The Renewal of the Social Organism
GA 24
16. The Roots of Social Life
[ 1 ] In my book Toward Social Renewal, the comparison between the social organism and the natural human organism is used as an analogy; at the same time it is pointed out how misleading it is to suppose that concepts acquired from the one can simply be transferred to the other. Anyone who forms a picture of the function of the cells or of an organ of the human body, as natural science represents them, and who then proceeds to look for the social cell or the social organs in order to learn the construction and conditions of life in the social body will very soon fall into an empty game of analogies.
[ 2 ] It is a different matter to point out, as in Toward Social Renewal, that by an intelligent study of the human organism one can train oneself in the kind of thinking required for a real understanding of the working of social life. Through such a training, one acquires the ability to judge social facts not according to preconceived opinions, but to judge them according to their own laws of existence. This above all is necessary in our present times. People today are tied up tightly in their party opinions regarding social judgment; and party opinions are not formed on grounds that lie in the conditions of life and organic requirements of the entire social organism, but by the blind feelings of particular people or of particular groups. If the methods of judgment employed in party programs were transferred to the study of the human body, it would soon be seen that instead of assisting an understanding of it, these methods are only a hindrance.
[ 3 ] In an organic body, the air that is inhaled must constantly be converted into an unusable substance; oxygen must be converted into carbon dioxide. Accordingly, there must be arrangements by which the changed and no longer usable substance is replaced by a usable one. Anyone who now brings to bear a judgment schooled by study of the human organism, and applies it with common sense and without preconceptions to the study of the social organism, will find that there is one system within this social organism, the economic system, which, if functioning properly, is constantly bound to produce conditions that must be counteracted by other functions. Just as the organ system in the human body that is designed to consume inhaled oxygen cannot be expected to make the oxygen usable again, it should not be supposed that the economic circulation itself can give rise to the functions needed for making good what it is the business of this system to convert, out of life, into a life-restricting product.
[ 4 ] The necessary counteraction can be supplied only by the separate working of two other systems alongside the economy: a body of laws that determines its own form out of its own proper nature, and a spiritual-cultural life growing freely from its own roots, completely independent of the economic system and the legal system. Only a superficial critic will say, “What, then! Is the cultural life not to be bound in its pursuits by existing legal relations?” Certainly it must be bound by them. However, it is one matter if the people, who pursue the cultural life, are dependent on the legal life; and quite another matter if the pursuit of the cultural life rises on its own from the institutions of this legal sphere. The idea of the threefold social order will be found to be one that makes it very easy for objections that abide by preconceived notions; but also that these objections fall to pieces when one thinks them through to the end.
[ 5 ] The life of the economy has a lawfulness of its own. In following this lawfulness, it creates conditions that destroy the social organism, if only this law is at work. If, however, one tries to abolish these conditions by means of economic measures, one then destroys the economic process itself. In the modern economic process, evils have arisen through control of the means of production by private capital. If one tries to exterminate these evils by an economic measure, such as the communal control of the means of production, one undermines modern industry. One can, however, work against these evils, by creating alongside the economy an independent legal system and a free life of the spirit. In this way, the evils that result—and result continually—from the economic life will be removed as they arise. It will not be a case of the evils arising first and people having to suffer under them before they disappear; rather, the other organic systems that exist alongside the economic institutions will, in each instance, turn aside the mischief.
[ 6 ] The party opinions of recent times have distracted men's judgment from the laws of life in the social organism and have diverted it into the currents of sectarian passion. It is urgently necessary that these party opinions should undergo correction from a quarter in which one can learn to be impartial. One can learn this through the study of conditions which of their own nature elicit impartial judgment, and in which thinking therefore becomes its own corrective. The human organism affords such conditions.
[ 7 ] Of course, if only the conventional scientific concepts are applied as correctives, they will not go far. In many respects, these concepts lack the kind of force necessary to strike deep into the facts of nature. Yet if one tries to keep to nature herself, and not merely to these concepts of nature, one will be in a better position to learn impartiality than one would be amid party views. Despite the good will of many natural scientists, who have endeavored to overcome materialist convictions, the usual concepts of natural science are today still strongly imbued with materialism. A spiritual contemplation of nature will shed this materialism; and spiritual contemplation of nature will provide means for the kind of training in thought which, among other things, makes it possible to comprehend the social organisms.
[ 8 ] The idea of the threefold social order does not simply borrow facts from natural science and transplant them into the field of social life. It uses the study of nature only as a way of gaining the ability to observe social facts impartially. This should be kept in mind by those who learn about the idea in a superficial fashion—the threefold idea talks of a threefold division of social life in much the same way as one might talk of a threefold division of the natural human organism. Anyone who studies seriously the characteristics of the human organism will be made aware that the one can-not be simply transferred to the other. However, the method of study one is obliged to use on the human organism will awaken the kind of thinking that will enable one to find his way among the social facts.
[ 9 ] Such a method will be thought to remove all social ideas to the far-off region of “gray theory.” It may perhaps be said that such an opinion can only be maintained as long as one regards this “removal” from outside. Then, certainly, everything that is seen indistinctly at a distance seems gray. On the other hand, those things that are born of more immediate passions will have color. Yet go nearer what seems gray and one will find that something begins to stir which is not unlike a sort of passion—but it speaks to all that is truly human, that of which one loses sight when looking from the standpoint of parties and group opinions.
[ 10 ] There is today a burning need to draw nearer to what is truly human. The polemical postures of rival camps have done enough. It is time that one comes to see that the damage cannot be undone with new rival camps, but rather only by observing what history itself demands at this present moment of humanity's evolution. It is easy to see evils and demand programs for their abolition, but what is necessary is to penetrate to the roots of social life. By healing these roots, healthy blossoms and fruits can be brought forth as well.
Die Wurzeln des sozialen Lebens
[ 1 ] In meinem Buche «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage» ist der Vergleich des sozialen Organismus mit dem natürlichen menschlichen wohl herangezogen; zugleich aber darauf aufmerksam gemacht, wie irreführend es ist, wenn man glaubt, Anschauungen, die man an dem einen gewonnen hat, auf den andern ohne weiteres übertragen zu können. Wer die Wirksamkeit der Zelle oder eines Organes im menschlichen Leibe nach den Ansichten der Naturwissenschaft ins Auge faßt und dann nach der «sozialen Zelle» oder den «sozialen Organen» sucht, um den Bau und die Lebensbedingungen des «sozialen Organismus» kennenzulernen, der wird nur allzuleicht in ein wesenloses Analogiespiel verfallen.
[ 2 ] Anders liegt die Sache, wenn man, wie es in den «Kernpunkten» geschehen ist, darauf hinweist, daß an einer gesunden Betrachtung des menschlichen Organismus man sein Denken so erziehen kann, wie man es braucht für eine wirklichkeitsgemäße Auffassung des sozialen Lebens. Man wird durch eine solche Erziehung sich dazu befähigen, die sozialen Tatsachen nicht nach vorgefaßten Meinungen, sondern nach ihrer eigenen Gesetzmäßigkeit beurteilen zu lernen. Und dies ist in unserer Zeit vor allem andern notwendig. Denn man steckt gegenwärtig in bezug auf das soziale Urteil tief in Parteimeinungen drinnen. Diese sind nicht gebildet aus dem, was in den Lebensbedingungen des sozialen Organismus begründet ist, sondern aus den dunklen Gefühlen einzelner Menschen und namentlich Menschengruppen. Würde man die Urteilsart, die man in den Parteiprogrammen anwendet, auf die Erforschung des menschlichen Organismus übertragen, so müßte man bald einsehen, daß man dessen Verständnis nicht fördert, sondern daß man demselben Hemmnisse schafft.
[ 3 ] In dem Organismus muß die eingeatmete Luft fortwährend in Unbrauchbares umgewandelt werden. Der Sauerstoff muß zur Kohlensäure umgewandelt werden. Deshalb müssen Einrichtungen da sein, die das Umgewandelte, unbrauchbar Gewordene durch Brauchbares ersetzen. Wer sachgemäß sein am menschlichen Organismus geschultes Urteil bei einer unbefangenen Betrachtung des sozialen Organismus anwendet, der findet, daß das eine Glied dieses Organismus, der Wirtschaftskreislauf, gerade dann, wenn er sachgemäß eingerichtet ist, fortdauernd Verhältnisse hervorbringen muß, die durch andere Einrichtungen wieder auszugleichen sind. So wenig man von der Organeinrichtung, die im menschlichen Organismus darauf hingeordnet ist, daß sie den eingeatmeten Sauerstoff unbrauchbar macht, verlangen kann, daß sie ihn wieder brauchbar mache, so wenig sollte man von dem Wirtschaftskreislauf voraussetzen, daß in ihm selbst die Einrichtungen entstehen können, die ausgleichend auf dasjenige wirken, was er aus dem Leben heraus Leben-Hemmendes erzeugen muß.
[ 4 ] Diesen Ausgleich können nur bewirken ein neben dem Wirtschaffskreis bestehender, aus seiner eigenen Wesenheit heraus sich gestaltender Rechtsorganismus und ein Geistesleben, das in Unabhängigkeit von Wirtschafts- und Rechtsorganisation frei aus seinen eigenenWurzeln erwächst. Nur oberflächliche Beurteilung kann sagen: Soll denn die Pflege des Geisteslebens nicht an die bestehenden Rechtsverhältnisse gebunden sein? Das muß sie gewiß sein. Aber etwas anderes ist, ob die Menschen, welche das Geistesleben pflegen, abhängig sind von dem Rechtsleben; etwas anderes ob aus den Einrichtungen des Rechtslebens heraus diese Pflege selbst erfolgt. Man wird finden, daß die Idee von der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus eine solche ist, die leicht Einwendungen möglich macht, wenn man sie an vorgefaßte Meinungen hält, daß aber die Einwendungen in nichts zerfallen, wenn man sie zu Ende denkt.
[ 5 ] Der Wirtschaftskreislauf hat sein eigenes Lebensgesetz Durch dieses schafft er Zustände, die den sozialen Organismus zerstören, wenn sie in diesem die einzig wirksamen sind. Will man aber diese Zustände durch wirtschaftliche Einrichtungen hinwegsehaffen, so zerstört man den Wirtschaftskreislauf selbst. Im modernen Wirtschaftskreislauf sind Schäden entstanden durch die privatkapitalistische Verwaltung der Produktionsmittel. Will man die Schäden ausrotten durch die wirtschaftliche Einrichtung der Gemeinschaftsverwaltung der Produktionsmittel, so untergräbt man die moderne Wirtschaft. Aber man wirkt den Schäden entgegen, wenn man neben dem Wirtschaftskreislauf ein von ihm unabhängiges Rechtssystem und ein freies Geistesleben schafft. Die fortwährend aus dem Wirtschaftsleben sich ergebenden Schäden werden dadurch schon im Entstehen aufgehoben. Es wird nicht etwa so sein, daß sich die Schäden erst ergeben, und die Menschen unter ihnen leiden müssen, bevor sie verschwinden. Sondern durch die neben den Wirtschaftseinrichtungen bestehenden Organisationen werden die Mißstände abgeleitet.
[ 6 ] Die Parteimeinungen der neueren Zeit haben das Urteil von den Lebensbedingungen des sozialen Organismus abgelenkt. Sie haben es in die Strömungen der Leidenschaften von Menschengruppen hinübergeführt. Es ist dringend notwendig, daß diese Meinungen eine Korrektur erfahren von einer Seite her, auf der sich die Menschen Unbefangenheit aneignen können. Das werden sie imstande sein, wenn das Gedankenleben sich selbst korrigiert an der Betrachtung solcher Verhältnisse, die durch ihr eigenes Wesen die Unbefangenheit herausfordern. Der natürliche Organismus stellt solche Anforderungen.
[ 7 ] Wer allerdings nur die gebräuchlichen naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungen für diese Korrektur anwendet, der wird nicht weit kommen. Denn diesen Vorstellungen fehlt in vielen Beziehungen diejenige Schlagkraft, die tief genug in die Naturtatsachen hineindringt. Wenn man aber versucht, sich nicht an diese Vorstellungen, sondern an die Natur selbst zu halten, so wird man in der Lage sein, sich da eher Unbefangenheit zu holen, als innerhalb der Parteianschauungen. Trotz des guten Willens vieler Naturforscher, über den Materialismus in der Denkergesinnung hinauszukommen, sind auch gegenwärtig noch die gebräuchlichen naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungen von materialistischen Einschlägen durchsetzt. Eine geistgemäße Betrachtung der Natur kann diese Einschläge abstreifen. Und sie wird die Grundlage abgeben können für eine Gedankenschulung, die in ihren Ergebnissen auch der Erfassung des sozialen Organismus gewachsen ist.
[ 8 ] Die Idee von der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus nimmt nicht Naturkenntnisse einfach herüber aus dem Naturgebiet ins soziale Lebensfeld. Sie will nur an der Naturbetrachtung die Kraft gewinnen, die soziale Tatsachenwelt unbefangen anzusehen. Das sollten diejenigen bedenken, die in oberflächlicher Art sich davon unterrichten, daß diese Idee von einer Dreigliederung des sozialen Lebens spricht, ähnlich wie man sprechen kann von einer Dreigliederung des natürlichen menschlichen Organismus. Wer diese letztere in ihrer Eigenart ernst nimmt, der wird gerade durch sie gewahr werden, daß das eine nicht auf das andere übertragen werden kann. Aber er wird durch die Betrachtungsweise, die er für den natürlichen Organismus anzuwenden genötigt ist, sich die Denkrichtung schaffen, die ihm ermöglicht, sich auch in den sozialen Tatsachen zurechtzufinden.
[ 9 ] Man wird glauben, daß durch eine solche Anschauungsart die sozialen Ideen auf das Feld der «grauen Theorien» abgeschoben werden. Es darf vielleicht gesagt werden, daß man eine solche Meinung nur so lange hat, als man das «Abschieben» von außen sich ansieht. Da wird man allerdings als «grau» empfinden, was man undeutlich in der Ferne sieht. Und farbig wird man dagegen empfinden, was man aus der «nahen» Leidenschaft heraus gebiert. Aber man trete dem « Grauen » näher. Man wird finden, daß dann etwas der Leidenschaft ähnliches sich regt. Aber dieses wird gehen auf alles wirklich Menschliche, das man aus dem Auge verliert auf den Standpunkten der Partei- und Gruppenmeinungen.
[ 10 ] Und bitter not tut es der Gegenwart, dem wirklich Menschlichen näherzutreten. Denn die Kampfesstellungen der sich absondernden Menschengruppen haben Schaden genug angerichtet. Und die Einsicht sollte reifen, daß nicht neue Kampfesstellungen den Schaden gutmachen können, sondern die Beobachtung dessen, was im gegenwärtigen Augenblicke der Menschheitsentwickelung die Geschichte selber fordert. Es ist naheliegend, Schäden zu sehen und deren Abschaffung programmäßig zu fordern; aber notwendig ist, bis an die Wurzeln des sozialen Lebens vorzudringen, und durch ihre Gesundung diejenige der Blüten und Früchte zu bewirken.
The roots of social life
[ 1 ] In my book "The Key Points of the Social Question" the comparison of the social organism with the natural human organism is well used; at the same time, however, attention is drawn to how misleading it is to believe that views gained from the one can be transferred to the other without further ado. Anyone who considers the effectiveness of the cell or an organ in the human body according to the views of natural science and then searches for the "social cell" or the "social organs" in order to get to know the structure and living conditions of the "social organism" will all too easily fall into an insubstantial analogy game.
[ 2 ] The situation is different if one points out, as was done in the "Key Points", that a healthy view of the human organism can educate one's thinking in the way that is needed for a realistic view of social life. Such an education will enable us to learn to judge social facts not according to preconceived opinions, but according to their own laws. And this is necessary above all else in our time. For at the present time we are deeply immersed in party opinions with regard to social judgment. These are not formed from what is founded in the living conditions of the social organism, but from the dark feelings of individual people and especially groups of people. If one were to apply the type of judgment used in party programs to the study of the human organism, one would soon have to realize that one is not promoting its understanding, but rather creating obstacles to it.
[ 3 ] In the organism, the inhaled air must constantly be converted into something useless. The oxygen must be converted into carbonic acid. Therefore, there must be facilities to replace what has been converted and rendered useless with something useful. Whoever properly applies his judgment, trained on the human organism, to an impartial consideration of the social organism, will find that the one member of this organism, the economic cycle, must, if it is properly arranged, continually produce conditions which must be compensated for by other arrangements. As little as one can demand of the organ equipment, which in the human organism is designed to make the inhaled oxygen unusable, that it makes it usable again, so little should one presuppose of the economic cycle that the equipment can arise in it itself that has a balancing effect on that which it must produce out of life life-inhibiting.
[ 4 ] This balance can only be brought about by a legal organization that exists alongside the economic circle and forms itself out of its own essence, and a spiritual life that grows freely from its own roots in independence of economic and legal organization. Only superficial judgment can say: Should the cultivation of spiritual life not be bound to the existing legal relationships? Certainly it must be. But it is something else whether the people who cultivate spiritual life are dependent on legal life; something else whether this cultivation itself comes from the institutions of legal life. You will find that the idea of the tripartite organization of the social organism is one that easily gives rise to objections if you hold it to preconceived opinions, but that the objections fall to nothing if you think them through to the end.
[ 5 ] The economic cycle has its own law of life Through this it creates conditions which destroy the social organism if they are the only effective ones in it. But if one wants to eliminate these conditions through economic institutions, one destroys the economic cycle itself. In the modern economic cycle, damage has been caused by the private capitalist management of the means of production. If you want to eradicate the damage through the economic institution of communal management of the means of production, you are undermining the modern economy. But one counteracts the damage by creating a legal system and a free intellectual life that are independent of the economic cycle. The damage that continues to result from economic life will thus be neutralized as it arises. It will not be the case that the damage first arises and people have to suffer from it before it disappears. Rather, the abuses will be derived from the organizations that exist alongside the economic institutions.
[ 6 ] The party opinions of recent times have diverted the judgment from the living conditions of the social organism. They have carried it over into the currents of the passions of groups of people. It is urgently necessary that these opinions be corrected from a side where people can acquire impartiality. They will be able to do so if the life of thought corrects itself by considering those conditions which, by their very nature, challenge impartiality. The natural organism makes such demands.
[ 7 ] However, those who only apply the usual scientific concepts for this correction will not get very far. For in many respects these ideas lack the power to penetrate deeply enough into the facts of nature. However, if one tries not to stick to these ideas but to nature itself, one will be able to gain impartiality there rather than within the party views. Despite the good will of many natural scientists to transcend materialism in their thinking, the common scientific ideas are still permeated by materialistic influences. A spiritual view of nature can strip away these influences. And it will be able to provide the basis for an education of thought whose results are also equal to the understanding of the social organism.
[ 8 ] The idea of the threefold structure of the social organism does not simply take knowledge of nature from the natural realm into the social field of life. It only wants to gain the strength to view the social world of facts impartially by looking at nature. This should be borne in mind by those who superficially inform themselves that this idea speaks of a threefold structure of social life, just as one can speak of a threefold structure of the natural human organism. Whoever takes the latter seriously in its peculiarity will realize through it that the one cannot be transferred to the other. But through the approach he is forced to apply to the natural organism, he will create the direction of thought that enables him to find his way around the social facts as well.
[ 9 ] It will be believed that such a way of looking at things relegates social ideas to the field of "gray theories". It may perhaps be said that one only holds such an opinion as long as one looks at the "deportation" from the outside. However, we will perceive as "gray" what we see indistinctly in the distance. And on the other hand, you will experience as colorful what is born out of the "near" passion. But come closer to the "gray". One will find that something similar to passion then stirs. But this will go to everything truly human, which one loses sight of on the standpoints of party and group opinions.
[ 10 ] And it is bitterly necessary for the present to come closer to the truly human. For the fighting positions of the groups of people who separate themselves from one another have caused enough damage. And the insight should mature that it is not new battle positions that can repair the damage, but the observation of what history itself demands at the present moment of human development. It is obvious to see the damage and to demand its abolition as a matter of program; but it is necessary to penetrate to the roots of social life and, through their recovery, to bring about that of blossoms and fruits.