The Renewal of the Social Organism
GA 24
6. Ability for Work, Will to Work and the Threefold Social Order
[ 1 ] Socialists tend to look upon the profit motive, which has functioned heretofore as the primary incentive to work, as something that must be eliminated if healthier conditions are to be brought about in society. For such people this becomes an urgent question: What will induce us to use our abilities with sufficient energy in the service of economic production, when egotism (which finds its satisfaction in profit) is no longer able to exert itself? This question cannot be said to receive adequate attention from those who are planning to institute socialism. The demand that in the future one shall not work for oneself but for the community, remains quite empty as long as one has no concrete idea how human souls can be induced to work as willingly “for the community” as they do for themselves. One may no doubt indulge in the notion that some central managing body will place each of us at his or her place of work, and that this organization of labor will also enable the central management to make a fair distribution of the products of the labor. Any such notion is, however, based on a delusion. While it takes into account that human beings have need of consumer goods, and that these needs must be satisfied, it does not take into account that mere awareness of the existence of these needs will not engender devotion to the work of production, if they are expected to produce not for themselves, but for the community. The mere awareness that one is working for society will not give any sensible satisfaction; accordingly it cannot provide an incentive to work.
[ 2 ] It should be obvious that a new incentive to work must he created the moment there is any thought of eliminating the old incentive of egotistical gain. An economic management that does not include this profit motive among the forces at work within the economy cannot of itself exert any effect whatever upon the human will to work. And precisely because it cannot do so, it meets a social demand that a large part of humanity has begun to raise in the present stage of development. This part of humanity no longer wants to be led to work by economic compulsion. They want to work from motives more befitting human dignity. Undoubtedly, for many of those who come to mind when this demand is raised, it is somewhat unconscious; but in social life such unconscious, instinctive impulses are of much more significance than the ideas people consciously express. Conscious ideas often owe their origin merely to the fact that people do not have the spiritual energy to see into what really goes on within them. If one deals with such ideas, one is moving within an insubstantial element. Therefore it is necessary to see through the deceptive ideas on the surface into the real demands (such as the one just mentioned), and to turn one's attention to these real demands. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in times like the present, when social life tosses about like wild waves, that the lower human instincts, too, run riot. However, the above mentioned demand for a dignified human existence is justified; one cannot dismiss it by arguing the turbulence of our lower instincts.
[ 3 ] If the economic system is to be organized in a way that can have no effect on our will to work, then our will to work must be stimulated in some other way. The threefold social order recognizes that at the present stage of human evolution, the economic sphere must limit itself exclusively to economic processes. The administration of such an economic order will be able, through its various organs, to determine the extent of consumers' needs, how the produce may best be brought to the consumers and the extent to which various articles should be produced. However, it will have no way of calling forth the will to produce; neither will it be in a position to cultivate the individual abilities that are the vital source of the entire economic process. Under the old economic system that still survives, people cultivated these abilities hoping they would bring personal profit. It would be a dire mistake to believe that the mere command of an administrative body overseeing only the economy could arouse a desire to develop men's individual abilities, or to believe that such a command would have power enough to induce them to put their will into their work. The threefold social order seeks to prevent people from making this mistake. It aims at establishing within an independent, self-sustaining cultural life a realm where one learns in a living way to understand this human society for which one is called upon to work; a realm where one learns to see what each single piece of work means for the combined fabric of the social order, to see it in such a light that one will learn to love it because of its value for the whole. It aims at creating in this free life of spirit the profounder principles that can replace the motive of personal gain. Only in a free spiritual life can a love for the human social order spring up that is comparable to the love an artist has for the creation of his works. If one is not prepared to consider fostering this kind of love within a free spiritual-cultural life, then one may as well renounce all striving for a new social order. Anyone who doubts that men and women are capable of being brought to this kind of love must also renounce all hope of eliminating personal profit from economic life. Anyone who fails to believe that a free spiritual life generates this kind of love is unaware that it is the dependence of spiritual and cultural life upon the state and the economy that creates desire for personal profit—this desire for profit is not a fundamental aspect of human nature. It is this mistake that makes people say constantly, “to realize the threefold order, human beings must be different than they are now.” No! Through the threefold order, people will be educated in such a way that they will grow up to be different than they were previously under the economic state.
[ 4 ] And just as the free spiritual life will create the impulses for developing individual ability, the democratically ordered life of the legal sphere will provide the impulses for the will to work. Real relationships will grow up between people united in a social organism where each adult has a voice in government and is co-equal with every other adult: it is relationships such as these that are able to enkindle the will to work “for the community.” One must reflect that a truly communal feeling can grow only from such relationships, and that from this feeling, the will to work can grow. For in actual practice the consequence of such a state founded on democratic rights will be that each human being will take his place with vitality and full consciousness in the common field of work. Each will know what he or she is working for; and each will want to work within the working community of which he knows himself a member through his will.
[ 5 ] It will be plain to anyone who understands the threefold social order that the vast syndicate with its state-like structure (such as the Marxist model) can supply impulses neither for the ability nor for the will to work. Anyone who understands will take care that the essence of human nature not be forgotten for the sake of the exigencies of outer life. For social thinking cannot reckon with external institutions alone; it must take into account what man is and what he may become.
Arbeitsfähigkeit, Arbeitswille und dreigliedriger sozialer Organismus
[ 1 ] Sozialistisch denkende Persönlichkeiten sehen in der bisherigen Form des Gewinnes innerhalb des Wirtschaftslebens einen Arbeitsantrieb, von dessen Beseitigung die Herbeiführung gesünderer sozialer Zustände, als die bisherigen sind, abhängt. Für solche Persönlichkeiten wird die Frage drängend: Was wird die Menschen veranlassen, ihre Fähigkeiten in einem notwendigen Stärkegrade in den Dienst des wirtschaftlichen Produzierens zu stellen, wenn der Egoismus, der im Gewinn seine Befriedigung findet, sidl nicht mehr ausleben kann? Man kann nicht sagen, daß dieser Frage genügend Sorgfalt bei denen zugewandt wird, die an Sozialisierung denken. Die Forderung: in Zukunft dürfe der Mensch nicht mehr für sich, sondern er müsse «für die Gemeinschaft» arbeiten, bleibt wesenlos, solange man nicht wirklichkeitsgemäße Erkenntnisse darüber entwiekeln kann, auf welche Art man Menschenseelen dazu bestimmen kann, daß sie «für die Gemeinschaft» ebenso willig arbeiten, wie für sich selbst. Man könnte sich allerdings der Meinung hingeben, eine zentrale Verwaltung werde jeden Menschen an seinen Arbeitsplatz stellen, und dann werde durch diese Organisation der Arbeit auch möglich sein, die Arbeitsprodukte in gerechter Art von der Zentralverwaltung aus zu verteilen. Allein eine solche Meinung fußt auf einer Illusion. Sie rechnet zwar damit, daß die Menschen Konsumbedürfnisse haben und daß diese befriedigt werden müssen; aber sie rechnet nicht damit, daß das bloße Bewußtsein vom Vorhandensein dieser Konsumbedürfnisse in dem Menschen nicht eine Hingabe an die Produktion hervorruft, wenn er nicht für sich, sondern für die Gemeinschaft produzieren soll. Er wird durch dieses bloße Bewußtsein, für die Gesellschaft zu arbeiten, keine Befriedigung empfinden. Deshalb wird ihm daraus kein Arbeitsantrieb erstchen können.
[ 2 ] Man sollte durchschauen, daß man in dem Augenblicke einen neuen Arbeitsantrieb schaffen muß, in dem man daran denkt, den alten des egoistischen Gewinnes zu beseitigen. Eine Wirtschaftsverwaitung, welche diesen Gewinn nicht innerhalb der in ihrem Kreislauf wirkenden Kräfte hat, kann von sich aus überhaupt keine wirkung aufden menschlichen Arbeitswillen ausüben. Und gerade dadurch, daß sie dies nicht kann, erfüllt sie eine soziale Forderung, bei der ein großer Teil der Menschheit auf der gegenwärtigen Stufe seiner Entwickelung angelangt ist. Dieser Teil der Menschheit will nicht mehr durch den wirtschaftlichen Zwang an die Arbeit gebracht werden. Er möchte aus Antrieben heraus arbeiten, welche der Würde des Menschen mehr entsprechen. Zweifellos ist diese Forderung bei vielen Menschen, an die man bei ihrer Erhebung denken muß, eine mehr oder weniger unbewußte, instinktive; aber im sozialen Leben bedeuten solche unbewußte, instinktive Impulse etwas weit Wichtigeres als die Ideen, die man bewußt vorbringt. Diese bewußten Ideen verdanken ihren Ursprung oft nur der Tatsache, daß die Menschen nicht die geistige Kraft haben, wirklich zu durchschauen was in ihnen vorgeht. Befaßt man sich mit solchen Ideen, so bewegt man sich im Wesenlosen. Es ist deshalb notwendig, trotz dem Täuschenden solcher Oberflächenideen auf wahre Forderungen der Menschen, wie die gekennzeichnete, die Aufmerksamkeit zu richten. Andererseits ist auch nicht in Abrede zu stellen, daß niedrige menschliche Instinkte in einer Zeit, in welcher, wie in der Gegenwart, das soziale Leben wilde Wogen wirft, ihr Wesen treiben. Man wird aber die Forderung nach einem menschenwürdigen Dasein, die berechtigt in obigem Sinne erhoben wird, nicht ertöten, wenn man das Walten niedriger menschlicher Instinkte benützt, um auch sie anzuklagen.
[ 3 ] Wenn eine Organisation des Wirtschaftswesens entstehen soll, die keine Wirkung auf den Arbeitswillen der Menschen haben kann, so muß diese Wirkung von einer anderen Organisation kommen. Die Idee vom dreigliedrigen sozialen Organismus trägt der Tatsache Rechnung, daß das Wirtschaftsleben auf der gegenwärtigen Entwickelungsstufe der zivilisierten Menschheit nur im Wirtschaften sich erschöpfen soll. Die Verwaltung eines solchen Wirtschaftslebens wird durch ihre Organe feststellen können, welches der Umfang der Konsumbedürfnisse ist; wie in bester Art die Erzeugnisse an die Konsumenten gebracht werden können; in welchem Umfange das eine oder andere Produkt erzeugt werden soll. Allein sie wird kein Minel haben, in dem Menschen den Produktionswillen zu erzeugen; und sie wird auch nicht in der Lage sein, die Erziehungs- und Unterrichtseinrichtungen zu treffen, durch die jene individuellen Fähigkeiten der Menschen gepflegt werden, welche die Quelle des Wirtschaftens bilden müssen. In dem alten, bis in die Gegenwart reichenden Wirtschaftssystem pflegten die Menschen diese Fähigkeiten, weil sie sich eben der Hoffnung auf persönlichen Gewinn hingeben konnten. Es wäre ein verhängnisvoller Irrtum, wenn man glauben wollte, daß das bloße Gebot von Wirtschaftsverwaltungen, die nur das Wirtschaften im Auge haben, lusterweckend auf die Ausbildung von individuellen menschlichen Fähigkeiten wirken könne, und daß ein solches Gebot Kraft genug hätte, den Menschen zur Einsetzung seines Arbeitswillens zu veranlassen. Daß man sich diesem Irrtum nicht hingebe, das will die Idee vom dreigliedrigen sozialen Organismus. Sie will in dem freien, auf sich selbst gestellten Geistesleben ein Gebiet schaffen, in dem der Mensch lebensvoll verstehen lernt, was die menschliche Gesellschaft ist, für die er arbeiten soll; ein Gebiet, in dem er die Bedeutung einer Einzelarbeit im Gefüge der ganzen gesellschaftlichen Ordnung so durchschauen lernt, daß er diese Einzelarbeit wegen ihres Wertes für das Ganze lieben lernt. Sie will in dem freien Geistesleben die Grundlagen schaffen, die ein Ersatz sein können für den Antrieb, der aus der persönlichen Gewinnsucht kommt. Nur in einem freien Geistesleben kann eine solche Liebe zur menschlichen gesellschaftlichen Ordnung entstehen, wie sie etwa der Künstler zu dem Entstehen seiner Werke hat. Will man aber nicht daran denken, in einem freien Geistesleben eine solche Liebe zu pflegen, so gebe man nur alles Streben nach einem Neubau der sozialen Ordnung auf. Wer daran zweifelt, daß die Menschen zu solcher Liebe erziehbar sind, der muß auch zweifeln an der Möglichkeit, den persönlichen Gewinn aus dem Wirtschaftsleben auszuschalten. Wer nicht daran glauben kann, daß ein freies Geistesleben in dem Menschen solche Liebe erzeugt, der weiß eben nicht, daß die Abhängigkeit des Geisteslebens von Staat und Wirtschaft die Sucht nach persönlichem Gewinn hervorbringt, und daß diese Sucht nicht ein elementarisches Ergebnis der Menschennatur ist. Auf diesem Irrtum beruht es, daß so häufig gesagt wird, zur Verwirklichung der Dreigliederung seien andere Menschen als die gegenwärtigen nötig. Nein, die Menschen werden durch den dreigliedrigen Organismus so erzogen, daß sie anders werden, als sie bisher durch die Staatswirtschaftsordnung waren.
[ 4 ] Und wie das freie Geistesleben die Antriebe zur Ausbildung der individuellen Fähigkeiten erzeugen wird, so wird das demokratisch orientierte Rechtsstaatsleben dem Arbeitswillen die notwendigen Impulse geben. In den wirklichen Beziehungen, die sich herstellen werden zwischen den in einem sozialen Organismus vereinigten Menschen, wenn jeder Mündige gegenüber jedem Mündigen seine Rechte regeln wird, kann es liegen, daß der Wille sich entzündet, «für die Gemeinschaft» zu arbeiten. Man sollte daran denken, daß durch solche Beziehungen ein wahres Gemeinsamkeitsgefühl erst entstehen und aus diesem Gefühl der Arbeitswille erwachsen kann. Denn in der Wirklichkeit wird ein solcher Rechtsstaat die Folge haben, daß ein jeder Mensch lebendig, mit vollem Bewußtsein, in dem gemeinsamen Arbeitsfelde darinnen steht. Er wird wissen, wofür er arbeitet; und er wird arbeiten wollen innerhalb der Arbeitsgemeinschaft, in die er sich durch seinen Willen eingegliedert weiß.
[ 5 ] Wer die Idee des dreigliedrigen sozialen Organismus anerkennt, der durchschaut, daß die Großgenossenschaft mit staatsgemäßer Struktur, die von dem marxistischen Sozialismus angestrebt wird, keine Antriebe erzeugen kann für Arbeitsfähigkeit und Arbeitswillen. Er will, daß über der Wirklichkeit der äußeren Lebensordnung nicht die wirkliche Wesenheit des Menschen vergessen werde. Denn Lebenspraxis kann nicht bloß die Rechnung machen mit äußeren Einrichtungen; sie muß in die Rechnung einstellen, was der Mensch ist und werden kann.
The ability to work, the will to work and the tripartite social organism
[ 1 ] Socialistically-minded personalities see in the present form of profit within economic life a drive to work, on the elimination of which depends the establishment of healthier social conditions than those that have existed up to now. For such personalities the question becomes urgent: What will induce men to place their abilities in the service of economic production to the degree necessary, if egoism, which finds its satisfaction in profit, can no longer live itself out? It cannot be said that this question is given sufficient attention by those who think of socialization. The demand that in future man should no longer work for himself, but must work "for the community", remains insubstantial as long as one cannot develop realistic insights into the way in which human souls can be made to work "for the community" just as willingly as for themselves. One could, however, indulge in the opinion that a central administration would place every human being at his workplace, and that this organization of work would then also make it possible to distribute the products of labour in a just manner from the central administration. But such an opinion is based on an illusion. It reckons with the fact that people have consumption needs and that these must be satisfied; but it does not reckon with the fact that the mere consciousness of the existence of these consumption needs does not produce in man a devotion to production, if he is not to produce for himself but for the community. He will feel no satisfaction from this mere consciousness of working for society. Therefore, he will not be able to derive any drive to work from it.
[ 2 ] One should realize that the moment one thinks of eliminating the old one of egoistic gain, one must create a new labor drive. An economic administration which does not have this profit within the forces working in its circulation cannot of itself exert any effect at all on the human will to work. And precisely because it cannot do this, it fulfills a social demand which a large part of mankind has reached at the present stage of its development. This part of humanity no longer wants to be brought to work by economic compulsion. It wants to work from motives that are more in keeping with human dignity. Undoubtedly this demand is a more or less unconscious, instinctive one in the case of many people who must be thought of when it is raised; but in social life such unconscious, instinctive impulses mean something far more important than the ideas which are consciously put forward. These conscious ideas often owe their origin only to the fact that people do not have the mental power to really see through what is going on in them. If one deals with such ideas, one is moving in an insubstantial realm. It is therefore necessary, despite the deceptiveness of such superficial ideas, to pay attention to people's true demands, such as the one marked. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that low human instincts are at work at a time when, as in the present day, social life is in a state of wild upheaval. However, the demand for a humane existence, which is justifiably raised in the above sense, will not be quenched if one uses the prevalence of low human instincts to accuse them as well.
[ 3 ] If an organization of the economy is to come into being which cannot have any effect on the will to work of men, this effect must come from another organization. The idea of the tripartite social organism takes account of the fact that economic life at the present stage of development of civilized mankind should be limited to economic activity. The administration of such an economic life will be able to determine through its organs what the extent of consumer needs is; how best the products can be brought to the consumers; to what extent one or another product should be produced. But it will have no means of generating in man the will to produce; nor will it be able to provide the educational and instructional facilities by which those individual faculties of man are cultivated which must form the source of economic activity. In the old economic system, which has lasted down to the present day, men cultivated these faculties precisely because they could give themselves up to the hope of personal gain. It would be a fatal error to believe that the mere commandment of economic administrations, which only have economic activity in mind, could have a stimulating effect on the development of individual human abilities, and that such a commandment would have enough power to induce people to use their will to work. The idea of the tripartite social organism aims to ensure that we do not succumb to this error. It wants to create an area in the free, self-reliant spiritual life in which man learns to understand in a life-like way what human society is, for which he is to work; an area in which he learns to see through the significance of individual work in the structure of the whole social order in such a way that he learns to love this individual work because of its value for the whole. It wants to create the foundations in the free spiritual life that can be a substitute for the drive that comes from the personal desire for profit. Only in a free intellectual life can such a love for the human social order arise as the artist has for the creation of his works. But if one does not want to think of cultivating such a love in a free intellectual life, one must give up all striving for a new social order. Whoever doubts that people can be educated to such love must also doubt the possibility of eliminating personal profit from economic life. He who cannot believe that a free spiritual life produces such love in man does not know that the dependence of spiritual life on the state and the economy produces the addiction to personal gain, and that this addiction is not an elementary result of human nature. It is based on this error that it is so often said that people other than the present ones are necessary for the realization of the threefold structure. No, people are educated by the tripartite organism in such a way that they become different from what they have been up to now through the state economic order.
[ 4 ] And just as the free intellectual life will generate the impulses for the development of individual abilities, so the democratically oriented life of the constitutional state will give the necessary impulses to the will to work. In the real relationships that will be established between the people united in a social organism, when every person who has come of age will regulate his rights towards every person who has come of age, the will to work "for the community" may be kindled. It should be remembered that it is only through such relationships that a true sense of community can arise and from this feeling the will to work can grow. For in reality, such a constitutional state will have the consequence that every person will stand alive, with full consciousness, in the common field of work. He will know what he is working for; and he will want to work within the working community into which he knows himself integrated by his will.
[ 5 ] Whoever recognizes the idea of the tripartite social organism understands that the large cooperative with a state-like structure, which Marxist socialism strives for, cannot generate any impulses for the ability and will to work. He wants the real essence of man not to be forgotten above the reality of the external order of life. For the practice of life cannot merely take external institutions into account; it must take into account what man is and can become.