The Renewal of the Social Organism
GA 24
11. Cultivation of the Spirit and Economic Life
[ 1 ] Many people today speak of “socialization” as though it could imply a number of external institutions in the state or in the social community, through which certain requirements of modern humanity might be satisfied. To them, the right institutions do not yet exist; that is why there is general social discontent and confusion. Once these institutions are in existence, orderly social life and social cooperation among men must follow. That so many people harbor this belief more or less consciously is the reason for the development of so many harmful notions about “the social question.” There is no form one can give to external institutions by which these institutions can, of themselves, enable us to lead a socially satisfying life. Such institutions will be good in a technical sense if they enable commodities to be produced and conveyed to human use in the most efficient manner possible. However, they will be good in a social sense only if socially-minded people administer the commodities produced in the service of the community. No matter what the institutions may be, there is always some conceivable way human individuals or groups can operate them antisocially.
[ 2 ] One should not give oneself over to the illusion that any kind of satisfying social life can be created without “socially-minded” human beings; such illusions are a hindrance to really practical social ideas. The idea of the threefold social order aims at complete freedom from such illusions; therefore it is not surprising that it is vehemently opposed by everyone still living within these illusory mists. The first of the three spheres of the threefold social order aims at a form of cooperation among men to be based entirely on free intercourse and free association between individuals. Here human individuality will not be forced into an institutional mold. How one person assists another, how one helps another advance will simply arise from what one, through his own abilities and accomplishments, is able to be for the other. It is no great wonder that presently many people are still able to imagine nothing but a state of anarchy as a result of such free human relations in the spiritual-cultural branch. Those who think so simply do not know what powers of our inmost nature are stunted when we are forced to develop according to patterns imposed by the state and the economic system. Such powers, deep within human nature, cannot be developed by institutions, but only through what one being calls forth in perfect freedom from another being. The effect of what arises in this way is not antisocial, but rather deeply social. The socially active inner person is stunted only when instincts originating in the prerogatives of the state or in economic advantage are engrained or handed down.
[ 3 ] Through its cultural branch, the threefold social order will uncover perpetual springs of social initiative. These springs will imbue the legal relations that are regulated by the democratic state with a social spirit, and they will spread the same spirit into the conduct of economic life.
[ 4 ] Within the economy, the forms of modern life afford no means of counteracting the antisocial tendency. For the whole community is best served when the individual is left unchecked to apply his abilities to the common good. To do this, however, it is necessary that individuals should accumulate capital, and be free to combine with others in utilizing it. The socialists have been deluded in thinking that these masses of ever-accumulating capital could in the end simply be transferred from their private owners to the cornmunity, and that thereby a socialist society would necessarily be realized. In reality, the economic productivity of capital would inevitably be lost in such a transference, for this productivity rests upon the private abilities of the individual. One must admit to oneself quite frankly that the economy will have the greatest vitality not when it is deprived of the antisocial element within its own domain, but instead when it is kept supplied from another domain—the cultural branch of the social order—with forces that will constantly correct antisocial tendencies as they arise and convert them back into social ones.
[ 5 ] In my Toward Social Renewal I have tried to show that a truly social way of thinking will not aim at a transference of capital from the control of private persons (or groups) to the community as a whole; on the contrary, it is essential that the private individual should have means, by the use of capital, of placing his abilities, unopposed, at the service of the community. When this individual is no longer willing or able to direct his abilities to the use of capital, this use must be transferred to another person of similar abilities. It will not be transferred by state prerogative or by economic power, but by finding out, on strength of the training acquired under the free spiritual life, which person will make the most suitable successor from the social point of view.
[ 6 ] Whoever speaks in this manner about the remedy for our social malaise sees in his mind's eye the scorn of all those today who consider themselves experts in the practicalities of life. For the moment he must endure this scorn, knowing well that the other's way of thinking is what brought about the dreadful human catastrophe of recent years. The scorn may continue awhile; then, however, even the most obstinate of such people will no longer be able to resist the hard lessons of social realities. The phrase: “Schemes such as the threefold order may be all very fine, but the people to carry them out aren't there,” will be silenced. The coiners of this phrase are certainly not “the people to do so.” Therefore, it is to be hoped they will retire and will not, with their brute force, block the way of those who are doing fruitful work and who would gladly provide a free spiritual life for the development of social impulses in men.
Geistespflege und Wirtschaftsleben
[ 1 ] Von «Sozialisierung» reden heute viele Menschen so, als ob damit eine Summe von äußeren Einrichtungen im Staate oder in dem gesellschaftlichen Zusammenleben gemeint sein könnte, durch die gewisse Forderungen der neueren Menschheit ihre Erfüllung finden sollen. Man stellt sich vor, diese Einrichtungen seien jetzt noch nicht da; deswegen herrsche soziale Unzufriedenheit und Wirrnis. Wenn sie einmal da sein werden, dann müsse ein geordnetes soziales Zusammenleben und Zusammenwirken der Menschen eintreten. Daß sich viele einer solchen Meinung, mehr oder weniger deutlich bewußt, hingeben, ist der Grund, aus dem heraus sich viele schädliche Vorstellungen über die «soziale Frage» entwickeln. Denn man kann nicht äußere Einrichtungen so gestalten, daß diese durch sich den Menschen ein sozial befriedigendes Leben ermöglichen. Solche Einrichtungen werden technisch gut sein, wenn durch sie in der zweckmäßigsten Art Güter erzeugt und dem menschlichen Gebrauche zugeführt werden können. Sozial gut werden sie aber erst dann, wenn in ihnen sozial gesinnte Menschen die erzeugten Güter im Dienste der Gemeinschaft verwalten. Wie auch die Einrichtungen sein mögen: es ist immer ein Wirken von Menschen oder Menschengruppen denkbar, das antisozialen Charakter trägt.
[ 2 ] Man sollte sich nicht der Illusion hingeben, daß ohne «sozial gestimmte» Menschen ein sozial befriedigender Lebenszustand herbeigeführt werden könne.Denn eine solche Illusion ist für die wirklich praktischen sozialen Ideen ein Hindernis. Die Idee von der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus strebt nach völliger Freiheit von einer derartigen Illusion. Es ist daher begreiflich, daß sie von allen denen heftig befehdet wird, die heute noch im trüben Nebel diese Illusion leben. In dem einen der drei Glieder des sozialen Organismus strebt diese Idee ein Zusammenwirken von Menschen an, das ganz auf den freien Verkehr und die freie Vergesellschaftung von Individualität zu Individualität begründet ist. In keine vorbestimmte Einrichtung werden da die Individualitäten hineingezwängt. Wie sie einander stützen und fördern, das soll lediglich daraus sich ergeben, was der eine dem andern durch seine Fähigkeiten und Leistungen sein kann. Es ist nicht weiter verwunderlich, daß sich viele Menschen gegenwärtig noch gar nichts anderes vorstellen können, als daß bei solch freier Gestaltung der menschlichen Verhältnisse im geistigen Gliede des sozialen Organismus nur anarchische Zustände innerhalb desselben sich ergeben müßten. Wer so denkt, der weiß eben nicht, welche Kräfte der innersten Menschennatur dadurch an ihrer Entfaltung verhindert werden, daß der Mensch in die Schablonen hinein entwickelt wird, die ihn vom Staats- oder Wirtschaftsleben aus formen. Solche Kräfte der innersten Menschennatur können nicht durch Einrichtungen entfaltet werden, sondern allein dadurch, daß Menschenwesen auf Menschenwesen in völliger Freiheit wirkt. Und was da entfaltet wird, das wirkt nicht antisozial, sondern sozial. Das sozial wirksame, menschliche Innere wird nur verkümmert, wenn Instinkte vererbt oder anerzogen werden, die von staatlicher Bevorrechtung oder wirtschaftlicher Übermacht herrühren.
[ 3 ] Der dreigliedrige soziale Organismus wird durch sein geistiges Glied fortwährend Quellen bloßlegen für soziale Antriebe. Diese werden die rechtlichen Beziehungen der Menschen, die im demokratischen Staate ihre Regelung finden sollen, mit sozialem Geiste durchtränken, und sie werden auch in die Führung des Wirtschaftslebens diesen Geist hineintragen.
[ 4 ] Im Wirtschaftskreislauf wird durch die Lebensformen der neueren Zeit die Tendenz nach dem Antisozialen nicht zu verhindern sein. Denn es wird der Gemeinschaft am besten gedient, wenn ungehemmt der einzelne seine Fähigkeit zum Gedeihen dieser Gemeinschaft anwenden kann. Dazu aber ist notwendig, daß dieser einzelne Kapital ansammeln, und daß er auch mit andern sich frei vereinigen kann zur wirtschaftlichen Auswertung dieses Kapitales. Sozialistische Illusion hat geglaubt, daß diese immer mehr angesammelten Kapitalmassen zuletzt von ihren Privatbesitzern einfach an die Gemeinschaft übergehen könnten und sich dadurch eine sozialistische Gesellschaftsordnung verwirklichen müßte. In Wahrheit müßte durch solchen Übergang die wirtschaftliche Fruchtbarkeit des Kapitals verlorengehen; denn diese beruht auf den individuellen Fähigkeiten der einzelnen. Man sollte sich rückhaltlos eingestehen: Der Wirtschaftskreislauf wird dann am lebenskräftigsten sein, wenn ihm auf seinem eigenen Gebiete die Tendenz zum Antisozialen nicht genommen wird; dafür ihm aber fortdauernd aus einem anderen Gebiete, dem geistigen Gliede des sozialen Organismus, Kräfte zugeführt werden, welche das entstehende Antisoziale wieder zum Sozialen zurückbringen.
[ 5 ] In meinen «Kernpunkten der sozialen Frage» habe ich versucht, zu zeigen, daß eine wahrhaft soziale Denkungsart nicht anstreben kann die Überführung der Kapitalverwaltung durch den einzelnen oder durch die Menschengruppe in diejenige durch die Gemeinschaft; sondern daß, im Gegenteil, der einzelne die Möglichkeit haben müsse, ungehemmt seine Fähigkeiten durch Kapitalverwertung in den Dienst der Gemeinschaft zu stellen, und daß, wenn dieser einzelne seine Fähigkeiten nicht mehr auf die Kapitalverwertung wenden will oder kann, diese übertragen werden müsse auf einen andern, der gleiche Fähigkeiten hat. Diese Übertragung soll nicht durch staatliche Bevorreditung oder wirtschaftliche Macht bewirkt werden, sondern durch das auf Grund der Erziehung im freien Geistesleben erworbene Herausfinden desjenigen als Nachfolger, der vom sozialen Gesichtspunkte der geeigneteste ist.
[ 6 ] Der in dieser Art von der Heilung unserer sozialen Zustände spricht, sieht im Geiste den Hohn aller derer, die sich heute als Lebenspraktiker ansehen. Er muß diesen Hohn zunächst ertragen, obwohl er weiß, daß die Gesinnung der also Höhnenden die furchtbare Menschheitskatastrophe der letzten Jahre heraufgeführt hat. Dieser Hohn wird noch einige Zeit andauern können. Dann aber werden selbst die verbohrtesten Menschen dieser Art nicht mehr standhalten gegenüber der Lehre der sozialen Tatsachen. Die Phrase wird dann verstummen müssen, daß Vorschläge wie der von der Dreigliederung gut gemeint sein mögen, daß aber zu ihrer Durchführung die «Menschen nicht da sind». Die Präger dieser Phrase sind allerdings nicht «dazu da». So mögen sie sich doch zurückziehen und durch ihre brutale Macht diejenigen am fruchtbaren Arbeiten nicht hindern, die gerne dafür sorgen möchten, daß in einem freien Geistesleben die sozialen Triebe der Menschen zur Entfaltung kommen.
Cultivation of the spirit and economic life
[ 1 ] Many people today speak of "socialization" as if it could mean a sum of external institutions in the state or in social coexistence, through which certain demands of modern humanity are to be fulfilled. It is imagined that these institutions are not yet in place, which is why social discontent and confusion prevail. Once they are in place, then an orderly social coexistence and cooperation of people must occur. The fact that many people, more or less consciously, indulge in such an opinion is the reason why many harmful ideas about the "social question" develop. For one cannot design external institutions in such a way that these by themselves enable people to lead a socially satisfying life. Such institutions will be technically good if goods can be produced through them in the most appropriate way and put to human use. But they only become socially good when socially-minded people manage the goods produced in them in the service of the community. Whatever the institutions may be, it is always conceivable that people or groups of people will work in an anti-social way.
[ 2 ] We should not succumb to the illusion that a socially satisfactory state of life can be brought about without "socially minded" people, for such an illusion is an obstacle to truly practical social ideas. The idea of the threefold organization of the social organism strives for complete freedom from such an illusion. It is therefore understandable that it is fiercely opposed by all those who today still live in the cloudy mist of this illusion. In the one of the three members of the social organism, this idea strives for a cooperation of human beings that is based entirely on free intercourse and the free socialization of individuality to individuality. Individuals are not forced into any predetermined institution. The way in which they support and promote each other should merely result from what one can be to the other through his abilities and achievements. It is not at all surprising that many people at present cannot imagine anything else than that with such a free organization of human relations in the spiritual member of the social organism only anarchic conditions would have to result within it. Those who think in this way do not know what forces of the innermost human nature are prevented from unfolding by the fact that man is developed into the templates that shape him from state or economic life. Such powers of the innermost human nature cannot be unfolded through institutions, but only through the fact that human being acts upon human being in complete freedom. And what is unfolded there is not antisocial, but social. The socially effective, human inner being is only stunted when instincts are inherited or brought up that stem from state privilege or economic superiority.
[ 3 ] The tripartite social organism will continually expose sources of social impulses through its spiritual member. These will imbue the legal relations of men, which are to find their regulation in the democratic state, with a social spirit, and they will also carry this spirit into the management of economic life.
[ 4 ] In the economic cycle, the tendency towards the anti-social cannot be prevented by the forms of life of modern times. For the community is best served when the individual can apply his ability to the prosperity of this community without restraint. For this, however, it is necessary that this individual should accumulate capital, and that he should also be able to unite freely with others for the economic utilization of this capital. Socialist illusion has believed that these increasingly accumulated masses of capital could ultimately simply pass from their private owners to the community and that a socialist social order would thereby have to be realized. In truth, the economic fertility of capital would have to be lost through such a transfer, for this is based on the individual abilities of the individual. It should be admitted without reserve: The economic cycle will be at its most vigorous if the tendency to anti-socialism in its own sphere is not taken away from it; but instead forces are continually supplied to it from another sphere, the spiritual member of the social organism, which bring the anti-socialism that arises back to the social.
[ 5 ] In my "Key Points of the Social Question" I have tried to show that a truly social way of thinking cannot strive for the transformation of the administration of capital by the individual or by the group of people into that by the community; but that, on the contrary, the individual must have the opportunity to place his abilities at the service of the community without restraint through the utilization of capital, and that if this individual is no longer willing or able to apply his abilities to the utilization of capital, this must be transferred to another who has the same abilities. This transfer is not to be effected by state favoritism or economic power, but by the identification of the most suitable successor from the social point of view, acquired through education in free intellectual life.
[ 6 ] He who speaks in this way of the healing of our social conditions sees in his mind the scorn of all those who today regard themselves as practitioners of life. He must bear this mockery at first, although he knows that the attitude of those who mock has brought about the terrible human catastrophe of recent years. This mockery will continue for some time. But then even the most stubborn people of this kind will no longer be able to stand up to the teaching of social facts. The phrase will then have to fall silent that proposals such as that of the threefold structure may be well-intentioned, but that the "people are not there" to implement them. However, the originators of this phrase are not "there for that". So let them withdraw and not use their brutal power to hinder the fruitful work of those who would like to ensure that people's social instincts can unfold in a free intellectual life.