The Renewal of the Social Organism
GA 24
12. Law and Economics
[ 1 ] Among the various objections that can be made to the threefold social order is one that can be phrased somewhat as follows: The efforts of political thinkers in recent years have been directed in part towards creating legal provisions appropriate to the existing conditions of economic production. It might be said that the idea of the threefold order totally disregards all the work done in this direction and wants merely to detach the legal sphere from the economic altogether.
[ 2 ] Those who raise this objection imagine that thereby they can dismiss the idea of the threefold order as something that throws practical experience to the winds and claims a role in the reconstruction of society without this experience. How-ever, the reverse is true. The opponents of the threefold social order say: “One should reflect on the difficulties that have attended every attempt to arrive at a legal system adapted to modern conditions of production. One should consider the obstacles met by all who have made such at-tempts.” However, the adherents of the threefold order must answer: These very difficulties are proof that people were taking the wrong road. They persisted in trying to contrive a social form in which certain demands of modern times were to be satisfied through a single combined economic and legal sytem. They ought, however, to recognize that economic life, when conducted expediently, promotes conditions that necessarily tend to counter the sense of right and justice, unless this tendency is deliberately counteracted from outside the economy. It is to the advantage of economic life that individuals or groups who have special qualifications for a particular business of production are able to accumulate capital for their business. Presently, the best services can be rendered to the community as a whole only by qualified persons through the control of large sums of capital. However, the nature of economics dictates that such services can only consist of the most efficient production of the goods that the community needs. A certain amount of economic power flows into the hands of the people who pro-duce such goods. It cannot be otherwise, and the threefold social order recognizes this. Accordingly, it aims to bring about a society in which this economic power will still arise, but out of which no social evils can grow. The threefold idea does not propose to hinder the accumulation of large sums of capital in individual hands; it recognizes that to do so would be to lose the possibility of employing socially the abilities of these private individuals in the service of the general public. It proposes, however, that the moment an individual can no longer attend to the management of the means of production within his sphere of power, these means of production should be transferred to another capable person. The latter will not be able to obtain these means of production through any economic power he may possess, but solely because he is the most capable person. In practice, however, this can only be realized when the transfer is directed according to principles that have nothing to do with the means of economic power; such principles become possible only when the people themselves, with their interests, are engaged in spheres of life other than the economic. If men are joined together on a legal foundation which produces interests other than economic ones, these other interests will then be able to assert themselves. If the human being is absorbed by economic interests alone, those other interests never develop. If the person who possesses the means of production is to have any feeling whatever that the best and most efficient person in any economic position is one who obtains it by ability and not by economic power, such a feeling must grow in a sphere established apart from the economic. In and of itself, the economic life can call forth a sense for economic power but not, simultaneously, a sense for social justice. Therefore, all attempts to conjure out of economic thought itself a code of social justice were bound to fail.
[ 3 ] Such matters are based upon the actual realities of life; these are the things taken into account by the idea of the threefold social order. It is guided by the practical experiences met by those who attempted to create legal structures for the modern economic forms; but it will not be led by these experiences to add a new attempt that resembles the many that have already failed. Its aim is not to try to produce social laws in a field of life where they cannot grow, but to bring about that life itself from which such laws can grow. In modern times this life has been absorbed into the economy; the first step is to restore its independence. To perceive clearly the idea of the threefold order, one must be willing to understand that the economic life needs to have its own forces continually corrected from outside, if it is not to call forth out of itself obstacles to its own growth. This necessary corrective will be supplied when there is an independent cultural life and corresponding independent legal sphere to make provision for it. The unity of social life is not thereby destroyed; in reality, it arises thereby for the first time in its true sense. This unity cannot be brought about by the ordinances of a central authority; it must be allowed to arise out of the interaction of those forces that each need to exist separately in order to live as a whole. Experiences met with in attempting to create for modern economic life legal relations that are drawn from the economy itself, should not therefore be regarded as arguments against the threefold social order. On the contrary, these experiences should be seen to lead directly to the recognition that the threefold organism is the idea modern life demands.
Recht und Wirtschaft
[ 1 ] Unter den mancherlei Einwendungen, welche gegen die Idee von der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus gemacht werden können, ist eine, die man etwa in der folgenden Art vorbringen kann. Die Anstrengungen der politisch Denkenden in der neueren Zeit liefen auf einem gewissen Felde darauf hinaus, Rechtszustände zu schaffen, welche den wirtschaftlichen Produktionsverhältnissen, die sich im Laufe dieser Zeit ergeben haben, Rechnung tragen. All die Arbeit, welche nach dieser Richtung geleistet worden ist, so kann man sagen, läßt die Idee von der Dreigliederung unberücksichtigt und will einfach das Rechtsleben loslösen vom Wirtschaftsleben.
[ 2 ] Wer diesen Einwand erhebt, der glaubt mit ihm diese Idee von der Dreigliederung als etwas abfertigen zu können, das die Erfahrungen der Lebenspraktiker in den Wind schlägt und das ohne diese Erfahrungen an der Gestaltung des sozialen Lebens mitwirken will. In Wahrheit ist aber das Umgekehrte vorliegend. Die Gegner der Dreigliederung sagen: Man sollte die Schwierigkeiten in Erwägung ziehen, die sich bei allen Versuchen ergeben haben, für die modernen Produktionsverhältnisse entsprechende Rechtszustände zu finden. Man sollte bedenken, welche Widerstände diejenigen gefunden haben, die solche Versuche gemacht haben. Der Bekenner der Dreigliederung aber muß sagen: Gerade diese Schwierigkeiten sind ein Beweis dafür, daß man auf dem unrichtigen Wege gesucht hat. Man wollte durchaus eine solche Gestaltung des gesellschaftlichen Lebens finden, in der sich aus dem einheitlich geordneten Wirtschafts- und Rechtswesen heraus die Erfüllung gewisser neuzeitlicher Forderungen ergibt. Aber man sollte sehen, daß im Wirtschaftsleben, wenn es zweckmäßig geführt wird, Zustände entstehen, die dem Rechtsbewußtsein entgegenwirken müssen, wenn nicht außerhalb des Wirtschaftsk reislaufes dieser Wirkung entgegengearbeitet wird. Für das Wirtschaftsleben besteht ein Interesse daran, daß Personen oder Personengruppen, die für einen Produktionsbetrieb besonders befähigt sind, zu Kapitalansammlungen für diesen Betrieb kommen können. Denn nur durch das, was von befähigten Menschen durch die Verwaltung großer Kapitalmassen auf gewissen Gebieten geleistet wird, kann in der Gegenwart der Allgemeinheit am besten gedient werden. Aber dieser Dienst kann, nach dem Wesen des Wirtschaftslebens, nur darin bestehen, daß für diese Allgemeinheit am besten die Güter erzeugt werden, die sie braucht. Mit dieser Gütererzeugung wird nun den Menschen, die ihr dienen, eine gewisse wirtschaftliche Macht in die Hände gespielt. Daß dies nicht anders sein kann, damit rechnet die Idee von der Dreigliederung. Deshalb will sie, daß soziale Zustände erstrebt werden, in denen diese Macht zwar entstehen kann, aber in denen durch sie keine sozialen Schäden sich bilden können. Die Ansammlung von Kapitalmassen bei einzelnen will sie nicht unterbinden, weil sie einsieht, daß damit auch die Möglichkeit verschwinden würde, die Fähigkeiten dieser einzelnen in den sozialen Dienst der Allgemeinheit zu stellen. Aber sie will, daß in dem Augenblicke, in dem der einzelne nicht mehr die Verwaltung der in seinem Machtbereich befindlichen Produktionsmittel besorgen kann, diese übergeleitet werden auf einen anderen Befähigten. Dieser soll sie nicht durch seine wirtschaftlichen Machtmittel erwerben können, sondern durch die Tatsache, daß er der Befähigtste ist. Das läßt sich aber nur verwirklichen, wenn die Übertragung nach Gesichtspunkten erfolgt, die mit den wirtschaftlichen Machtmitteln nichts zu tun haben. Solche Gesichtspunkte können sich nur ergeben, wenn die Menschen mit ihren Interessen auch noch in anderen als in den wirtschaftlichen Lebenskreisen drinnenstehen. Ist Mensch und Mensch verbunden auf einem Rechtsboden, der andere als wirtschaftliche Interessen erzeugt, so werden sich diese Interessen geltend machen können. Geht der Mensch ganz auf in den Interessen, die nur das Wirtschaftsleben erzeugt, so entstehen jene anderen Interessen gar nicht. Soll der im Besitze von Produktionsmitteln Befindliche überhaupt das Gefühl entwickeln, daß nicht derjenige in einer wirtschaftlichen Position am besten wirkt, der diese durch seine wirtschaftliche Macht erwirbt, sondern durch seine Befähigung, so muß dieses Gefühl heranwachsen auf einem Lebensboden, der neben dem wirtschaftlichen geschaffen wird. Auf seinem eigenen Boden erzeugt das Wirtschaftsleben wohl den Sinn für wirtschaftliche Macht, aber nicht zugleich denjenigen für soziales Recht. Deshalb mußten die Versuche scheitern, aus dem wirtschaftlichen Denken selbst das soziale Recht hervorzuzaubern.
[ 3 ] Mit solchen in der Wirklichkeit des Lebens begründeten Dingen rechnet die Idee von der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Für sie ist die Erfahrung maßgebend, welche diejenigen gemacht haben, die moderne Rechtsverhältnisse für die modernen Wirtschaftsformen schaffen wollten. Aber sie wird durch diese Erfahrungen nicht dazu geführt, zu den vielen gescheiterten Versuchen einen neuen hinzuzufügen, der in demselben Sinne gehalten ist. Sie will soziale Rechte nicht aus einem Lebensgebiete entstehen lassen, aus denen sie nicht entstehen können, sondern sie will, daß das Leben sich bilde, aus dem heraus diese Rechte erst hervorgehen können. Der Wirtschaftskreislauf hat in der neueren Zeit dieses Leben verschlungen; es muß aus ihm erst wieder befreit werden. Die Idee von der Dreigliederung kann nur durchschaut werden, wenn man sich darauf einläßt, zu verstehen, wie das Wirtschaftsleben fortwährend die Korrektur seiner eigenen Kräfte von außen braucht, wenn es in sich nicht Wirkungen erzeugen soll, die es hemmen. Eine solche Korrektur wird ihm zugeführt, wenn neben ihm ein selbständiges Geistesleben und ein selbständiger Rechtsboden für die Zuführung sorgen. Dadurch wird nicht die Einheit des gesellschaftlichen Lebens zerstört, sondern in Wahrheit erst im rechten Sinne hervorgerufen. Diese Einheit wird nicht dadurch bewirkt, daß man sie durch eine zentrale Macht ordnet, sondern dadurch, daß man sie aus dem Zusammenwirken derjenigen Kräfte entstehen läßt, die als einzelne für sich leben wollen, um das Leben eines Ganzen zu bewirken. Man sollte die Erfahrungen, die man mit den Versuchen gemacht hat, für das neuereWirtschaftsleben aus diesem selbst heraus Rechtsverhältnisse zu schaffen, also nicht so betrachten, daß man aus ihnen Einwände gegen die Dreigliederung formt; sondern man sollte einsehen, daß diese Erfahrungen auf geradem Wege dahin führen, die Idee der Dreigliederung als die von dem modernen Leben geforderte anzuerkennen.
Law and economy
[ 1 ] Among the various objections that can be raised against the idea of the tripartite organization of the social organism is one that can be put forward in the following way. The efforts of political thinkers in modern times have, in a certain field, amounted to the creation of legal conditions which take into account the economic relations of production which have arisen in the course of these times. All the work that has been done in this direction, it can be said, disregards the idea of the threefold structure and simply seeks to detach legal life from economic life.
[ 2 ] Those who raise this objection believe that they can use it to dismiss the idea of the threefold structure as something that throws the experiences of practitioners of life to the winds and wants to participate in the shaping of social life without these experiences. In reality, however, the opposite is the case. The opponents of threefolding say that we should consider the difficulties that have arisen in all attempts to find appropriate legal states for modern production conditions. One should consider the resistance encountered by those who have made such attempts. The advocate of threefolding, however, must say that precisely these difficulties are proof that the search has been conducted along the wrong path. They certainly wanted to find a form of social life in which the fulfillment of certain modern demands would result from a uniformly ordered economic and legal system. But it should be seen that in economic life, if it is managed appropriately, conditions arise which must work against legal consciousness if this effect is not counteracted outside the economic cycle. It is in the interest of economic life that persons or groups of persons who are particularly qualified for a production operation are able to accumulate capital for this operation. For it is only through the management of large amounts of capital in certain areas by capable people that the general public can be best served in the present. But this service, according to the nature of economic life, can only consist in the best production of the goods needed by the general public. With this production of goods, a certain economic power is placed in the hands of the people who serve it. That this cannot be otherwise is what the idea of threefolding reckons with. That is why it wants social conditions to be striven for in which this power can arise, but in which no social damage can be caused by it. It does not want to prevent the accumulation of masses of capital by individuals, because it realizes that this would also eliminate the possibility of placing the abilities of these individuals at the social service of the community. But it does want that at the moment when the individual is no longer able to manage the means of production in his sphere of power, these should be transferred to another capable person. This person should not be able to acquire them through his economic means of power, but through the fact that he is the most capable. However, this can only be realized if the transfer takes place according to aspects that have nothing to do with the economic means of power. Such points of view can only arise if people and their interests are also involved in circles of life other than economic ones. If man and man are connected on a legal basis that generates interests other than economic ones, then these interests will be able to assert themselves. If man is completely absorbed in the interests generated only by economic life, those other interests will not arise at all. If those in possession of the means of production are to develop the feeling that it is not he who works best in an economic position who acquires it through his economic power, but through his ability, then this feeling must grow on a soil of life which is created alongside the economic one. On its own soil, economic life produces the sense of economic power, but not at the same time the sense of social right. That is why the attempts to conjure up social law from economic thinking itself had to fail.
[ 3 ] The idea of the threefold structure of the social organism is based on such things founded in the reality of life. It is based on the experience of those who wanted to create modern legal relations for modern economic forms. But it is not led by this experience to add to the many failed attempts a new one in the same spirit. It does not want social rights to arise from a sphere of life from which they cannot arise, but it wants the life to be formed from which these rights can first arise. In modern times, the economic cycle has swallowed up this life; it must first be liberated from it again. The idea of the threefold structure can only be understood if one allows oneself to understand how economic life constantly needs the correction of its own forces from outside if it is not to produce effects within itself that inhibit it. Such a correction is supplied to it when, alongside it, an independent spiritual life and an independent legal ground provide the supply. This does not destroy the unity of social life, but in truth only brings it about in the right sense. This unity is not brought about by ordering it through a central power, but by allowing it to arise from the interaction of those forces that want to live as individuals in order to bring about the life of a whole. One should therefore not regard the experiences made with the attempts to create legal relationships for the newer economic life out of this life itself in such a way that one forms objections to the threefold structure from them; rather, one should realize that these experiences lead in a straight line to recognizing the idea of the threefold structure as the one demanded by modern life.