The Renewal of the Social Organism
GA 24
10. Economic Profit and the Spirit of the Age
[ 1 ] There are conflicting views on the profits made by economic entrepreneurs. Its defenders say that human nature is such that we will engage our talents for the good of the whole only when induced to do so by the expectation of profit. It is true, they say, that profit is the offspring of egotism; yet profit performs a service to the community—a service the community would have to do without were it to eliminate profit from the economic process. The opponents of this viewpoint say that production should not be pursued with a view to profit, but rather with a view to consumption. One must devise institutions that will motivate men to continue to employ their powers for the benefit of the community even when not enticed to do so by the expectation of profit.
[ 2 ] When there are such conflicting opinions in public life, usually people do not think them out to the end, but rather let power decide. If one is democratically-minded, one thinks it quite right that institutions should be established (or allowed to remain) that correspond to the interests and wishes of the majority. If one is single-mindedly convinced of the legitimacy of one's own interests, then one's aim is an authoritarian central power that shall develop institutions to conform to these particular wishes and interests. One then desires only to obtain sufficient influence over this central power to ensure its accomplishing what one wants. What is today called “the dictatorship of the proletariat” stems from this attitude. People who demand this “dictatorship” are motivated by their wishes and interests; they make no at-tempt to think correctly so as to discover whether their demand entails institutions that are in themselves really possible.
[ 3 ] Humanity is presently at a point in its evolution when it is no longer possible to conduct human affairs simply by insisting upon what is wished. Quite apart from what this or that person, this or that group may want, from now on in the sphere of public life only efforts proceeding from ideas that have been thought through to the end will promote social health. However strongly human passions may resist it, in the end people will be obliged to introduce into social life these thoroughly considered ideas demanded by the spirit of humanity, because people will see the pathological consequences that result from their opposite.
[ 4 ] The view that a threefold structuring of the social organism is a necessity is one such idea thought through to its logical conclusion. In light of this intent, it is certainly odd that many of its opponents think the idea an unclear one. The reason for this is that these opponents are interested not in clear thinking, but merely in agreement with their interests, wishes and prejudices. When faced with ideas that have been fully and concretely considered, they can see nothing in them but opposition to their preconceived opinions; they justify themselves unclearly in their own eyes, by saying that the opposition is unclear.
[ 5 ] In estimating the economic significance of profits, im-pertinent opinions often intrude. Certainly profit-making is an egotistical aim. However, it is unjustified to use this egotism as an argument for eliminating profit from economic activity. For there must be something in the economy that can serve to indicate whether there is a need for a manufactued article. In the modern form of economics, the only indicator of this need is the fact that the article yields profits. An article can be manufactured if it yields profits that, in the economic context, are sufficiently large. An article that yields no profits must not be produced because it will upset the price balance of articles in actual circulation. Profits may represent what they will in ethical terms; in conventional economic terms, they represent an indicator for the need to produce an article.
[ 6 ] The further evolution of economics does require the elimination of profits, but for the following reason: because they make the production of articles dependent on accidents of the market, which the spirit of the age demands be abolished. One clouds one's judgement if one argues against profit because of its egotistical nature. Real life demands that within any field one must mount arguments appropriate to the particular situation. Arguments drawn from another field of life may be perfectly true in themselves, but they cannot guide one's judgement toward the real facts.
[ 7 ] What is necessary for economic life is that profits as indicators should be replaced by groups tasked with establishing a rational correspondence between production and consumption that will abolish accidents of the market. The change from profits-indicator to a rational coordination of production and consumption, if correctly understood, will result in the elimination of the motives that have hitherto clouded judgment on this issue by removing them to the legal and cultural spheres.
[ 8 ] Only when people recognize that the idea of the threefold social order has been shaped by an effort to create sound bases for realistic and practical conduct in each of life's different spheres, will they begin to do this idea justice and to have a proper estimation of its practical value. So long as motives proper to the legal and spiritual-cultural spheres are expected to proceed indiscriminately from the administration of economic life (which can be practical only when ruled solely by businesslike considerations and transactions)—so long will social life remain unhealthy. Today's party groupings are still quite removed from what the spirit of the age is shown here to demand. Thus it is inevitable that the idea of the threefold social order should meet with much prejudice stemming from opinions prevalent in these party groupings. However, it is time to put an end to the belief that any change can be effected in today's unsound social conditions through further activity along the old party lines. The very first thing to be considered is rather a change in these party opinions themselves. The way to do this, however, is not by splitting off sections of existing par-ties and establishing ourselves as representatives of “true” party opinion, while reproaching others for deserting “the true party views.” This only leads from fighting over ideology to a much worse struggle for the power of specific groups of people. What is needed now is not this, but rather an unprejudiced insight into the demands of the “spirit of the age.”
Wirtschaftlicher Profit und Zeitgeist
[ 1 ] Über den Profit des wirtschaftlichen Unternehmers bestehen einander bekämpfende Ansichten. Seine Verteidiger sagen, der Mensch ist so geartet, daß er für irgendeine der Gesamtheit dienende Unternehmung seine Fähigkeiten nur einsetzt, wenn er durch die Aussicht auf den Profit dazu veranlaßt wird. Daher entspringe zwar der Profit aus dem Egoismus; aber er leiste der Gesamtheit Dienste, die sie entbehren müßte, wenn sie ihn aus dem Wirtschaftskreislauf ausschalten würde. Die Bekämpfer dieser Ansicht sagen, es soll nicht produziert werden, um zu profitieren, sondern um zu konsumieren. Man müsse Einrichtungen treffen, deren Wesen darin besteht, daß Menschen ihre Kräfte zum Nutzen der Gesamtheit gebrauchen, auch wenn sie dazu nicht durch die Aussicht auf Profit verlockt werden.
[ 2 ] Mit solchen sich widerstreitenden Meinungen geht es im öffentlichen Leben zumeist so, daß man sie nicht zu Ende denkt, sondern die Macht über sie entscheiden läßt. Ist man demokratisch gestimmt, so findet man berechtigt, daß Einrichtungen verwirklicht werden, oder, wenn sie bestehen, verwirklicht bleiben, die den Interessen und Wünschen der Mehrheit entsprechen. Ist man eigensinnig von der Rechtmäßigkeit dessen überzeugt, was den eigenen Wünschen und Interessen gemäß ist, so strebt man nach einer autoritativen Zentralgewalt, welche Einrichtungen trifft, die im Sinne dieser Wünsche und Interessen gehalten sind. Man will dann nur selbst auf diese Zentralgewalt so viel Einfluß gewinnen, daß durch sie geschieht, was man erstrebt. Was man heute «Diktatur des Proletariats» nennt, entspringt dieser Gesinnung. Die es fordern, tun dies aus ihren Wünschen und Interessen heraus; sie versuchen nicht durch ein wirklichkeitsgemäßes Denken zu erfahren, ob ihre Forderung auf Einrichtungen hinzielt, die in sich sachlich möglich sind.
[ 3 ] Die Menschheit steht gegenwärtig in einem Punkte ihrer Entwickelung, in dem ein solches Wirken im Zusammenleben der Menschen, das nur auf Geltendmachung des Gewünschten geht, nicht mehr möglich ist. Ganz unabhängig von dem, was dieser oder jener Mensch, diese oder jene Menschengruppe will: im Bereich des öffentlichen Lebens werden von der Gegenwart an nur Bestrebungen gesund wirken, die von Gedanken ausgehen, welche zu Ende gedacht sind. Wie stark man sich auch aus der menschlichen Leidenschaft heraus wehren mag, dieses von dem Geiste der Menschheit geforderte Wirken zu Ende gedachter Ideen in das Leben eintreten zu lassen: man wird sich zuletzt zu ihm wenden müssen, weil man sehen wird, daß sein Gegenteil sozial ungesunde Folgen hat.
[ 4 ] In dem Sinne von zu Ende gedachten Gedanken ist die Ansicht von der notwendigen Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus gehalten. Mit dieser Absicht stimmt es allerdings schlecht zusammen, daß unter den Bekämpfern dieser Ansicht viele sind, die sie unklar finden. Dies rührt davon her, daß solche Bekämpfer für ihre eigenen Gedanken nicht Klarheit erstreben, sondern lediglich die Übereinstimmung mit ihren Interessen, Wünschen und Vorurteilen. Stehen sie dann Gedanken gegenüber, die Sachliches zu Ende denken, dann tritt ihnen nichts anderes vor Augen, als der Widerstreit mit dem von ihnen Gemeinten; und sie rechtfertigen sich unklar vor sich selbst, indem sie das ihnen Widerstreitende unklar finden.
[ 5 ] In die Beurteilung der wirtschaftlichen Bedeutung des Profites drängen sich Meinungen ein, die sachlich nicht berechtigt sind. Gewiß ist auf der einen Seite, daß das Profitstreben egoistisch ist. Unzulänglich aber ist, mit diesem Egoismus als mit einem Urteilsgrunde zu rechnen, wenn man daran denkt, den Profit aus dem Wirtschaftskreislauf auszuschalten. Denn in diesem Kreislauf muß etwas sein, an dem man erkennt, ob für ein erzeugtes Gut ein Bedürfnis vorhanden ist. In der gegenwärtigen Wirtschaftsform kann diese Erkenntnis einzig aus der Tatsache geschöpft werden, daß das Gut Profit abwirft. Ein Gut, das Profit abwirft, der im wirtschaftlichen Zusammenhang genügend groß ist, kann produziert werden; ein solches, das keinen Profit abwirft, soll nicht erzeugt werden, denn es muß ein Störenfried werden in der Preisausgleichung der zirkulierenden Güter. Der Profit mag in ethischer Beziehung was immer bedeuten; in wirtschaftlicher Beziehung ist er in der hergebrachten Wirtschaftsform das Erkennungszeichen für die Notwendigkeit der Erzeugung eines Gutes.
[ 6 ] Für die Fortentwickelung des Wirtschaftslebens handelt es sich darum, den Profit aus dem Grunde auszuschalten, weil er die Gütererzeugung dem Zufall des Marktes ausliefert, den zu beseitigen eine Forderung des Geistes der Zeit ist. Man umnebelt sich aber das gesunde Urteil, wenn man in die Bekämpfung des Profits den Hinweis auf seine egoistische Natur einfließen läßt. Denn im Leben kommt es darauf an, daß man in einem Wirklichkeitsgebiete diejenigen Gründe geltend macht, die in diesem Gebiete sachlich berechtigt sind. Gründe, die aus einem andern Gebiete kommen, mögen noch so richtig an sich sein: das notwendige Urteil können sie nicht in die sachlich bedingte Richtung bringen.
[ 7] Für das Wirtschaftsleben handelt es sich darum, daß das Erkennungszeichen des Profits abgelöst werde durch das Wirken von Personen, die in dem Wirtschaftskreislauf mit der Aufgabe eingeschaltet werden, die Vermittlung zwischen Konsum und Produktion in vernunftgemäßer Weise zu besorgen, so daß der Zufall des Marktes wegfällt. Die rechte Einsicht in diese Umwandlung von Profiterkennungszeichen in vernunftgemäßes Handeln ergibt, daß diejenigen Motive, die bisher in unklarer Weise das Urteil auf diesem Felde getrübt haben, aus dem Wirtschaftsleben ausgeschieden und auf die Gebiete des Rechts- und des Geisteslebens übergeführt werden.
[ 8 ] Erst wenn man einsehen wird, wie die Idee von der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus ihre Gestaltung aus dem Streben erhalten hat, für ein sach- und fachgemäßes Handeln auf den verschiedenen Gebieten des Lebens die gesunden Grundlagen zu schaffen, wird man diese Idee gerecht beurteilen und ihren praktischen Wert richtig einschätzen. Solange ungeordnet rechtsgemäße und geistgetragene Antriebe aus Verwaltungseinrichtungen des Wirtschaftslebens kommen sollen, die nur praktisch sein können, wenn in ihnen nichts als sachliches und fachtüchtiges Urteilen und Handeln herrscht, kann das soziale Leben nicht gesunden. In den Parteigruppierungen der Gegenwart walten Motive, die sich von den gekennzeichneten Forderungen des Geistes der Zeit noch ferne halten. Das bewirkt, daß die in diesen Parteigruppierungen bestehenden Meinungen die Idee von der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus mit Vorurteilen aufnehmen müssen. Aber notwendig ist, daß der Glaube schwinde, man könne eine Umwandlung ungesunder sozialer Zustände heute bewirken durch die weitere Betätigung der alten Parteibestrebungen. Woran man vielmehr zu allererst zu denken hat, ist die Umwandlung der Parteimeinungen selbst. Dazu ist aber nicht das der Weg, daß sich von den bestehenden Parteien Teile abspalten, deren Angehörige dann vorgeben, die «rechte» Parteimeinung zu vertreten, und die den anderen vorwerfen, die «rechte Anschauung» verlassen zu haben. Denn dies führt aus dem Streit um Parteimeinungen zu dem noch übleren um die Macht bestimmter Personengruppen. Gebraucht aber wird in der Gegenwart unbefangene Einsicht in die Forderungen des «Geistes der Zeit».
Economic profit and the zeitgeist
[ 1 ] There are conflicting views on the profit of the economic entrepreneur. Its defenders say that man is so constituted that he will only use his abilities for any undertaking that serves the community as a whole if he is induced to do so by the prospect of profit. Therefore, although profit springs from egoism, it renders services to the community which it would have to do without if it were to eliminate it from the economic cycle. The opponents of this view say that we should not produce in order to profit, but in order to consume. Institutions must be set up whose essence is that people use their powers for the benefit of the whole, even if they are not tempted to do so by the prospect of profit.
[ 2 ] In public life, such conflicting opinions are usually dealt with in such a way that they are not thought through to the end, but allowed to be decided by power. If one is democratically minded, one finds it justified that institutions are realized, or, if they exist, remain realized, which correspond to the interests and wishes of the majority. If one is obstinately convinced of the legitimacy of what is in accordance with one's own wishes and interests, then one strives for an authoritative central power which makes arrangements that are in accordance with these wishes and interests. One then only wants to gain so much influence over this central authority that what one strives for happens through it. What today is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" springs from this attitude. Those who demand it do so out of their desires and interests; they do not try to find out through realistic thinking whether their demand is aimed at institutions that are in themselves objectively possible.
[ 3 ] Mankind is currently at a point in its development where it is no longer possible for people to live together in such a way as to assert what they want. Quite independently of what this or that person, this or that group of people wants: in the area of public life, from the present time onwards, only endeavors that proceed from thoughts that have been thought through to the end will have a healthy effect. No matter how strongly one may resist, out of human passion, to allow this working of ideas thought through to the end, demanded by the spirit of humanity, to enter into life: one will ultimately have to turn to it, because one will see that its opposite has socially unhealthy consequences.
[ 4 ] The view of the necessary tripartite organization of the social organism is held in the sense of ideas thought through to the end. However, it is inconsistent with this intention that among the opponents of this view there are many who find it unclear. This is due to the fact that such opponents do not strive for clarity in their own thoughts, but merely for conformity with their interests, wishes and prejudices. If they are then confronted with thoughts that think things through to the end, then nothing else appears before their eyes but the conflict with what they mean; and they justify themselves unclearly to themselves by finding what is in conflict with them unclear.
[ 5 ] In the assessment of the economic significance of profit, opinions intrude that are not objectively justified. On the one hand, it is certain that the pursuit of profit is selfish. But it is inadequate to reckon with this egoism as a reason for judgment when one thinks of eliminating profit from the economic cycle. For there must be something in this cycle by which one can recognize whether there is a need for a produced good. In the present economic system, this knowledge can only be derived from the fact that the good yields a profit. A good that yields a profit that is sufficiently large in the economic context can be produced; one that does not yield a profit should not be produced, because it must become a disturbance in the price equilibrium of the circulating goods. Profit may mean whatever in ethical terms; in economic terms, in the traditional form of economy, it is the distinguishing mark of the necessity of producing a good.
[ 6 ] For the further development of economic life, it is a matter of eliminating profit for the reason that it leaves the production of goods at the mercy of the market, which the spirit of the age demands be eliminated. One clouds one's sound judgment, however, if one includes in the fight against profit the reference to its selfish nature. For what matters in life is that in one area of reality one asserts those reasons which are objectively justified in that area. Reasons that come from another area may be correct in themselves: they cannot bring the necessary judgment in the factually conditioned direction.
[ 7] For economic life it is a question of replacing the distinguishing mark of profit by the activity of persons who are involved in the economic cycle with the task of mediating between consumption and production in a rational manner, so that the chance of the market is eliminated. The right insight into this transformation of the signs of profit into rational action results in those motives which have hitherto obscured judgment in this field being eliminated from economic life and transferred to the realms of legal and spiritual life.
[ 8 ] Only when one realizes how the idea of the threefold structure of the social organism has received its form from the striving to create the healthy foundations for proper and professional action in the various areas of life will one be able to judge this idea fairly and correctly assess its practical value. As long as disorderly legal and spiritual impulses are to come from administrative institutions of economic life, which can only be practical if nothing but objective and professional judgment and action prevail in them, social life cannot be healthy. In the party groupings of the present day, motives prevail which are still far removed from the characterized demands of the spirit of the times. This has the effect that the opinions existing in these party groupings must receive the idea of the threefold organization of the social organism with prejudice. But it is necessary to dispel the belief that it is possible to bring about a transformation of unhealthy social conditions today by continuing to pursue the old party aspirations. Rather, the first thing to think about is the transformation of party opinions themselves. The way to do this, however, is not for sections of the existing parties to split off, whose members then claim to represent the "right" party opinion and accuse the others of having abandoned the "right view". For this leads from the dispute over party opinions to the even nastier dispute over the power of certain groups of people. What is needed in the present, however, is unbiased insight into the demands of the "spirit of the times".