The Renewal of the Social Organism
GA 24
7. What Socialists Do Not See
[ 1 ] It appears that many people are kept from the idea of a threefold social order by the fear that it entails sundering things that in reality must work together as an undivided unity within society. Now it is true that a person engaged in economic activity is brought thereby into relationships with his fellow men that involve laws. It is also true that one's spiritual life is dependent on these legal relationships, and is also conditioned by one's economic position. In the human being, these three functions are united; in the course of life, one becomes involved in all three.
[ 2 ] Is this, however, a reason why these three life-functions should be governed from a single center? Does it necessitate all three being governed according to the same principles? In the human being and in his activities, many currents run together that have flowed from a great variety of sources. We are dependent on the qualities inherited from our fore-fathers. We think and act according to what our education has made of us, education we received from persons to whom we are not related. How strange it would be if anyone tried to assert that our unity were destroyed because we are influenced from different quarters by heredity and education. Should it not be said, rather, that we remain incomplete if heredity and education work from a single source to shape our lives?
[ 3 ] That such things from various sources must converge within us in order (through this very variety) to satisfy the many requirements of our nature—people can understand this, for to not understand it would be absurd. However, they will not see that the development of spiritual abilities, the regulation of legal affairs and the shaping of economic life afford us our proper place within the social order only when each is governed from its separate center and from its special viewpoint. An economy that governs the rights of human beings, and educates them according to its own interests, reduces the person to a mere cog in the economic machinery. It stunts the human spirit, which can develop freely only when it unfolds according to its own innate im-pulses. It stunts, too, those relations with our fellows that stem from the feelings, and refuse to be influenced by economic considerations—relations that are striving rather to be governed in accordance with the equality of all regarding what is purely human.
When the political sphere or the sphere of rights controls the development of our individual abilities, it weighs on this development like a crushing burden. For the interests that arise out of these spheres must naturally produce a tendency to develop such abilities according to the government's needs and not according to their own proper nature, however good may be the original intentions to allow for individual characteristics. Such a legal or political sphere also imposes an alien character upon economic matters. Those subject to this kind of political system become through constant tutelage spiritually cramped and economically hampered in the pursuit of interests inappropriate to their own nature.
A spiritual life that attempted to determine legal relations on its own terms would inevitably be led from the in-equality of human abilities to inequality in the law. It would be false to its own nature if it were to allow itself to be determined by economic interests. Under such a spiritual culture, people would never come to a true consciousness of what, in reality, the spirit may be for human life, for they would watch the spirit degrade itself through injustice and falsify itself through economic aims.
[ 4 ] What has brought humanity to the present state of affairs in the civilized world is that during the last few centuries these three spheres have in many respects grown together into a single, unified state. And the cause of the present unrest is that an enormous number of people are struggling (while unconscious of the real nature of their striving) toward a delimitation of these three spheres of life into separate systems of the social organism, so that the spiritual-cultural life may be free to shape itself according to its own spiritual impulses; that the sphere of rights may be built up democratically through the interaction (direct or representational) of people on equal terms; and that the economic life may extend solely to the production, circulation and consumption of commodities.
[ 5 ] Starting from any number of standpoints one can come to see the necessity of a threefold organization of society. One of these standpoints is an understanding of present-day human nature. From the standpoint of some particular social theory or party dogma, it may appear very unscientific or impractical to say that when arranging institutions for communal life, one should consult psychology to learn (so far as it can tell us) what is suited to human nature. Yet it would be a great misfortune if everyone who tried to give this “social psychology” its due in the shaping of social life were to be silenced. There are colorblind people who see the world as gray on gray; so, too, there are social reformers and social revolutionaries blind to psychology who would like to mold the social organism into an economic syndicate in which people would live and move like mechanical beings. These agitators have no idea of their blindness. They know only that there has always existed a legal and a spiritual life beside the economic life; and they imagine that if they fashion the economic life after their own ideas, all the rest will come “of itself.” It will not come; it will come to ruin. Thus it is very hard to arrive at any understanding with those blind to psychology; and thus it is, unfortunately, also necessary to take up against them—a battle begun not by those who can see, but by those who are blind.
Sozialistische Seelenblindheit
[ 1 ] Es scheint, daß viele Menschen deshalb sich in die Idee der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus nicht hineinfinden können, weil sie fürchten, diese Idee wolle in der Organisation des gesellschaftlichen Lebens auseinanderreißen, was in der Wirklichkeit in ungetrennter Einheit zusammenwirken muß. Nun ist richtig, daß der im wirtschaftlichen Leben tätige Mensch durch sein Wirtschaften in rechtliche Verhältnisse zu seinem Mitmenschen kommt, und daß sein geistiges Leben von diesen Rechtsverhältnissen abhängig ist und auch bedingt ist von seiner wirtschaftlichen Lage. Im Menschen sind diese drei Lebensbetätigungen vereinigt; indem er sein Leben führt, ist er in alle drei verstrickt.
[ 2 ] Gibt dies aber audi einen Grund ab, daß diese drei Lebensbetätigungen von einem Mittelpunkte her verwaltet werden? Und bedingt es, daß alle drei nach denselben Prinzipien verwaltet werden? Im Menschen und seiner Tätigkeit fließt doch vieles zusammen, was aus den verschiedensten Quellen stammt. Er ist abhängig von den Eigenschaften, die ihm von seinen Vorfahren vererbt sind. Er denkt und handelt aber auch im Sinne dessen, was die Erziehung anderer Menschen, die nicht mit ihm verwandt sind, aus ihm gemacht hat. Wie sonderbar wäre es, wenn jemand behaupten wollte, der Mensch als Einheit würde zerrissen, weil von verschiedenen Seiten her Vererbung und Erziehung auf ihn wirken? Muß nicht vielmehr gesagt werden, daß der Mensch unvollkommen bliebe, wenn die Vererbung und die Erziehung aus einem Quell heraus an der Gestaltung seines Lebens arbeiteten?
[ 3 ] Was so von Natur aus von verschiedenen Seiten her auf den Menschen einströmen muß, um gerade durch diese Verschiedenheit den Bedürfnissen seines Wesens zu entsprechen, das versteht man, weil das Nicht-Verstehen absurd wäre. Aber man will sich nicht einlassen auf die Erkenntnis, daß Entwickelung der geistigen Fähigkeiten, Ordnung der rechtlichen Verhähnisse, Gestaltung des wirtschaftlichen Lebens nur dann den Menschen recht in ihre Kreise aufnehmen können, wenn sie innerhalb der gesellschaftlichen Ordnung, in der er lebt, von verschiedenen Mittelpunkten her, nach verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten geregelt werden. Ein Wirtschaftsleben, das von sich aus die Rechte der wirtschaftenden Menschen ordnet und nach den in ihm waltenden Interessen die Menschen erziehen und unterrichten läßt, macht den Menschen zu einem Rade im Wirtschaftsmechanismus. Es verkümmert seinen Geist, der sich nur frei entfalten kann, wenn er sich seinen eigenen Impulsen gemäß entfaltet. Es verkümmert auch die gefühlsmäßigen Beziehungen zu seinen Mitmenschen, die nicht berührt sein wollen von der Stellung zu diesen Mitmenschen, die er durch seine wirtschaftliche Lage einnimmt; die vielmehr nach einer Regelung drängen im Sinne der Gleichheit aller Menschen in bezug auf das Reinmenschliche. - Ein Rechts- oder Staatsleben, das die Entwickelung der individuellen menschlichen Fähigkeiten verwaltet, drückt auf diese Entwickelung wie eine schwere Last; denn es wird aus den sich in ihm ergebenden Interessen heraus naturgemäß auch dann dieTendenz entwickeln, diese Fähigkeiten nach seinen Bedürfnissen, nicht nach deren eigener Natur zu entfalten, wenn anfangs der beste Wille dazu vorhanden ist, den Eigenartigkeiten der Menschen Rechnung zu tragen. Und ein solches Rechtsleben drängt den von ihm betriebenen Wirtschaftszweigen einen Charakter auf, der nicht aus den Wirtschaftsbedürfnissen selbst kommt. Der Mensch wird innerhalb eines solchen Rechtslebens geistig beengt und wirtschaftlich durch Bevormundung an der Entfaltung von Interessen behindert, die seinem Wesen angemessen sind. - Ein Geistesleben, das von sich aus Rechtsverhältnisse feststellen wollte, müßte aus der Ungleichheit der menschlichen Fähigkeiten heraus auch zu einer Ungleichheit der Rechte kommen; und es müßte seine wahre Natur verleugnen, wenn es durch die Hingabe an wirtschaftliche Interessen sich in seiner Betätigung bestimmen ließe. Der Mensch könnte in einer so gearteten Geisteskultur nicht zu einem rechten Bewußtsein davon kommen, was der Geist seinem Leben wahrhaft sein kann; denn er sähe den Geist durch Ungerechtigkeit sich entwürdigen und durch wirtschaftliche Ziele sich verfälschen.
[ 4 ] Es ist die Menschheit der zivilisierten Welt in ihre gegenwärtige Lage dadurch gekommen, daß die drei Lebensgebiete in bezug auf vieles im Laufe der letzten Jahrhunderte zum Einheitsstaate zusammengewachsen sind. Und es besteht die Unruhe der gegenwärtigen Zeit darinnen, daß eine unübersehbar große Menge von Menschen unbewußt des eigentlichen Charakters ihres Strebens darnach drängt, diese drei Lebensgebiete im sozialen Organismus als besondere Glieder so auszubilden, daß das Geistesleben frei aus seinen eigenen Impulsen heraus sich gestalten kann; das Rechtsleben demokratisch auf die Auseinandersetzung - die unmittelbare oder mittelbare - einander gleichgeltender Menschen gebaut werde; das Wirtschaftsleben nur in Warenerzeugung, Warenkreislauf und Warenkonsum sich entfalte.
[ 5 ] Man kann von verschiedenen Ausgangspunkten her zu der Einsicht kommen, daß die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus notwendig sei. Einer dieser Ausgangspunkte ist die Erkenntnis der Menschennatur in der Gegenwart. Man mag es vom Gesichtspunkte einer gewissen sozialen Theorie und Parteimeinung recht unwissenschaftlich und unpraktisch finden, wenn gesagt wird, daß bei der Einrichtung des menschlichen Zusammenlebens die Psychologie gefragt werden muß, insofern diese Psychologie erkennt, was der Menschennatur angemessen ist. Es wäre aber doch ein unermeßliches Unglück, wenn alle die Menschen mundtot gemacht würden, welche dieser «sozialen Psychologie» ihr Recht bei Ausgestaltung des sozialen Lebens wahren wollen. Wie es farbenblinde Menschen gibt, welche die Welt «grau in grau» sehen, so gibt es psychologieblinde Sozialreformer und Sozialrevolutionäre, welche den sozialen Organismus alsWirtschaftsgenossenschaft ausgestalten möchten, in der die Menschen selber wie mechanisierte Wesen leben. Und diese psychologieblinden Agitatoren wissen selbst nichts von ihrer Blindheit. Sie wissen ja nur das, daß es ein Rechts- und ein Geistesleben neben dem Wirtschaftsleben immer gegeben hat; und sie glauben, wenn sie das Wirtschaftsleben nach ihrem Ermessen gestalten, dann komme alles andere «von selbst». Es wird nicht kommen; es wird ruiniert werden. Darum ist die Verständigung mit den Psychologie-Blinden recht schwierig; darum ist es leider auch notwendig, daß der Kampf mit ihnen aufgenommen werde, der nicht von den Psychologie-Sehenden, sondern von ihnen ausgeht.
Socialist blindness of the soul
[ 1 ] It seems that many people cannot find their way into the idea of the threefold organization of the social organism because they fear that this idea wants to tear apart in the organization of social life what in reality must work together in undivided unity. Now it is true that man, who is active in economic life, comes into legal relations with his fellow man through his economic activity, and that his spiritual life is dependent on these legal relations and is also conditioned by his economic situation. These three life activities are united in man; by leading his life, he is involved in all three.
[ 2 ] But does this give audi a reason for these three activities of life to be managed from one center? And does it mean that all three are managed according to the same principles? In man and his activity many things flow together which come from the most diverse sources. He is dependent on the qualities inherited from his ancestors. But they also think and act according to what the upbringing of other people who are not related to them has made of them. How strange would it be if someone wanted to claim that man as a unit is torn apart because heredity and upbringing affect him from different sides? Must it not rather be said that man would remain imperfect if heredity and education worked from one source to shape his life?
[ 3 ] What has to flow into man from different sides by nature in order to meet the needs of his being precisely through this diversity is understood, because not understanding would be absurd. But one does not want to accept the realization that the development of mental faculties, the ordering of legal relationships, the shaping of economic life can only properly include man in their circles if they are regulated within the social order in which he lives, from different centers, according to different points of view. An economic life which of itself regulates the rights of the economically active people and educates and instructs them according to the interests prevailing in it, turns man into a cog in the economic mechanism. It stunts his spirit, which can only develop freely if it develops according to its own impulses. It also atrophies the emotional relationships with his fellow men, which do not want to be affected by the position he occupies in relation to them as a result of his economic situation; which rather urge for a regulation in the sense of the equality of all men in relation to the purely human. - A legal or state life, which administers the development of individual human capacities, presses upon this development like a heavy burden; for it will naturally, from the interests arising in it, develop the tendency to unfold these capacities according to its needs, not according to their own nature, even when at the outset the best will exists to take account of the peculiarities of men. And such a legal life imposes a character on the economic branches it operates that does not come from the economic needs themselves. Within such a legal life, man is spiritually restricted and economically hindered by paternalism from developing interests that are appropriate to his nature. - A spiritual life that wanted to establish legal relationships of its own accord would also have to arrive at an inequality of rights from the inequality of human abilities; and it would have to deny its true nature if it allowed itself to be determined in its activities by devotion to economic interests. In such a spiritual culture, man could not come to a true awareness of what the spirit can truly be to his life; for he would see the spirit debased by injustice and distorted by economic goals.
[ 4 ] Mankind in the civilized world has come to its present position because the three spheres of life have grown together in many respects over the last few centuries to form a unified state. And the unrest of the present time consists in the fact that an immense number of people, unconscious of the real character of their aspirations, are pressing to form these three spheres of life as special links in the social organism in such a way that intellectual life can develop free from its own impulses; that legal life is democratically built on the conflict - direct or indirect - of people who are equal to one another; that economic life develops only in the production, circulation and consumption of goods.
[ 5 ] One can arrive at the insight that the tripartite structure of the social organism is necessary from various starting points. One of these starting points is the realization of human nature in the present. From the point of view of a certain social theory and party opinion, one may find it quite unscientific and impractical to say that psychology must be consulted in the organization of human coexistence, insofar as this psychology recognizes what is appropriate to human nature. But it would be an immeasurable misfortune if all those people were silenced who want to preserve the right of this "social psychology" in the organization of social life. Just as there are colour-blind people who see the world "grey in grey", so there are psychology-blind social reformers and social revolutionaries who want to shape the social organism as an economic cooperative in which people themselves live like mechanized beings. And these psychologically blind agitators themselves know nothing of their blindness. They only know that there has always been a legal and a spiritual life alongside the economic life; and they believe that if they organize the economic life as they see fit, then everything else will come "by itself". It will not come; it will be ruined. That is why understanding with those who are blind to psychology is quite difficult; that is why it is unfortunately also necessary to take up the fight with them, which does not come from those who see psychology, but from them.