value in the economic sense that which comes into the process
through the human mind and Spirit. I will give you an example, not
exactly fictitious, but put in such a way that its value as an example
does not depend on the specific facts on which it is based.
The following may happen. At a given time there lives a great poet,
recognised as such during his lifetime and increasingly so after his
death. Now one of those who concern themselves with this poet, being
perhaps particularly fond of his poetry, may hit upon the following
idea. In the near future, he says to himself,
they will make more and more of him. I know for certain
at any rate I can afford to take the risk that in the near
future, say within 20 years, they will make still more fuss about him
than now. Nay more, following the habits of our time, within 20 years
they are sure to set up an institution to collect his
manuscripts. From various things which he has picked up and
turned over in his astute head, this man says to himself: These
things are quite sure to happen. Very well, I will begin at once to
purchase autograph MSS. of this poet. For they are still very
cheap. And then one day, when he is sitting in the company of
others, one of them says: Personally I am not very keen on
speculation: all I desire is to have a reasonable interest on my
savings. Another says: That is not good enough for me. I
am buying shares in such-and-such a mining concern. He is more
of a speculator; he is buying paper (industrial shares).
But the third, namely our man, says: I am buying up the best
paper on the market. It is very cheap indeed. But I shall not tell you
fellows what it is (for it is part of the venture that he does
not give his game away). The paper I am buying will rise in
value more than any other in the near future. So he buys
nothing but autographs of the said poet. And after 20 years he sells
them to the archives, or to others who will sell them to the archives
in their turn. He sells them for many times the amount he gave. So
that he was the biggest speculator of the three!
It is a perfectly real case, only I will not give any further details
now. It occurred in fact. And, you perceive, it brought about a very
significant reshuffling of economic values. Now what were the factors
that contributed to this reshuffling of values? In the first place,
simply the prudent exploitation of the fact that the poet's reputation
was growing a growth which in the end found expression in the
establishment of archives. But you must add at any rate as to
the reshuffling of values, the bringing of it all into the hands of a
single man the fact that he kept his own counsel about it, did
not draw the attention of others to it; nor did they hit on the idea
themselves. So he was able to make an enormous profit.
I mention this case only to illustrate how complicated the question
can become, how many factors converge in the nature of value and how
difficult it is to grasp them all. Thus the question arises: Is it
quite impossible to grasp them in one way or another? You may say that
for a considerable part of life it will be perfectly possible for men
and women of sound intelligence, in the right associations, to
estimate the factors, even to the extent of giving them numerical
expression. But there will still be many things things of
decisive importance for a true estimate of values which it will
not be possible to grasp with ordinary common sense, unless we look
for some fresh aids to understanding.
We saw how Nature, to acquire an economic value, must be transformed
by human Labour must, as it were, be combined with human
Labour. There is the Nature-product. In an economic organisation based
on division of Labour, the Nature-product has, properly speaking, no
value to begin with. Now let us try to find our way into this picture.
Values arise by the joining together of the material of Nature, if we
may call it so, with human Labour. Thus, if only in a kind of
algebraic formula, we may begin to approach the real
function of value-formation. For instance, we can
see at once that it cannot be a question of simply superimposing
Labour upon the Nature-element. For the Labour changes the
Nature-element. It cannot be a merely additive function. It will be
more complicated than this. But we can hold to what we have already
said; we see the economic value arise where the Nature-product is
first taken over by human Labour.
Obviously the first stage in the process in the taking-over of
the Nature-product by human Labour is direct work on the land.
Therefore, when all is said, we must always look upon the cultivation
of the land in the widest sense of the term as the
starting-point of economic life. This is the condition precedent to
the whole of economic life. But how is it when we go over to the other
side of the economic process? I need not enlarge on it any more at
this stage; it is quite evident from the preceding lectures that even
such a thing as the redistribution of values plays a considerable part
in the movement of economic values. How shall we find anything
comparable in all these different factors? If we regard
Nature times Labour as the value which comes up from the
one side (or, as I said, whatever the right function is); then we must
look for something comparable on the other side. We cannot simply
compare Nature with the Spirit, for we shall find no point of
comparison least of all by way of purely economic
considerations if only for the reason that a highly subjective
element here enters in.
Think of a simple village economy a self-contained one, if you
will. There have actually been such economies to some extent at
any rate within the experience of man. It will consist, to
begin with, in the things produced we will imagine even the
market and the town out of the picture. It will consist in the
peasants, the workers on the land, the workers in the different trades
(those who clothe the people, for instance, and a few others) but no
special proletarians; such a thing will not yet exist, nor need we, on
our present lines of thought, turn our attention in that direction.
Whatever is relevant to the proletariat will appear in due course. But
our village economy will also include the schoolmaster and the parson,
or one or two schoolmasters and parsons. They if it is purely a
village economy will have to live on what the others give them.
Whatever develops there, of the free spiritual life, will in the main
have to develop among the teachers and the parsons or possibly
a parish clerk will be added. Now we must ask ourselves: How does a
proper valuation come about in this simple economic circuit?
There will be very little else of free spiritual life.
We can scarcely imagine the schoolmaster or the parson blossoming out
into a novelist, for if the village economy is a closed one he would
not be able to sell very much. A novelist would only be able to earn,
in this community, if he were able to instil into the peasants,
tailors and cobblers a passion for his novels. In that case no doubt
he might be able to call into being quite a little industry. But it
would cost a great deal to do that. At any rate we cannot, in the
ordinary way, imagine such a thing existing in our little village
community. In fact, the free spiritual life must await
certain conditions. But from the simple fact that there are the parson
and the teacher and a parish clerk, we can at any rate conceive how
the achievements of these spiritual workers for they are such,
in the economic sense will come to be valued economically.
What is the requisite condition for these spiritual workers to be able
to live in the village at all? It is that the people send their
children to school and that they have religious needs. Spiritual
needs, therefore, are the fundamental premiss. Failing such needs,
even these few spiritual workers could not be there. And we shall have
to ask ourselves: How will these spiritual workers economically endue
their products their sermons, for example (even these must be
conceived in an economic sense), and their school lessons with
value? How will these things be valued in the whole economic
circulation?
This is a fundamental question. We shall only gain an answer to this
question, if we begin by imagining quite vividly what the others must
be doing. They must be doing physical work. By bodily Labour they call
forth economic values. If there were no need for sermons and school
lessons, the parsons and teachers would have to do physical work.
Everyone would be working with his hands and the spiritual life would
drop out of the picture. We should no longer be concerned with the
economic valuation of spiritual products. Thus we arrive at the
required valuation precisely by observing that parsons and teachers
are spared physical Labour. If they are to do their spiritual
work, which is desired, they must be relieved from the bodily work.
Here you can introduce into the line of thought something capable, at
least, of a more general treatment. Suppose for example that there is
only need for half as many sermons and school lessons. What will then
have to happen? You cannot appoint half a parson and half a teacher.
Therefore the parson and the teacher will have to spend part of their
time in physical Labour. Therefore the valuation on their side will
depend on the amount of physical Labour of which they are
relieved. This is the measure for the valuation of their work. One man
contributes physical Labour, another saves it and his spiritual
achievement has a value corresponding to the amount of physical Labour
which he saves himself by virtue of it. Take these two economic fields
and think the thing through economically, and you will see that even a
sermon must have an economic value, and moreover how it acquires this
economic value. It acquires it inasmuch as Labour is saved or spared,
whereas on the other side Labour has to be applied.
And now the same thing runs through the entire spiritual life. What
does it signify, in the economic sense, if a man paints a picture
paints at it, shall we say, for ten whole years? It signifies
that the picture acquires a value for him inasmuch as it will enable
him once more to spend ten years painting another picture. He can only
do so if he can save himself physical Labour for a period of ten
years. Therefore the picture will have to become worth as much as
would be made out of other products by physical Labour during ten
years. Even if you take such a complex case as I explained at the
beginning of this lecture, the same result will emerge. In all cases
of spiritual production, if you try to find the concept of value you
will arrive at this other concept the concept of Labour that is
saved or spared.
It was the cardinal error of the Marxists that they looked at it all
exclusively from the physical side. They said that Capital is to be
looked upon as crystallised Labour as a product with which
Labour has been combined. Now if an artist paints a picture, the
Spirit he has painted into it during ten years is certainly combined
with it, but this could at most be computed by those who believe that
Spirit is the inner work of the human organism
transmuted; which is sheer nonsense. The spiritual cannot be
assimilated to the natural in that facile way. If I complete a
spiritual product, it is not the point that in some way Labour is
stored up in the product. The work stored up in it is economically
irrelevant. Qua bodily work it may be very little. Moreover
what little there was falls, in any case, under the other heading
that of physical work. What gives value to the product is in
truth the Labour which it will save me. Thus on the one side of the
economic process the actual doing of work, the bringing of Labour to
the product, is the value-creating factor; the product absorbs Labour
as it were, attracts it, While on the other side the product
rays out Labour, begets Labour; the value is the original thing which
calls the Labour into being.
We have now therefore a means of comparison, namely, Labour on the one
side and Labour on the other side, and we are therefore in a position
to relate them, for we may say: If the value in the one case equals
Nature times Labour, in the other we must call it
Spirit minus Labour.
The direction is exactly opposite. Physical Labour only has meaning
inasmuch as the one who wants to contribute it to the economic process
actually does it himself. While what is related to the product on the
spiritual side is the Labour which one man does for another. It must
therefore be entered as a negative in the economic process.
It is a remarkable thing. Study the history of Economics, and you will
always find that what is said is right, but only in a limited sphere.
There are economists who believe that it is Labour which gives things
value the school of Adam Smith, the school of Marx, for
example. But other schools give another definition, which again is
right in a certain sphere. According to them, a thing becomes Capital
i.e., a source of value inasmuch as it saves
Labour. Both points of view are true. Only, the one is true of all
that is in any way related to Nature, to the soil, the land; while the
other is related to the Spirit. Between these two there is a third.
For, in effect, neither of the two extremes is ever there in its pure
form; they are only there in an approximately absolute sense. After
all, even in picking blackberries (which acquires economic value only
inasmuch as the workers actually go there and do it) even here
there is some spiritual work. If of two blackberry-pickers one is
stupid and makes extra work for himself by picking where they are
scarce, while the other finds a place where there are plenty and
obtains a better yield for his Labour, the blackberries of the former
worker are of less value, relatively speaking; he will not get more
money for the same amount of berries. Thus, in effect, neither extreme
is ever realised absolutely. Even the gathering of blackberries
entails spiritual work (although we might not call it so). The work of
using one's wits creates values, just as it did with the collector of
autographs; at least it creates values by placing them.
Once more, then, we have Labour in the one direction and in the other,
and this alone enables us to compare the economic values. But this
comparing is done by the economic process of its own accord. We can at
most raise it, in a certain way, into the sphere of conscious
intelligence. Indeed, all that I have given in these lectures amounts
to this: that we lift certain instinctive processes into
consciousness.
As I said just now, we have neither of the two extremes in any
absolute sense. For on the other side (V=S-L), however much a painter
uses his intelligence he must still do some bodily work if he
wishes to create anything of economic value. Even if he exercises
clairvoyant power (a thing which you cannot grasp at all in terms of
economics), even then he must still do some bodily work. Relying on
his genius, it may be, he can afford to be dreadfully lazy; still, now
and then he must take up the brush. Some bodily work has to be done
even in this case, just as some little force of thought must go even
into the picking of blackberries. (Things that take place in real life
cannot be grasped merely quantitatively. They have to be grasped while
they are actually happening. Therefore we can only grasp them with our
concepts, if we realise that the concepts themselves need to be kept
in constant movement).
It is between these two extremes that we can perceive more clearly how
in the real economic life bodily and spiritual work play into one
another, moving to and fro. Just as in some machine, there is a
regulated backward and forward movement, so in industry bodily work
from the one side and Spiritual work from the other are passing to and
fro. It is in this mutual interplay from two directions that we have,
as a third, that which plays into the economic process between the
other two. We have the case where a man has to do physical Labour, yet
by his spiritual power (using his wits) he is saved some of it. This
is always actually the case, only it sometimes approximates more to
the formula I wrote above (V = N,L) and sometimes more to the formula
I wrote below (V = S-L). The latter, in effect, would only be
fulfilled in its entirety if there could be among the consumers
someone who did nothing but save himself Labour by means of his
spiritual faculties. It could only be someone who was born grown-up.
In this way we can look into the economic process from this aspect of
valuation, valuing what comes from Nature on the one hand and from the
Spirit on the other. And at this point we can say: Where positive and
negative work into one another, somehow an intermediate condition will
emerge. The positive may predominate. Let us assume this for a moment.
In the little village economy it certainly will do so, for in such a
community there will be no widespread interest in spiritual work,
beyond what is absolutely necessary. But the more life grows
complicated (or, as we are apt to say sentimentally, the more
civilisation advances) the more highly, as may be seen
even empirically, spiritual work is valued. That is to say, the more
is Labour saved; a negative element comes in as against the positive.
I beg you to consider well: by characterising it in this way we are
taking hold of a real process. It is not that physical Labour is done
on the one side and annulled again on the other; that would be no real
progress in the economic sense; it would at most be a process of
Nature. All that is done of physical Labour helps to create values.
None of it is destroyed. That which counteracts it the saving
of Labour from the other side counteracts it only in a
numerical sense. In a purely numerical sense, it affects the value of
physical Labour. For this very reason, we are enabled to express in a
real way what actually happens. Physical workers are active, spiritual
workers are active, but the achievement in the one case is work which
is positively done, while in the other it is a work which in reality
signifies a saving of work. Only by this means is an effectual
valuation brought about.
If I may put it so, the things are divested of their particularity and
it becomes possible to grasp the process in terms of numbers, inasmuch
as it is the same thing which emerges on either side and only the
valuation is altered. With the advance of civilisation, then,
spiritual work increases in importance, and this implies that the
bodily work has a less powerful effect on the valuing process.
Physical strength is of course applied, and it must be so more and
more as we go forward. Even the cultivation of the soil must be made
more fruitful as civilisation advances. More work must be done, in a
positive sense. The point is that the physical Labour is divested, to
some extent, of its value-creating power. Yet this again can only be
so if those who perform the physical Labour evince a growing need for
that which has to be achieved from the spiritual side. Here, once
again, a human factor comes into the economic process. You cannot get
round it; indeed, with the advance of spiritual life, this particular
human factor makes itself felt as an objective necessity.
It is quite true that, to begin with, when there are only the parson
and the teacher, there is not much of spiritual life in our village.
But suppose there are two villages. In one village the parson and the
teacher are mediocre people: things will go on as they are. In the
other village the parson or the teacher, or both of them, are
first-rate people. They will be able to stimulate all manner of
spiritual interests in the next generation and, in all probability, by
the time the next generation arises, some other spiritual worker is
brought into the village. Now there are three of them. In this regard
the spiritual has a very fertile power, which in its turn works back
into economic life.
What, in the last resort, does the process signify? It signifies that
precisely Labour, or rather the value-creating power of Labour, which
in the purely material phase of economic life has an infinitely great
value, is more and more reduced in course of time by that which comes
to meet it from the other side. I cannot exactly say it is
devalued; it is reduced numerically. In the
working-together, as between all that is represented by land-work
the tilling of the soil, etc. and that which is done
from the spiritual side, we have a kind of mutual compensation. And a
certain compensation is the only right thing.
Now here, again, complex conditions arise. For it may well turn out that in
a given place there are too many spiritual producers; i.e., the counteracting
Labour-saving power may be too strong. Then the resultant value is
negative, and the people cannot all live together except by consuming
one another. Thus there is a limit somewhere to this compensation
process. For every economic realm there is a certain balance, in the
very nature of the case, as between the production from the land on
the one side and the spiritual production on the other.
And until this is understood in Economic Science how the
production from the soil, taken in the widest sense, of course, is
related to spiritual production until this problem, which has
hitherto hardly been considered, is very seriously dealt with, we
shall never get an economic science able to cope with our present
needs.
The first thing necessary is that we should begin working on definite
data, from which we may convince ourselves in an atmosphere unclouded
by prejudice and agitation, how some particular area gets into an
unhealthy economic condition, because it contains too many spiritual
workers and again what power of further development of culture
and civilisation an area has, where that limit, of which I have just
spoken, has not been reached. Progress is only possible within a given
area so long as this limit, determined by the necessary compensation,
of which I spoke, has not yet been reached. The task then will be to
investigate those elements which still survive today from closed
economies such survivals are to be found everywhere,
because we are only passing slowly into a world-economy we must
investigate those elements as to which the economy of some area is
still closed; we must study the aggregate welfare of those areas in
which there are comparatively few poets and painters and sophisticated
industrialists, etc., and where there is still much agriculture or
other activity connected immediately with the land; and then we shall
have to study other areas where the opposite is the case.
From the available data, we must work out empirically such general
laws as will emerge for a true theory of balance as between
agriculture, or the working of the land in the widest sense, upon the
one hand and spiritual work upon the other. This will be necessary.
For certain regions, take what we may call the average spiritual
workers (do not choose such as would falsify the whole balance) and on
the other hand the average physical workers. Balance the one against
the other; you will perceive how the one works compensatingly upon the
other.
This is a point of cardinal importance for anyone who wishes to
contribute to the further progress of Economic Science today. The fact
is that this problem, which should really underlie our thinking about
price and value, is scarcely anywhere correctly seen as yet. As I said
yesterday to a few of those present: In Economics people are always
allowing themselves to be misled into a partial instead of a
comprehensive way of thinking. There is no doubt that Spengler makes
some very shrewd economic observations at the close of the second
volume of his Decline of the West. But he ruins these brilliant
observations because he does not succeed in translating into terms of
present-day economic realities what he perceives historically. He
points out very justly how, in the ancient economies, the economic
life which comes directly from the soil was predominant; whereas today
that economic life predominates which thinks in money and
consists, therefore, properly speaking, in spiritual work. But he
fails to see that these two stages of economic life, which he records
historically, continue side by side to this day. The one has not
replaced the other in history; they stand side by side to this
day, as the most primitive abides within the most advanced. Do we not
find the amoebae crawling about free in external Nature and do we not
find the same thing in our own blood, in the white blood corpuscles?
The different historical stages even in Nature live side by side to
this day. And so it is in economic life; the most varied conditions
co-exist. Sometimes indeed, in the most highly cultivated economic
life if we may call it so it is precisely the most
highly cultivated elements which return to the most primitive. Values
created by our living in a most elaborated culture hark back, in a
certain sense, to the state of primitive barter. Those who create
their savings-of-Labour, as it were, will sometimes barter one of
these for another, to satisfy certain needs among themselves. Such
things occur. We often find the most primitive functions applied once
again to the most highly elaborated products.
I wanted to add this remark to the present lecture, so that tomorrow I
may be able to give you, as best I can, some sort of conclusion to
these lectures.
Last Modified: 02-Nov-2024
|
The Rudolf Steiner e.Lib is maintained by:
The e.Librarian:
elibrarian@elib.com
|
|
|
|
|