The Renewal of the Social Organism
GA 24
4. The Threefold Order and Social Trust: Capital and Credit
[ 1 ] Various people1E.g. the English finance theorist Hartley Withers in his treatise on Money and Credit. have expressed the opinion that all questions concerning money are so complicated that they are almost impossible to grasp in clear, precise thought.
[ 2 ] A similar view can be taken regarding many questions of modern social life. At the same time, we should consider the consequences that must follow if we allow our social dealings to be guided by impulses rooted in imprecise thoughts, or at any rate in thoughts that are very hard to define. Such thoughts do not merely signify a lack of insight and a confusion in theory; they are potent forces in actual life. Their vagueness lives on in the institutions they inspire; these, in turn, result in impossible social conditions.
[ 3 ] The conditions under which we live in modern civilization arise from just such chaotic thinking. This will have to be acknowledged if a healthy insight into the social question is to be attained. We first become aware of the social question when our eyes are opened to the straits in which we find ourselves. But there is far too little inclination to follow objectively the path that leads from a mere perception of these troubles to the human thoughts that underlie them. It is too easy to dismiss as impractical idealism any attempt to proceed from bread-and-butter issues to ideas. People do not see how impractical their accustomed way of life is, how it is based on unviable thoughts. [ 4 ] Such thoughts are deeply rooted within present-day social life. If we try to get at the root of the “social question,” we are bound to see that at present even the most material demands of life can be mastered only by proceeding to the thoughts that underlie the cooperation of people in a community.
[ 5 ] To be sure, many such thoughts have been pointed out within specific contexts. For example, people whose activity is closely connected with the land have indicated how, under the influence of modern economic forces, the buying and selling of land has reduced it to a mere commodity. They believe this is harmful to society. Yet opinions such as these do not lead to practical results, for because of their own interests, those in other spheres of life do not admit that these opinions are justified.
[ 6 ] It is from an unflinching perception of such facts that the impetus should come to guide and direct any attempt to solve “the social question.” For such a perception can show that one who opposes justified social demands because they require a way of thinking opposed to his own particular interests, is in the long run undermining the very foundations on which his own interests are built.
[ 7 ] Such an observation can be made when considering the social significance of land. First we must take into account how the purely capitalist tendency in economic life affects the valuation of land. As a result of this purely capitalist tendency, capital creates the laws of its own increase; and in certain spheres of life these laws are no longer consistent with the principles that determine the increase of capital along sound lines.
[ 8 ] This is especially evident in the case of land. Certain conditions may very well make it necessary for a district to be cultivated in a particular way. Such conditions may be of a moral nature; they may be founded on spiritual and cultural peculiarities. However, it is entirely possible that the fulfillment of these conditions would result in a smaller interest on capital than would investment in some other undertaking. As a consequence of the purely capitalist tendency, the land will then be exploited, not in accordance with these spiritual or cultural viewpoints (which are not purely capitalist in character), but in such a way that the resulting interest on capital will equal the interest resulting from other undertakings. Thus values that may be very necessary to a real civilization are left undeveloped. Under the influence of this purely capitalist orientation, the estimation of economic values becomes one-sided; it is no longer rooted in the living connection we must have with nature and with cultural life, if nature and spiritual life are to give us satisfaction in body and in soul.
[ 9 ] It is easy to jump to the conclusion that for this reason capitalism must be abandoned. The question is whether in so doing we would not also be abandoning the very foundations of modern civilization. [ 10 ] Anyone who thinks the capitalist orientation a mere intruder into modern economic life will demand its removal. However, he who sees that division of labor and social function are the essence of modern life, will only consider how best to exclude from social life the disadvantages that arise as a byproduct of this capitalist tendency. He will clearly perceive that the capitalist method of production is a consequence of modern life, and that its disadvantages can make themselves felt only as long as increase of capital is made the sole criterion of economic value.
[ 11 ] The ideal is to work towards a social structure in which the criterion of capital increase will no longer be the only power to which production is subjected. In an appropriate social structure, increase of capital should rather serve as an indicator that the economic life, by taking into account all the requirements of our bodily and spiritual nature, is correctly formed and organized.
[ 12 ] Anyone who allows his thought to be determined by the one-sided point of view of capital increase or of a rise in wages will fail to gain clear and direct insight into the effects of the various specific branches of production in the economy. If the object is to gain an increase in capital or a rise in wages, it is immaterial through what branch of production the result is achieved. The natural and sensible relation of people to what they produce is thereby undermined. For the mere quantity of a capital sum, it is of no account whether it is used to acquire one kind of commodity or another. Nor does it matter if one considers only the amount of a wage whether it is earned through one kind of work or another.
[ 13 ] Now it is precisely insofar as they can be bought and sold for sums of capital in which their specific nature cannot find expression, that economic values become “commodities.” Their commodity-nature is suited, however, only to those goods or values meant for immediate human consumption; for the valuation of these, we have an immediate standard in our physical and spiritual needs. There is no such standard in the case of land or artificially created means of production. The valuation of these things depends on many factors that become apparent only when one takes into account the entire social structure of human life.
[ 14 ] If cultural interests demand that a certain district be put to economic uses that, from the viewpoint of capital, seem to yield a lower return than other industries, the lower return will not in the long run harm the community. In time the lower return of the one branch of production will affect other branches such that the prices of their products will also be lowered. Only a viewpoint that deals with momentary gain of the most narrow and egotistical kind can fail to see this connection. Where there is simply a market relationship—where supply and demand are the determining factors—only the egotistic type of value can be considered. The “market” relationship must be superseded by associations that regulate the exchange and production of goods through an intelligent consideration of human needs. Such associations can replace mere supply and demand by contracts and negotiations between groups of producers and consumers, and between different groups of producers. Excluding on principle one person's making himself a judge of another's legitimate needs, these negotiations will be based solely on the possibilities afforded by natural resources and by human abilities.
[ 15 ] Life on this basis is impossible so long as the economic cycle is governed by the consideration of capital and wages alone. As a result of this orientation, land, means of production and commodities for human use—things for which there is in reality no common standard of comparison—are exchanged for one another. Even human labor power and the use of our spiritual and intellectual faculties are made dependent on the abstract standard of capital and wages—a standard that eliminates, both in human judgment and in our practical activity, our natural, sensible relationship to our work.
[ 16 ] In modern life, there is no possibility of preserving the relationship to economic values that was still possible under the old system of barter, nor even the relationship still possible under a simpler monetary system. The division of labor and of social function that has become necessary in modern times separates the laborer from the recipient of the product of his work. There is no changing this fact without undermining the conditions of modern civilization; nor is there any way of escaping its consequence—the weakening of one's immediate interest in one's work. The loss of this interest must be accepted as a result of modern life. Yet we must not allow this interest to disappear without finding other kinds to take its place, for human beings cannot live and work indifferently in the community.
[ 17 ] It is from the cultural and the political spheres, as they are made independent, that the necessary new interests will arise. From these two independent spheres will come impulses involving viewpoints other than those of mere increase of capital or wages. [ 18 ] A free spiritual-cultural life creates interests that dwell in the depths of the human being, and imbue one's work and all one's action with a living aim and meaning for social life. Developing and nurturing human faculties for the sake of their own inherent value, such a cultural life will call forth a consciousness that our talents and our place in life have real meaning. Molded by individuals whose faculties have been developed in this spirit, society will continually adapt itself to the free expression of human abilities. The legal life and economic life will take on a form in keeping with the human abilities that have been allowed to develop.
The deep inner interests of individuals cannot unfold fully and freely within a cultural life that is regulated by politics, or that develops and uses human faculties merely according to their economic utility. [ 19 ] This sort of cultural life may provide people with artistic and scientific movements as “idealistic” adjuncts to life, or it may offer them comfort and consolation in religion or philosophy. Yet all these things only lead out of the sphere of social realities into regions more or less remote from everyday affairs. Only a free cultural life can permeate the everyday affairs of the community, for it is only a free cultural life that can set its own stamp on them as they take shape.
In my book, Toward Social Renewal, I tried to show how a free cultural life will, among other things, provide the motives and impulses for a healthy social administration of capital. The fruitful administration of a certain amount of capital is possible only through a person or a group that has the abilities to perform the particular work or social service for which the capital is used. Therefore, it is necessary for such a person or group to administer the capital only as long as they are able to carry on the work of management themselves by virtue of their own abilities. As soon as this ceases to be true, the capital must be transferred to others who have the requisite abilities. Since under a free cultural life faculties are developed purely out of the impulses of the cultural life itself, the administration of capital in the economic sphere will be a result of the unfolding of spiritual powers; the latter will carry into the economic life all those interests that are born within its own sphere.
[ 20 ] An independent legal life will create mutual relationships between people living in a community. Through these relationships, they will have an incentive to work for one another, even when the individual is unable to have an immediate, creative interest in the product of his work. This interest becomes transformed into the interest that he can have in working for the human community whose legal life he helps build. Thus the part one plays in the independent legal life can become the basis for a special impulse to live and work apart from economic and cultural interests. One can look away from one's work and the product of one's work to the human community, where one stands in relation to his fellows purely and simply as an adult human being, without regard to one's particular mental abilities, and without this relation being affected by one's particular station in economic life. When one considers how it serves the community with which one has this direct and intimate human relationship, the product of one's work will appear valuable, and this value will extend to the work itself.
Nothing but an independent legal and political life can bring about this intimate human relationship because it is only in this sphere that each human being can meet every other with equal and undivided interest. All the other spheres of social life must, by their very nature, create distinctions and divisions according to individual talents or kinds of work. This sphere bridges all differences.
[ 21 ] Once the cultural life has been made self-subsistent, mere increase of capital will no longer be an immediate and driving motive. Increase of capital will result only as a natural consequence of other motives; these other motives will proceed from the proper connection of human faculties with the several spheres of economic activity.
[ 22 ] It is only from such viewpoints—viewpoints that lie outside the purely capitalist orientation—that society can be constructed in a way that will bring about a satisfactory balance between human work and its return. And so it is with other matters where modern life has alienated us from the natural basis of life.
[ 23 ] Through the independence of the cultural and legal-political spheres, the means of production, land and human labor power will be divested of their present commodity character. (The reader will find a more exact description of the way this will come about in my book, Toward Social Renewal.) The motives and impulses that shall determine the transference of land and of the means of production when these are no longer treated as marketable commodities shall be rooted in the independent spheres of rights and cultural life, as shall the motives that will inspire human labor.
[ 24 ] In this way, forms of social cooperation suited to the conditions of modern life will be created. It is only from these forms that the greatest possible satisfaction of human needs can come. In a community organized purely on a basis of capital and wages, the individual can apply his powers and talents only insofar as they find an equivalent in monetary gain. Consider, moreover, the confidence with which one individual will place his forces at the disposal of another in order to enable the latter to accomplish certain work. In a capitalist community, this confidence must be based on a purely capitalist point of view.
Work done in confidence of the achievements of others is the social basis of credit. In older civilizations there was a transition from barter to the monetary system; similarly, as a result of the complications of modern life, a transformation has recently occurred from the simpler monetary system to working on a credit basis. In our age, life makes it necessary for one man to work with the means that are entrusted to him by another, or by a community, in confidence of his power to achieve a result. Under capitalism, however, the credit system involves a complete loss of any real and satisfying human relationship to the conditions of one's life and work. Credit is given when there is a prospect of an increase of capital that seems to justify it; one's work is constantly overshadowed by the need to justify it in capitalist terms. These are the motives underlying the giving and taking of credit. And what is the result of all this? Human beings are subjected to the power of a financial sphere remote from life. The moment people become fully conscious of this fact, they feel it to be unworthy of their human dignity.
[ 25 ] Take the case of credit on land. In a healthy social life, an individual or a group possessing the necessary abilities may be given credit on land, enabling them to develop it by establishing some kind of production. It must be a development that seems justified on that land in light of all the cultural conditions involved. If credit is given on land from the purely capitalist viewpoint, in the effort to give it a commodity value corresponding to the credit provided, use of the land which would otherwise be the most desirable is possibly prevented.
[ 26 ] A healthy system of giving credit presupposes a social structure that enables economic values to be estimated by their relation to the satisfaction of people's bodily and spiritual needs. Independent cultural and legal-political spheres will lead to a vital recognition of this relation and make it a guiding force. People's economic dealings will be shaped by it. Production will be considered from the viewpoint of human needs; it will no longer be governed by processes that obscure concrete needs through an abstract scale of capital and wages.
[ 27 ] The economic life in a threefold social order is built up by the cooperation of associations arising out of the needs of producers and the interests of consumers. These associations will have to decide on the giving and taking of credit. In their mutual dealings the impulses and perspectives that enter economic life from the cultural and legal spheres will play a decisive part. These associations will not be bound to a purely capitalist point of view. One association will deal directly with another; thus the one-sided interests of one branch of production will be regulated and balanced by those of the other.
[ 28 ] Responsibility for the giving and taking of credit will thus be left to the associations. This will not impair the scope and activity of individuals with special faculties; on the contrary, only this method will give individual faculties full scope. The individual is responsible to his or her association for achieving the best possible results. The association is responsible to other associations for making good use of these individual abilities. Such a division of responsibility will ensure that the whole activity of production is guided by complementary and mutually corrective points of view. The individual's desire for profit will no longer impose production on the life of the community; production will be regulated by the community's needs, which will make themselves felt in a real and objective way. The need one association establishes will be the occasion for the granting of credit by another.
[ 29 ] People who depend on their accustomed lines of thought will say, “These are very fine ideas, but how are we to make the transition from present conditions to the threefold system?” It is important to see that what has been proposed here can be put into practice without delay. One need only begin by forming such associations. Surely no one who has a healthy sense of reality can deny this is immediately possible. Associations based on the idea of the threefold social order can be formed just as readily as companies and consortia were formed along the old lines. Moreover, all kinds of dealings and transactions are possible between the new associations and the old forms of business. There is no question of the old having to be destroyed and replaced artificially by the new. The new simply takes its place beside the old; the new will then have to justify itself and prove its inherent power, while the old will gradually crumble away.
The threefold idea is not a program or system for society as a whole, requiring the old system to cease suddenly and everything to be “set up” anew. The threefold idea can make a start with individual undertakings in society. The transformation of the whole will then follow through the ever-widening life of these individual institutions. Because it is able to work this way, the threefold idea is not utopian. It is a force adequate to the realities of modern life.
[ 30 ] The essential thing is that the idea of a threefold order shall stimulate a real social intelligence in the people of the community. The economic viewpoint shall be properly fructified by the impulses that come from the independent cultural and political spheres. The individual shall contribute in a very definite sense to the achievements of the community as a whole. Through the role the individual plays in the independent cultural life, through the interests that arise in the political and legal sphere, and through the mutual relations of the economic associations, his or her contribution shall be realized.
[ 31 ] Under the influence of the threefold idea, the operation of social life will in a certain sense be reversed. Presently, one must look to the increase of one's capital or wages as a sign that one is playing a satisfactory part in the life of the community. In the threefold social order, the greatest possible efficiency of common work will result because individual faculties work in harmony with the human relationships founded in the legal sphere, and with the production, circulation and consumption regulated by the economic associations. Increase of capital, and a proper adjustment of work and the return upon work, shall appear as a final consequence of these social institutions and their activities.
[ 32 ] The threefold idea would guide our transforming and constructive power from mere attempts at reform of social effects into the sphere of social causes. Whether one rejects this idea or makes it one's own will depend on summoning the will and energy to work one's way through to the realm of causes. If one does this, one will cease considering only external institutions; instead, one's attention will be guided to the human beings who make the institutions. Modern life has brought about a division of labor in many spheres, for outer methods and institutions demand it. The effects of division of labor must be balanced by vital mutual relations among people in the community. Division of labor separates people; the forces that come to them from the three spheres of social life, once these are made independent, will draw them together again. This division of society has reached its zenith. This is a fact of experience, and it gives our modern social life its stamp. Once we recognize it, we realize the imperative demand of the age: to find and follow the path that leads to reunion.
[ 33 ] This inevitable demand of the times is vividly illustrated by such concrete facts of economic life as the continued intensification of the credit system. The stronger the tendency toward a capitalist point of view, the more highly organized the financial system and the more intense the spirit of enterprise becomes the more the credit system develops.
However, to a healthy way of thinking the growth of the credit system must drive home the urgent need to permeate it with a vital sense of the economic realities—the production of commodities and the people's needs for particular commodities. In the long run, credit cannot work in a healthy way unless the giver of credit feels himself responsible for all that is brought about thereby. The recipient of credit, through his connection with the whole economic sphere (that is, through the associations), must give grounds to justify his taking this responsibility. For a healthy national economy, it is important not merely that credit should further the spirit of enterprise as such, but that the right methods and institutions should exist to enable the spirit of enterprise to work in a socially useful way.
[ 34 ] Theoretically, no one will want to deny that a larger sense of responsibility is necessary in the present-day world of business and economic affairs. To this end, associations must be created that will work to confront individuals with the wider social effects of all their actions.
[ 35 ] Persons whose task it is to be farmers and who have experience in agriculture, very rightly declare that those administering land must not regard it as an ordinary commodity, and that land credit must be considered differently from commodity credit. Yet it is impossible for such insight to come into practical effect in the modern economy until the individual is backed up by the associations. Guided by the real connections between the several spheres of economic life, the associations will set a different stamp on agricultural economy and on the other branches of production.
[ 36 ] We can easily understand that some reply to these arguments: “What is the point of it all? When all is said and done, it is human need that rules over production, and no one can give or receive credit unless there is a demand somewhere or other to justify it.” Someone might even say, “After all, these social institutions and methods you have in mind amount to nothing more than a conscious arrangement of the very things that ‘supply and demand’ will surely regulate automatically.” It will be clear to one who looks more closely that this is not the point. The social thoughts that originate in the threefold idea do not aim at replacing the free business dealings governed by supply and demand with a command economy. Their aim is to realize the true relative values of commodities, with the underlying idea that the product of an individual's labor should be of a value equal to all the other commodities consumed in the time spent producing it.
Under the capitalist system, demand may determine whether someone will undertake the production of a certain commodity. Yet demand alone can never determine whether it will be possible to produce it at a price corresponding to its value in the sense defined above. This can be determined only through methods and institutions whereby society, in all its aspects, will bring about a sensible valuation of the different commodities. Anyone who doubts that such methods and institutions are worth striving for lacks vision; he does not see that, under the exclusive rule of supply and demand, needs whose satisfaction would upgrade the life of the community are being starved. He has no feeling for the necessity of trying to include the satisfaction of such needs among the practical incentives of an organized community. The essential aim of the threefold social order is to create a just balance between human needs and the value of the products of human work.
Dreigliederung und soziales Vertrauen (Kapital und Kredit)
[ 1 ] Es ist von verschiedenen Seiten, zum Beispiel von dem englischen Finanztheoretiker Hartley Withers (in seinen Ausführungen über « Money and Credit »), gesagt worden, daß alle Fragen, die das Geld betreffen, so verwickelt seien, daß ihre scharfe Fassung in bestimmte Gedanken außerordentlichen Schwierigkeiten begegne.
[ 2 ] Man wird diese Ansicht für viele Fragen des sozialen Lebens geltend machen können. Aber man sollte auch bedenken, welche Folgen in diesem sozialen Leben es haben muß, wenn die Menschen ihr Zusammenwirken nach Antrieben gestalten, die in unbestimmbaren, oder wenigstens schwer bestimmbaren Gedanken wurzeln. Solche Gedanken sind doch nicht bloß Mängel der Einsicht, die die Erkenntnis verwirren; sie sind wirksame Kräfte im Leben. Ihre Unbestimmtheit lebt in den Einrichtungen weiter, die unter ihrem Einflusse entstehen. Und aus solchen Einrichtungen entspringen lebensunmögliche soziale Verhältnisse.
[ 3 ] Auf der Anerkennung, daß die zivilisierte Menschheit der Gegenwart in Verhältnissen lebe, die aus solchen verwirrenden Gedankentrieben hervorgehen, wird eine gesunde Einsicht in die « soziale Frage » beruhen müssen. Diese Frage erfließt ja zunächst aus der Wahrnehmung der Nöte, in denen sich Menschen befinden. Und man ist wenig geneigt, in wirklich sachgemäßer Art den Weg zu verfolgen, der von der Wahrnehmung dieser Nöte zu den Menschengedanken führt, in denen sie ihre Quelle haben. Man sieht nur allzuleicht in dem Verfolgen dieses Weges - vom Brot zu den Gedanken - einen unpraktischen Idealismus. Man erkennt nicht das Unpraktische einer Lebenspraxis, an die man gewöhnt ist, die aber doch auf lebensunmöglichen Gedanken ruht.
[ 4 ] Solche lebensunmöglichen Gedanken sind im gegenwärtigen sozialen Dasein enthalten. Bemüht man sich, der « sozialen Frage » wirklich auf den Grund zu kommen, so wird man sehen müssen, wie heute die Forderungen des allermateriellsten Lebens praktisch nur angefaßt werden können, wenn man zu den Gedanken fortschreitet, aus denen das Zusammenarbeiten der Menschen einer sozialen Gemeinschaft hervorgeht.
[ 5 ] Es fehlt allerdings nicht an Hinweisen auf solche Gedanken aus einzelnen Lebenskreisen heraus. Menschen, deren Betätigung an das Wesen des Grundes und Bodens gebunden ist, sprechen davon, daß unter dem Einflusse neuerer volkswirtschaftlicher Antriebe Grund und Boden in bezug auf Kauf und Verkauf wie « Waren » behandelt werden. Und sie sind der Ansicht, daß dies dem sozialen Leben schädlich ist. Solche Ansichten führen nicht zu praktischen Folgen, weil die Menschen anderer Lebenskreise aus ihren Interessen heraus die Berechtigung nicht zugeben.
[ 6 ] Die wirklichkeitsgemäße Beobachtung einer solchen Tatsache sollte zur Richtkraft für Lösungsversuche der « sozialen Frage » führen. Denn eine solche Beobachtung kann zeigen, wie derjenige, der berechtigten Forderungen des sozialen Lebens widerstrebt, weil er aus seinem Lebenskreise heraus Gedanken zustimmt, die mit ihnen nicht im Einklang stehen, letzten Endes auch die Grundlagen untergräbt, auf denen seine Interessen aufgebaut sind.
[ 7 ] An der sozialen Bedeutung des Grundes und Bodens kann eine solche Beobachtung gemacht werden. Man wird sie machen, wenn man ins Auge faßt, wie die bloß kapitalistische Orientierung der Volkswirtschaft auf die Wertbemessung des Grundes und Bodens wirkt. Diese Orientierung hat im Gefolge, daß das Kapital sich Gesetze für seine Vermehrung schafft, die in gewissen Lebensgebieten nicht mehr den Bedingungen entsprechen, welche in gesunder Weise eine Vermehrung des Kapitals bewirken dürfen.
[ 8 ] An Grund und Boden wird das besonders anschaulich. Daß ein bestimmtes Landgebiet in einer gewissen Art fruchtbar gemacht wird, kann aus Lebensbedingungen heraus durchaus notwendig sein. Solche Bedingungen können moralischer Art sein. Sie können in geistigen Kulturverhältnissen liegen. Es kann aber durchaus sein, daß die Erfüllung dieser Bedingungen ein geringeres Kapitalerträgnis liefert als die Anlage des Kapitales in einer anderen Unternehmung. Die bloß kapitalistische Orientierung führt dann dazu, von der Ausnutzung des Bodens nach den gekennzeichneten nicht rein kapitalistischen Gesichtspunkten abzulassen und ihn so zu verwerten, daß sein kapitalistisches Erträgnis dem anderer Unternehmungen sich gleichstelle. Die Hervorbringung von Werten, die der wahren Zivilisation sehr notwendig sein können, wird dadurch unterdrückt. Und es entsteht unter den Einflüssen dieser Orientierung eine Wertbemessung der Lebensgüter, die nicht mehr wurzeln kann in dem naturgemäßen Zusammenhang, den die Menschen mit der Natur und dem geistigen Leben haben müssen, wenn diese sie leiblich und seelisch befriedigen sollen.
[ 9 ] Es ist nun naheliegend, zu der Schlußfolgerung zu kommen: die kapitalistische Orientierung der Volkswirtschaft hat die gekennzeichneten Wirkungen; also muß sie beseitigt werden. Es fragt sich nur, ob man mit dieser Beseitigung nicht auch die Grundlagen beseitigen würde, ohne welche die neuere Zivilisation nicht bestehen kann.
[ 10 ] Wer die kapitalistische Orientierung als einen bloßen Eindringling in das moderne Wirtschaftsleben ansieht, der wird deren Beseitigung verlangen. Wer aber erkennt, wie das Leben der neueren Zeit durch Arbeitsteilung und Gliederung im sozialen Organismus wirkt, der kann nur daran denken, die als Nebenerscheinung auftretenden Schattenseiten dieser Orientierung aus dem Gemeinschaftsleben auszuschließen. Denn für ihn ist es klar, daß die kapitalistische Arbeitsmethode eine Folge dieses Lebens ist, und daß die Schattenseiten nur so lange auftreten können, als in der Bewertung der Lebensgüter ausschließlich der Kapitalgesichtspunkt geltend gemacht wird.
[ 11 ] Es kommt darauf an, nach einer solchen Struktur des sozialen Organismus hinzuarbeiten, durch die die Beurteilung nach der Kapitalvermehrung nicht die alleinige Macht ist, unter welche die Produktionszweige des Wirtschaftslebens gezwungen werden, sondern in der die Kapitalvermehrung der Ausdruck für eine Gestaltung dieses Lebens ist, die allen Anforderungen der menschlichen Leiblichkeit und Geistigkeit Rechnung trägt.
[ 12 ] Wer seine Denkungsart nach dem einseitigen Standpunkt der Kapitalvermehrung oder, was eine notwendige Folge davon ist, nach dem der Lohnerhöhung einrichtet, dem entzieht sich der unmittelbare Anblick der Wirkungen einzelner Produktionsgebiete auf den Wirtschafskreislauf. Handelt es sich darum, Kapital zu vermehren oder Lohn zu erhöhen, so wird es gleichgültig, in welchem Produktionszweig dieses geschieht. Das naturgemäße Verhältnis der Menschen zu dem, was sie hervorbringen, wird untergraben. Die Höhe einer Kapital- oder Lohnsumme bleibt dieselbe, wenn man statt einer Warengattung für sie eine andere erwirbt, oder wenn man für eine Art der Arbeit eine andere eintauscht. Dadurch aber werden die Lebensgüter erst « Waren », daß man sie durch die Kapitalmenge, in der ihre besondere Eigenart keinen Ausdruck findet, erwerben oder verkaufen kann.
[ 13 ] Diesen Warencharakter vertragen aber nur diejenigen Lebensgüter, die vom Menschen unmittelbar verbraucht werden. Denn für deren Wert hat der Mensch einen unmittelbaren Maßstab in seinen leiblichen oder seelischen Bedürfnissen. Ein solcher Maßstab liegt weder für Grund und Boden noch für die künstlich hergestellten Produktionsmittel vor. Deren Wertbemessung ist von vielen Faktoren abhängig, die nur anschaulich werden, wenn man die ganze soziale Struktur des Menschenlebens ins Auge faßt.
[ 14 ] Ist es aus Kulturinteressen heraus notwendig, daß ein Landgebiet in einer Art behandelt wird, die das Erträgnis vom Kapitalgesichtspunkt aus geringer erscheinen läßt als dasjenige einer andern Unternehmung, so wird dieses geringere Erträgnis auf die Dauer der Gemeinschaft nicht Schaden bringen können. Denn das geringere Erträgnis des einen Produktionszweiges muß nach einiger Zeit auf andere so wirken, daß auch bei ihnen die Preise ihrer Erzeugnisse sich erniedrigen. Nur dem Augenblicksstandpunkt, der nicht anders kann als den Egoismuswert in Rechnung zu stellen, entzieht sich dieser Zusammenhang. Bei dem bloßen Marktverhältnis, auf dem Angebot und Nachfrage alleinherrschend sind, ist nur das Rechnen mit diesem Egoismuswert möglich. Dieses Verhältnis ist nur zu überwinden, wenn Assoziationen den Austausch und die Produktion der Verbrauchsgüter aus der vernunftgemäßen Beobachtung der menschlichen Bedürfnisse heraus regeln. Solche Assoziationen können an Stelle des bloßen Angebotes und der bloßen Nachfrage die Ergebnisse vertragsmäßiger Unterhandlungen zwischen Konsumenten- und Produzentenkreisen einerseits und zwischen den einzelnen Produzentenkreisen andererseits setzen. Wenn bei diesen Beobachtungen ausgeschlossen wird, daß sich der eine Mensch zum Richter darüber aufwerfen kann, was ein anderer an Bedürfnissen haben darf, so wird in den Grundlagen solcher Unterhandlungen nur das mitsprechen, was aus den Naturbedingungen der Wirtschaft und aus der menschlichen Arbeitsmöglichkeit heraus zustande kommen kann.
[ 15 ] Die Beherrschung des Wirtschaftskreislaufes durch die bloße kapitalistische und lohnmäßige Orientierung macht das Leben auf solchen Grundlagen unmöglich. Durch diese Orientierung wird im Leben ausgetauscht, wofür es einen gemeinsamen Vergleichungsmaßstab in Wahrheit nicht gibt: Grund und Boden, Produktionsmittel und Güter, die dem unmittelbaren Verbrauch dienen. Ja, es werden auch die menschliche Arbeitskraft und die Verwertung der geistigen Fähigkeiten der Menschen in Abhängigkeit gebracht von einem abstrakten, dem Kapital- und Lohnmaßstab, der im menschlichen Urteil und in der menschlichen Betätigung die naturgemäßen Beziehungen des Menschen zu seinem Betätigungsfelde verschwinden läßt.
[ 16 ] Nun ist in dem neueren Leben der Menschheit die Beziehung des Menschen zu den Lebensgütern nicht herzustellen, die unter der Herrschaft der Naturalwirtschaft oder auch nur beim Walten noch einfacherer Geldwirtschaft möglich war. Die Arbeits- und soziale Gliederung, die in der Neuzeit notwendig geworden sind, trennen den Menschen von dem Abnehmer seines Arbeitsproduktes. Dieser Tatsache und ihrer Folge, dem Erlahmen des unmittelbaren Interesses an der Leistung, kann ohne Untergrabung des modernen Zivilisationslebens nicht entgegengearbeitet werden. Das Schwinden einer gewissen Art von Interessen an der Arbeit muß als ein Ergebnis dieses Lebens hingenommen werden. Aber diese Interessen dürfen nicht hinschwinden, ohne daß andere an ihre Stelle treten. Denn der Mensch muß mit Anteil innerhalb der sozialen Gemeinschaft arbeiten und in ihr leben.
[ 17 ] Aus dem selbständig werdenden Geistes- und Rechtsleben werden die notwendigen neuen Interessen entspringen. Aus diesen beiden verselbständigten Gebieten werden die Antriebe kommen, welche anderen Gesichtspunkten entsprechen als denen der bloßen Kapitalvermehrung und Lohnhöhe.
[ 18 ] Ein freies Geistesleben schafft aus den Tiefen der Menschenwesenheit heraus Interessen, welche die Arbeit und alles Wirken in die Gemeinschaft ziel- und inhaltbegabt hineinstellen. Ein solches Geistesleben erzeugt in den Menschen das Bewußtsein, daß sie mit ihren Fähigkeiten sinnvoll im Dasein stehen, weil es diese Fähigkeiten um ihrer selbst willen pflegt. Die Gemeinschaft wird unter dem Einfluß so gepflegter Fähigkeiten stets den Charakter annehmen, in dem sich diese auch auswirken können. Das Rechts- und Wirtschaftsleben werden ein Gepräge annehmen, welches den entwickelten Fähigkeiten entsprechend ist. In einem Geistesleben, das seine Regelung aus dem politisch-rechtlichen Gebiet empfängt, oder das die menschlichen Fähigkeiten nach ihrer Wirtschaftswirkung pflegt und in Anspruch nimmt, werden Eigen-Interessen nicht in voller Entwickelung aufkommen können.
[ 19 ] Ein solches Geistesleben wird in Kunst- und Erkenntnisbestrebungen « idealistische » Lebenszugaben oder im Weltanschauungsinhalt Befriedigungen für Sorgen liefern, die über das soziale Leben hinaus in ein mehr oder weniger lebensfremdes Gebiet münden. Lebendurchdringend kann nur ein freies Geistesleben sein, weil ihm die Möglichkeit gegeben ist, das Leben von sich aus zu gestalten. In meinen «Kernpunkten der sozialen Frage» habe ich versucht, zu zeigen, wie in einem solchen Geistesleben die Antriebe gefunden werden können, welche die Kapitalverwaltung auf einen gesunden sozialen Boden stellen. Fruchtbar können eine Kapitalmasse nur Personen oder Personengruppen verwalten, welchen die menschlichen Fähigkeiten eigen sind, diejenigen Leistungen im Dienste der menschlichen Gemeinschaft zu verrichten, für die das Kapital in Anspruch genommen wird. Nötig ist daher, daß eine solche Person oder Personengruppe eine Kapitalmasse nur so lange verwalten, als sie aus ihren Fähigkeiten heraus selbst es tun können. Ist dieses nicht mehr der Fall, dann soll die Kapitalmasse auf andere Personen übergehen, welche diese Fähigkeiten besitzen. Da nun bei freiem Geistesleben die Entwickelung der menschlichen Fähigkeiten restlos aus den Antrieben dieses Geisteslebens selbst entspringt, so wird die Kapitalverwaltung im Wirtschaftskreislauf zu einem Ergebnis der geistigen Kraftentfaltung. Und diese trägt in das Wirtschaftsleben alle diejenigen Interessen hinein, die auf ihrem Boden ersprießen.
[ 20 ] Ein unabhängiges Rechtsleben schafft Beziehungen zwischen den in einer sozialen Gemeinschaft lebenden Menschen, welche diese füreinander arbeiten lassen, auch wenn der einzelne an der Herstellung seines Arbeitsproduktes das unmittelbare Interesse nicht haben kann. Dieses Interesse verwandelt sich in dasjenige, das er haben kann am Arbeiten für die Menschengemeinschaft, an deren Rechtsaufbau er beteiligt ist. Der Anteil an dem selbständigen Rechtsleben kann neben den wirtschaftlichen und geistigen Interessen die Grundlage für einen besonderen Lebens- und Leistungsantrieb werden. Der Mensch kann den Blick von seinen Leistungen hinweg auf die Menschengemeinschaft richten, in der er lebendig drinnensteht mit allem, was aus seinem Menschentum fließt bloß dadurch, daß er ein mündig gewordener Mensch ist, ohne Rücksicht auf seine geistigen Fähigkeiten, und ohne daß der wirtschaftliche Platz, an dem er sich befindet, eine Wirkung auf dieses Verhältnis hat. Das Arbeitsprodukt wird seinen Wert auf die Arbeit ausstrahlen, wenn man die Art überschaut, wie es der Menschengemeinschaft dient, in die man so unmittelbar menschlich verwoben ist. Nichts anderes aber kann diese Verwobenheit so bewirken wie ein selbständiges Rechtsleben, weil nur dieses ein Gebiet ist, auf dem jeder Mensch jedem Menschen mit dem gleichen ungeteilten Interesse begegnen kann. Jedes andere Gebiet muß, seiner Natur nach, Abtrennungen nach individuellen Fähigkeiten oder nach Arbeitsinhalten bewirken; dieses überbrückt alle Trennungen.
[ 21 ] Für die Kapitalverwaltung wird aus der Selbständigkeit des Geisteslebens heraus bewirkt, daß die Kapitalvermehrung nicht ein unmittelbarer Antrieb ist, sondern nur auftreten kann als naturgemäße Folge anderer Antriebe, die sich aus dem sachgemäßen Zusammenhange der menschlichen Fähigkeiten mit den Leistungsgebieten ergeben.
[ 22 ] Nur aus solchen Gesichtspunkten, die nicht innerhalb der kapitalistischen Orientierung liegen, kann der soziale Organismus eine Struktur erhalten, in der menschliche Leistung und Gegenleistung einen befriedigenden Ausgleich finden. Und wie auf dem Gebiete der kapitalistischen Orientierung kann es auf anderen Gebieten ergehen, auf denen das moderne Leben den Menschen von dem naturgemäßen Zusammenhang mit den Lebensbedingungen abgebracht hat.
[ 23 ] Durch die Verselbständigung des Geistes- und des Rechtslebens werden künstliche Produktionsmittel und wird Grund und Boden sowie auch die menschliche Arbeitskraft des Warencharakters entkleidet. (Die Wege, auf denen dies geschieht, findet man genauer, als es hier geschehen kann, in meinem Buche «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage» geschildert.) Im selbständigen Rechts- und Geistesgebiet werden die Antriebe wurzeln, aus denen heraus Produktionsmittel, aus denen Grund und Boden ohne Kaufverhältnis übertragen werden und aus denen heraus menschliche Arbeit geleistet wird.
[ 24 ] Damit aber werden die dem gegenwärtigen Zivilisationsleben angemessenen Formen des sozialen Zusammenwirkens von menschlichen Kräften geschaffen. Und nur aus solchen Formen kann die bestmögliche Befriedigung der menschlichen Bedürfnisse erstehen. In einer bloß kapitalistisch und lohnmäßig organisierten Gemeinschaft kann der einzelne seine Fähigkeiten und Kräfte nur in dem Maße geltend machen, als sie im Kapitalerwerb ihren Gegenwert finden. Vertrauen, durch das einer seine Kräfte für die Leistungen des andern zur Verfügung stellt, wird sich da nur begründen auf die Aussicht, daß dieser andere in Bedingungen lebt, die einer kapitalistischen Denkungsart Vertrauen einflößen können. Im sozialen Leben ist Arbeiten im Vertrauen auf die Leistungen anderer Kreditgewährung. Die Kompliziertheit des modernen Lebens hat immer mehr dazu geführt, daß wie für ältere Kulturen ein Übergang stattfand von der Natural- zur Geldwirtschaft, so für jüngere ein solcher zu einem Arbeiten auf der Grundlage von Kreditgewährung. Wir stehen in einem Zeitalter, in dem das Leben notwendig macht, daß der eine mit den Mitteln arbeitet, die ihm ein anderer oder eine Gemeinschaft im Vertrauen auf seine Leistungsfähigkeit überantworten. Für das kapitalistische Wirken geht aber der menschlich befriedigende Zusammenhang mit den Lebensbedingungen durch die Kreditwirtschaft völlig verloren. Kreditgewährung mit der Aussicht auf entsprechend erscheinende Kapitalvermehrung und Arbeiten unter dem Gesichtspunkte, daß das in Anspruch genommene Vertrauen kapitalmäßig gerechtfertigt erscheint, werden die Antriebe des Kreditverkehrs. Das aber liefert Ergebnisse im sozialen Organismus, durch welche die Menschen unter die Macht lebensfremder Kapitalumlagerungen gebracht werden, die sie in dem Augenblicke als menschenunwürdig empfinden, in dem sie sich ihrer in vollem Maße bewußt werden.
[ 25 ] Wird auf Grund und Boden Kredit gewährt, so kann im gesunden sozialen Leben dies nur von dem Gesichtspunkte aus geschehen, daß einem mit den notwendigen Fähigkeiten ausgestatteten Menschen oder einer Menschengruppe die Möglichkeit gegeben werde, einen Produktionsbetrieb zu entfalten, der aus allen in Betracht kommenden Kulturbedingungen heraus gerechtfertigt erscheint. Wird aus der rein kapitalistischen Orientierung heraus Kredit auf Grund und Boden gewährt, so kann es geschehen, daß dieser seiner sonst wünschenswerten Bestimmung entzogen werden muß, damit er einen Warenwert erhalte, welcher der Kreditgewährung entspricht.
[ 26 ] Ein gesundes Kreditgewähren setzt eine soziale Struktur voraus, durch welche die Lebensgüter eine Bewertung finden, die in ihrer Beziehung zur leiblichen und geistigen Bedürfnisbefriedigung der Menschen wurzelt. Ein selbständiges Geistes- und Rechtsleben führt die Menschen zu einem lebensvollen Erkennen und Geltendmachen dieser Beziehung. Dadurch wird der Wirtschaftskreislauf so gestaltet, daß er die Beurteilung der Produktion in Abhängigkeit bringt von dem, was die Menschen bedürfen, und sie nicht beherrscht sein läßt von Mächten, bei denen die konkreten menschlichen Bedürfnisse in der abstrakten Kapital- und Lohnskala ausgelöscht erscheinen.
[ 27 ] Das Wirtschaftsleben im dreigliedrigen sozialen Organismus kommt durch das Zusammenwirken der aus den Produktionserfordernissen und Konsumtionsinteressen sich bildenden Assoziationen zustande. Diese werden die Entscheidungen haben über die Kreditgewährung und Kreditentgegennahme. In den Verhandlungen solcher Assoziationen werden die Antriebe eine entscheidende Rolle spielen, die aus dem geistigen und dem Rechtsgebiet heraus in das Wirtschaftsleben hineinwirken. Die Notwendigkeit einer bloß kapitalistischen Orientierung ist für diese Assoziationen nicht vorhanden. Denn die eine Assoziation wird mit der andern im Wechselverkehr stehen. Dadurch werden die einseitigen Interessen des einen Produktionszweiges durch diejenigen des anderen geregelt.
[ 28 ] Die Verantwortung für Kreditgewährung und Kreditentgegennahme wird den Assoziationen zufallen. Dadurch wird die Bedeutung der individuellen Fähigkeiten der Einzelpersönlichkeiten nicht beeinträchtigt, sondern erst zur vollen Geltung gebracht. Der einzelne ist seiner Assoziation gegenüber verantwortlich für die bestmögliche Leistung; und die Assoziation ist anderen Assoziationen gegenüber verantwortlich für die zielgemäße Verwendung der Leistungen. In solcher Teilung der Verantwortlichkeit liegt die Gewähr dafür, daß die Produktionsbetätigung aus einander in ihrer Einseitigkeit korrigierenden Gesichtspunkten vor sich geht. Es wird nicht aus den Erwerbsantrieben der einzelnen in das Gemeinschaftsleben hinein produziert, sondern aus den sachgemäß wirkenden Bedürfnissen der Gemeinschaft heraus. In dem Bedarf, den eine Assoziation feststellt, wird die Veranlassung zur Kreditgewährung für eine andere liegen können.
[ 29 ] Wer nur an gewohnten Gedankengängen hängt, der wird sagen: das sind « schöne » Gedanken; aber wie soll man aus dem gegenwärtigen Leben in ein solches hineinkommen, das auf dergleichen Ideen ruht? Es handelt sich darum, einzusehen, daß das hier Vorgeschlagene tatsächlich unmittelbar in die Wirklichkeit umgesetzt werden kann. Man hat nur nötig, den Anfang mit den gekennzeichneten Assoziationsbildungen zu machen. Daß dies ohne weiteres möglich ist, sollte eigentlich niemand bezweifeln, der einigen gesunden Sinn für die Wirklichkeiten des Lebens hat. Solche Assoziationen, die auf der Grundlage der Dreigliederungsidee ruhen, sind doch wahrlich ebensogut zu bilden wie Konsortien, Gesellschaften und so weiter im Sinne der alten Einrichtungen. Es ist aber auch jede Art von Wirtschaftsverkehr der neuen Assoziationen mit den alten Einrichtungen möglich. Man braucht durchaus nicht daran zu denken, daß das Alte zerstört und künstlich durch das Neue ersetzt werden müsse. Das Neue stellt sich neben das Alte hin. Jenes hat sich dann durch seine innere Kraft und Berechtigung zu bewähren; dieses bröckelt aus der sozialen Organisation heraus. Die Dreigliederungsidee ist nicht ein Programm für das Ganze des sozialen Organismus, das fordert, daß das ganze Alte aufhöre und alle Dinge neu « eingerichtet » werden. Diese Idee kann von der Bildung sozialer Einzeleinrichtungen ihren Ausgang nehmen. Die Umbildung eines Ganzen wird dann durch das sich verbreitende Leben der einzelnen sozialen Gebilde erfolgen. Weil diese Idee in einer solchen Richtung wirken kann, ist sie keine Utopie, sondern eine der Wirklichkeit angemessene Kraft.
[ 30 ] Das Wesentliche ist, daß durch die Dreigliederungsidee sachgemäßes soziales Verständnis an die im sozialen Organismus vereinigten Menschen herangebracht wird. Durch die Antriebe, die aus dem selbständigen Geistes- und Rechtsleben kommen, werden die wirtschaftlichen Gesichtspunkte in sachgemäßer Weise befruchtet. Der einzelne wird in einem gewissen Sinne zu einem Mitarbeiter an den Leistungen der Gesamtheit. Durch seinen Anteil an dem freien Geistesleben, durch die auf dem Rechtsboden erzeugten Interessen, durch die Wechselbeziehungen der wirtschaftlichen Assoziationen wird diese Mitarbeiterschaft vermittelt.
[ 31 ] Die Wirksamkeit des sozialen Organismus wird unter dem Einfluß der Dreigliederungsidee gewissermaßen umgestellt. Gegenwärtig muß der Mensch in der Kapitalvermehrung und in der Lohnhöhe die Kennzeichen sehen, durch die er sich in den sozialen Organismus entsprechend hineingestellt findet. Im dreigliedrigen sozialen Organismus werden die individuellen Fähigkeiten der Einzelmenschen im Zusammenklang mit den aus dem Rechtsboden stammenden menschlichen Beziehungen und der auf der Assoziationstätigkeit ruhenden wirtschaftlichen Produktion, der Zirkulation und Konsumtion die bestmögliche Fruchtbarkeit des Gemeinschaftsarbeitens ergeben. Und Kapitalvermehrung beziehungsweise Leistungsausgleich mit entsprechender Gegenleistung werden wie die Konsequenz der sozialen Betätigungen und Einrichtungen zutage treten.
[ 32 ] Von dem Reformieren im Gebiete, in dem nur die sozialen Wirkungen spielen, hinweg will die Dreigliederungsidee die umwandelnde und aufbauende Tätigkeit auf das Gebiet der Ursachen lenken. Bei Annahme oder Ablehnung dieser Idee kommt in Frage, ob man den Willen aufbringt, bis zu diesem Gebiet der Ursachen sich hindurchzuarbeiten. Und dieser Wille muß von der Betrachtung der äußeren Einrichtungen hinweg zu den die Einrichtungen bewirkenden Menschen führen. Das Leben der neueren Zeit hat die Arbeitsteilung auf vielen Gebieten gebracht. Diese ist ein Erfordernis der äußeren Einrichtungen. Was durch die geteilten Arbeitsgebiete bewirkt wird, muß in den lebensvollen menschlichen Wechselverhältnissen seinen Ausgleich finden. Die Arbeitsteilung trennt die Menschen; die Kräfte, die ihnen kommen werden aus den selbständig gewordenen drei Gliedern des sozialen Organismus, werden sie wieder zusammenschließen. Unser soziales Leben hat sein Gepräge davon, daß die Trennung der Menschen den Höhepunkt ihrer Entwickelung erreicht hat. Das muß durch Lebenserfahrung erkannt werden. Wer es erkennt, für den wird es zur notwendigen Zeitforderung, an das Betreten der Wege zu denken, die zum Zusammenschluß führen.
[ 33 ] Solche konkrete Erscheinungen des Wirtschaftslebens wie der intensiver werdende Kreditverkehr beleuchten diese notwendige Zeitforderung. Je stärker die Hinneigung zur kapitalistischen Orientierung, je entwickelter die Geldwirtschaft, je tätiger der Unternehmungsgeist geworden sind, desto mehr entfaltet sich der Kreditverkehr. Der aber müßte für ein gesundes Denken das Bedürfnis hervorrufen, ihn mit einem wirklichen Verständnis der realen Gütererzeugung und des menschlichen Bedarfes nach bestimmten Gütern zu durchdringen. Er wird letzten Endes nur gesund wirken können, wenn der Kreditgewährer sich verantwortlich fühlt für dasjenige, was durch seine Kreditgewährung geschieht; und wenn der Kreditnehmer durch die wirtschaftlichen Zusammenhänge - durch die Assoziationen -, in denen er drinnensteht, dem Kreditgewährer Unterlagen für diese Verantwortlichkeit liefert. Es kann sich für eine gesunde Volkswirtschaft nicht bloß darum handeln, daß der Kredit den Unternehmungsgeist als solchen fördere, sondern darum, daß Einrichtungen vorhanden seien, durch die der Unternehmungsgeist sich in sozial günstiger Art auswirkt.
[ 34 ] Theoretisch wird es kaum jemand bezweifeln wollen, daß eine Erhöhung des Verantwortlichkeitsgefühls in dem gegenwärtigen Wirtschaftsverkehr notwendig ist. Diese Erhöhung hängt aber davon ab, daß Assoziationen entstehen, durch deren Tätigkeit dem einzelnen Menschen wirklich vor Augen gestellt wird, was in der sozialen Gemeinschaft durch seine Handlungsweise geschieht.
[ 35 ] Es wird von Persönlichkeiten, deren Lebensaufgabe mit der Bodenbewirtschaftung zusammenhängt und die daher Erfahrung auf diesem Gebiete haben, mit Recht behauptet, daß, wer Grund und Boden zu verwalten hat, diesen nicht wie eine beliebige Ware betrachten dürfe, und daß auch der Landkredit auf andere Art gewährt werden müsse als der Warenkredit. Aber es ist unmöglich, daß im gegenwärtigen Wirtschaftskreislauf solche Erkenntnisse eine praktische Bedeutung gewinnen, wenn nicht hinter dem einzelnen die Assoziationen stehen, die aus den Beziehungen der einzelnen Wirtschaftsgebiete heraus der Bodenwirtschaft ein anderes Gepräge geben als einem anderen Produktionszweige.
[ 36 ] Es ist durchaus begreiflich, daß manche Menschen zu solchen Ausführungen sagen: wozu das alles, da doch schließlich der menschliche Bedarf der Herr aller Produktion ist und zum Beispiel niemand zur Kreditgewährung oder Kreditentgegennahme kommen kann, wenn nicht aus irgendeiner Ecke heraus ein Bedarf die Sache rechtfertigt. Man könnte sogar sagen: schließlich ist doch alles, was da über soziale Einrichtungen erdacht wird, nichts weiter als ein bewußtes Gestalten dessen, was sicher auch automatisch « Angebot und Nachfrage » regeln. Wer aber genauer zusieht, dem wird durchsichtig werden, daß es bei den Auseinandersetzungen über die soziale Frage, die von der Idee der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus ausgehen, nicht darauf ankommt, an die Stelle des freien Verkehrs im Zeichen von Angebot und Nachfrage eine Zwangswirtschaft zu setzen, sondern darauf, die gegenseitigen Werte der Lebensgüter so zu gestalten, daß im wesentlichen der Wert eines Menschenerzeugnisses dem Werte der anderen Güter entspricht, für welche der Erzeuger in der Zeit Bedarf hat, die er auf die Erzeugung verwendet. Ob man bei kapitalistischer Orientierung ein Gut erzeugen will, darüber mag die Nachfrage entscheiden; ob ein Gut erzeugt werden kann zu einem Preise, der seinem Werte im gekennzeichneten Sinne entspricht, darüber kann nicht die Nachfrage allein entscheiden. Diese Entscheidung kann nur durch Einrichtungen bewirkt werden, durch die aus dem ganzen sozialen Organismus heraus die Bewertung der einzelnen Lebensgüter zustande kommt. Wer bezweifeln will, daß solche Einrichtungen erstrebenswert seien, der hat kein Auge dafür, daß bei dem bloßen Walten von Angebot und Nachfrage menschliche Bedürfnisse verkümmern, deren Befriedigung die Zivilisation eines sozialen Organismus erhöht; und ihm fehlt der Sinn für ein Streben, das die Befriedigung solcher Bedürfnisse in die Antriebe des sozialen Organismus einfügen will. In dem Schaffen des Ausgleichs zwischen den menschlichen Bedürfnissen und dem Werte der menschlichen Leistungen sieht das Streben nach der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus seinen Inhalt.
Tripartition and social trust (capital and credit)
[ 1 ] It has been said from various quarters, for example by the English financial theorist Hartley Withers (in his remarks on "Money and Credit"), that all questions relating to money are so intricate that their sharp formulation into definite ideas encounters extraordinary difficulties.
[ 2 ] It will be possible to apply this view to many questions of social life. But one should also consider what consequences it must have in this social life if people organize their cooperation according to impulses that are rooted in indeterminable, or at least difficult to determine, thoughts. Such thoughts are not merely defects of insight that confuse cognition; they are effective forces in life. Their indeterminacy lives on in the institutions that arise under their influence. And from such institutions spring social conditions that are impossible to live in.
[ 3 ] A healthy insight into the "social question" must be based on the recognition that the civilized humanity of the present lives in conditions that arise from such confusing thought impulses. This question flows first of all from the perception of the hardships in which people find themselves. And one is little inclined to follow the path that leads from the perception of these needs to the human thoughts in which they have their source in a truly appropriate manner. It is all too easy to see an impractical idealism in following this path - from bread to thoughts. One does not recognize the impracticality of a practice of life to which one is accustomed, but which nevertheless rests on thoughts that are impossible for life.
[ 4 ] Such impossible thoughts are contained in contemporary social existence. If one endeavors to really get to the bottom of the "social question", one will have to see how today the demands of the most material life can only be practically tackled if one progresses to the thoughts from which the cooperation of the people of a social community emerges.
[ 5 ] There is, however, no lack of references to such thoughts from individual circles of life. People whose activities are linked to the nature of land speak of the fact that, under the influence of recent economic drives, land is treated like "commodities" in terms of buying and selling. And they believe that this is detrimental to social life. Such views do not lead to practical consequences, because people in other walks of life do not admit their justification out of their own interests.
[ 6 ] The realistic observation of such a fact should lead to a guiding force for attempts to solve the "social question". For such an observation can show how he who resists the legitimate demands of social life, because from within his circle of life he assents to ideas which are not in harmony with them, ultimately undermines the foundations on which his interests are built.
[ 7 ] Such an observation can be made about the social significance of land. One will make it if one considers how the purely capitalist orientation of the national economy affects the measurement of the value of land. The consequence of this orientation is that capital creates laws for its multiplication which, in certain areas of life, no longer correspond to the conditions which may in a healthy way bring about an increase of capital.
[ 8 ] This becomes particularly clear in the case of land. The fact that a certain area of land is made fertile in a certain way can be absolutely necessary due to living conditions. Such conditions can be of a moral nature. They may lie in spiritual cultural conditions. But it may well be that the fulfillment of these conditions yields a lower return on capital than the investment of capital in another enterprise. The purely capitalist orientation then leads to abandoning the exploitation of the land according to the not purely capitalist aspects described above and to utilizing it in such a way that its capitalist yield is equal to that of other enterprises. The production of values, which can be very necessary for true civilization, is thereby suppressed. And under the influence of this orientation, a valuation of the goods of life arises that can no longer be rooted in the natural connection that people must have with nature and spiritual life if these are to satisfy them physically and mentally.
[ 9 ] It is now obvious to come to the conclusion that the capitalist orientation of the national economy has the characterized effects; therefore it must be eliminated. The only question is whether this elimination would not also eliminate the foundations without which modern civilization cannot exist.
[ 10 ] Those who regard the capitalist orientation as a mere intruder into modern economic life will demand its elimination. But he who recognizes how the life of modern times works in the social organism through the division of labour and subdivision can only think of excluding the dark side of this orientation, which appears as a side effect, from community life. For it is clear to him that the capitalist method of labor is a consequence of this life, and that the dark sides can only appear so long as the capital point of view is exclusively asserted in the valuation of the goods of life.
[ 11 ] It is important to work towards such a structure of the social organism by which the assessment according to the increase of capital is not the sole power under which the branches of production of economic life are forced, but in which the increase of capital is the expression of a shaping of this life which takes into account all the requirements of human corporeality and spirituality.
[ 12 ] Those who organize their way of thinking according to the one-sided standpoint of the increase of capital or, which is a necessary consequence of it, according to that of the increase of wages, are deprived of the immediate view of the effects of individual areas of production on the economic cycle. If it is a question of increasing capital or raising wages, it is irrelevant in which branch of production this takes place. The natural relationship of people to what they produce is undermined. The amount of a sum of capital or wages remains the same if instead of one kind of commodity another is acquired for it, or if another is exchanged for one kind of labor. But it is by this that the goods of life become " commodities ", that they can be acquired or sold by the quantity of capital, in which their particular character finds no expression.
[ 13 ] However, only those goods of life that are directly consumed by man can bear this commodity character. For man has a direct measure of their value in his bodily or spiritual needs. There is no such yardstick either for land or for the artificially produced means of production. The measurement of their value depends on many factors which only become clear when one considers the whole social structure of human life.
[ 14 ] If it is necessary for cultural interests that an area of land should be treated in such a way that from the point of view of capital its yield appears lower than that of another enterprise, this lower yield will not in the long run be detrimental to the community. For the lower yield of one branch of production must after a time affect others in such a way that the prices of their products will also be lowered. This connection only eludes the momentary point of view, which cannot but take into account the egoistic value. In the mere market relation, in which supply and demand alone prevail, it is only possible to reckon with this egoistic value. This relationship can only be overcome if associations regulate the exchange and production of consumer goods on the basis of rational observation of human needs. Such associations can replace mere supply and demand with the results of contractual negotiations between consumer and producer circles on the one hand and between the individual producer circles on the other. If in these observations it is excluded that one man can set himself up as the judge of what another may have in the way of wants, then in the foundations of such negotiations only what can come about from the natural conditions of the economy and from the human possibility of labor will have a say.
[ 15 ] The domination of the economic cycle by the mere capitalist and wage orientation makes life on such foundations impossible. Through this orientation, there is an exchange in life for which there is in fact no common standard of comparison: Land, means of production and goods for immediate consumption. Indeed, even human labor and the utilization of people's intellectual abilities are made dependent on an abstract standard, the capital and wage standard, which in human judgment and human activity makes the natural relationship of man to his field of activity disappear.
[ 16 ] Now, in the more recent life of mankind, the relation of man to the goods of life cannot be established which was possible under the rule of the natural economy or even under the rule of an even simpler monetary economy. The division of labor and social structure which have become necessary in modern times separate man from the purchaser of his labor product. This fact and its consequence, the waning of direct interest in performance, cannot be counteracted without undermining the life of modern civilization. The waning of a certain kind of interest in work must be accepted as a result of this life. But these interests must not disappear without others taking their place. For man must work with a share within the social community and live in it.
[ 17 ] The necessary new interests will spring from the intellectual and legal life, which will become independent. From these two independent spheres will come the impulses which correspond to other points of view than those of mere capital increase and wage level.
[ 18 ] A free spiritual life creates interests from the depths of human nature, which place work and all activity in the community in a purposeful and substantive way. Such a spiritual life creates in people the awareness that they have a meaningful existence with their abilities, because it cultivates these abilities for their own sake. Under the influence of abilities cultivated in this way, the community will always take on the character in which they can have an effect. Legal and economic life will take on a character corresponding to the developed abilities. In a spiritual life which receives its regulation from the political-legal sphere, or which cultivates and utilizes human abilities according to their economic effect, self-interests will not be able to emerge in full development.
[ 19 ] Such an intellectual life will provide "idealistic" additions to life in artistic and cognitive endeavors or satisfaction for concerns in worldview content that lead beyond social life into an area more or less alien to life. Only a free spiritual life can be life-permeating because it is given the opportunity to shape life of its own accord. In my Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage I have tried to show how in such a spiritual life the impulses can be found which place the administration of capital on a healthy social basis. Only those persons or groups of persons can fruitfully administer a mass of capital who possess the human capacity to perform those services in the service of the human community for which the capital is utilized. It is therefore necessary that such a person or group of persons only manage a mass of capital for as long as they are able to do so on the basis of their own abilities. If this is no longer the case, then the capital should be transferred to other persons who possess these abilities. Since in a free spiritual life the development of human abilities arises entirely from the impulses of this spiritual life itself, the management of capital in the economic cycle becomes a result of the development of spiritual power. And this carries into economic life all those interests that sprout from its soil.
[ 20 ] An independent legal life creates relations between the people living in a social community, which make them work for each other, even if the individual cannot have a direct interest in the production of his work product. This interest is transformed into that which he can have in working for the human community in whose legal structure he participates. The share in the independent legal life can become the basis for a special drive for life and achievement alongside economic and intellectual interests. Man can turn his gaze from his achievements to the human community, in which he is a living part with all that flows from his humanity merely by virtue of the fact that he has become a mature human being, without regard to his intellectual abilities, and without the economic position in which he finds himself having any effect on this relationship. The product of labor will radiate its value to labor if one sees the way in which it serves the human community in which one is so directly humanly interwoven. But nothing else can bring about this interwovenness like an independent legal life, because only this is an area in which every man can meet every man with the same undivided interest. Every other field must, by its very nature, bring about separations according to individual abilities or according to the content of work; this one bridges all separations.
[ 21 ] For the administration of capital, the independence of spiritual life means that the increase of capital is not a direct drive, but can only occur as a natural consequence of other drives that result from the proper connection of human abilities with the fields of achievement.
[ 22 ] Only from such points of view, which do not lie within the capitalist orientation, can the social organism receive a structure in which human performance and counter-performance find a satisfactory balance. And as in the area of capitalist orientation, the same can happen in other areas in which modern life has distanced man from the natural connection with the conditions of life.
[ 23 ] Through the independence of intellectual and legal life, artificial means of production and land as well as human labor power are stripped of their commodity character. (The ways in which this happens are described in more detail than can be given here in my book "Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage"). In the independent legal and intellectual sphere will be rooted the impulses out of which means of production, out of which land will be transferred without purchase and out of which human labor will be performed.
[ 24 ] This, however, will create the forms of social interaction of human forces appropriate to the present life of civilization. And only from such forms can the best possible satisfaction of human needs arise. In a merely capitalistically and wage-organized community, the individual can only assert his abilities and powers to the extent that they find their equivalent in the acquisition of capital. Trust, by which one places his powers at the disposal of another for the latter's services, can only be based on the prospect that the other lives in conditions that can instill confidence in a capitalist way of thinking. In social life, working in reliance on the services of others is the granting of credit. The complexity of modern life has increasingly led to a transition from a natural to a monetary economy for older cultures, and to a work based on the granting of credit for more recent ones. We stand in an age in which life makes it necessary for one person to work with the means that another or a community hands over to him in reliance on his ability to perform. For capitalist activity, however, the humanly satisfying connection with the conditions of life is completely lost through the credit economy. The granting of credit with the prospect of a corresponding increase in capital and work from the point of view that the trust placed in it appears to be justified in capital terms become the driving forces of credit transactions. This, however, produces results in the social organism by means of which men are brought under the power of capital transfers alien to life, which they feel to be inhuman the moment they become fully conscious of them.
[ 25 ] If credit is granted on land, then in healthy social life this can only be done from the point of view that a person or a group of people equipped with the necessary abilities is given the opportunity to develop a production enterprise that appears justified from all the cultural conditions under consideration. If credit is granted on land out of a purely capitalist orientation, it may happen that the land must be deprived of its otherwise desirable purpose so that it receives a commodity value that corresponds to the granting of credit.
[ 26 ] A healthy granting of credit presupposes a social structure through which the goods of life find a valuation that is rooted in their relationship to the physical and spiritual satisfaction of human needs. An independent spiritual and legal life leads people to a vital recognition and assertion of this relationship. In this way, the economic cycle is shaped in such a way that it makes the assessment of production dependent on what people need and does not allow it to be dominated by powers in which concrete human needs appear to be extinguished in the abstract scale of capital and wages.
[ 27 ] Economic life in the tripartite social organism comes about through the interaction of the associations formed from the needs of production and the interests of consumption. These will have the decisions on granting and receiving credit. In the negotiations of such associations, the impulses will play a decisive role, which have an effect on economic life from the intellectual and legal spheres. There is no need for a purely capitalist orientation for these associations. For one association will interact with the other. Thus the one-sided interests of one branch of production are regulated by those of the other.
[ 28 ] The responsibility for granting and receiving credit will fall to the associations. This does not detract from the importance of the individual abilities of the individual personalities, but rather brings them to full fruition. The individual is responsible to his association for the best possible performance; and the association is responsible to other associations for the targeted use of the benefits. In such a division of responsibility lies the guarantee that the production activity will proceed from points of view which correct each other in their one-sidedness. Production is not driven by the acquisitive impulses of individuals into community life, but by the needs of the community acting in an appropriate manner. The need identified by one association can be the reason for granting credit to another.
[ 29 ] He who is attached only to habitual trains of thought will say: these are "beautiful" thoughts; but how is one to get out of the present life into one that rests on such ideas? It is a matter of recognizing that what is proposed here can actually be translated directly into reality. It is only necessary to make a start with the marked associations. No one who has a healthy sense of the realities of life should doubt that this is possible without further ado. Such associations, which rest on the basis of the threefold idea, are just as easy to form as consortia, societies and so on in the sense of the old institutions. But any kind of economic intercourse between the new associations and the old institutions is also possible. There is no need to think that the old must be destroyed and artificially replaced by the new. The new places itself alongside the old. The old must then prove itself through its inner strength and justification; the new crumbles out of the social organization. The idea of threefolding is not a program for the whole of the social organism, which demands that the whole of the old cease and that all things be "reorganized". This idea can take its starting point from the formation of individual social institutions. The transformation of a whole will then take place through the spreading life of the individual social formations. Because this idea can work in such a direction, it is not a utopia, but a force appropriate to reality.
[ 30 ] The essential thing is that the idea of threefolding brings appropriate social understanding to the people united in the social organism. The economic viewpoints are appropriately fertilized by the impulses that come from the independent spiritual and legal life. The individual becomes, in a certain sense, a collaborator in the achievements of the whole. This cooperation is mediated through his share in the free intellectual life, through the interests generated on the legal ground, through the interrelationships of economic associations.
[ 31 ] The effectiveness of the social organism is to a certain extent transformed under the influence of the threefold idea. At present man must see in the increase of capital and in the level of wages the characteristics by which he finds himself appropriately placed in the social organism. In the tripartite social organism, the individual abilities of individuals, in harmony with the human relations arising from the legal basis and the economic production, circulation and consumption based on associative activity, will result in the best possible fruitfulness of communal work. And the increase of capital or the equalization of performance with corresponding compensation will emerge as the consequence of social activities and institutions.
[ 32 ] The idea of threefolding aims to direct the transforming and constructive activity away from reforming in the area in which only the social effects play a role and towards the area of causes. In accepting or rejecting this idea, the question is whether one has the will to work through to this area of causes. And this will must lead away from the observation of external institutions to the people who bring about these institutions. Modern life has brought about the division of labor in many areas. This is a requirement of the external institutions. What is brought about by the division of labor must find its balance in the vital human interrelationships. The division of labor separates men; the forces that will come to them from the three members of the social organism, which have become independent, will unite them again. Our social life is characterized by the fact that the separation of people has reached the climax of its development. This must be recognized through life experience. For those who recognize it, it becomes a necessary challenge of the times to think of treading the paths that lead to unity.
[ 33 ] Such concrete phenomena of economic life as the increasingly intensive credit traffic illuminate this necessary challenge of time. The stronger the tendency towards a capitalist orientation, the more developed the monetary economy, the more active the spirit of enterprise, the more credit transactions develop. But for a healthy mind, this should create the need to penetrate it with a real understanding of the actual production of goods and the human need for certain goods. Ultimately, it can only have a healthy effect if the lender feels responsible for what happens through the granting of credit; and if the borrower, through the economic connections - through the associations - in which he is involved, provides the lender with documentation for this responsibility. For a healthy national economy, it cannot be merely a question of the credit promoting the spirit of enterprise as such, but of the existence of institutions through which the spirit of enterprise has a socially favorable effect.
[ 34 ] Theoretically, hardly anyone will want to doubt that an increase in the sense of responsibility is necessary in the present economic traffic. However, this increase depends on the emergence of associations, through whose activity the individual is really made aware of what happens in the social community through his actions.
[ 35 ] It is rightly asserted by persons whose life's work is connected with the cultivation of the soil, and who therefore have experience in this field, that those who have to administer land must not regard it as any other commodity, and that land credit must be granted in a different way from commodity credit. But it is impossible that in the present economic cycle such knowledge can gain any practical significance, if there are not behind the individual the associations which, from the relations of the individual branches of the economy, give the land economy a different character from that of another branch of production.
[ 36 ] It is quite understandable that some people say to such statements: why all this, since, after all, human need is the master of all production and, for example, no one can come to the granting or receiving of credit unless a need justifies the matter from some corner. One could even say: after all, everything that is thought up about social institutions is nothing more than a conscious shaping of what is certainly also automatically regulated by "supply and demand". But whoever observes more closely will realize that in the discussions on the social question, which proceed from the idea of the threefold organization of the social organism, it is not a question of substituting a compulsory economy for free circulation under the sign of supply and demand, but of shaping the mutual values of the goods of life in such a way that the value of a human product essentially corresponds to the value of the other goods for which the producer has a need in the time he spends on its production. Whether one wants to produce a good in a capitalist orientation may be decided by demand; whether a good can be produced at a price corresponding to its value in the sense indicated cannot be decided by demand alone. This decision can only be brought about by institutions through which the valuation of the individual goods of life comes about out of the whole social organism. He who would doubt that such institutions are desirable has no eye for the fact that the mere operation of supply and demand atrophies human needs, the satisfaction of which increases the civilization of a social organism; and he lacks the sense for a striving which seeks to incorporate the satisfaction of such needs into the impulses of the social organism. In the creation of a balance between human needs and the value of human achievements, the striving for the tripartite organization of the social organism sees its content.