Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Basic Issues of the Social Question
GA 23

III. Capitalism and Social Ideas

[ 1 ] It is not possible to judge what kind of action is demanded by the resounding events of the times without the will to be guided in this judgement by an insight into the basic forces of the social organism. The preceding presentation is an attempt to arrive at such an insight. Measures based on a judgement which derives from a narrowly circumscribed field of observation cannot have positive results today. The facts which have grown out of the social movement reveal disturbances in the foundations of the social organism—and by no means superficial ones. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at insights which penetrate to these foundations.

[ 2 ] When capital and capitalism are spoken of today, they refer to what proletarian humanity considers to be the causes of its oppression. It is only possible to form a worthwhile judgement concerning the way in which capital furthers or hinders the social organism's circulatory processes by perceiving how individual human capabilities, rights legislation and the forces of economic life produce and consume capital. When human labour is spoken of it refers to the function that, together with the natural base of the economy and capital, creates the economic values through which the worker becomes conscious of his social condition. A judgement as to how this human labour must be introduced into the social organism in a manner which does not disturb the worker's sense of human dignity will only result from observing the relation which human labour has to the development of individual capabilities on the one hand and to rights-awareness on the other.

[ 3 ] People are asking today—and rightly so—what is the first step to be taken in order to satisfy the demands which are arising in the social movement. Even the first step will not be taken in a worthwhile manner if it is not known what relation this step should have to the foundations of the healthy social organism. One who knows this will be able to find the appropriate tasks wherever he happens to be, or wherever he decides to go. Acquisition of the insight referred to here has been prevented by what has passed over, during a long period of time, from human will into social institutions. People have become so accustomed to these institutions that they have based on the institutions themselves their views about what should be preserved in them and what should be changed in them. Their thoughts conform to the things, instead of mastering them. It is necessary today to perceive that it is only possible to arrive at factual judgements through a return to the primal thoughts which are the basis for all social institutions.

[ 4 ] If adequate sources are not present from which the forces that reside in these primal thoughts constantly flow into the social organism, then the institutions take on forms which inhibit rather than further life. The primal thoughts live on, more or less unconsciously, in the human instinctive impulses however, while fully conscious thoughts lead to error and create hindrances to life. These primal thoughts, which manifest themselves chaotically in a life inhibiting world, are what underlie, openly or disguised, the revolutionary convulsions of the social organism. These convulsions will not occur once the social organism is structured in such a way that the tendency is prevalent to observe at what point institutions diverge from the forms indicated by the primal thoughts, and to counteract such divergences before they become dangerously powerful.

[ 5 ] In our times, divergences from the conditions required by the primal thoughts have become great in many aspects of human life. The living impulse of these thoughts stands in human souls as a vocal criticism, through events, of the form the social organism has assumed during the last centuries. Good will is therefore necessary in order to turn energetically to the primal thoughts and not to underestimate how damaging it is, especially today, to banish them from life as ‘impractical’ generalities. Criticism of what modern times have made of the social organism exists in the life and in the demands of the proletarian population. The task of our times is to counteract the one-sided criticism by finding, in the primal thoughts, the direction to be taken in order that events be consciously guided. For the time has passed in which humanity can be satisfied with what instinctive guidance is able to bring about.

[ 6 ] One of the basic questions that has developed in contemporary criticism is how to put an end to the oppression which proletarian humanity has experienced through private capitalism. The owner, or manager, of capital is in a position to put the physical labour of other men at the service of whatever he undertakes to produce. It is necessary to differentiate between three sectors in the social relationship which arises through the cooperation of capital and human labour: the managerial activity, which must be based upon the individual abilities of a person or a group of persons; the relationship of the manager to the worker, which must be a legal one; the production of an article, which acquires commodity value in economic circulation. Managerial activity can only participate soundly in the social organism when forces are active in this organism which allow individual human abilities to manifest themselves in the best possible manner. This can only occur if there is a sector of the social organism which allows capable individuals free initiative to exercise their abilities, and enables the evaluation of these abilities to be made through the free understanding of others. It is evident that the social activity of a person utilizing capital belongs in the sector of the social organism in which spiritual life provides the laws and administration. Should the political state participate in this activity, then a lack of appreciation of the effectiveness of individual abilities must necessarily become a co-determining factor. The political state must be based upon, and occupy itself with, those requirements which are common and equal to all. It must, in its sector, ensure that each individual is able to assert his opinion. The appreciation or non-appreciation of individual abilities is not one of its functions. Therefore, what takes place within its framework may not influence the exercise of individual human abilities. Nor should the prospect of economic gain be the determining factor in the exercise of individual abilities through the use of capital. Many critics of capitalism lay particular stress on this economic gain factor. They assume that individual abilities can only be actuated by this incentive. As ‘practical’ people, they refer to ‘imperfect’ human nature, which they pretend to know. It is true that, within the social order which contemporary conditions have occasioned, the prospect of economic gain has attained enormous importance. But this fact is no less the cause of the conditions which are now being experienced. These conditions call urgently for the development of some other motivation for the actuation of individual abilities. This motivation will have to be found in the social understanding which issues from a healthy spiritual life. With the strength of free spiritual life the schools, education, will equip the individual with impulses which, by virtue of this inherent understanding, will enable him to put his personal abilities into practice.

[ 7 ] This opinion is by no means fantastic. Certainly fantastic notions have caused as much damage in the field of social will as in any other. But the view expressed here, as can be seen from the foregoing, is not based upon the delusion that ‘the spirit’ will work wonders if only those who think they have some talk as much as they can about it; it is rather the result of observing the free cooperation of human beings in spiritual fields of endeavour. This cooperation, when it is able to develop in the truly free manner, acquires, through its own essence, a social form.

[ 8 ] Only the unfree kind of spiritual life has, until now, prevented this social form from emerging. Spiritual strength has been cultivated within the ruling classes in a way that has unsocially restricted its achievements to these classes. What was accomplished within these classes could only be transmitted artificially to proletarian humanity. And this part of humanity could draw no soul-sustaining strength from spiritual life because it did not really participate in these spiritual values. Institutes of ‘popular adult education’, ‘leading’ the people to an appreciation of art, and similar actions, are not really valid means to the propagation of spiritual values in the people as long as these spiritual values retain the character they have taken on in recent times. The ‘people's’ innermost human essence is not to be found in such values. They can therefore only look on from an outside observation point. What holds true in respect of spiritual life proper is also the case with the ramifications of spiritual activity which flow into economic life along with capital. In a healthy social organism the proletarian worker should not merely stand at his machine, concerned with nothing but its operation, while the capitalist alone knows the fate of the produced commodities in economic circulation. Through fully active participation the worker should be able to develop a clear idea of his own involvement in society through his work on the production of commodities. Regular discussions, which must be considered to be as much a part of the operation as the work itself, should be arranged by management with a view to developing ideas which circumscribe employer and employed alike. A healthy activity of this kind will result in an understanding by the worker that correct management of capital benefits the social organism and therewith the worker himself. By means of such openness, based on free mutual understanding, the entrepreneur will be induced to conduct his business in an irreproachable manner.

[ 9 ] Only someone who cannot sense the social effect of a common undertaking's united inner experience will hold what has been said here to be meaningless. Someone who can sense this effect will see how economic productivity is stimulated when the capital-based management of economic life has its roots in the free spiritual sector. The interest in capital for the purpose of making and increasing profits can only be replaced by an objective interest in the production of commodities and in achievement if this prerequisite is met.

[ 10 ] The socialistically-minded strive for the administration of the means of production by society. What is justified in their efforts can only be attained when this administration becomes the responsibility of the spiritual sector. The economic coercion which the capitalist exercises when he develops his activities from the forces of economic life will thereby become impossible. And the paralyzing of individual human abilities, as is the case when these abilities are administered by the political state, cannot occur.

[ 11 ] The proceeds from the use of capital and individual human abilities must derive, as is the case with all spiritual effort, from the free initiative of the doer on one side, and the free appreciation of those others who require his efforts on the other. The determination of the amount of these proceeds must be in agreement with the doer's own free insight into what is suitable, taking into consideration his preparation, expenditures, and so forth. His claims in this respect will be satisfied only when his efforts are met with appreciation.

[ 12 ] Through the kind of social arrangements described here, the ground can be prepared for a truly free contractual relation between manager and worker. This does not mean an exchange of commodities, i.e. money, for labour-power, but an agreement as to the share each of the persons who jointly produced the product is to receive.

[ 13 ] What is achieved for the social organism with capital as its basis depends, by its very nature, on how individual human abilities intervene in this organism. The corresponding impulse for the development of these abilities can only be obtained through a free spiritual life. In a social organism in which the development of these abilities is harnessed to a political state or to the economy, the real productivity of everything requiring the expenditure of capital depends upon free individual forces overcoming these paralyzing conditions. But development under such conditions is unsound. Free deployment of individual abilities in the use of capital has not been the cause of conditions in which labour-power has become a commodity; the fettering of these abilities by the political state or economic interests is responsible for these conditions. Unprejudiced comprehension of this fact is a prerequisite for everything which should come about in the field of social organization. Modern times have produced the superstition that the means for making the social organism healthy can emerge from the political state or the economic sector. If humanity continues in the direction indicated by this superstition, social institutions will be created which will not lead humanity to what it strives for, but to an unlimited increase in the oppression which it seeks to avert.

[ 14 ] People began thinking about capitalism at a time when it was the cause of a deterioration in the social organism. One experiences this deterioration and sees that it must be fought against. It is necessary to see more. One must become aware that the illness has its origin in the draining of the effective forces in capital by the economic process. Only by avoiding the illusion caused by the manner of thinking which sees the management of capital by a liberated spiritual sector as the result of ‘impractical idealism’, is it possible to work in the direction which the evolutionary forces of contemporary humanity are beginning to demand.

[ 15 ] Certainly people are poorly prepared at the present time to directly relate the social ideas, which are to guide capitalism along a healthy course, with spiritual life. Only economic life is taken into consideration. It is easily seen how, in modern times, commodity production has led to large-scale enterprise, and this in turn to the contemporary form of capitalism. Cooperatives, which work to satisfy the needs of the producers, are supposed to take the place of this economic form. Since modern means of production are obviously to be retained however, the concentration of all enterprises in one great cooperative is called for. In such a system, it is thought, each person would produce on behalf of the community, which could not be exploitive because it would be exploiting itself. And because one must, or wants to, relate to what already exists, one looks to the modern state, which is to be transformed into an all-embracing cooperative.

[ 16 ] It is not realized that what is expected of such a cooperative is less likely to occur the larger it becomes. If the integration of individual human abilities into the cooperative organism is not structured as described here, then the common management of labour cannot lead to the social organism's recovery.

[ 17 ] The present meager inclination towards an unbiased judgement as far as the intervention of spiritual life in the social organism is concerned, is the result of people having become accustomed to imagine the spiritual as being as far removed as possible from everything which is material and practical. They will not be few who will find something grotesque in the view expressed here, that the actuation of capital in economic life should partially manifest the effects of the spiritual sector. One can well imagine that the members of the hitherto ruling classes are in agreement with socialist thinkers on this point.

In order to recognize the importance for the recovery of the social organism of what they consider grotesque, one must direct one's attention to certain contemporary currents of thought which, in their way, derive from honest impulses of the soul, but hinder the development of real social thinking wherever they find entry.

[ 18 ] These currents of thought flow—more or less unconsciously—away from what gives inner experience the right impulse. They strive after a philosophy and an inner life of the soul and intellect which accords with the search for scientific knowledge, but which is like an island in the sea of human existence. They are not able to build a bridge from that life to the everyday life of reality. One can see how many people nowadays find it ‘fashionable’ to reflect, in their ivory towers, in scholastic abstractions on all kinds of ethical-religious problems; one can see how people reflect on how man can acquire virtues, how he should behave lovingly toward his fellow-men, and how he can become inspired with an ‘inner meaning of life’. But one also sees the impossibility of realizing a carry-over from what people call good and loving and benevolent and right and moral to what surrounds humanity in everyday external reality in the form of capital, of labour compensation, of consumption, of production, of commodity circulation, of credit, of banks and stock markets. One can see how two universal currents also flow alongside each other in human thought-habits. One current is that which remains at divine-spiritual heights so to speak, and has no desire to build bridges between what constitutes a spiritual impulse and the realities of the ordinary dealings of life. The other lives, devoid of thought, in everyday life. Life, however, is a unity. It can only prosper if the strength from ethical-religious life works down into the commonplace, profane life, into that life which, to many, may seem less fashionable. For if one fails to erect a bridge between these two aspects of life, one falls into mere fantasy, far removed from true everyday reality as far as religious and moral life and social thinking are concerned. These true everyday realities then have their revenge. From out of a certain ‘spiritual’ impulse man strives towards all kinds of ideals, towards what he calls ‘good’; but he devotes himself without ‘spirit’ to those other instincts based on the ordinary daily necessities of life which must be satisfied through economic activities. He knows of no practicable way from the concept of spirituality to what goes on in everyday life. Therefore this life takes on a form having nothing to do with ethical impulses, which remain at fashionable, spiritual heights. But then the revenge of the commonplace is such that the ethical-religious life constitutes an inner lie, for it remains at a distance from the commonplace, out of direct contact with practical life, without this fact even being perceived.

[ 19 ] How many people there are nowadays who, through ethical-religious high-mindedness, demonstrate the best will to live correctly together with their fellow-men, wishing their fellows only the very best. They fail, however, to adopt the necessary sensibilities, for they cannot acquire the concrete social concepts which affect the practical conduct of life.

[ 20 ] It is people such as these, fantasts who think they are practical, who in this historical moment when the social questions have become so urgent, hinder all real progress. One can hear them speak as follows: ‘It is necessary for humanity to rise up from materialism, from the external material life which has driven us into the catastrophe of the world-war, and turn to a spiritual conception of life.’ In order to show the path to spirituality, they never tire of citing the personalities of the past who were venerated for their spiritual way of thinking. If, however, one tries to indicate what the spirit must necessarily accomplish today in practical life, how daily bread must be produced, it is immediately contended that first of all people must be brought to once again acknowledge the spirit. But the heart of the matter today is that the guidelines for the recovery of the social organism are to be found in the strength of spiritual life. For this it is not sufficient that people occupy themselves with the spirit as a sideline. For this it is necessary that everyday life become spiritually oriented. The tendency to treat ‘spiritual life’ as a sideline has led the hitherto ruling classes to acquire a taste for social conditions which have resulted in the current state of affairs.

[ 21 ] In contemporary society, management of capital for the production of commodities is closely allied to the possession of the means of production—which is also capital. Nevertheless, these two relationships of man to capital are quite different as far as their effects within the social organism are concerned. Management through individual abilities, when they are properly exercised, supplies the social organism with goods in which everyone who belongs to this organism has an interest. Whatever a person's situation in life, it is in his interest that nothing be lost of what flows from the sources of human nature in the form of individual abilities, by means of which the goods are produced that purposefully serve human life. The development of these abilities can only ensue when their possessors are able to activate them with their own free initiative. The welfare of mankind is, at least to a certain extent, deprived of whatever is not able to flow from these sources in freedom. Capital is the means by which such abilities are made effective for wide areas of the social organism. Everyone within a social organism must have a real interest in the sum total of capital being managed in such a way that particularly gifted individuals or groups have this capital at the disposal of their own free initiative. Every person, whether his work is spiritually creative or that of a labourer, if he wishes to objectively serve his own interests, must say: would like a sufficiently large number of competent persons or groups of persons not only to have capital freely at their disposal, but also that it become accessible to them through their own initiative. For only they can judge how their individual abilities, through the mediation of capital, will purposefully produce goods for the social organism.

[ 22 ] It is not necessary to describe within the framework of this book how, in the course of human evolution, private ownership developed out of other forms of ownership in connection with the activation of individual human abilities. In recent times, ownership has developed within the social organism under the influence of the division of labour. We are concerned here with contemporary conditions and their necessary further development.

[ 23 ] However private ownership may have arisen, through the exercise of power, conquest and so forth, it is a result of social creation bound to individual human abilities. Nevertheless, the current opinion of the socialistically-minded is that the oppressive nature of private ownership can only be done away with through its transformation into common ownership. The question is put so: How can the private ownership of the means of production be prevented, in order that the resulting oppression of the unpropertied cease? Whoever puts the question in this way overlooks the fact that the social organism is constantly becoming and growing. It is not possible to ask how something that grows should be organized in order that this organization, which is thought to be correct, be preserved into the future. One can think in this way about something which remains unchanged from its beginnings. But it is not valid for the social organism. As a living entity it is constantly changing whatever arises within it. To attempt to give it a supposedly best form, in which it is expected to remain, is to undermine its vitality.

[ 24 ] One of the conditions of the social organism's life is that those who can serve the community through their individual abilities should not be deprived of using their free initiative. Where such service requires that the means of production be freely at their disposal, the hindering of this free initiative would only be harmful to the general social interest. The usual argument, that the entrepreneur needs the prospect of profit as an incentive, and that this profit is closely related to ownership of the means of production, is rejected here. The kind of thinking from which the opinions expressed in this book derive, that there is a further evolution of social conditions, must see in the liberation of spiritual life from the political and economic sectors the possibility that this form of incentive can cease to exist.

Liberated spiritual life will, necessarily, develop social understanding; and from this understanding will result quite different forms of incentive than that which resides in the hope of economic advantage. However, it is not a question of which impulses arouse sympathy for private ownership of the means of production, but whether the free disposition of these means or that disposition which is regulated by the community is what corresponds to the vital needs of the social organism. Moreover, it must always be kept in mind that the conditions which are thought to be observed in primitive human societies are not applicable to the contemporary social organism; only those conditions which correspond to today's stage of development are applicable.

[ 25 ] At this present stage, a fertile activation of individual abilities cannot be introduced into the economic process without free disposition over capital. If production is to be fruitful, this disposition must be possible, not because it is advantageous to an individual or a group of individuals, but because, when utilized with the proper social understanding, it can best serve the community.

[ 26 ] The human being relates to what he produces, alone or together with others, as he relates to the dexterity of his own limbs. The undermining of free disposition over the means of production is equivalent to crippling the free application of dexterity in his limbs.

[ 27 ] Private ownership is, however, nothing other than the medium for this free disposition. As far as the social organism is concerned, the only significance of ownership is that the owner has the right of disposition over the property through his own free initiative. One sees that in society two things are bound together which have quite different significance for the social organism: The free disposition over the capital base of social production, and the legal relationship through which he who exercises this disposition, by means of his right of disposition, precludes others from the free utilization of this capital base.

[ 28 ] It is not the original free disposition which leads to social damage, but only the prolongation of the right of disposition when the appropriate conditions which connect individual human abilities to this disposition have ceased to exist. Whoever sees the social organism as something evolving, growing, will not misunderstand what is indicated here. He will seek possibilities whereby that which serves life on the one hand can be administered so that its effects will not be harmful on the other. What lives cannot be fruitfully established without disadvantages occurring during the process of becoming. And should one work on an evolving entity, as man must on the social organism, then the task may not be to hinder a necessary facility in order to avoid damage, for then one would undermine the possibilities for life of the social organism. It is a matter of intervening at the right moment, when what has been appropriate is about to become harmful.

[ 29 ] The possibility of free disposition over the capital base through individual abilities must exist; it must be possible to change the related property rights as soon as they become a means for the unjustified acquisition of power. We do have a facility in our times which partially fulfils this requirement in respect of so-called intellectual property. At a certain time after its creator's death it becomes community property. This corresponds to a truly social way of thinking. Closely as the creation of a purely intellectual property is bound to an individual's talents, it is at the same time a product of human society and must, at the right moment, be handed over to this society. It is in no way different with respect to other property. That which the individual produces in the service of the community is only possible in cooperation with this community. The right of disposition over a property cannot be administered separate from the community's interests. A means of eliminating the ownership of the capital base is not to be sought, but rather a means of administering this property so that it best serves the community.

[ 30 ] This means can be found in the threefold social organism. The people, united in the social organism, act as a totality through the rights-state. The exercise of individual abilities pertains to the spiritual organization.

[ 31 ] Everything in the social organism, when viewed realistically and without subjective opinions, theories, desires and so forth, indicates the necessity for the triformation of the social organism. This is particularly true as regards the relation of individual human abilities to the capital base of economic life and the ownership of this capital base. The rights-state will not have to prevent the formation and administration of privately-owned capital as long as individual abilities remain bound to the capital base in a way that constitutes a service to the whole of the social organism. Furthermore, it will remain a rights-state in regard to private property, never making private property its own, but ensuring that rights of disposition are transferred at the right moment to a person or a group of persons capable of restoring the appropriate individual relationship to the property. The social organism will thereby be served from two completely different angles. The democratic rights state, which is concerned with what affects all people in an equal manner, will guard against property rights becoming property wrongs. Because this state does not itself administer property, but ensures its transfer to individual human abilities, these abilities will develop their productive powers for the totality of the social organism. Through such organization, property rights, or the disposition over them, may retain a personal element as long as seems opportune. One can imagine that the representatives in the rights-state will, at different times, enact completely different laws concerning the transference of property from one person, or group of persons, to others. At the present time, when a great mistrust of all private property is widespread, a radical transference of private property to community property is contemplated. Should this way be followed, it will be seen to impair the vital potentialities of the social organism. Taught by experience, another way will then be taken. It would, however, doubtless be better if arrangements were undertaken now which would, in the sense indicated here, bestow health on the social organism. As long as a person alone, or in connection with a group, continues the productive activity which procured for him a capital base, his right of disposition over the capital accumulation which results from operating profits on original capital will have to remain in effect when it is used for an expansion of production. From the moment such a person ceases to manage production, this capital accumulation should pass to another person, or group of persons, to be utilized for the same or some other type of production which serves the social organism. Capital gains which are not used for expansion should be similarly treated. The only thing personally owned by the individual who operates an enterprise should be what he draws in accordance with the terms agreed to when he takes over responsibility for production, and which he feels are appropriate to his individual abilities; and which, furthermore, seem justified by the confidence of others in granting him the use of capital. Should the capital be increased through the activities of this individual, then he would be entitled to a portion of the increase, which would correspond to an interest-like percentage.—When the first administrator no longer can or will manage an enterprise, the capital with which it was established will either be transferred to a new administrator, along with all obligations or, depending on the wishes of the original owners, be returned to them.

[ 32 ] Such arrangements concern the transference of rights. The legal provisions by which these transfers are to take place are the province of the rights-state. It will also have to see to their execution and administration. One can safely assume that the detailed determinations which regulate such rights transfers will vary according to what rights-awareness considers correct. A realistic way of thinking will never desire more than to point out the direction that such regulation can take. If this direction is taken with understanding, the appropriate action for specific individual cases can always be found. The correct solution will always have to be in accordance with the spirit of the thing as well as whatever special conditions practical considerations may impose. The more realistic a way of thinking is, the less it will seek to establish laws and rules from predetermined requirements. On the other hand, the spirit of such a way of thinking will necessarily lead to certain requirements. One such result will be that the rights-state will never take over the disposition of capital through its administration of transfer rights. It has only to provide for the transfer to a person or group of persons whose individual abilities seem to warrant it. In general, it follows that it should at first be possible for someone who proposes to effect such a capital transference under the circumstances described to freely choose his successor. He will be able to choose a person, or group of persons, or transfer the disposition rights to an establishment of the spiritual organization. A person who has purposefully served the social organism through the management of capital will determine the future use of this capital with social understanding derived from his individual abilities. Furthermore, it will be more advantageous for the social organism to depend upon this determination than to dispense with it and have settlements made by people not directly concerned with the matter.

[ 33 ] Settlements of this kind will pertain to capital accumulations exceeding a certain amount which are acquired by a person or group through the use of means of production (to which real estate also belongs), and which are not included in what Is originally agreed upon as compensation for the activities of individual abilities.

[ 34 ] Such earnings, acquisitions and savings which result from the individual's own work will remain in his personal possession until his death, or in his descendants' possession until a later date. Until this date interest (the amount of which is to be determined from rights-awareness and set by the rights state) will be paid by whoever receives such savings for the procurement of means of production. In a social order based upon the principles described herein, it will be possible to completely separate the proceeds which result from the use of means of production from assets acquired by means of personal (physical and mental) work. This separation accords with rights-awareness as well as the interests of the social community. What someone saves and makes available for production serves the general interest, for it makes the management of production through individual human abilities possible in the first place. Capital increase through the use of means of production—after the deduction of legitimate interest—owes its development to the overall social organism. It should therefore also flow back into it in the way described. The rights-state has only to insure that the transference of the capital in question takes place in the manner indicated; it will not be incumbent upon it to decide which material or spiritual production is to have disposition over transferred capital or over savings. That would lead to a tyranny of the state over spiritual and material production—which is best administered through individual human abilities. In case someone does not wish to personally select the receiver of capital accumulated by him, he will be able to delegate this function to an unit of the spiritual organization.

[ 35 ] After the death of the earner, or at a certain time thereafter, assets acquired through savings, along with the corresponding interest, also go to a spiritually or materially productive person or group—but only to such a person or group and not to an unproductive person in whose hands it would constitute a private pension—to be chosen by the earner and specified in his will. Here again, if a person or group cannot be chosen directly, the transfer of disposition rights to an establishment of the spiritual organism will come into consideration. Only if someone does not himself effect a disposition will the rights-state step in and, through the spiritual organization, make the disposition for him.

[ 36 ] In a social order arranged in this way the initiative of the individual as well as the interests of the social community are taken into account. Indeed, such interests are fully satisfied by individual initiatives being placed at their service. Under such an arrangement, someone who entrusts his labour to the guidance of another will know that the results of their joint efforts will serve the community, and therewith the worker himself, in the best possible way. The social order meant here will create a healthy, sensible relationship between capital, as embodied in means of production, together with human labour-power on the one hand, and the prices of the articles produced by them on the other. Perhaps imperfections are contained in what is presented here. Then let them be found. It is not the function of a way of thinking which corresponds to reality to formulate perfect ‘programs’ for all time, but to point out the direction for practical work. The intention of the specific examples mentioned here is to better illustrate the indicated direction. A productive goal can still be attained as long as improvements coincide with the direction given.

[ 37 ] Justified personal or family interests will be brought into concordance with the requirements of the human community through such arrangements. It is of course possible to point out that there will be a strong temptation to pass on property to one or more descendants during the original owner's lifetime. Also, that although descendants could be made to look like producers, they would nevertheless be inefficient compared to others who should replace them. This temptation could be reduced to a minimum in an organization governed by the arrangements described above. The rights-state has only to require that under all circumstances property transferred from one family member to another must, upon the lapse of a certain period of time after the death of the former, devolve upon an establishment of the spiritual organization. Or evasion of the rule can be prevented in some other way through the law. The rights-state will only insure that the transfer takes place; a facility of the spiritual organization should determine who is to receive the inheritance. Through the fulfilment of these principles an awareness will develop of the necessity for offspring being made qualified for the social organism through education and training, and of the socially harmful results of transferring capital to unproductive persons. Someone who is really imbued with social understanding will have no interest in his relation to a capital base passing to a person or group whose individual abilities do not justify it.

[ 38 ] No one with a sense for the truly practicable will consider what is presented here as utopian. The only arrangements proposed are those which can develop in accordance with contemporary conditions in all walks of life. It is only necessary to decide once and for all that the rights-state must gradually relinquish its control over spiritual life and the economy, and not to offer resistance when what should happen really happens: that private educational institutions arise and the economy becomes self-sustaining. The state-owned schools and economic enterprises do not have to be eliminated overnight; but the gradual dismantling of the state educational and economic apparatus could well develop from small beginnings. Above all, it is necessary for those who are thoroughly convinced of the correctness of these or similar social ideas to provide for their dissemination. If these ideas find understanding, confidence will arise in the possibility of a healthy transformation of present conditions into others which are not harmful. This is the only confidence that can bring about a really healthy evolution, for whoever would acquire this confidence must perceive how new institutions could be practically merged with existing ones. The essential element of the ideas developed here is that they do not advocate the advent of a better future through even greater destruction of society than has already occurred, but that the realization of such ideas is to come about by building upon what already exists. Through this building, the dismantling of the unhealthy elements is induced. Explanations which do not instill confidence of this sort cannot attain what absolutely must be attained: a course in which the value of what has hitherto been produced, and the abilities which have been acquired, are not simply thrown overboard, but are preserved. Even those who think in a very radical way can acquire confidence in a new social structure which carries over existing values, if the ideas which accompany it are capable of introducing truly healthy developments. Even they must realize that, regardless of which social class attains power, it will not be able to eliminate the existing evils if its impulses are not supported by ideas which make the social organism healthy and viable. To despair because one does not believe that a sufficiently large number of people, even in the present troubled circumstances, can find understanding for such ideas even if sufficient energy is dedicated to their dissemination, is to despair of human nature's susceptivity to purposeful and health-giving impulses. This question, whether one should despair or not, should not be asked—rather only this other: How can ideas which instill confidence be explained in the most effective possible way?

[ 39 ] An effective dissemination of the ideas presented here will meet opposition from the thought-habits of contemporary times on two grounds. Either it will be argued that to tear asunder uniform society is not possible because the three sectors which have been described are, in reality, interrelated at all social levels; or that the necessary autonomous character of each of the three sectors can also be attained in the uniform state, and that what is presented here is no more than a phantasy. The first objection unrealistically supposes that unity can only be achieved in a community by means of directives. Reality, however, demands the opposite. Unity must arise as the result of activities streaming together from various directions. The developments of recent years have run counter to this reality. Furthermore, what lives in human beings has resisted the ‘order’ brought into their lives from without which has led to the present state of social affairs.

The second prejudice results from an inability to perceive the radical difference in function inherent In the three sectors of society. It is not seen how the human being has a special relation to each of the three sectors which can only develop if an individual basis exists, separate from the other two but cooperating with them, on which this relation can take on form. According to the physiocratic theory of the past, either governments take measures concerning economic life which are in contradiction to its self-development—in which case such measures are harmful; or the laws coincide with the direction economic life takes when it is left alone—in which case they are superfluous. Academically, this view is antiquated; as thought-habit however, it still devastatingly haunts men's brains. It is thought that if one sector of life follows its own laws, then everything necessary for life must arise from this sector. If, for example, economic life were regulated in a way that people found satisfactory, then the appropriate rights and spiritual sectors would also result from this orderly economic foundation. But this is not possible, and only thinking which is foreign to reality can believe that it is possible. There is nothing in the economic sector to provide the motivation necessary to regulate what derives from the rights-awareness of a person-to-person relationship. If this relationship is regulated according to economic motivation, then the human being, together with his labour and with the disposition over the means to labour, is harnessed to economic life. He becomes a cog, a mechanism of the economic system. Economic life tends to move in one direction only, and this must be compensated for from another side. Legal measures are not necessarily good when they follow the direction determined by economic life, nor are they necessarily harmful when they run counter to it; rather, when the direction of economic life is continually influenced by the law, in its application to human beings as such, then an existence worthy of humanity will be introduced into economic life. Furthermore, only when individual abilities are completely separated from economic life, when they grow on their own foundation and unceasingly supply economic life with the strength which it cannot produce within itself, will it be able to develop in a manner which is beneficial to humanity.

[ 40 ] It is noteworthy that in everyday life one easily sees the advantage of the division of labour. One does not expect a tailor to keep his own cow in order to have milk. As far as the comprehensive formation of human life is concerned however, one believes that only a uniform structure can be useful.


[ 41 ] It is inevitable that social ideas which correspond to reality will give rise to objections from all sides—for real life breeds contradictions. He who thinks realistically will seek to institute facilities the contradictions of which are compensated for by other facilities. He may not believe that a facility which to his mind is ‘ideally good’ will, when put into practice, be without contradictions. Contemporary socialism is thoroughly justified when it demands that the modern facilities which produce for the profit of individuals be replaced by others which produce for the consumption of all. However, the person who fully recognizes this demand cannot come to modern socialism's conclusion: that the means of production must pass from private ownership to common ownership. Rather, he will come to a quite different conclusion: that what is privately produced through individual competence must be made available to the community in the correct way. The impulse of modern industry has been to create income through the mass production of goods. The task of the future will be to find, through associations, the kind of production which most accords with the needs of consumption, and the most appropriate channels from the producers to the consumers. Legal arrangements will ensure that a productive enterprise remains connected to a person or group only as long as the connection is justified by their individual abilities. Instead of common ownership of the means of production, a circulation of these means—continually putting them at the disposal of the persons whose individual abilities can best employ them for the benefit of the community—will be introduced into the social organism. In this way the connection between individuality and means of production, hitherto effected through private ownership, is established on a temporary basis. The manager and sub-managers of an enterprise will have the means of production to thank for the fact that their abilities can provide them with the income they require. They will not fail to make production as efficient as possible, for an increase in production, although not bringing them the full profit, does provide them with a portion of the proceeds. As described above, the profit goes to the community only after an interest has been deducted and credited to the producer due to the increase in production. It is also in the spirit of what is presented here that when production falls off the producer's income is to diminish in the same measure as it increases with an expansion of production. Additional income will always result from the manager's mental achievement, and not from the forces inherent in community cooperation.

[ 42 ] Through the realization of such social ideas as are presented here, the institutions which exist today will acquire a completely new significance. The ownership of property ceases to be what it has been until now. Nor is an obsolete form reinstated, as would be the case with common ownership, but an advance to something completely new is made. The objects of ownership are introduced into the flux of social life. They cannot be administered by a private individual for his private interests to the detriment of the community; but neither will the community be able to administer them bureaucratically to the detriment of the individual; rather will the suitable individual have access to them in order therewith to serve the community.

[ 43 ] A sense for the common interest can develop through the realization of impulses that put production on a sound basis and safeguard the social organism from the dangers of crises. Also, a management which only occupies itself with economic processes will be able to carry out the necessary adjustments. For example, should a company which is fulfilling a need not be in a position to pay its creditors the interest due them on their savings, other companies, in free agreement with all concerned, could make up whatever is lacking. A self-contained economic process which receives both its legal basis and a continuous supply of individual human abilities from outside itself will be able to restrict its activities to the economic sector. It will therefore occasion a distribution of goods which will ensure that each receives what he is entitled to in accordance with the community's welfare. If one person appears to have more income than another, this will only be because this ‘more’ benefits the community due to his individual abilities.

[ 44 ] In a social organism which functions in accordance with the manner of thinking presented here, the contributions necessary for the upkeep of rights institutions will be arranged through agreement between the leaders of the rights sector and the economic sector. Everything necessary for the maintenance of the spiritual organization, including remuneration, will come to it through the free appreciation of the individuals who participate in the social organism. A sound basis for the spiritual organization will result from free competition among the individuals capable of spiritual work.

[ 45 ] Only in a social organism of the kind described here will the rights administration be able to acquire the understanding necessary for a just distribution of goods. An economic organism which does not lay claim to human labour according to the needs of the various branches of production, but which has to operate in accordance with what the law allows, will determine the worth of commodities according to the work-performance of the men who produce them. Commodity values, which are unrelated to human welfare and dignity, will not determine human work-performance. Rights in such an organism will result from purely human relations. Children will have the right to education; the working head of a family will have a higher income than a single person. The ‘more’ will come to him through arrangements established by agreement of all three social organizations. The right to education could be arranged in that the economic organization's administration, in accordance with the general economic situation, calculates the amount of educational income possible, while the rights-state, in consultation with the spiritual organization, determines the rights of the individual in this respect. Once again, this indication is meant as an example of the direction in which arrangements can be made. It is possible that quite different arrangements would be appropriate in specific cases. However, they can only be found through the purposeful cooperation of the three autonomous members of the social organism. Contrary to what often passes for practical today but is not, this presentation wishes to find the truly practical, namely, a formation of the social organism which enables men to strive for what is socially desirable. [ 46 ] Just as children have the right to an education, the elderly, the infirm and widows have the right to a decent maintenance. The necessary capital must be provided for in the same way that it is for the education of those who are not yet productive. The essential point of all this is that the income of the non-earners Is not determined by the economic sector; on the contrary, the economic sector becomes dependent upon the results of rights-awareness. Those who work In an economic organism will receive that much less from the results of their work as more flows to the non-earners. However, this ‘less’ will be borne equally by all participants in the social organism if the social impulse described here is realized. The education and support of those who are incapable of working is something which concerns all humanity, and, through a rights-state detached from the economy, it will be so, for every individual who is of age will have a voice in the rights-organization.

[ 47 ] In a social organism which corresponds to the manner of thinking characterized here, a person's surplus performance, made possible by his individual abilities, will be passed on to the community just as the legitimate support for the deficit performance of the less capable will be drawn from this same community. ‘Surplus value’ will not be created for the enjoyment of individuals, but for the increased supply of intellectual or material wealth to the social organism; and for the cultivation of what is produced within this organism but which is not of immediate use to it.

[ 48 ] Whoever is of the opinion that keeping the three sectors of the social organism apart would only have an ideal value, and that this condition would come about ‘of itself’ in a uniformly structured state organism or in an economic cooperative which Includes the state and is based on the common ownership of means of production, should direct his attention to the special kind of social facilities which must result from a realization of the triformation. The legitimacy of money as a means of payment, for example, would no longer be the responsibility of the government, but would depend upon measures taken by the administrative bodies of the economic organization. Money, in an healthy social organism, can be nothing other than a draft on commodities produced by others, which the holder may claim from the overall social organism because he has himself produced and delivered commodities to this sector. An economic sector becomes a uniform economy through the circulation of money. Each produces for all on the roundabout path of economic life. The economic sector is only concerned with commodity values. Activities which originate in the spiritual or state organizations also take on a commodity character for this sector. A teacher's activity with respect to his pupils is, for the economic process, of a commodity nature. A teacher is no more paid for his individual abilities than the worker is paid for his labour-power. It is only possible to pay for what they both produce as commodities for the economic process. How free initiative and the law should contribute to the production of commodities lies just as much outside the economic process as the effects of the forces of nature on the grain yield in a bountiful or in a lean year. As far as the economic process is concerned the spiritual organization, in respect to its economic requirements, and also the state, are simply commodity producers. What they produce within their own sectors are not commodities however; they only become such once they enter into the economic process. Their activities are not commercial within their own sectors; the economic organism's management carries on its commercial activities using the achievements of the other sectors.

[ 49 ] The purely economic value of a commodity (or service), in so far as it is expressed in the money which represents its equivalent value, will be dependent upon the efficiency with which economic management functions. The development of economic productivity will depend upon the measures taken by this management, with its spiritual and legal foundation provided by the other two members of the social organism. The monetary value of a commodity will then express the fact that the facilities of the economic organism are producing these commodities in an amount which corresponds to the need for them. Should the suggestions contained in this book be realized, then the economic impulse to accumulate wealth through sheer quantity of production will no longer be decisive; rather will the associations adapt the production of goods to actual need. In this way a need-oriented relation between monetary values and the production facilities in the economic organism will develop.t6Only a social administration based on the free cooperation of the social organism's three sectors will attain a healthy price relationship for produced goods. Each working person must receive for a product an amount sufficient to completely satisfy his and his dependents' needs until he has again produced an object requiring the same amount of labour. Such a price relation cannot be officially established, but must result from cooperation between the associations active in the social organism. And it will come if the cooperation rests on a healthy relationship between the three members of the social organization, just as a durable bridge must result if it is built according to correct mathematical and mechanical laws. One could make the obvious objection that society does not necessarily follow its laws as a bridge does. Such an objection will not be made however, by those who recognize that in this book social life is presented as based on living and not on mathematical laws.In the healthy social organism money will really only be a measure of value, since commodity production, the only means through which the possessor of money will have been able to attain it, will back every coin and bank note. Due to the nature of these relations, arrangements will have to be made whereby money loses its value for its possessor once it has lost this significance. Such arrangements have already been alluded to. Property in the form of money passes on to the community after a certain length of time. In order to prevent money which is not working in productive enterprises being retained through evasion of the economic organization's measures, a new printing could take place from time to time. One result of such measures is that the interest derived from capital would diminish in the course of time. Money will wear out, just as commodities wear out. Nevertheless, such a measure will be a just and appropriate one for the state to enact. There cannot be any ‘interest on interest’. Whoever has accumulated savings has surely also rendered services which entitle him to claim reciprocal services in the form of commodities, just as present day efforts give claim to reciprocal efforts; but these claims are subject to limits, for claims originating in the past can only be satisfied by performance in the present. They may not be allowed to turn into means of economic power. Through the realization of these conditions, the currency question is given a healthy foundation. Regardless of what form money takes due to other considerations, currency as such depends on the rational administration of the overall social organism. No political state will ever solve the currency question in a satisfactory manner by making laws. Contemporary states will only solve it by renouncing their efforts at reaching a solution and leaving the necessary measures to an autonomous economic organism.


[ 50 ] Much has been said about the modern division of labour, about its time-saving effects, its contribution to perfecting the production process and the exchange of commodities, etc., but little attention has been paid to how it influences the individual's relation to his work performance. Whoever works in a social organism which is based on the division of labour never really earns his income by himself; he earns it through the work of all the participants in the social organism. A tailor who makes his own coat does not do so in the same sense as a person living in a primitive society who must provide for all his necessities himself.

He makes the coat in order to be able to make clothes for others; and the coat's value for him depends on the others' work performance. The coat is actually a means of production. Some would call this hair-splitting. They cannot, however, continue to hold this opinion as soon as they observe how commodity values form in the economic process. They then see that it is not even possible to work for oneself in an economic organism based on the division of labour. One can only work for others, and let others work for oneself. One can no more work for oneself than one can devour oneself. Arrangements may be made which are in contradiction to the principle of the division of labour however. This occurs when goods are produced merely in order to turn over to an individual as property what he is able to produce only because of his position in the social organism. The division of labour exerts pressure on the social organism which has the effect of causing the individual in it to live according to the conditions prevalent in the overall organism; economically, it precludes egoism. Should egoism be present nevertheless in the form of class privilege and the like, an untenable situation arises which leads to severe disturbances in the social organism. We are living under such conditions today. There may well be many people who think little of a demand that the law and other facilities conform to the egoism-free working of the division of labour. They should then realize the consequences of this attitude: that one can do nothing at all; the social movement will lead to nothing. One can certainly do nothing with this movement without respecting reality. The manner of thinking from which the writing of this book is derived intends that the human being strive toward what is necessary for the life of the social organism.


[ 51 ] Someone who can only form concepts in accordance with customary practices will be uneasy when he hears that labour-management relations should be disengaged from the economic organism. He will believe that such a disengagement would necessarily lead to currency devaluation and a return to primitive economic conditions. (Rathenau expresses such opinions, which seem justified from his point of view, in his book Nach der Flut.)6Page 122 Dr. Walther Rathenau. His book Nach der Flut was published in 1919. As foreign minister in Germany's post-war government, he was shot dead in the street on 24 June 1922. His books were burned by the Nazis when Hitler became chancellor. But this danger will be counteracted through the triformation of the social organism. The self-sustaining economic organism, in cooperation with the rights organism, will completely separate the monetary element from rights-oriented labour relations. Legal facilities will not have a direct influence on monetary affairs, for these are the province of the economic administration. The legal relationship between management and labour will not express itself in monetary values which, after the abolition of wages (representing the exchange relation between commodities and labour-power), will only measure commodity (and service) values. From a consideration of the social triformation's effect on the social organism, one must conclude that it will lead to arrangements which are not present in the political forms which have hitherto existed.

[ 52 ] Through these arrangements, what is currently referred to as class struggle can be eliminated. This struggle results from wages being an integral part of the economic process. This book presents a social form in which the concept of wages undergoes a transformation, as does the old concept of property. Through this transformation a more viable social cooperation is made possible.

It would be superficial to think that the realization of the ideas presented here would result in time-wages being converted into piece-wages. A one-sided view could lead to this opinion. However, what is advocated here is not piece-wages, but the abolishment of the wage system in favour of a contractual sharing system in respect of the common achievements of management and labour—in conjunction, of course, with the overall structure of the social organism. To hold that the workers' share of the proceeds should consist of piece-wages is to fail to see that a contractual sharing system—in no sense a wage system—expresses the value of what has been produced in a way which changes the workers' social position in relation to the other members of society. This position is completely different from the one which a rose through one-sided, economically conditioned class supremacy. The need for the elimination of the class struggle is therewith satisfied.

In socialist circles one frequently hears that evolution will supply the solution to the social question, that one cannot express opinions and then expect them to be put into practice. This must be answered as follows: Certainly evolution must supply the necessary social adjustments; but in the social organism the impulses behind human ideas are realities. When the times are more advanced and what today can only be thought is realized, only then will what has been thought be contained in evolution. However, it will then be too late to accomplish what is already demanded by today's events. It is not possible to consider evolution objectively as regards the social organism. One must activate evolution. It is therefore disastrous for sound social thinking that current opinion desires to ‘prove’ social necessities in the same way that natural science ‘proves’ things. ‘Proof’, as far as social conceptions are concerned, can only be attained if one's views can assimilate not only what exists now, but also what is present in human impulses as potentiality striving to be realized.

[ 53 ] One of the effects through which the triformation of the social organism will prove itself to be based on the essential nature of human society is the severance of judicial activities from state institutions. It will be incumbent on the latter to establish the rights between persons or groups of persons. Judicial decisions however, will depend upon facilities formed by the spiritual organization. This judicial decision making is, to a large extent, dependent on the judge's ability to perceive and understand the defendant's situation. Such perception and understanding will be present if the confidence which men feel towards the facilities of the spiritual organization is extended to include the courts. The spiritual organization might nominate judges from the various cultural professions. After a certain length of time they would return to their own professions. Within certain limits, every person would then be able to select the nominee, for a period of five or ten years, in whom he has sufficient confidence to accept his verdict in a civil or criminal case, should one arise. To make such a selection meaningful, there would have to be enough judges available in the vicinity of each person's place of residence. A plaintiff would always be obliged to direct himself to a competent judge in the respondent's vicinity.

Just consider the importance such an arrangement would have had in the Austro-Hungarian districts. The members of each nationality in mixed-language districts could have chosen judges from their own people. Whoever is familiar with the Austrian situation will recognize what a compensatory effect such an arrangement could have had in the life of those peoples. Aside from the nationality question, there are other areas in which such arrangements can contribute to sound development. Officials selected by the spiritual organization's administration will assist the judges and courts with technical points of law, but will themselves not hold decision-making authority. Appeal-courts will also be formed by this administration. An essential characteristic of such an arrangement is that a judge, because of his life outside his judgeship—which he can only hold for a limited period—can be familiar with the sensibilities and environment of the defendant. The healthy social organism will everywhere attract social understanding to its institutions, and judicial activities will be no exception. The execution of sentences is the responsibility of the rights-state.


[ 54 ] It is not possible to enter into a description of the arrangements which would become necessary in other areas of life as the result of implementing these suggestions. Such a description would obviously require an almost unlimited amount of space.

[ 55 ] The individual examples used will have shown that the exposition of these views does not constitute an attempt to revive the three estates—food producers, military, and scholastics—as some have mistakenly assumed upon hearing my lectures on the subject. The opposite of such a structure is intended. Human beings will not be segregated into classes or estates; the social organism itself will be appropriately formed. Through this formation man will be able to be truly man. The formation will enable him to participate in all three social sectors. He will have a professional interest in the sector which includes his occupation; and he will have vital connections with the others, necessitated by the nature of their institutions. The external social organism which forms the foundation for human life will be tripartite; each individual will constitute a binding element for its three sectors.

III. Kapitalismus und soziale Ideen (Kapital, Menschenarbeit)

[ 1 ] Man kann nicht zu einem Urteile darüber kommen, welche Handlungsweise auf sozialem Gebiete gegenwärtig durch die lautsprechenden Tatsachen gefordert wird, wenn man nicht den Willen hat, dieses Urteil bestimmen zu lassen von einer Einsicht in die Grundkräfte des sozialen Organismus. Der Versuch, eine solche Einsicht zu gewinnen, liegt der hier vorangehenden Darstellung zugrunde. Mit Maßnahmen, die sich nur auf ein Urteil stützen, das aus einem eng umgrenzten Beobachtungskreis gewonnen ist, kann man heute etwas Fruchtbares nicht bewirken. Die Tatsachen, welche aus der sozialen Bewegung herausgewachsen sind, offenbaren Störungen in den Grundlagen des sozialen Organismus, und keineswegs solche, die nur an der Oberfläche vorhanden sind. Ihnen gegenüber ist notwendig, auch zu Einsichten zu kommen, die bis zu den Grundlagen vordringen.,/p>

[ 2 ] Spricht man heute von Kapital und Kapitalismus, so weist man auf das hin, worin die proletarische Menschheit die Ursachen ihrer Bedrückung sucht. Zu einem fruchtbaren Urteil über die Art, wie das Kapital fördernd oder hemmend in den Kreisläufen des sozialen Organismus wirkt, kann man aber nur kommen, wenn man durchschaut, wie die individuellen Fähigkeiten der Menschen, wie die Rechtsbildung und wie die Kräfte des Wirtschaftslebens das Kapital erzeugen und verbrauchen. - Spricht man von der Menschenarbeit, so deutet man auf das, was mit der Naturgrundlage der Wirtschaft und dem Kapital zusammen die wirtschaftlichen Werte schafft und an dem der Arbeiter zum Bewußtsein seiner sozialen Lage kommt. Ein Urteil darüber, wie diese Menschenarbeit in den sozialen Organismus hineingestellt sein muß, um in dem Arbeitenden die Empfindung von seiner Menschenwürde nicht zu stören, ergibt sich nur, wenn man das Verhältnis ins Auge fassen will, welches Menschenarbeit zur Entfaltung der individuellen Fähigkeiten einerseits und zum Rechtsbewußtsein anderseits hat.

[ 3 ] Man fragt gegenwärtig mit Recht, was zu allernächst zu tun ist, um den in der sozialen Bewegung auftretenden Forderungen gerecht zu werden. Man wird auch das Allernächste nicht in fruchtbarer Art vollbringen können, wenn man nicht weiß, welches Verhältnis das zu Vollbringende zu den Grundlagen des gesunden sozialen Organismus haben soll. Und weiß man dieses, dann wird man an dem Platze, an den man gestellt ist, oder an den man sich zu stellen vermag, die Aufgaben finden können, die sich aus den Tatsachen heraus ergehen. Der Gewinnung einer Einsicht, auf die hier gedeutet wird, stellt sich, das unbefangene Urteil beirrend, gegenüber, was im Laufe langer Zeit aus menschlichem Wollen in soziale Einrichtungen übergegangen ist. Man hat sich in die Einrichtungen so eingelebt, daß man aus ihnen heraus sich Ansichten gebildet hat über dasjenige, was von ihnen zu erhalten, was zu verändern ist. Man richtet sich in Gedanken nach den Tatsachen, die doch der Gedanke beherrschen soll. Notwendig ist aber heute, zu sehen, daß man nicht anders ein den Tatsachen gewachsenes Urteil gewinnen kann als durch Zurückgehen zu den Urgedanken, die allen sozialen Einrichtungen zugrunde liegen.

[ 4 ] Wenn nicht rechte Quellen vorhanden sind, aus denen die Kräfte, welche in diesen Urgedanken liegen, immer von neuem dem sozialen Organismus zufließen, dann nehmen die Einrichtungen Formen an, die nicht lebenfördernd, sondern lebenhemmend sind. In den instinktiven Impulsen der Menschen aber leben mehr oder weniger unbewußt die Urgedanken fort, auch wenn die vollbewußten Gedanken in die Irre gehen und lebenhemmende Tatsachen schaffen, oder schon geschaffen haben. Und diese Urgedanken, die einer lebenheinmenden Tatsachenwelt gegenüber chaotisch sich äußern, sind es, die offenbar oder verhüllt in den revolutionären Erschütterungen des sozialen Organismus zutage treten. Diese Erschütterungen werden nur dann nicht eintreten, wenn der soziale Organismus in der Art gestaltet ist, daß in ihm jederzeit die Neigung vorhanden sein kann, zu beobachten, wo eine Abweichung von den durch die Urgedanken vorgezeichneten Einrichtungen sich bildet, und wo zugleich die Möglichkeit besteht, dieser Abweichung entgegenzuarbeiten, ehe sie eine verhängnistragende Stärke gewonnen hat.

[ 5 ] In unsern Tagen sind in weitem Umfange des Menschenlebens die Abweichungen von den durch die Urgedanken geforderten Zuständen groß geworden. Und das Leben der von diesen Gedanken getragenen Impulse in Menschenseelen steht als eine durch Tatsachen laut sprechende Kritik da über das, was sich im sozialen Organismus der letzten Jahrhunderte gestaltet hat. Daher bedarf es des guten Willens, in energischer Weise zu den Urgedanken sich zu wenden und nicht zu verkennen, wie schädlich es gerade heute ist, diese Urgedanken als «unpraktische» Allgemeinheiten aus dem Gebiete des Lebens zu verbannen. In dem Leben und in den Forderungen der proletarischen Bevölkerung lebt die Tatsachen-Kritik über dasjenige, was die neuere Zeit aus dem sozialen Organismus gemacht hat. Die Aufgabe unserer Zeit dem gegenüber ist, der einseitigen Kritik dadurch entgegenzuarbeiten, daß man aus dem Urgedanken heraus die Richtungen findet, in denen die Tatsachen bewußt gelenkt werden müssen. Denn die Zeit ist abgelaufen, in der der Menschheit genügen kann, was bisher die instinktive Lenkung zustande gebracht hat.

[ 6 ] Eine der Grundfragen, die aus der zeitgenössischen Kritik heraus auftreten, ist die, in welcher Art die Bedrückung aufhören kann, welche die proletarische Menschheit durch den privaten Kapitalismus erfahren hat. Der Besitzer oder Verwalter des Kapitals ist in der Lage, die körperliche Arbeit anderer Menschen in den Dienst dessen zu stellen, das er herzustellen unternimmt. Man muß in dem sozialen Verhältnis, das in dem Zusammenwirken von Kapital und menschlicher Arbeitskraft entsteht, drei Glieder unterscheiden: die Unternehmertätigkeit, die auf der Grundlage der individuellen Fähigkeiten einer Person oder einer Gruppe von Personen beruhen muß; das Verhältnis des Unternehmers zum Arbeiter, das ein Rechtsverhältnis sein muß; das Hervorbringen einer Sache, die im Kreislauf des Wirtschaftslebens einen Warenwert erhält. Die Unternehmertätigkeit kann in gesunder Art nur dann in den sozialen Organismus eingreifen, wenn in dessen Leben Kräfte wirken, welche die individuellen Fähigkeiten der Menschen in der möglichst besten Art in die Erscheinung treten lassen. Das kann nur geschehen, wenn ein Gebiet des sozialen Organismus vorhanden ist, das dem Fähigen die freie Initiative gibt, von seinen Fähigkeiten Gebrauch zu machen, und das die Beurteilung des Wertes dieser Fähigkeiten durch freies Verständnis für dieselben bei andern Menschen ermöglicht. Man sieht: die soziale Betätigung eines Menschen durch Kapital gehört in dasjenige Gebiet des sozialen Organismus, in welchem das Geistesleben Gesetzgebung und Verwaltung besorgt. Wirkt in diese Betätigung der politische Staat hinein, so muß notwendigerweise die Verständnislosigkeit gegenüber den individuellen Fähigkeiten bei deren Wirksamkeit mitbestimmend sein. Denn der politische Staat muß auf dem beruhen, und er muß das in Wirksamkeit versetzen, das in allen Menschen als gleiche Lebensforderung vorhanden ist. Er muß in seinem Bereich alle Menschen zur Geltendmachung ihres Urteils kommen lassen. Für dasjenige, was er zu vollbringen hat, kommt Verständnis oder Nichtverständnis für individuelle Fähigkeiten nicht in Betracht. Daher darf, was in ihm zur Verwirklichung kommt, auch keinen Einfluß haben auf die Betätigung der individuellen menschlichen Fähigkeiten. Ebensowenig sollte der Ausblick auf den wirtschaftlichen Vorteil bestimmend sein können für die durch Kapital ermöglichte Auswirkung der individuellen Fähigkeiten. Auf diesen Vorteil geben manche Beurteiler des Kapitalismus sehr vieles. Sie vermeinen, daß nur durch diesen Anreiz des Vorteils die individuellen Fähigkeiten zur Betätigung gebracht werden können. Und sie berufen sich als «Praktiker» auf die «unvollkommene» Menschennatur, die sie zu kennen vorgeben. Allerdings innerhalb derjenigen Gesellschaftsordnung, welche die gegenwärtigen Zustände gezeitigt hat, hat die Aussicht auf wirtschaftlichen Vorteil eine tiefgehende Bedeutung erlangt. Aber diese Tatsache ist eben zum nicht geringen Teile die Ursache der Zustände, die jetzt erlebt werden können. Und diese Zustände drängen nach Entwickelung eines andern Antriebes für die Betätigung der individuellen Fähigkeiten. Dieser Antrieb wird in dem aus einem gesunden Geistesleben erfließenden sozialen Verständnis liegen müssen. Die Erziehung, die Schule werden aus der Kraft des freien Geisteslebens heraus den Menschen mit Impulsen ausrüsten, die ihn dazu bringen, kraft dieses ihm innewohnenden Verständnisses das zu verwirklichen, wozu seine individuellen Fähigkeiten drängen.

[ 7 ] Solch eine Meinung braucht nicht Schwarmgeisterei zu sein. Gewiß, die Schwarmgeisterei hat unermeßlich großes Unheil auf dem Gebiete des sozialen Wollens ebenso gebracht wie auf anderen. Aber die hier dargestellte Anschauung beruht nicht, wie man aus dem Vorangehenden ersehen kann, auf dem Wahnglauben, daß «der Geist» Wunder wirken werde, wenn diejenigen möglichst viel von ihm sprechen, die ihn zu haben meinen; sondern sie geht hervor aus der Beobachtung des freien Zusammenwirkens der Menschen auf geistigem Gebiete. Dieses Zusammenwirken erhält durch seine eigene Wesenheit ein soziales Gepräge, wenn es sich nur wahrhaft frei entwickeln kann.

[ 8 ] Nur die unfreie Art des Geisteslebens hat bisher dieses soziale Gepräge nicht aufkommen lassen. Innerhalb der leitenden Klassen haben sich die geistigen Kräfte in einer Art ausgebildet, welche die Leistungen dieser Kräfte in antisozialer Weise innerhalb gewisser Kreise der Menschheit abgeschlossen haben. Was innerhalb dieser Kreise hervorgebracht worden ist, konnte nur in künstlicher Weise an die proletarische Menschheit herangebracht werden. Und diese Menschheit konnte keine seelentragende Kraft aus diesem Geistesleben schöpfen, denn sie nahm nicht wirklich an dem Leben dieses Geistesgutes teil. Einrichtungen für «volkstümliche Belehrung», das «Heranziehen» des «Volkes» zum Kunstgenuß und Ähnliches sind in Wahrheit keine Mittel zur Ausbreitung des Geistesgutes im Volke, so lange dieses Geistesgut den Charakter beibehält, den es in der neueren Zeit angenommen hat. Denn das «Volk» steht mit dein innersten Anteil seines Menschenwesens nicht in dem Leben dieses Geistesgutes drinnen. Es wird ihm nur ermöglicht, gewissermaßen von einem Gesichtspunkte aus, der außerhalb desselben liegt, darauf hinzuschauen. Und was von dem Geistesleben im engern Sinne gilt, das hat seine Bedeutung auch in denjenigen Verzweigungen des geistigen Wirkens, die auf Grund des Kapitals in das wirtschaftliche Leben einfließen. Im gesunden sozialen Organismus soll der proletarische Arbeiter nicht an seiner Maschine stehen und nur von deren Getriebe berührt werden, während der Kapitalist allein weiß, welches das Schicksal der erzeugten Waren im Kreislauf des Wirtschaftslebens ist. Der Arbeiter soll mit vollem Anteil an der Sache Vorstellungen entwickeln können über die Art, wie er sich an dem sozialen Leben beteiligt, indem er an der Erzeugung der Waren arbeitet. Besprechungen, die zum Arbeitsbetrieb gerechnet werden müssen wie die Arbeit selbst, sollen regelmäßig von dem Unternehmer veranstaltet werden mit dem Zweck der Entwickelung eines gemeinsamen Vorstellungskreises, der Arbeitnehmer und Arbeitgeber umschließt. Ein gesundes Wirken dieser Art wird bei dem Arbeiter Verständnis dafür erzeugen, daß eine rechte Betätigung des Kapitalverwalters den sozialen Organismus und damit den Arbeiter, der ein Glied desselben ist, selbst fördert. Der Unternehmer wird bei solcher auf freies Verstehen zielenden Öffentlichkeit seiner Geschäftsführung zu einem einwandfreien Gebaren veranlaßt.

[ 9 ] Nur, wer gar keinen Sinn hat für die soziale Wirkung des innerlichen vereinten Erlebens einer in Gemeinschaft betriebenen Sache, der wird das Gesagte für bedeutungslos halten. Wer einen solchen Sinn hat, der wird durchschauen, wie die wirtschaftliche Produktivität gefördert wird, wenn die auf Kapitalgrundlage ruhende Leitung des Wirtschaftslebens in dem Gebiete des freien Geisteslebens seine Wurzeln hat. Das bloß wegen des Profites vorhandene Interesse am Kapital und seiner Vermehrung kann nur dann, wenn diese Voraussetzung erfüllt ist, dem sachlichen Interesse an der Hervorbringung von Produkten und am Zustandekommen von Leistungen Platz machen.

[ 10 ] Die sozialistisch Denkenden der Gegenwart streben die Verwaltung der Produktionsmittel durch die Gesellschaft an. Was in diesem ihrem Streben berechtigt ist, das wird nur dadurch erreicht werden können, daß diese Verwaltung von dem freien Geistesgebiet besorgt wird. Dadurch wird der wirtschaftliche Zwang unmöglich gemacht, der vom Kapitalisten dann ausgeht und als menschenunwürdig empfunden wird, wenn der Kapitalist seine Tätigkeit aus den Kräften des Wirtschaftslebens heraus entfaltet. Und es wird die Lähmung der individuellen menschlichen Fähigkeiten nicht eintreten können, die als eine Folge sich ergeben muß, wenn diese Fähigkeiten vom politischen Staate verwaltet werden.

[ 11 ] Das Erträgnis einer Betätigung durch Kapital und individuelle menschliche Fähigkeiten muß im gesunden sozialen Organismus wie jede geistige Leistung aus der freien Initiative des Tätigen einerseits sich ergeben und anderseits aus dem freien Verständnis anderer Menschen, die nach dem Vorhandensein der Leistung des Tätigen verlangen. Mit der freien Einsicht des Tätigen muß auf diesem Gebiete im Einklange stehen die Bemessung dessen, was er als Erträgnis seiner Leistung - nach den Vorbereitungen, die er braucht, um sie zu vollbringen, nach den Aufwendungen, die er machen muß, um sie zu ermöglichen und so weiter - ansehen will. Er wird seine Ansprüche nur dann befriedigt finden können, wenn ihm Verständnis für seine Leistungen entgegengebracht wird.

[ 12 ] Durch soziale Einrichtungen, die in der Richtung des hier Dargestellten liegen, wird der Boden geschaffen für ein wirklich freies Vertragsverhältnis zwischen Arbeitleiter und Arbeitleister. Und dieses Verhältnis wird sich beziehen nicht auf einen Tausch von Ware (beziehungsweise Geld) für Arbeitskraft, sondern auf die Festsetzung des Anteiles, den eine jede der beiden Personen hat, welche die Ware gemeinsam zustande bringen.

[ 13 ] Was auf der Grundlage des Kapitals für den sozialen Organismus geleistet wird, beruht seinem Wesen nach auf der Art, wie die individuellen menschlichen Fähigkeiten in diesen Organismus eingreifen. Die Entwickelung dieser Fähigkeiten kann durch nichts anderes den ihr entsprechenden Impuls erhalten als durch das freie Geistesleben. Auch in einem sozialen Organismus, der diese Entwickelung in die Verwaltung des politischen Staates oder in die Kräfte des Wirtschaftslebens einspannt, wird die wirkliche Produktivität alles dessen, was Kapitalaufwendung notwendig macht, auf dem beruhen, was sich an freien individuellen Kräften durch die lähmenden Einrichtungen hindurchzwängt. Nur wird eine Entwickelung unter solchen Voraussetzungen eine ungesunde sein. Nicht die freie Entfaltung der auf Grundlage des Kapitals wirkenden individuellen Fähigkeiten hat Zustände hervorgerufen, innerhalb welcher die menschliche Arbeitskraft Ware sein muß, sondern die Fesselung dieser Kräfte durch das politische Staatsleben oder durch den Kreislauf des Wirtschaftslebens. Dies unbefangen zu durchschauen, ist in der Gegenwart eine Voraussetzung für alles, was auf dem Gebiete der sozialen Organisation geschehen soll. Denn die neuere Zeit hat den Aberglauben hervorgebracht, daß aus dem politischen Staate oder dem Wirtschaftsleben die Maßnahmen hervorgehen sollen, welche den sozialen Organismus gesund machen. Beschreitet man den Weg weiter, der aus diesem Aberglauben seine Richtung empfangen hat, dann wird man Einrichtungen schaffen, welche die Menschheit nicht zu dem führen, was sie erstrebt, sondern zu einer unbegrenzten Vergrößerung des Bedrückenden, das sie abgewendet sehen möchte.

[ 14 ] Über den Kapitalismus hat man denken gelernt in einer Zeit, in welcher dieser Kapitalismus dem sozialen Organismus einen Krankheitsprozeß verursacht hat. Den Krankheitsprozeß erlebt man; man sieht, daß ihm entgegengearbeitet werden muß. Man muß mehr sehen. Man muß gewahr werden, daß die Krankheit ihren Ursprung hat in dem Aufsaugen der im Kapital wirksamen Kräfte durch den Kreislauf des Wirtschaftslebens. Derjenige nur kann in der Richtung dessen wirken, was die Entwickelungskräfte der Menschheit in der Gegenwart energisch zu fordern beginnen, der sich nicht in Illusionen treiben läßt durch die Vorstellungsart, welche in der Verwaltung der Kapitalbetätigung durch das befreite Geistesleben das Ergebnis eines «unpraktischen Idealismus » sieht.

[ 15 ] In der Gegenwart ist man allerdings wenig darauf vorbereitet, die soziale Idee, die den Kapitalismus in gesunde Bahnen lenken soll, in einen unmittelbaren Zusammenhang mit dem Geistesleben zu bringen. Man knüpft an dasjenige an, was dem Kreis des Wirtschaftslebens angehört. Man sieht, wie in der neueren Zeit die Warenproduktion zum Großbetrieb, und dieser zur gegenwärtigen Form des Kapitalismus geführt hat. An die Stelle dieser Wirtschaftsform solle die genossenschaftliche treten, die für den Selbstbedarf der Produzenten arbeitet. Da man aber selbstverständlich die Wirtschaft mit den modernen Produktionsmitteln beibehalten will, verlangt man die Zusammenfassung der Betriebe in eine einzige große Genossenschaft. In einer solchen, denkt man , produziere ein jeder im Auftrage der Gemeinschaft, die nicht ausbeuterisch sein könne, weil sie sich selbst ausbeutete. Und da man an Bestehendes anknüpfen will oder muß, blickt man nach dem modernen Staat aus, den man in eine umfassende Genossenschaft verwandeln will.

[ 16 ] Man bemerkt dabei nicht, daß man von einer solchen Genossenschaft sich Wirkungen verspricht, die um so weniger eintreten können, je größer die Genossenschaft ist. Wenn nicht die Einstellung der individuellen menschlichen Fähigkeiten in den Organismus der Genossenschaft so gestaltet wird, wie es in diesen Ausführungen dargestellt worden ist, kann die Gemeinsamkeit der Arbeitsverwaltung nicht zur Gesundung des sozialen Organismus führen.

[ 17 ] Daß für ein unbefangenes Urteil über das Eingreifen des Geisteslebens in den sozialen Organismus gegenwärtig wenig Veranlagung vorhanden ist, rührt davon her, daß man sich gewöhnt hat, das Geistige möglichst fern von allem Materiellen und Praktischen vorzustellen. Es wird nicht wenige geben, die etwas Groteskes in der hier dargestellten Ansicht finden, daß in der Betätigung des Kapitals im Wirtschaftsleben die Auswirkung eines Teiles des geistigen Lebens Sich offenbaren soll. Man kann sich denken, daß in dieser Charakterisierung des als grotesk Dargestellten Zugehörige der bisher leitenden Menschenklassen mit sozialistischen Denkern übereinstimmen. Man wird, um die Bedeutung dieses grotesk Befundenen für eine Gesundung des sozialen Organismus einzusehen, den Blick richten müssen in gewisse Gedankenströmungen der Gegenwart, die in ihrer Art redlichen Seelenimpulsen entspringen, die aber das Entstehen eines wirklich sozialen Denkens dort hemmen, wo sie Eingang finden.

[ 18 ] Diese Gedankenströmungen streben mehr oder weniger unbewußt - hinweg von dem, was dem inneren Erleben die rechte Stoßkraft gibt. Sie erstreben eine Lebensauffassung, ein seelisches, ein denkerisches, ein nach wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis suchendes inneres Leben gewissermaßen wie eine Insel im Gesamtmenschenleben. Sie sind dann nicht in der Lage, die Brücke zu bauen von diesem Leben hin zu demjenigen, was den Menschen in die Alltäglichkeit einspannt. Man kann sehen, wie viele Menschen der Gegenwart es gewissermaßen «innerlich vornehm» finden, in einer gewissen, sei es auch schulmäßigen Abstraktheit nachzudenken über allerlei ethisch-religiöse Probleme in Wolkenkuckucksheimhöhen; man kann sehen, wie die Menschen nachdenken über die Art und Weise, wie sich der Mensch Tugenden aneignen könne, wie er in Liebe zu seinen Mitmenschen sich verhalten soll, wie er begnadet werden kann mit einem «inneren Lebensinhalt». Man sieht dann aber auch das Unvermögen, einen Übergang zu ermöglichen von dem, was die Leute gut und liebevoll und wohlwollend und rechtlich und sittlich nennen, zu dem, was in der äußern Wirklichkeit, im Alltag den Menschen umgibt als Kapitalwirkung, als Arbeitsentlöhnung, als Konsum, als Produktion, als Warenzirkulation, als Kreditwesen, als Bank- und Börsenwesen. Man kann sehen, wie zwei Weltenströmungen nebeneinandergestellt werden auch in den Denkgewohnheiten der Menschen. Die eine Weltenströmung ist die, welche sich gewissermaßen in göttlich-geistiger Höhe halten will, die keine Brücke bauen will zwischen dem, was ein geistiger Impuls ist, und was eine Tatsache des gewöhnlichen Handelns im Leben ist. Die andere lebt gedankenlos im Alltäglichen. Das Leben aber ist ein einheitliches. Es kann nur gedeihen, wenn die es treibenden Kräfte von allem ethisch-religiösen Leben herunterwirken in das alleralltäglichste profanste Leben, in dasjenige Leben, das manchem eben weniger vornehm erscheint. Denn, versäumt man , die Brücke zu schlagen zwischen den beiden Lebensgebieten, so verfällt man in bezug auf religiöses, sittliches Leben und auf soziales Denken in bloße Schwarmgeisterei, die fernsteht der alltäglichen wahren Wirklichkeit. Es rächt sich dann gewissermaßen diese alltäglich-wahre Wirklichkeit. Dann strebt der Mensch aus einem gewissen «geistigen» Impuls heraus alles mögliche Ideale an, alles mögliche, was er «gut» nennt; aber denjenigen Instinkten, die diesen «Idealen» gegenüberstehen als Grundlage der gewöhnlichen täglichen Lebensbedürfnisse, deren Befriedigung aus der Volkswirtschaft heraus kommen muß, diesen Instinkten gibt sich der Mensch ohne «Geist» hin. Er weiß keinen wirklichkeitsgemäßen Weg von dem Begriff der Geistigkeit zu dem, was im alltäglichen Leben vor sich geht. Dadurch nimmt dieses alltägliche Leben eine Gestalt an, die nichts zu tun haben soll mit dem, was als ethische Impulse in vornehmeren, seelisch-geistigen Höhen gehalten werden will. Dann aber wird die Rache der Alltäglichkeit eine solche, daß das ethisch-religiöse Leben zu einer innerlichen Lebenslüge des Menschen sich gestaltet, weil es sich ferne hält von der alltäglichen, von der unmittelbaren Lebenspraxis, ohne daß man es merkt.

[ 19 ] Wie zahlreich sind doch heute die Menschen, die aus einer gewissen ethisch-religiösen Vornehmheit heraus den besten Willen zeigen zu einem rechten Zusammenleben mit ihren Mitmenschen, die ihren Mitmenschen nur das Allerallerbeste tun möchten. Sie versäumen es aber, zu einer Empfindungsart zu kommen, die dies wirklich ermöglicht, weil sie sich kein soziales, in den praktischen Lebensgewohnheiten sich auswirkendes Vorstellen aneignen können.

[ 20 ] Aus dem Kreise solcher Menschen stammen diejenigen, die in diesem welthistorischen Augenblick, wo die sozialen Fragen so drängend geworden sind, sich als die Schwarmgeister, die sich aber für echte Lebenspraktiker halten, hemmend der wahren Lebenspraxis entgegenstellen. Man kann von ihnen Reden hören wie diese: Wir haben nötig, daß die Menschen sich erheben aus dem Materialismus, aus dem äußerlich materiellen Leben, das uns in die Weltkriegs-Katastrophe und in das Unglück hineingetrieben hat, und daß sie sich einer geistigen Auffassung des Lebens zuwenden. Man wird, wenn man so die Wege des Menschen zur Geistigkeit zeigen will, nicht müde, diejenigen Persönlichkeiten zu zitieren, die man in der Vergangenheit wegen ihrer dem Geiste zugewendeten Denkungsart verehrt hat. Man kann erleben, daß jemand, der versucht, gerade auf dasjenige hinzuweisen, was heute der Geist für das wirkliche praktische Leben so notwendig leisten muß, wie das tägliche Brot erzeugt werden muß, darauf aufmerksam gemacht wird, daß es ja in erster Linie darauf ankomme, die Menschen wiederum zur Anerkennung des Geistes zu bringen. Es kommt aber gegenwärtig darauf an, daß aus der Kraft des geistigen Lebens heraus die Richtlinien für die Gesundung des sozialen Organismus gefunden werden. Dazu genügt nicht, daß die Menschen in einer Seitenströmung des Lebens sich mit dem Geiste beschäftigen. Dazu ist notwendig, daß das alltägliche Dasein geistgemäß werde. Die Neigung, für das «geistige Leben» solche Seitenströmungen zu suchen, führte die bisher leitenden Kreise dazu, an sozialen Zuständen Geschmack zu haben, die in die gegenwärtigen Tatsachen ausgelaufen sind.

[ 21 ] Eng verbunden sind im sozialen Leben der Gegenwart die Verwaltung des Kapitals in der Warenproduktion und der Besitz der Produktionsmittel, also auch des Kapitals. Und doch sind diese beiden Verhältnisse des Menschen zum Kapital ganz verschieden mit Bezug auf ihre Wirkung innerhalb des sozialen Organismus. Die Verwaltung durch die individuellen Fähigkeiten führt, zweckmäßig angewendet, dem sozialen Organismus Güter zu, an deren Vorhandensein alle Menschen, die diesem Organismus angehören, ein Interesse haben. In welcher Lebenslage ein Mensch auch ist, er hat ein Interesse daran, daß nichts von dem verloren gehe, was aus den Quellen der Menschennatur an solchen individuellen Fähigkeiten erfließt, durch die Güter zustande kommen, welche dem Menschenleben zweckentsprechend dienen. Die Entwickelung dieser Fähigkeiten kann aber nur dadurch erfolgen, daß ihre menschlichen Träger aus der eigenen freien Initiative heraus sie zur Wirkung bringen können. Was aus diesen Quellen nicht in Freiheit erfließen kann, das wird der Menschenwohlfahrt mindestens bis zu einem gewissen Grade entzogen. Das Kapital aber ist das Mittel, solche Fähigkeiten für weite Gebiete des sozialen Lebens in Wirksamkeit zu bringen. Den gesamten Kapitalbesitz so zu verwalten, daß der einzelne in besonderer Richtung begabte Mensch oder daß zu Besonderem befähigte Menschengruppen zu einer solchen Verfügung über Kapital kommen, die lediglich aus ihrer ureigenen Initiative entspringt, daran muß jedermann innerhalb eines sozialen Organismus ein wahrhaftes Interesse haben. Vom Geistesarbeiter bis zum handwerklich Schaffenden muß ein jeder Mensch, wenn er vorurteilslos dem eigenen Interesse dienen will, sagen: Ich möchte, daß eine genügend große Anzahl befähigter Personen oder Personengruppen völlig frei über Kapital nicht nur verfügen können, sondern daß sie auch aus der eigenen Initiative heraus zu dem Kapitale gelangen können; denn nur sie allein können ein Urteil darüber haben, wie durch die Vermittlung des Kapitals ihre individuellen Fähigkeiten dem sozialen Organismus zweckmäßig Güter erzeugen werden.

[ 22 ] Es ist nicht nötig, im Rahmen dieser Schrift darzustellen, wie im Laufe der Menschheitsentwickelung zusammenhängend mit der Betätigung der menschlichen individuellen Fähigkeiten im sozialen Organismus sich der Privatbesitz aus andern Besitzformen ergeben hat. Bis zur Gegenwart hat sich unter dem Einfluß der Arbeitsteilung innerhalb dieses Organismus ein solcher Besitz entwickelt. Und von den gegenwärtigen Zuständen und deren notwendiger Weiterentwickelung soll hier gesprochen werden.

[ 23 ] Wie auch der Privatbesitz sich gebildet hat, durch Macht- und Eroberungsbetätigung und so weiter, er ist ein Ergebnis des an individuelle menschliche Fähigkeiten gebundenen sozialen Schaffens. Dennoch besteht gegenwärtig bei sozialistisch Denkenden die Meinung, daß sein Bedrückendes nur beseitigt werden könne durch seine Verwandlung in Gemeinbesitz. Dabei stellt man die Frage so: Wie kann der Privatbesitz an Produktionsmitteln in seinem Entstehen verhindert werden, damit die durch ihn bewirkte Bedrükkung der besitzlosen Bevölkerung aufhöre? Wer die Frage so stellt, der richtet dabei sein Augenmerk nicht auf die Tatsache, daß der soziale Organismus ein fortwährend Werdendes, Wachsendes ist. Man kann diesem Wachsenden gegenüber nicht so fragen: Wie soll man es am besten einrichten, damit es durch diese Einrichtung dann in dem Zustande verbleibe, den man als den richtigen erkannt hat? So kann man gegenüber einer Sache denken, die von einem gewissen Ausgangspunkt aus wesentlich unverändert weiter wirkt. Das gilt nicht für den sozialen Organismus. Der verändert durch sein Leben fortwährend dasjenige, das in ihm entsteht. Will man ihm eine vermeintlich beste Form geben, in der er dann bleiben soll, so untergräbt man seine Lebensbedingungen.

[ 24 ] Eine Lebensbedingung des sozialen Organismus ist, daß demjenigen, welcher der Allgemeinheit durch seine individuellen Fähigkeiten dienen kann, die Möglichkeit zu solchem Dienen aus der freien eigenen Initiative heraus nicht genommen werde. Wo zu solchem Dienste die freie Verfügung über Produktionsmittel gehört, da würde die Verhinderung dieser freien Initiative den allgemeinen sozialen Interessen schaden. Was gewöhnlich mit Bezug auf diese Sache vorgebracht wird, daß der Unternehmer zum Anreiz seiner Tätigkeit die Aussicht auf den Gewinn braucht, Öder an den Besitz der Produktionsmittel gebunden ist: das soll hier nicht geltend gemacht werden. Denn die Denkart, aus welcher die in diesem Buche dargestellte Meinung von einer Fortentwickelung der sozialen Verhältnisse erfließt, muß in der Befreiung des geistigen Lebens von dem politischen und dem wirtschaftlichen Gemeinwesen die Möglichkeit sehen, daß ein solcher Anreiz wegfallen kann. Das befreite Geistesleben wird soziales Verständnis ganz notwendig aus sich selbst entwickeln; und aus diesem Verständnis werden Anreize ganz anderer Art sich ergeben als derjenige ist, der in der Hoffnung auf wirtschaftlichen Vorteil liegt. Aber nicht darum kann es sich allein handeln, aus welchen Impulsen heraus der Privatbesitz an Produktionsmitteln bei Menschen beliebt ist, sondern darum, ob die freie Verfügung über solche Mittel, oder die durch die Gemeinschaft geregelte den Lebensbedingungen des sozialen Organismus entspricht. Und dabei muß immer im Auge behalten werden, daß man für den gegenwärtigen sozialen Organismus nicht die Lebensbedingungen in Betracht ziehen kann, die man bei primitiven Menschengesellschaften zu beobachten glaubt, sondern allein diejenigen, welche der heutigen Entwickelungsstufe der Menschheit entsprechen.

[ 25 ] Auf dieser gegenwärtigen Stufe kann eben die fruchtbare Betätigung der individuellen Fähigkeiten durch das Kapital nicht ohne die freie Verfügung über dasselbe in den Kreislauf des Wirtschaftslebens eintreten. Wo fruchtbringend produziert werden soll, da muß diese Verfügung möglich sein, nicht weil sie einem einzelnen oder einer Menschengruppe Vorteil bringt, sondern weil sie der Allgemeinheit am besten dienen kann, wenn sie zweckmäßig von sozialem Verständnis getragen ist.

[ 26 ] Der Mensch ist gewissermaßen, wie mit der Geschicklichkeit seiner eigenen Leibesglieder, so verbunden mit dem , was er selbst oder in Gemeinschaft mit andern erzeugt. Die Unterbindung der freien Verfügung über die Produktionsmittel kommt gleich einer Lähmung der freien Anwendung seiner Geschicklichkeit der Leibesglieder.

[ 27 ] Nun ist aber das Privateigentum nichts anderes als der Vermittler dieser freien Verfügung. Für den sozialen Organismus kommt in Ansehung des Eigentums gar nichts anderes in Betracht, als daß der Eigentümer das Recht hat, über das Eigentum aus seiner freien Initiative heraus zu verfügen. Man sieht, im sozialen Leben sind zwei Dinge miteinander verbunden, welche von ganz verschiedener Bedeutung sind für den sozialen Organismus: Die freie Verfügung über die Kapitalgrundlage der sozialen Produktion, und das Rechtsverhältnis, in das der Verfüger zu andern Menschen tritt dadurch, daß durch sein Verfügungsrecht diese anderen Menschen ausgeschlossen werden von der freien Betätigung durch diese Kapitalgrundlage.

[ 28 ] Nicht die ursprüngliche freie Verfügung führt zu sozialen Schäden, sondern lediglich das Fortbestehen des Rechtes auf diese Verfügung, wenn die Bedingungen aufgehört haben, welche in zweckmäßiger Art individuelle menschliche Fähigkeiten mit dieser Verfügung zusammenbinden. Wer seinen Blick auf den sozialen Organismus als auf ein Werdendes, Wachsendes richtet, der wird das hier Angedeutete nicht mißverstehen können. Er wird nach der Möglichkeit fragen, wie dasjenige, was dem Leben auf der einen Seite dient, so verwaltet werden kann, daß es nicht auf der anderen Seite schädlich wirkt. Was lebt, kann gar nicht in einer andern Weise fruchtbringend eingerichtet sein als dadurch, daß im Werden das Entstandene auch zum Nachteil führt. Und soll man an einem Werdenden selbst mitarbeiten, wie es der Mensch am sozialen Organismus muß, so kann die Aufgabe nicht darin bestehen, das Entstehen einer notwendigen Einrichtung zu verhindern, um Schaden zu vermeiden. Denn damit untergräbt man die Lebensmöglichkeit des sozialen Organismus. Es kann sich allein darum handeln, daß im rechten Augenblick eingegriffen werde, wenn sich das Zweckmäßige in ein Schädliches verwandelt.

[ 29 ] Die Möglichkeit, frei über die Kapitalgrundlage aus den individuellen Fähigkeiten heraus zu verfügen, muß bestehen; das damit verbundene Eigentumsrecht muß in dem Augenblicke verändert werden können, in dem es umschlägt in Mittel zur ungerechtfertigten Machtentfaltung. In unserer Zeit haben wir eine Einrichtung, welche der hier angedeuteten sozialen Forderung Rechnung trägt, teilweise durchgeführt nur für das sogenannte geistige Eigentum. Dieses geht einige Zeit nach dem Tode des Schaffenden in freies Besitztum der Allgemeinheit über. Dem liegt eine dem Wesen des menschlichen Zusammenlebens entsprechende Vorstellungsart zugrunde. So eng auch die Hervorbringung eines rein geistigen Gutes an die individuelle Begabung des einzelnen gebunden ist: es ist dieses Gut zugleich ein Ergebnis des sozialen Zusammenlebens und muß in dieses im rechten Augenblicke übergeleitet werden. Nicht anders aber steht es mit anderem Eigentum. Daß mit dessen Hilfe der einzelne im Dienste der Gesamtheit produziert, das ist nur möglich im Mitwirken dieser Gesamtheit. Es kann also das Recht auf die Verfügung über ein Eigentum nicht von den Interessen dieser Gesamtheit getrennt verwaltet werden. Nicht ein Mittel ist zu finden, wie das Eigentum an der Kapitalgrundlage ausgetilgt werden kann, sondern ein solches, wie dieses Eigentum so verwaltet werden kann, daß es in der besten Weise der Gesamtheit diene.

[ 30 ] In dem dreigliedrigen sozialen Organismus kann dieses Mittel gefunden werden. Die im sozialen Organismus vereinigten Menschen wirken als Gesamtheit durch den Rechtsstaat. Die Betätigung der individuellen Fähigkeiten gehört der geistigen Organisation an.

[ 31 ] Wie alles am sozialen Organismus einer Anschauung, die für Wirklichkeiten Verständnis hat, und die nicht von subjektiven Meinungen, Theorien, Wünschen und so weiter sich ganz beherrschen läßt, die Notwendigkeit der Dreigliederung dieses Organismus ergibt, so insbesondere die Frage nach dem Verhältnis der individuellen menschlichen Fähigkeiten zur Kapitalgrundlage des Wirtschaftslebens und dem Eigentum an dieser Kapitalgrundlage. Der Rechtsstaat wird die Entstehung und die Verwaltung des privaten Eigentums an Kapital nicht zu verhindern haben, solange die individuellen Fähigkeiten so verbunden bleiben mit der Kapitalgrundlage, daß die Verwaltung einen Dienst bedeutet für das Ganze des sozialen Organismus. Und er wird Rechtsstaat bleiben gegenüber dem privaten Eigentum; er wird es niemals selbst in seinen Besitz nehmen, sondern bewirken, daß es im rechten Zeitpunkt in das Verfügungsrecht einer Person oder Personengruppe übergeht, die wieder ein in den individuellen Verhältnissen bedingtes Verhältnis zu dem Besitze entwickeln können. Von zwei ganz verschiedenen Ausgangspunkten wird dadurch dem sozialen Organismus gedient werden können. Aus dem demokratischen Untergrund des Rechtsstaates heraus, der es zu tun hat mit dem, was alle Menschen in gleicher Art berührt, wird gewacht werden können, daß Eigentumsrecht nicht im Laufe der Zeit zu Eigentumsunrecht wird. Dadurch, daß dieser Staat das Eigentum nicht selbst verwaltet, sondern sorgt für die Überleitung an die individuellen menschlichen Fähigkeiten, werden diese ihre fruchtbare Kraft für die Gesamtheit des sozialen Organismus entfalten. Solange es als zweckmäßig erscheint, werden durch eine solche Organisation die Eigentumsrechte oder die Verfügung über dieselben bei dem persönlichen Elemente verbleiben können. Man kann sich vorstellen, daß die Vertreter im Rechtsstaate zu verschiedenen Zeiten ganz verschiedene Gesetze geben werden über die Überleitung des Eigentums von einer Person oder Personengruppe an andere. In der Gegenwart, in der sich in weiten Kreisen ein großes Mißtrauen zu allem privaten Eigentum entwickelt hat, wird an ein radikales Überführen des privaten Eigentums in Gemeineigentum gedacht. Würde man auf diesem Wege weit gelangen, so würde man sehen, wie man dadurch die Lebensmöglichkeit des sozialen Organismus unterbindet. Durch die Erfahrung belehrt, würde man einen andern Weg später einschlagen. Doch wäre es zweifellos besser, wenn man schon in der Gegenwart zu Einrichtungen griffe, die dem sozialen Organismus im Sinne des hier Angedeuteten seine Gesundheit gäben. Solange eine Person für sich allein oder in Verbindung mit einer Personengruppe die produzierende Betätigung fortsetzt, die sie mit einer Kapitalgrundlage zusammengebracht hat, wird ihr das Verfügungsrecht verbleiben müssen über diejenige Kapitalmasse, die sich aus dem Anfangskapital als Betriebsgewinn ergibt, wenn der letztere zur Erweiterung des Produktionsbetriebes verwendet wird. Von dem Zeitpunkt an, in dem eine solche Persönlichkeit aufhört, die Produktion zu verwalten, soll diese Kapitalmasse an eine andere Person oder Personengruppe zum Betriebe einer gleichgearteten oder anderen dem sozialen Organismus dienenden Produktion übergehen. Auch dasjenige Kapital, das aus dem Produktionsbetrieb gewonnen wird und nicht zu dessen Erweiterung verwendet wird, soll von seiner Entstehung an den gleichen Weg nehmen. Als persönliches Eigentum der den Betrieb leitenden Persönlichkeit soll nur gelten, was diese bezieht auf Grund derjenigen Ansprüche, die sie bei Aufnahme des Produktionsbetriebes glaubte wegen ihrer individuellen Fähigkeit machen zu können, und die dadurch gerechtfertigt erscheinen, daß sie aus dem Vertrauen anderer Menschen heraus bei Geltendmachung derselben Kapital erhalten hat. Hat das Kapital durch die Betätigung dieser Persönlichkeit eine Vergrößerung erfahren, so wird in deren individuelles Eigentum aus dieser Vergrößerung so viel übergehen, daß die Vermehrung der ursprünglichen Bezüge der Kapitalvermehrung im Sinne eines Zinsbezuges entspricht. - Das Kapital, mit dem ein Produktionsbetrieb eingeleitet worden ist, wird nach dem Willen der ursprünglichen Besitzer an den neuen Verwalter mit allen übernommenen Verpflichtungen übergehen, oder an diese zurückfließen, wenn der erste Verwalter den Betrieb nicht mehr besorgen kann oder will.

[ 32 ] Man hat es bei einer solchen Einrichtung mit Rechtsübertragungen zu tun. Die gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zu treffen, wie solche Übertragungen stattfinden sollen, obliegt dem Rechtsstaat. Er wird auch über die Ausführung zu wachen und deren Verwaltung zu führen haben. Man kann sich denken, daß im einzelnen die Bestimmungen, die eine solche Rechtsübertragung regeln, in sehr verschiedener Art aus dem Rechtsbewußtsein heraus für richtig befunden werden. Eine Vorstellungsart, die wie die hier dargestellte wirklichkeitsgemäß sein soll, wird niemals mehr wollen als auf die Richtung weisen, in der sich die Regelung bewegen kann. Geht man verständnisvoll auf diese Richtung ein, so wird man im konkreten Einzelfalle immer ein Zweckentsprechendes finden. Doch wird aus den besondern Verhältnissen heraus für die Lebenspraxis dem Geiste der Sache gemäß das Richtige gefunden werden müssen. Je wirklichkeitsgemäßer eine Denkart ist, desto weniger wird sie für einzelnes aus vorgefaßten Forderungen heraus Gesetz und Regel feststellen wollen. - Nur wird andrerseits eben aus dem Geiste der Denkart in entschiedener Weise das eine oder das andere mit Notwendigkeit sich ergeben. Ein solches Ergebnis ist, daß der Rechtsstaat durch seine Verwaltung der Rechtsübertragungen selbst niemals die Verfügung über ein Kapital wird an sich reißen dürfen. Er wird nur dafür zu sorgen haben, daß die Übertragung an eine solche Person oder Personengruppe geschieht, welche diesen Vorgang durch ihre individuellen Fähigkeiten als gerechtfertigt erscheinen lassen. Aus dieser Voraussetzung heraus wird auch zunächst ganz allgemein die Bestimmung zu gelten haben, daß, wer aus den geschilderten Gründen zu einer Kapitalübertragung zu schreiten hat, sich aus freier Wahl über seine Nachfolge in der Kapitalverwertung entscheiden kann. Er wird eine Person oder Personengruppe wählen können, oder auch das Verfügungsrecht auf eine Korporation der geistigen Organisation übertragen können. Denn wer durch eine Kapitalverwaltung dem sozialen Organismus zweckentsprechende Dienste geleistet hat, der wird auch über die weitere Verwendung dieses Kapitals aus seinen individuellen Fähigkeiten heraus mit sozialem Verständnis urteilen. Und es wird für den sozialen Organismus dienlicher sein, wenn auf dieses Urteil gebaut wird, als wenn darauf verzichtet und die Regelung von Personen vorgenommen wird, die nicht unmittelbar mit der Sache verbunden sind.

[ 33 ] Eine Regelung dieser Art wird in Betracht kommen bei Kapitalmassen von einer bestimmten Höhe an, die von einer Person oder einer Personengruppe durch Produktionsmittel (zu denen auch Grund und Boden gehört) erworben werden, und die nicht auf der Grundlage der ursprünglich für die Betätigung der individuellen Fähigkeiten gemachten Ansprüche persönliches Eigentum werden.

[ 34 ] Die in der letzteren Art gemachten Erwerbungen und alle Ersparnisse, die aus den Leistungen der eigenen Arbeit entspringen, verbleiben bis zum Tode des Erwerbers oder bis zu einem spätern Zeitpunkte im persönlichen Besitz dieses Erwerbers oder seiner Nachkommen. Bis zu diesem Zeitpunkte wird auch ein aus dem Rechtsbewußtsein sich ergebender, durch den Rechtsstaat festzusetzender Zins von dem zu leisten sein, dem solche Ersparnisse zum Schaffen von Produktionsmitteln gegeben werden. In einer sozialen Ordnung, die auf den hier geschilderten Grundlagen ruht, kann eine vollkommene Scheidung durchgeführt werden zwischen den Erträgnissen, die auf Grund einer Arbeitsleistung mit Produktionsmitteln zustandekommen und den Vermögensmassen, die auf Grund der persönlichen (physischen und geistigen) Arbeit erworben werden. Diese Scheidung entspricht dem Rechtsbewußtsein und den Interessen der sozialen Allgemeinheit. Was jemand erspart und als Ersparnis einem Produktionsbetrieb zur Verfügung stellt, das dient den allgemeinen Interessen. Denn es macht erst die Produktionsleitung durch individuelle menschliche Fähigkeiten möglich. Was an Kapitalvermehrung durch die Produktionsmittel - nach Abzug des rechtmäßigen Zinses - entsteht, das verdankt seine Entstehung der Wirkung des gesamten sozialen Organismus. Es soll also auch in der geschilderten Art wieder in ihn zurückfließen. Der Rechtsstaat wird nur eine Bestimmung darüber zu treffen haben, daß die Überleitung der in Frage kommenden Kapitalmassen in der angegebenen Art geschehe; nicht aber wird es ihm obliegen, Entscheidungen darüber zu treffen, zu welcher materiellen oder geistigen Produktion ein übergeleitetes oder auch ein erspartes Kapital zur Verfügung zu stellen ist. Das würde zu einer Tyrannis des Staates über die geistige und materielle Produktion führen. Diese aber wird in der für den sozialen Organismus besten Art durch die individuellen menschlichen Fähigkeiten geleitet. Nur wird es demjenigen, der nicht selbst die Wahl darüber treffen will, an wen er ein durch ihn entstandenes Kapital übertragen soll, frei überlassen sein, für das Verfügungsrecht eine Korporation der geistigen Organisation einzusetzen.

[ 35 ] Auch ein durch Ersparnis gewonnenes Vermögen geht mit dem Zinserträgnis nach dem Tode des Erwerbers oder einige Zeit danach an eine geistig oder materiell produzierende Person oder Personengruppe - aber nur an eine solche, nicht an eine unproduktive Person, bei der es zur Rente würde - über, die durch letztwillige Anordnung von dem Erwerber zu wählen ist. Auch dafür wird, wenn eine Person oder Personengruppe nicht unmittelbar gewählt werden kann, die Übertragung des Verfügungsrechtes an eine Korporation des geistigen Organismus in Betracht kommen. Nur wenn jemand von sich aus keine Verfügung trifft, so wird der Rechtsstaat für ihn eintreten und durch die geistige Organisation die Verfügung treffen lassen.

[ 36 ] Innerhalb einer so geregelten sozialen Ordnung ist zugleich der freien Initiative der einzelnen Menschen und auch den Interessen der sozialen Allgemeinheit Rechnung getragen; ja es wird den letzteren eben dadurch voll entsprochen, daß die freie Einzel-Initiative in ihren Dienst gestellt wird. Wer seine Arbeit der Leitung eines andern Menschen anzuvertrauen hat, wird bei einer solchen Regelung wissen können, daß das mit dem Leiter gemeinsam Erarbeitete in der möglichst besten Art für den sozialen Organismus, also auch für den Arbeiter selbst, fruchtbar wird. Die hier gemeinte soziale Ordnung wird ein dem gesunden Empfinden der Menschen entsprechendes Verhältnis schaffen zwischen den durch das Rechtsbewußtsein geregelten Verfügungsrechten über in Produktionsmitteln verkörpertes Kapital und menschlicher Arbeitskraft einerseits und den Preisen der durch beides geschaffenen Erzeugnisse andrerseits. - Vielleicht findet mancher in dem hier Dargestellten Unvollkommenheiten. Die mögen gefunden werden. Es kommt einer wirklichkeitsgemäßen Denkart nicht darauf an, vollkommene «Programme» ein für alle Male zu geben, sondern darauf, die Richtung zu kennzeichnen, in der praktisch gearbeitet werden soll. Durch solche besondere Angaben, wie sie die hier gemachten sind, soll eigentlich nur wie durch ein Beispiel die gekennzeichnete Richtung näher erläutert werden. Ein solches Beispiel mag verbessert werden. Wenn dies nur in der angegebenen Richtung geschieht, dann kann ein fruchtbares Ziel erreicht werden.

[ 37 ] Berechtigte persönliche oder Familienimpulse werden sich durch solche Einrichtungen mit den Forderungen der menschlichen Allgemeinheit in Einklang bringen lassen. Man wird gewiß darauf hinweisen können, daß die Versuchung, das Eigentum auf einen oder mehrere Nachkommen noch bei Lebzeiten zu übertragen, sehr groß ist. Und daß man ja in solchen Nachkommen scheinbar Produzierende schaffen kann, die aber dann doch gegenüber anderen untüchtig sind und besser durch diese anderen ersetzt würden. Doch diese Versuchung wird in einer von den oben angedeuteten Einrichtungen beherrschten Organisation eine möglichst geringe sein können. Denn der Rechtsstaat braucht nur zu verlangen, daß unter allen Umständen das Eigentum, das an ein Familienmitglied von einem andern übertragen worden ist, nach Ablauf einer gewissen, auf den Tod des letzteren folgenden Zeit einer Korporation der geistigen Organisation zufällt. Oder es kann in andrer Art durch das Recht die Umgehung der Regel verhindert werden. Der Rechtsstaat wird nur dafür sorgen, daß diese Überführung geschehe; wer ausersehen sein soll, das Erbe anzutreten, das sollte durch eine aus der geistigen Organisation hervorgegangene Einrichtung bestimmt sein. Durch Erfüllung solcher Voraussetzungen wird sich ein Verständnis dafür entwickeln, daß Nachkommen durch Erziehung und Unterricht für den sozialen Organismus geeignet gemacht werden, und nicht durch Kapitalübertragung an unproduktive Personen sozialer Schaden angerichtet werde. Jemand, in dem wirklich soziales Verständnis lebt, hat kein Interesse daran, daß seine Verbindung mit einer Kapitalgrundlage nachwirke bei Personen oder Personengruppen, bei denen die individuellen Fähigkeiten eine solche Verbindung nicht rechtfertigen.

[ 38 ] Niemand wird, was hier ausgeführt ist, für eine bloße Utopie halten, der Sinn für wirklich praktisch Durchführbares hat. Denn es wird gerade auf solche Einrichtungen gedeutet, die ganz unmittelbar an jeder Stelle des Lebens aus den gegenwärtigen Zuständen heraus erwachsen können. Man wird nur zu dem Entschluß greifen müssen, innerhalb des Rechtsstaates auf die Verwaltung des geistigen Lebens und auf das Wirtschaften allmählich zu verzichten und sich nicht zu wehren, wenn, was geschehen sollte, wirklich geschieht, daß private Bildungsanstalten entstehen und daß sich das Wirtschaftsleben auf die eigenen Untergründe stellt. Man braucht die Staatsschulen und die staatlichen Wirtschaftseinrichtungen nicht von heute zu morgen abzuschaffen; aber man wird aus vielleicht kleinen Anfängen heraus die Möglichkeit erwachsen sehen, daß ein allmählicher Abbau des staatlichen Bildungs- und Wirtschaftswesens erfolge. Vor allem aber würde notwendig sein, daß diejenigen Persönlichkeiten, welche sich mit der Überzeugung durchdringen können von der Richtigkeit der hier dargestellten oder ähnlicher sozialer Ideen, für deren Verbreitung sorgen. Finden solche Ideen Verständnis, so wird dadurch Vertrauen geschaffen zu einer möglichen heilsamen Umwandlung der gegenwärtigen Zustände in solche, welche deren Schäden nicht zeigen. Dieses Vertrauen aber ist das einzige, aus dem eine wirklich gesunde Entwickelung wird hervorgehen können. Denn wer ein solches Vertrauen gewinnen soll, der muß überschauen können, wie Neueinrichtungen sich praktisch an das Bestehende anknüpfen lassen. Und es scheint gerade das Wesentliche der Ideen zu sein, die hier entwickelt werden, daß sie nicht eine bessere Zukunft herbeiführen wollen durch eine noch weitergehende Zerstörung des Gegenwärtigen, als sie schon eingetreten ist; sondern daß die Verwirklichung solcher Ideen auf dem Bestehenden weiterbaut und im Weiterbauen den Abbau des Ungesunden herbeiführt. Eine Aufklärung, die ein Vertrauen nach dieser Richtung nicht anstrebt, wird nicht erreichen, was unbedingt erreicht werden muß: eine Weiterentwickelung, bei welcher der Wert der bisher von den Menschen erarbeiteten Güter und der erworbenen Fähigkeiten nicht in den Wind geschlagen, sondern gewahrt wird. Auch der ganz radikal Denkende kann Vertrauen zu einer sozialen Neugestaltung unter Wahrung der überkommenen Werte gewinnen, wenn er vor Ideen sich gestellt sieht, die eine wirklich gesunde Entwickelung einleiten können. Auch er wird einsehen müssen, daß, welche Menschenklasse auch immer zur Herrschaft gelangt, sie die bestehenden Übel nicht beseitigen wird, wenn ihre Impulse nicht von Ideen getragen sind, die den sozialen Organismus gesund, lebensfähig machen. Verzweifeln, weil man nicht glauben kann, daß bei einer genügend großen Anzahl von Menschen auch in den Wirren der Gegenwart Verständnis sich finde für solche Ideen, wenn auf ihre Verbreitung die notwendige Energie gewandt werden kann, hieße an der Empfänglichkeit der Menschennatur für Impulse des Gesunden und Zweckentsprechenden verzweifeln. Es sollte diese Frage, ob man daran verzweifeln müsse, gar nicht gestellt werden, sondern nur die andere: was man tun solle, um die Aufklärung über vertrauenerweckende Ideen so kraftvoll als möglich zu machen.

[ 39 ] Einer wirksamen Verbreitung der hier dargestellten Ideen wird zunächst entgegenstehen, daß die Denkgewohnheiten des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters aus zwei Untergründen heraus mit ihnen nicht zurechtkommen werden. Entweder wird man in irgendeiner Form einwenden, man könne sich nicht vorstellen, daß ein Auseinanderreißen des einheitlichen sozialen Lebens möglich sei, da doch die drei gekennzeichneten Zweige dieses Lebens in der Wirklichkeit überall zusammenhängen; oder man wird finden, daß auch im Einheitsstaate die notwendige selbständige Bedeutung eines jeden der drei Glieder erreicht werden könne, und daß eigentlich mit dem hier Dargestellten ein Ideengespinst gegeben sei, das die Wirklichkeit nicht berühre. Der erste Einwand beruht darauf, daß von einem unwirklichen Denken ausgegangen wird. Daß geglaubt wird, die Menschen könnten in einer Gemeinschaft nur eine Einheit des Lebens erzeugen, wenn diese Einheit durch Anordnung erst in die Gemeinschaft hineingetragen wird. Doch das Umgekehrte wird von der Lebenswirklichkeit verlangt. Die Einheit muß als das Ergebnis entstehen; die von verschiedenen Richtungen her zusammenströmenden Betätigungen müssen zuletzt eine Einheit bewirken. Dieser wirklichkeitsgemäßen Idee lief die Entwickelung der letzten Zeit zuwider. Deshalb stemmte sich, was in den Menschen lebte, gegen die von außen in das Leben gebrachte «Ordnung» und führte zu der gegenwärtigen sozialen Lage. - Das zweite Vorurteil geht hervor aus dem Unvermögen, die radikale Verschiedenheit im Wirken der drei Glieder des sozialen Lebens zu durchschauen. Man sieht nicht, wie der Mensch zu jedem der drei Glieder ein besonderes Verhältnis hat, das in seiner Eigenart nur entfaltet werden kann, wenn im wirklichen Leben ein für sich bestehender Boden vorhanden ist, auf dem sich, abgesondert von den beiden andern, dieses Verhältnis ausgestalten kann, um mit ihnen zusammenzuwirken. Eine Anschauung der Vergangenheit, die physiokratische, meinte: Entweder die Menschen machen Regierungsmaßregeln über das wirtschaftliche Leben, welche der freien Selbstentfaltung dieses Lebens widerstreben; dann seien solche Maßregeln schädlich. Oder die Gesetze laufen in derselben Richtung, in welcher das Wirtschaftsleben von selbst läuft, wenn es sich frei überlassen bleibt; dann seien sie überflüssig. Als Schulmeinung ist diese Anschauung überwunden; als Denkgewohnheit spukt sie aber überall noch verheerend in den Menschenköpfen. Man meint, wenn ein Lebensgebiet seinen Gesetzen folgt, dann müsse aus diesem Gebiete alles für das Leben Notwendige sich ergeben. Wenn, zum Beispiel, das Wirtschaftsleben in einer solchen Art geregelt werde, daß die Menschen die Regelung als eine sie befriedigende empfinden, dann müsse auch das Rechts- und Geistesleben aus dem geordneten Wirtschaftsboden sich richtig ergeben. Doch dieses ist nicht möglich. Und nur ein Denken, das der Wirklichkeit fremd gegenübersteht, kann glauben, daß es möglich sei. Im Kreislauf des Wirtschaftslebens ist nichts vorhanden, das von sich aus einen Antrieb enthielte, dasjenige zu regeln, was aus dem Rechtsbewußtsein über das Verhältnis von Mensch zu Mensch erfließt. Und will man dieses Verhältnis aus den wirtschaftlichen Antrieben heraus ordnen, so wird man den Menschen mit seiner Arbeit und mit der Verfügung über die Arbeitsmittel in das Wirtschaftsleben einspannen. Er wird ein Rad in einem Wirtschaftsleben, das wie ein Mechanismus wirkt. Das Wirtschaftsleben hat die Tendenz, fortwährend in einer Richtung sich zu bewegen, in die von einer andern Seite her eingegriffen werden muß. Nicht, wenn die Rechtsmaßnahmen in der Richtung verlaufen, die vom Wirtschaftsleben erzeugt wird, sind sie gut, oder wenn sie ihr zuwiderlaufen, sind sie schädlich; sondern, wenn die Richtung, in welcher das Wirtschaftsleben läuft, fortwährend beeinflußt wird von den Rechten, welche den Menschen nur als Menschen angehen, wird dieser in dem Wirtschaftsleben ein menschenwürdiges Dasein führen können. Und nur dann, wenn ganz abgesondert von dem Wirtschaftsleben die individuellen Fähigkeiten auf einem eigenen Boden erwachsen und dem Wirtschaften die Kräfte immer wieder neu zuführen, die aus ihm selbst sich nicht erzeugen können, wird auch das Wirtschaften in einer den Menschen gedeihlichen Art sich entwickeln können.

[ 40 ] Es ist merkwürdig: auf dem Gebiete des rein äußerlichen Lebens sieht man leicht den Vorteil der Arbeitsteilung ein. Man glaubt nicht, daß der Schneider sich seine Kuh züchten solle, die ihn mit Milch versorgt. Für die umfassende Gliederung des Menschenlebens glaubt man , daß die Einheitsordnung das allein Ersprießliche sein müsse.


[ 41 ] Daß Einwände gerade bei einer dem wirklichen Leben entsprechenden sozialen Ideenrichtung von allen Seiten sich ergeben müssen, ist selbstverständlich. Denn das wirkliche Leben erzeugt Widersprüche. Und wer diesem Leben gemäß denkt, der muß Einrichtungen verwirklichen wollen, deren Lebenswidersprüche durch andere Einrichtungen ausgeglichen werden. Er darf nicht glauben: eine Einrichtung, die sich vor seinem Denken als «ideal gut» ausweist, werde, wenn sie verwirklicht wird, auch widerspruchslos sich gestalten. - Es ist eine durchaus berechtigte Forderung des gegenwärtigen Sozialismus, daß die neuzeitlichen Einrichtungen, in denen produziert wird um des Profitierens des einzelnen willen, durch solche ersetzt werden, in denen produziert wird, um des Konsumierens aller willen. Allein gerade derjenige, welcher diese Forderung voll anerkennt, wird nicht zu der Schlußfolgerung dieses neueren Sozialismus kommen können: Also müssen die Produktionsmittel aus dem Privateigentum in Gemeineigentum übergehen. Er wird vielmehr die ganz andere Schlußfolgerung anerkennen müssen: Also muß, was privat auf Grund der individuellen Tüchtigkeiten produziert wird, durch die rechten Wege der Allgemeinheit zugeführt werden. Der wirtschaftliche Impuls der neueren Zeit ging dahin, durch die Menge des Gütererzeugens Einnahmen zu schaffen; die Zukunft wird danach streben müssen, durch Assoziationen aus der notwendigen Konsumtion die beste Art der Produktion und die Wege von dem Produzenten zu dem Konsumenten zu finden. Die Rechtseinrichtungen werden dafür sorgen, daß ein Produktionsbetrieb nur so lange mit einer Person oder Personengruppe verbunden bleibt, als sich diese Verbindung aus den individuellen Fähigkeiten dieser Personen heraus rechtfertigt. Statt dem Gemeineigentum der Produktionsmittel wird im sozialen Organismus ein Kreislauf dieser Mittel eintreten, der sie immer von neuem zu denjenigen Personen bringt, deren individuelle Fähigkeiten sie in der möglichst besten Art der Gemeinschaft nutzbar machen können. Auf diese Art wird zeitweilig diejenige Verbindung zwischen Persönlichkeit und Produktionsmittel hergestellt, die bisher durch den Privatbesitz bewirkt worden ist. Denn der Leiter einer Unternehmung und seine Unterleiter werden es den Produktionsmitteln verdanken, daß ihre Fähigkeiten ihnen ein ihren Ansprüchen gemäßes Einkommen bringen. Sie werden nicht verfehlen, die Produktion zu einer möglichst vollkommenen zu machen, denn die Steigerung dieser Produktion bringt ihnen zwar nicht den vollen Profit, aber doch einen Teil des Erträgnisses. Der Profit fließt ja doch nur im Sinne des oben Ausgeführten der Allgemeinheit bis zu dem Grade zu, der sich ergibt nach Abzug des Zinses, der dem Produzenten zugute kommt wegen der Steigerung der Produktion. Und es liegt eigentlich schon im Geiste des hier Dargestellten, daß, wenn die Produktion zurückgeht, sich das Einkommen des Produzenten in demselben Maße zu verringern habe, wie es sich steigert bei der Produktionserweiterung. Immer aber wird das Einkommen aus der geistigen Leistung des Leitenden fließen, nicht aus einem solchen Profit, welcher auf Verhältnissen beruht, die nicht in der geistigen Arbeit eines Unternehmers, sondern in dem Zusammenwirken der Kräfte des Gemeinlebens ihre Grundlage haben.

[ 42 ] Man wird sehen können, daß durch Verwirklichung solcher sozialer Ideen, wie sie hier dargestellt sind, Einrichtungen, die gegenwärtig bestehen, eine völlig neue Bedeutung erhalten werden. Das Eigentum hört auf, dasjenige zu sein, was es bis jetzt gewesen ist. Und es wird nicht zurückgeführt zu einer überwundenen Form, wie sie das Gemeineigentum darstellen würde, sondern es wird fortgeführt zu etwas völlig Neuem. Die Gegenstände des Eigentums werden in den Fluß des sozialen Lebens gebracht. Der einzelne kann sie nicht aus seinem Privatinteresse heraus zum Schaden der Allgemeinheit verwalten; aber auch die Allgemeinheit wird sie nicht zum Schaden der einzelnen bureaukratisch verwalten können; sondern der geeignete einzelne wird zu ihnen den Zugang finden, um durch sie der Allgemeinheit dienen zu können.

[ 43 ] Ein Sinn für das Allgemeininteresse kann sich durch die Verwirklichung solcher Impulse entwickeln, welche das Produzieren auf eine gesunde Grundlage stellen und den sozialen Organismus vor Krisengefahren bewahren. - Auch wird eine Verwaltung, die es nur zu tun hat mit dem Kreislauf des Wirtschaftslebens, zu Ausgleichen führen können, die etwa aus diesem Kreislauf heraus als notwendig sich ergeben. Sollte, zum Beispiel, ein Betrieb nicht in der Lage sein, seinen Darleihern ihre Arbeitsersparnisse zu verzinsen, so wird, wenn er doch als einem Bedürfnis entsprechend anerkannt wird, aus andern Wirtschaftsbetrieben nach freier Übereinkunft mit allen an den letzteren beteiligten Personen das Fehlende zugeschossen werden können. Ein in sich abgeschlossener Wirtschaftskreislauf, der von außen die Rechtsgrundlage erhält und den fortdauernden Zufluß der zutage tretenden individuellen Menschenfähigkeiten, wird es in sich nur mit dem Wirtschaften zu tun haben. Er wird dadurch der Veranlasser einer Güterverteilung sein können, die jedem das verschafft, was er nach dem Wohlstande der Gemeinschaft gerechter Art haben kann. Wenn einer scheinbar mehr Einkommen haben wird als ein anderer, so wird dies nur deshalb sein, weil das «Mehr» wegen seiner individuellen Fähigkeiten der Allgemeinheit zugute kommt.

[ 44 ] Ein sozialer Organismus, der im Lichte der hier dargestellten Vorstellungsart sich gestaltet, wird durch eine Übereinkunft zwischen den Leitern des Rechtslebens und denen des Wirtschaftslebens die Abgaben regeln können, welche für das Rechtsleben notwendig sind. Und alles, was zum Unterhalte der geistigen Organisation nötig ist, wird dieser zufließen durch die aus freiem Verständnis für sie erfolgende Vergütung von seiten der Einzelpersonen, die am sozialen Organismus beteiligt sind. Diese geistige Organisation wird ihre gesunde Grundlage durch die in freier Konkurrenz sich geltend machende individuelle Initiative der zur geistigen Arbeit fähigen Einzelpersonen haben.

[ 45 ] Aber nur in dem hier gemeinten sozialen Organismus wird die Verwaltung des Rechtes das notwendige Verständnis finden für eine gerechte Güterverteilung. Ein Wirtschaftsorganismus, der nicht aus den Bedürfnissen der einzelnen Produktionszweige die Arbeit der Menschen in Anspruch nimmt, sondern der mit dem zu wirtschaften hat, was ihm das Recht möglich macht, wird den Wert der Güter nach dem bestimmen, was ihm die Menschen leisten. Er wird nicht die Menschen leisten lassen, was durch den unabhängig von Menschenwohlfahrt und Menschenwürde zustande gekommenen Güterwert bestimmt ist. Ein solcher Organismus wird Rechte sehen, die aus rein menschlichen Verhältnissen sich ergeben. Kinder werden das Recht auf Erziehung haben; der Familienvater wird als Arbeiter ein höheres Einkommen haben können als der Einzelnstehende. Das «Mehr» wird ihm zufließen durch Einrichtungen, die durch Übereinkommen aller drei sozialen Organisationen begründet werden. Solche Einrichtungen können dem Rechte auf Erziehung dadurch entsprechen, daß nach den allgemeinen Wirtschaftsverhältnissen die Verwaltung der wirtschaftlichen Organisation die mögliche Höhe des Erziehungseinkommens bemißt und der Rechtsstaat die Rechte des einzelnen festsetzt nach den Gutachten der geistigen Organisation. Wieder liegt es in der Art eines wirklichkeitsgemäßen Denkens, daß mit einer solchen Angabe nur wie durch ein Beispiel die Richtung bezeichnet wird, in welcher die Einrichtungen bewirkt werden können. Es wäre möglich, daß für das einzelne ganz anders geartete Einrichtungen als richtig befunden würden. Aber dieses «Richtige» wird sich nur finden lassen durch das zeitgemäße Zusammenwirken der drei in sich selbständigen Glieder des sozialen Organismus. Hier, für diese Darstellung, möchte im Gegensatz zu vielem, was in der Gegenwart für praktisch gehalten wird, es aber nicht ist, die ihr zugrunde liegende Denkart das wirklich Praktische finden, nämlich eine solche Gliederung des sozialen Organismus, die bewirkt, daß die Menschen in dieser Gliederung das sozial Zweckmäßige veranlassen.

[ 46 ] Wie Kindern das Recht auf Erziehung, so steht Altgewordenen, Invaliden, Witwen, Kranken das Recht auf einen Lebensunterhalt zu, zu dem die Kapitalgrundlage in einer ähnlichen Art dem Kreislauf des sozialen Organismus zufließen muß wie der gekennzeichnete Kapitalbeitrag für die Erziehung der noch nicht selbst Leistungsfähigen. Das Wesentliche bei all diesem ist, daß die Feststellung desjenigen, was ein nicht selbst Verdienender als Einkommen bezieht, nicht aus dem Wirtschaftsleben sich ergeben soll, sondern daß umgekehrt das Wirtschaftsleben abhängig wird von dem, was in dieser Beziehung aus dem Rechtsbewußtsein sich ergibt. Die in einem Wirtschaftsorganismus Arbeitenden werden von dem durch ihre Arbeit Geleisteten um so weniger haben, je mehr für die nicht Verdienenden abfließen muß. Aber das «Weniger» wird von allen am sozialen Organismus Beteiligten gleichmäßig getragen, wenn die hier gemeinten sozialen Impulse ihre Verwirklichung finden werden. Durch den vom Wirtschaftsleben abgesonderten Rechtsstaat wird, was eine allgemeine Angelegenheit der Menschheit ist, Erziehung und Unterhalt nicht Arbeitsfähiger, auch wirklich zu einer solchen Angelegenheit gemacht, denn im Gebiete der Rechtsorganisation wirkt dasjenige, worinnen alle mündig gewordenen Menschen mitzusprechen haben.

[ 47 ] Ein sozialer Organismus, welcher der hier gekennzeichneten Vorstellungsart entspricht, wird die Mehrleistung, die ein Mensch auf Grund seiner individuellen Fähigkeiten vollbringt, ebenso in die Allgemeinheit überführen, wie er für die Minderleistung der weniger Befähigten den berechtigten Unterhalt aus dieser Allgemeinheit entnehmen wird. «Mehrwert» wird nicht geschaffen werden für den unberechtigten Genuß des einzelnen, sondern zur Erhöhung dessen, was dem sozialen Organismus seelische oder materielle Güter zuführen kann; und zur Pflege desjenigen, was innerhalb dieses Organismus aus dessen Schoß heraus entsteht, ohne daß es ihm unmittelbar dienen kann.

[ 48 ] Wer der Ansicht zuneigt, daß die Auseinanderhaltung der drei Glieder des sozialen Organismus nur einen ideellen Wert habe, und daß sie sich auch beim einheitlich gestalteten Staatsorganismus oder bei einer das Staatsgebiet umfassenden, auf Gemeineigentum an den Produktionsmitteln beruhenden wirtschaftlichen Genossenschaft «von selbst» ergebe, der sollte seinen Blick auf die besondere Art von sozialen Einrichtungen lenken, die sich ergeben müssen, wenn die Dreigliederung verwirklicht wird. Da wird, zum Beispiel, nicht mehr die Staatsverwaltung das Geld als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel anzuerkennen haben, sondern diese Anerkennung wird auf den Maßnahmen beruhen, welche von den Verwaltungskörpern der Wirtschaftsorganisation ausgehen. Denn Geld kann im gesunden sozialen Organismus nichts anderes sein als eine Anweisung auf Waren, die von andern erzeugt sind und die man aus dem Gesamtgebiet des Wirtschaftslebens deshalb beziehen kann, weil man selbst erzeugte Waren an dieses Gebiet abgegeben hat. Durch den Geldverkehr wird ein Wirtschaftsgebiet eine einheitliche Wirtschaft. Jeder produziert auf dem Umwege durch das ganze Wirtschaftsleben für jeden. Innerhalb des Wirtschaftsgebietes hat man es nur mit Warenwerten zu tun. Für dieses Gebiet nehmen auch die Leistungen, die entstehen aus der geistigen und der staatlichen Organisation heraus, den Warencharakter an. Was ein Lehrer an seinen Schülern leistet, ist für den Wirtschaftskreislauf Ware. Dem Lehrer werden seine individuellen Fähigkeiten ebensowenig bezahlt wie dem Arbeiter seine Arbeitskraft. Bezahlt kann beiden nur werden, was, von ihnen ausgehend, im Wirtschaftskreislauf Ware und Waren sein kann. Wie die freie Initiative, wie das Recht wirken sollen, damit die Ware zustande komme, das liegt ebenso außerhalb des Wirtschaftskreislaufes wie die Wirkung der Naturkräfte auf das Kornerträgnis in einem segensreichen oder einem magern Jahr. Für den Wirtschaftskreislauf sind die geistige Organisation bezüglich dessen, was sie beansprucht als wirtschaftliches Erträgnis, und auch der Staat einzelne Warenproduzenten. Nur ist, was sie produzieren, innerhalb ihres eigenen Gebietes nicht Ware, sondern es wird erst Ware, wenn es von dem Wirtschaftskreislauf aufgenommen wird. Sie wirtschaften nicht in ihren eigenen Gebieten; mit dem von ihnen Geleisteten wirtschaftet die Verwaltung des Wirtschaftsorganismus.

[ 49 ] Der rein wirtschaftliche Wert einer Ware (oder eines Geleisteten), insofern er sich ausdrückt in dem Gelde, das seinen Gegenwert darstellt, wird von der Zweckmäßigkeit abhängen, mit der sich innerhalb des Wirtschaftsorganismus die Verwaltung der Wirtschaft ausgestaltet. Von den Maßnahmen dieser Verwaltung wird es abhängen, inwiefern auf der geistigen und rechtlichen Grundlage, welche von den andern Gliedern des sozialen Organismus geschaffen wird, die wirtschaftliche Fruchtbarkeit sich entwickeln kann. Der Geldwert einer Ware wird dann der Ausdruck dafür sein, daß diese Ware in der den Bedürfnissen entsprechenden Menge durch die Einrichtungen des Wirtschaftsorganismus erzeugt wird. Würden die in dieser Schrift dargelegten Voraussetzungen verwirklicht, so wird im Wirtschaftsorganismus nicht der Impuls ausschlaggebend sein, welcher durch die bloße Menge der Produktion Reichtum ansammeln will, sondern es wird durch die entstehenden und sich in der mannigfaltigsten Art verbindenden Genossenschaften die Gütererzeugung sich den Bedürfnissen anpassen. Dadurch wird das diesen Bedürfnissen entsprechende Verhältnis zwischen dem Geldwert und den Produktionseinrichtungen im sozialen Organismus hergestellt.1Nur durch eine Verwaltung des Sozialen Organismus, die in dieser Art zustande kommt im freien Zusammenwirken der drei Glieder des sozialen Organismus, wird sich als Ergebnis für das Wirtschaftsleben ein gesundes Preisverhältnis der erzeugten Güter einstellen. Diese muss so sein, dass jeder Arbeitende für ein Erzeugnis so viel an Gegenwert erhält, als zur Befriedigung sämtlicher Bedürfnisse bei ihm und den zu ihm gehörenden Personen nötig ist, bis er ein Erzeugnis der gleichen Arbeit wieder hervorgebracht hat. Ein solches Preisverhältnis kann nicht durch amtliche Feststellung erfolgen, sondern es muss sich als Resultat ergeben aus dem lebendigen Zusammenwirken der im sozialen Organismus tätigen Assoziationen. Aber es wird sich einstellen, wenn das Zusammenwirken auf dem gesunden Zusammenwirken der drei Organisationsglieder beruht. Es muss mit derselben Sicherheit sich ergeben, wie eine haltbare Brücke sich ergeben muss, wenn sie nach rechten mathematischen und mechanischen Gesetzen wie eine Brücke. Es wird aber niemand einen solchen Einwand machen, der erkennen vermag, wie in der Darstellung dieses Buches dem sozialen Leben eben lebendige und nicht mathematische Gesetze zugrunde liegend gedacht werden. Das Geld wird im gesunden sozialen Organismus wirklich nur Wertmesser sein; denn hinter jedem Geldstück oder Geldschein steht die Warenleistung, auf welche hin der Geldbesitzer allein zu dem Gelde gekommen sein kann. Es werden sich aus der Natur der Verhältnisse heraus Einrichtungen notwendig machen, welche dem Gelde für den Inhaber seinen Wert benehmen, wenn es die eben gekennzeichnete Bedeutung verloren hat. Auf solche Einrichtungen ist schon hingewiesen worden. Geldbesitz geht nach einer bestimmten Zeit in geeigneter Form an die Allgemeinheit über. Und damit Geld, das nicht in Produktionsbetrieben arbeitet, nicht mit Umgehung der Maßnahmen der Wirtschaftsorganisation von Inhabern zurückbehalten werde, kann Umprägung oder Neudruck von Zeit zu Zeit stattfinden. Aus solchen Verhältnissen heraus wird sich allerdings auch ergeben, daß der Zinsbezug von einem Kapitale im Laufe der Jahre sich immer verringere. Das Geld wird sich abnützen, wie sich Waren abnützen. Doch wird eine solche vom Staate zu treffende Maßnahme gerecht sein. «Zins auf Zins» wird es nicht geben können. Wer Ersparnisse macht, hat allerdings Leistungen vollbracht, die ihm auf spätere Waren-Gegenleistungen Anspruch machen lassen, wie gegenwärtige Leistungen auf den Eintausch gegenwärtiger Gegenleistungen; aber die Ansprüche können nur bis zu einer gewissen Grenze gehen; denn aus der Vergangenheit herrührende Ansprüche können nur durch Arbeitsleistungen der Gegenwart befriedigt werden. Solche Ansprüche dürfen nicht zu einem wirtschaftlichen Gewaltmittel werden. Durch die Verwirklichung solcher Voraussetzungen wird die Währungsfrage auf eine gesunde Grundlage gestellt. Denn gleichgültig wie aus andern Verhältnissen heraus die Geldform sich gestaltet: Währung wird die vernünftige Einrichtung des gesamten Wirtschaftsorganismus durch dessen Verwaltung. Die Währungsfrage wird niemals ein Staat in befriedigender Art durch Gesetze lösen; gegenwärtige Staaten werden sie nur lösen, wenn sie von ihrer Seite auf die Lösung verzichten und das Nötige dem von ihnen abzusondernden Wirtschaftsorganismus überlassen.


[ 50 ] Man spricht viel von der modernen Arbeitsteilung, von deren Wirkung als Zeitersparnis, Warenvollkommenheit, Warenaustausch und so weiter; aber man berücksichtigt wenig, wie sie das Verhältnis des einzelnen Menschen zu seiner Arbeitsleistung beeinflußt. Wer in einem auf Arbeitsteilung eingestellten sozialen Organismus arbeitet, der erwirbt eigentlich niemals sein Einkommen selbst, sondern er erwirbt es durch die Arbeit aller am sozialen Organismus Beteiligten. Ein Schneider, der sich zum Eigengebrauch einen Rock macht, setzt diesen Rock zu sich nicht in dasselbe Verhältnis wie ein Mensch, der in primitiven Zuständen noch alles zu seinem Lebensunterhalte Notwendige selbst zu besorgen hat. Er macht sich den Rock, um für andere Kleider machen zu können; und der Wert des Rockes für ihn hängt ganz von den Leistungen der andern ab. Der Rock ist eigentlich Produktionsmittel. Mancher wird sagen, das sei eine Begriffsspalterei. Sobald er auf die Wertbildung der Waren im Wirtschaftskreislauf sieht, wird er diese Meinung nicht mehr haben können. Dann wird er sehen, daß man in einem Wirtschaftsorganismus, der auf Arbeitsteilung beruht, gar nicht für sich arbeiten kann. Man kann nur für andere arbeiten, und andere für sich arbeiten lassen. Man kann ebensowenig für sich arbeiten, wie man sich selbst aufessen kann. Aber man kann Einrichtungen herstellen, welche dem Wesen der Arbeitsteilung widersprechen. Das geschieht, wenn die Gütererzeugung nur darauf eingestellt wird, dem einzelnen Menschen als Eigentum zu überliefern, was er doch nur durch seine Stellung im sozialen Organismus als Leistung erzeugen kann. Die Arbeitsteilung drängt den sozialen Organismus dazu, daß der einzelne Mensch in ihm lebt nach den Verhältnissen des Gesamtorganismus; sie schließt wirtschaftlich den Egoismus aus. Ist dann dieser Egoismus doch vorhanden in Form von Klassenvorrechten und dergleichen, so entsteht ein sozial unhaltbarer Zustand, der zu Erschütterungen des sozialen Organismus führt. In solchen Zuständen leben wir gegenwärtig. Es mag manchen geben, der nichts davon hält, wenn man fordert, die Rechtsverhältnisse und anderes müssen sich nach dem egoismusfreien Schaffen der Arbeitsteilung richten. Ein solcher möge dann nur aus seinen Voraussetzungen die Konsequenz ziehen. Diese wäre: man könne überhaupt nichts tun; die soziale Bewegung könne zu nichts führen. Man kann in bezug auf diese Bewegung allerdings Ersprießliches nicht tun, wenn man der Wirklichkeit nicht ihr Recht geben will. Die Denkungsart, aus der die hier gegebene Darstellung heraus geschrieben ist, will, was der Mensch innerhalb des sozialen Organismus zu tun hat, nach dem einrichten, was aus den Lebensbedingungen dieses Organismus folgt.


[ 51 ] Wer seine Begriffe nur nach den eingewöhnten Einrichtungen bilden kann, der wird ängstlich werden, wenn er davon vernimmt, daß das Verhältnis des Arbeitsleiters zu dem Arbeiter losgelöst werden solle von dem Wirtschaftsorganismus. Denn er wird glauben, daß eine solche Loslösung notwendig zur Geldentwertung und zur Rückkehr in primitive Wirtschaftsverhältnisse führe. (Dr. Rathenau äußert in seiner Schrift «Nach der Flut» solche Meinungen, die von seinem Standpunkt aus berechtigt erscheinen.) Aber dieser Gefahr wird durch die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus entgegengearbeitet. Der auf sich selbst gestellte Wirtschaftsorganismus im Verein mit dem Rechtsorganismus sondert die Geldverhältnisse ganz ab von den auf das Recht gestellten Arbeitsverhältnissen. Die Rechtsverhältnisse werden nicht unmittelbar auf die Geldverhältnisse einen Einfluß haben können. Denn die letzteren sind Ergebnis der Verwaltung des Wirtschaftsorganismus. Das Rechtsverhältnis zwischen Arbeitsleiter und Arbeiter wird einseitig gar nicht in dem Geldwert zum Ausdruck kommen können, denn dieser ist nach Beseitigung des Lohnes, der ein Tauschverhältnis von Ware und Arbeitskraft darstellt, lediglich der Maßstab für den gegenseitigen Wert der Waren (und Leistungen). - Aus der Betrachtung der Wirkungen, welche die Dreigliederung für den sozialen Organismus hat, muß man die Überzeugung gewinnen, daß sie zu Einrichtungen führen werde, die in den bisherigen Staatsformen nicht vorhanden sind.

[ 52 ] Und innerhalb dieser Einrichtungen wird dasjenige ausgetilgt werden können, was gegenwärtig als Klassenkampf empfunden wird. Denn dieser Kampf beruht auf der Einspannung des Arbeitslohnes in den Wirtschaftskreislauf. Diese Schrift stellt eine Form des sozialen Organismus dar, in dem der Begriff des Arbeitslohnes ebenso eine Umformung erfährt wie der alte Eigentumsbegriff. Aber durch diese Umformung wird ein lebensfähiger sozialer Zusammenhang der Menschen geschaffen. - Nur eine leichtfertige Beurteilung wird finden können, daß mit der Verwirklichung des hier Dargestellten nichts weiter getan sei, als daß der Arbeitszeitlohn in Stücklohn verwandelt werde. Mag sein, daß eine einseitige Ansicht von der Sache zu diesem Urteil führt. Aber hier ist diese einseitige Ansicht nicht als die rechte geschildert, sondern es ist die Ablösung des Entlohnungsverhältnisses durch das vertragsgemäße Teilungsverhältnis in bezug auf das von Arbeitsleiter und Arbeiter gemeinsam Geleistete in Verbindung mit der gesamten Einrichtung des sozialen Organismus ins Auge gefaßt. Wem der dem Arbeiter zukommende Teil des Leistungserträgnisses als Stücklohn erscheint, der wird nicht gewahr, daß dieser «Stücklohn» (der aber eigentlich kein «Lohn» ist) sich im Werte des Geleisteten in einer Art zum Ausdruck bringt, welche die gesellschaftliche Lebenslage des Arbeiters zu andern Mitgliedern des sozialen Organismus in ein ganz anderes Verhältnis bringt, als dasjenige ist, das aus der einseitig wirtschaftlich bedingten Klassenherrschaft entstanden ist. Die Forderung nach Austilgung des Klassenkampfes wird damit befriedigt. - Und wer sich zu der namentlich auch in sozialistischen Kreisen zu hörenden Meinung bekennt: die Entwickelung selbst müsse die Lösung der sozialen Frage bringen, man könne nicht Ansichten aufstellen, die verwirklicht werden sollen; dem muß erwidert werden: Gewiß wird die Entwickelung das Notwendige bringen müssen; aber in dem sozialen Organismus sind die Ideenimpulse des Menschen Wirklichkeiten. Und wenn die Zeit ein wenig vorgeschritten sein wird und das verwirklicht sein wird, was heute nur gedacht werden kann: dann wird eben dieses Verwirklichte in der Entwickelung drinnen sein Und diejenigen, welche «nur von der Entwickelung» und nicht von der Erbringung fruchtbarer Ideen etwas halten, werden sich Zeit lassen müssen mit ihrem Urteil bis dahin, wo, was heute gedacht wird, Entwickelung sein wird. Doch wird es eben dann zu spät sein zum Vollbringen gewisser Dinge, die von den heutigen Tatsachen schon gefordert werden. Im sozialen Organismus ist es nicht möglich, die Entwickelung objektiv zu betrachten wie in der Natur. Man muß die Entwickelung bewirken. Deshalb ist es für ein gesundes soziales Denken verhängnisvoll, daß ihm gegenwärtig Ansichten gegenüberstehen, die, was sozial notwendig ist, so «beweisen» wollen, wie man in der Naturwissenschaft «beweist». Ein «Beweis» in sozialer Lebensauffassung kann sich nur dem ergeben, der in seine Anschanung das aufnehmen kann, was nicht nur im Bestehenden liegt, sondern dasjenige, was in den Menschenimpulsen - von ihnen oft unbemerkt - keimhaft ist und sich verwirklichen will.

[ 53 ] Eine derjenigen Wirkungen, durch welche die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus ihre Begründung im Wesenhaften des menschlichen Gesellschaftslebens zu erweisen haben wird, ist die Loslösung der richterlichen Tätigkeit von den staatlichen Einrichtungen. Den letzteren wird es obliegen, die Rechte festzulegen, welche zwischen Menschen oder Menschengruppen zu bestehen haben. Die Urteilsfindungen selbst aber liegen in Einrichtungen, die aus der geistigen Organisation heraus gebildet sind. Diese Urteilsfindung ist in hohem Maße abhängig von der Möglichkeit, daß der Richtende Sinn und Verständnis habe für die individuelle Lage eines zu Richtenden. Solcher Sinn und solches Verständnis werden nur vorhanden sein, wenn dieselben Vertrauensbande, durch welche die Menschen zu den Einrichtungen der geistigen Organisation sich hingezogen fühlen, auch maßgebend sind für die Einsetzung der Gerichte. Es ist möglich, daß die Verwaltung der geistigen Organisation die Richter aufstellt, die aus den verschiedensten geistigen Berufsklassen heraus genommen sein können, und die auch nach Ablauf einer gewissen Zeit wieder in ihre eigenen Berufe zurückkehren. In gewissen Grenzen hat dann jeder Mensch die Möglichkeit, sich die Persönlichkeit unter den Aufgestellten für fünf oder zehn Jahre zu wählen, zu der er so viel Vertrauen hat, daß er in dieser Zeit, wenn es dazu kommt, von ihr die Entscheidung in einem privaten oder strafrechtlichen Fall entgegennehmen will. Im Umkreis des Wohnortes jedes Menschen werden dann immer so viele Richtende sein, daß diese Wahl eine Bedeutung haben wird. Ein Kläger hat sich dann stets an den für einen Angeklagten zuständigen Richter zu wenden. - Man bedenke, was eine solche Einrichtung in den österreichisch-ungarischen Gegenden für eine einschneidende Bedeutung gehabt hätte. In gemischtsprachigen Gegenden hätte der Angehörige einer jeden Nationalität sich einen Richter seines Volkes erwählen können. Wer die österreichischen Verhältnisse kennt, der kann auch wissen, wieviel zum Ausgleich im Leben der Nationalitäten eine solche Einrichtung hätte beitragen können. - Aber außer der Nationalität gibt es weite Lebensgebiete, für deren gesunde Entfaltung eine solche Einrichtung im gedeihlichen Sinne wirken kann. - Für die engere Gesetzeskenntnis werden den in der geschilderten Art bestellten Richtern und Gerichtshöfen Beamte zur Seite stehen, deren Wahl auch von der Verwaltung des geistigen Organismus zu vollziehen ist, die aber nicht selbst zu richten haben. Ebenso werden Appellationsgerichte aus dieser Verwaltung heraus zu bilden sein. Es wird im Wesen desjenigen Lebens liegen, das sich durch die Verwirklichung solcher Voraussetzungen abspielt, daß ein Richter den Lebensgewohnheiten und der Empfindungsart der zu Richtenden nahestehen kann, daß er durch sein außerhalb des Richteramtes - dem er nur eine Zeitlang vorstehen wird - liegendes Leben mit den Lebenskreisen der zu Richtenden vertraut wird. Wie der gesunde soziale Organismus überall in seinen Einrichtungen das soziale Verständnis der an seinem Leben beteiligten Personen heranziehen wird, so auch bei der richterlichen Tätigkeit. Die Urteilsvollstreckung fällt dem Rechtsstaate zu.


[ 54 ] Die Einrichtungen, die sich durch die Verwirklichung des hier Dargestellten für andere Lebensgebiete als die angegebenen notwendig machen, brauchen vorläufig hier wohl nicht geschildert zu werden. Diese Schilderung würde selbstverständlich einen nicht zu begrenzenden Raum einnehmen.

[ 55 ] Die dargestellten einzelnen Lebenseinrichtungen werden gezeigt haben, daß es der zugrunde liegenden Denkungsart sich nicht, wie mancher meinen könnte - und wie tatsächlich geglaubt wurde, als ich hier und dort das Dargestellte mündlich vorgetragen habe -, um eine Erneuerung der drei Stände, Nähr-, Wehr- und Lehrstand handelt. Das Gegenteil dieser Ständegliederung wird angestrebt. Die Menschen werden weder in Klassen noch in Stände sozial eingegliedert sein, sondern der soziale Organismus selbst wird gegliedert sein. Der Mensch aber wird gerade dadurch wahrhaft Mensch sein können. Denn die Gliederung wird eine solche sein, daß er mit seinem Leben in jedem der drei Glieder wurzeln wird. In dem Gliede des sozialen Organismus, in dem er durch den Beruf drinnen steht, wird er mit sachlichem Interesse stehen; und zu den andern wird er lebensvolle Beziehungen haben, denn deren Einrichtungen werden zu ihm in einem Verhältnisse stehen, das solche Beziehungen herausfordert. Dreigeteilt wird der vom Menschen abgesonderte, seinen Lebensboden bildende soziale Organismus sein; jeder Mensch als solcher wird ein Verbindendes der drei Glieder sein.

III. capitalism and social ideas (capital, human labor)

[ 1 ] It is impossible to arrive at a judgment as to which course of action in the social field is currently demanded by the facts that speak for themselves if one does not have the will to let this judgment be determined by an insight into the basic forces of the social organism. The attempt to gain such an insight forms the basis of the preceding presentation. Measures based solely on a judgment derived from a narrowly defined circle of observation cannot achieve anything fruitful today. The facts which have grown out of the social movement reveal disturbances in the foundations of the social organism, and by no means those which are only present on the surface. In the face of them it is necessary to arrive at insights that penetrate to the foundations.

[ 2 ] To speak of capital and capitalism today is to point to that in which proletarian humanity seeks the causes of its oppression. But one can only arrive at a fruitful judgment about the way in which capital has a promoting or inhibiting effect in the cycles of the social organism if one sees through how the individual abilities of people, how the formation of law and how the forces of economic life produce and consume capital. - When one speaks of human labor, one points to that which, together with the natural basis of the economy and capital, creates economic values and through which the worker becomes aware of his social situation. A judgment as to how this human labor must be placed in the social organism in order not to disturb the worker's sense of his human dignity can only be made if one wishes to consider the relationship that human labor has to the development of individual abilities on the one hand and to the consciousness of rights on the other.

[ 3 ] The question is now rightly being asked as to what needs to be done in the near future in order to do justice to the demands arising in the social movement. It will not be possible to accomplish the next thing in a fruitful way if one does not know what relation the thing to be accomplished should have to the foundations of the healthy social organism. And if one knows this, then one will be able to find the tasks that arise from the facts in the place where one is placed or where one is able to place oneself. The gaining of insight that is being pointed to here is juxtaposed with what has passed from human will into social institutions over the course of a long time, leaving unbiased judgment unaffected. People have become so accustomed to these institutions that they have formed opinions from them about what is to be preserved and what is to be changed. One's thoughts are guided by the facts, which should be governed by thought. Today, however, it is necessary to see that there is no other way to gain a judgment based on the facts than by going back to the original ideas that underlie all social institutions.

[ 4 ] If the right sources are not available, from which the forces that lie in these original thoughts constantly flow anew into the social organism, then the institutions take on forms that are not life-promoting but life-inhibiting. In the instinctive impulses of men, however, the primal thoughts live on more or less unconsciously, even when the fully conscious thoughts go astray and create, or have already created, facts that hinder life. And it is these primordial thoughts, which express themselves chaotically in the face of a life-inhibiting world of facts, that come to light, either obviously or covertly, in the revolutionary upheavals of the social organism. These convulsions will only not occur if the social organism is organized in such a way that there can always be a tendency in it to observe where a deviation from the institutions marked out by the original ideas is forming, and where at the same time there is the possibility of working against this deviation before it has gained a fatal strength.

[ 5 ] In our days, the deviations from the conditions demanded by the original thoughts have become great in a wide range of human life. And the life of the impulses borne by these thoughts in human souls stands as a criticism that speaks loudly through facts about what has taken shape in the social organism of the last centuries. It therefore requires good will to turn energetically to the original thoughts and not to fail to recognize how harmful it is, especially today, to banish these original thoughts from the realm of life as "impractical" generalities. In the life and in the demands of the proletarian population lives the factual criticism of what modern times have made of the social organism. The task of our time is to work against this one-sided criticism by finding the directions from the original thought in which the facts must be consciously directed. For the time has expired in which humanity can be satisfied with what instinctive guidance has achieved so far.

[ 6 ] One of the fundamental questions that arise from contemporary criticism is how the oppression that proletarian humanity has experienced through private capitalism can end. The owner or manager of capital is able to put the physical labor of other people at the service of what he undertakes to produce. In the social relation which arises in the interaction of capital and human labor, we must distinguish three links: the entrepreneurial activity, which must be based on the individual capacities of a person or a group of persons; the relation of the entrepreneur to the worker, which must be a legal relation; the production of a thing which acquires a commodity value in the circulation of economic life. Entrepreneurial activity can only intervene in a healthy way in the social organism if forces are at work in its life which allow the individual abilities of people to manifest themselves in the best possible way. This can only happen if there is an area of the social organism which gives the capable person the free initiative to make use of his abilities and which makes it possible to assess the value of these abilities through a free understanding of them in other people. It can be seen that the social activity of a person through capital belongs to that area of the social organism in which spiritual life is responsible for legislation and administration. If the political state intervenes in this activity, the lack of understanding of individual abilities must necessarily be a determining factor in its effectiveness. For the political state must be based on, and it must put into effect, that which is present in all men as an equal demand of life. It must allow all men in its sphere to assert their judgment. For what he has to accomplish, understanding or non-understanding of individual abilities is out of the question. Therefore, what comes to fruition in it must also have no influence on the exercise of individual human abilities. Nor should the prospect of economic advantage be able to determine the impact of individual abilities made possible by capital. Some evaluators of capitalism place a great deal of emphasis on this advantage. They suppose that it is only through this incentive of advantage that individual abilities can be brought into activity. And as "practitioners" they refer to the "imperfect" human nature that they claim to know. However, within the social order that has brought about the present conditions, the prospect of economic advantage has acquired a profound significance. But this fact is in no small part the cause of the conditions that can now be experienced. And these conditions urge the development of a different drive for the exercise of individual abilities. This drive will have to lie in the social understanding that flows from a healthy spiritual life. Education and school will equip people with impulses from the power of free spiritual life that will lead them to realize what their individual abilities urge them to do by virtue of this inherent understanding.

[ 7 ] Such an opinion need not be swarm spiritism. To be sure, swarm spiritism has brought immeasurable disaster in the area of social will as well as in others. But the view presented here is not, as can be seen from the foregoing, based on the delusional belief that "the spirit" will work miracles if those who think they have it speak of it as much as possible; rather, it arises from the observation of the free cooperation of people in the spiritual sphere. This cooperation is given a social character by its own nature, if only it can develop truly freely.

[ 8 ] Only the unfree nature of spiritual life has so far prevented this social character from emerging. Within the leading classes the intellectual forces have developed in such a way that the achievements of these forces have been completed in an anti-social manner within certain circles of humanity. What has been produced within these circles could only be brought to proletarian humanity in an artificial way. And this humanity could not draw any soul-bearing strength from this spiritual life, because it did not really participate in the life of this spiritual good. Institutions for "popular instruction", the "attraction" of the "people" to the enjoyment of art and the like are in truth no means of spreading the spiritual good among the people as long as this spiritual good retains the character it has assumed in modern times. For the "people" do not stand with their innermost part of their human nature in the life of this spiritual good. It is only enabled to look at it, so to speak, from a point of view that lies outside it. And what applies to spiritual life in the narrower sense also has its significance in those branches of spiritual activity that flow into economic life on the basis of capital. In a healthy social organism the proletarian worker should not stand by his machine and be touched only by its gears, while the capitalist alone knows the fate of the commodities produced in the cycle of economic life. The worker should be able to develop ideas about the way in which he participates in social life by working on the production of commodities. Meetings, which must be counted as part of the working process as the work itself, should be organized regularly by the employer with the purpose of developing a common circle of ideas which embraces employees and employers. A healthy activity of this kind will create an understanding in the worker that the right activity of the capital manager promotes the social organism and thus the worker himself, who is a member of it. The entrepreneur will be induced to conduct his business in an impeccable manner by such publicity of his management aimed at free understanding.

[ 9 ] Only those who have no sense at all for the social effect of the inner united experience of a thing carried out in community will consider what is said to be meaningless. Those who have such a sense will see through how economic productivity is promoted when the capital-based management of economic life has its roots in the area of free spiritual life. The interest in capital and its increase, which exists merely for the sake of profit, can only make way for the objective interest in the creation of products and the production of services if this condition is fulfilled.

[ 10 ] Today's socialist thinkers strive for the management of the means of production by society. What is justified in this aspiration can only be achieved if this administration is carried out by the free intellectual sphere. This will make impossible the economic compulsion which emanates from the capitalist and is felt to be inhuman when the capitalist develops his activity out of the forces of economic life. And the paralysis of individual human capacities will not be able to occur, which must be a consequence if these capacities are administered by the political state.

[ 11 ] In a healthy social organism, the achievement of an activity through capital and individual human abilities must, like every intellectual achievement, result from the free initiative of the active person on the one hand and, on the other, from the free understanding of other people who demand the existence of the active person's achievement. In this field, the free insight of the doer must be in harmony with the assessment of what he wants to regard as the yield of his achievement - according to the preparations he needs in order to accomplish it, according to the expenditures he must make in order to make it possible, and so on. He will only be able to find his demands satisfied if he is met with understanding for his achievements.

[ 12 ] Social institutions along the lines outlined here will lay the groundwork for a truly free contractual relationship between labor manager and labor provider. And this relation will not refer to an exchange of commodities (or money) for labor power, but to the determination of the share which each of the two persons who jointly produce the commodity has.

[ 13 ] What is done for the social organism on the basis of capital is in essence based on the way in which the individual human faculties intervene in this organism. The development of these faculties can receive its corresponding impulse from nothing else but the free life of the spirit. Even in a social organism which harnesses this development to the administration of the political state or to the forces of economic life, the real productivity of everything that necessitates the expenditure of capital will be based on the free individual forces that force their way through the paralyzing institutions. But development under such conditions will be an unhealthy one. It is not the free unfolding of individual faculties acting on the basis of capital that has brought about conditions in which human labor power must be a commodity, but the fettering of these forces by political state life or by the cycle of economic life. To see through this impartially is in the present day a prerequisite for everything that is to happen in the field of social organization. For modern times have brought forth the superstition that the measures which make the social organism healthy should emerge from the political state or economic life. If we continue on the path that has received its direction from this superstition, we will create institutions that will not lead humanity to what it is striving for, but to an unlimited increase in the oppression that it would like to see averted.

[ 14 ] We have learned to think about capitalism at a time when this capitalism has caused a process of illness in the social organism. One experiences the process of illness; one sees that it must be counteracted. One must see more. One must realize that the disease has its origin in the absorption of the forces active in capital by the circulation of economic life. Only those can work in the direction of what the developmental forces of humanity are now energetically beginning to demand, who do not allow themselves to be driven into illusions by the way of thinking which sees in the administration of capital activity by the liberated spiritual life the result of an "impractical idealism".

[ 15 ] In the present day, however, there is little preparation to bring the social idea, which is supposed to steer capitalism in a healthy direction, into a direct connection with spiritual life. It is linked to that which belongs to the circle of economic life. We see how in recent times the production of goods has led to large-scale enterprise, and how this has led to the present form of capitalism. This form of economy should be replaced by the cooperative, which works for the producers' own needs. Since, however, the economy with the modern means of production is to be retained, it is demanded that the farms be merged into a single large cooperative. In such a cooperative, it is thought, everyone produces on behalf of the community, which cannot be exploitative because it exploits itself. And since one wants or has to build on what already exists, one looks towards the modern state, which one wants to transform into a comprehensive cooperative.

[ 16 ] It is not realized that such a cooperative is expected to have effects that are all the less likely to occur the larger the cooperative is. If the integration of individual human abilities into the organism of the cooperative is not organized in the way described above, the commonality of labour administration cannot lead to the health of the social organism.

[ 17 ] The fact that there is currently little disposition for an unbiased judgment on the intervention of spiritual life in the social organism stems from the fact that people have become accustomed to imagining the spiritual as far removed as possible from everything material and practical. There will be quite a few who find something grotesque in the view presented here, that in the activity of capital in economic life the effect of a part of spiritual life is supposed to reveal itself. One can imagine that in this characterization of what is presented as grotesque, members of the hitherto leading classes of men agree with socialist thinkers. In order to understand the significance of these grotesque findings for the recovery of the social organism, one will have to look at certain currents of thought in the present, which in their nature spring from honest impulses of the soul, but which inhibit the emergence of a truly social way of thinking where they find their way in.

[ 18 ] These currents of thought strive more or less unconsciously - away from that which gives the inner experience the right impetus. They strive for a view of life, a spiritual, a thinking, an inner life that seeks scientific knowledge, like an island in the life of man as a whole. They are then unable to build a bridge from this life to that which engages people in everyday life. You can see how many people today find it "inwardly noble", so to speak, to think about all kinds of ethical-religious problems in cloud-cuckoo-land heights in a certain, even scholastic abstractness; you can see how people think about the way in which man can acquire virtues, how he should behave in love towards his fellow human beings, how he can be graced with an "inner purpose in life". But then you can also see the inability to make a transition from what people call good and loving and benevolent and legal and moral to what surrounds people in external reality, in everyday life, as the effects of capital, as the remuneration of labor, as consumption, as production, as the circulation of goods, as credit, as banking and the stock exchange. You can see how two world currents are juxtaposed in people's habits of thought. The one world current is that which wants to keep itself, as it were, at a divine-spiritual height, which does not want to build a bridge between what is a spiritual impulse and what is a fact of ordinary action in life. The other lives thoughtlessly in the everyday. Life, however, is a unified one. It can only flourish if the forces that drive it work down from all ethical-religious life into the most profane everyday life, into the life that seems less noble to some. For if one neglects to build a bridge between the two spheres of life, then one falls into a mere swarm spirituality with regard to religious, moral life and social thinking, which is far removed from everyday true reality. This everyday true reality then takes its revenge, so to speak. Then, out of a certain "spiritual" impulse, man strives for all possible ideals, all possible things that he calls "good"; but man gives himself over to those instincts that are opposed to these "ideals" as the basis of the ordinary daily needs of life, the satisfaction of which must come from the national economy, to these instincts without "spirit". He knows no realistic path from the concept of spirituality to what goes on in everyday life. As a result, this everyday life takes on a form that should have nothing to do with what wants to be held as ethical impulses in noble, soul-spiritual heights. But then the revenge of ordinariness becomes such that the ethical-religious life becomes an inner lie of man's life, because it keeps itself far away from the everyday, from the immediate practice of life, without one realizing it.

[ 19 ] How numerous are the people today who, out of a certain ethical-religious nobility, show the best will to live together with their fellow human beings in the right way, who only want to do the very best for their fellow human beings. But they fail to arrive at a way of feeling that really makes this possible, because they cannot acquire a social imagination that has an effect on practical habits of life.

[ 20 ] From the circle of such people come those who, in this world-historical moment when social questions have become so urgent, oppose the true practice of life as swarming spirits who consider themselves to be real practitioners of life. You can hear them say things like this: We need people to rise from materialism, from the outwardly material life that drove us into the catastrophe of the world war and into misfortune, and to turn to a spiritual view of life. If one wants to show the paths of man to spirituality in this way, one never tires of quoting those personalities who were revered in the past because of their spiritual way of thinking. One can experience that someone who tries to point out precisely what the spirit must achieve today for real practical life, just as the daily bread must be produced, is made aware that it is primarily important to bring people back to the recognition of the spirit. At present, however, it is important that the guidelines for the recovery of the social organism are found from the power of spiritual life. It is not enough for people to occupy themselves with the spirit in a side current of life. It is necessary for everyday life to become spiritual. The tendency to seek such side currents for the "spiritual life" has led the hitherto leading circles to have a taste for social conditions that have leaked into the present facts.

[ 21 ] In contemporary social life, the management of capital in the production of commodities and the ownership of the means of production, including capital, are closely connected. And yet these two relationships of man to capital are quite different in terms of their effect within the social organism. Administration through individual abilities, when applied appropriately, provides the social organism with goods in whose existence all people belonging to this organism have an interest. Whatever a person's situation in life, he has an interest in ensuring that nothing is lost of the individual faculties that flow from the sources of human nature, through which goods are created that serve the purpose of human life. The development of these faculties can only take place, however, if their human bearers can bring them to fruition on their own free initiative. What cannot flow freely from these sources is, at least to a certain extent, withdrawn from human welfare. Capital, however, is the means of bringing such abilities into effect for wide areas of social life. Everyone within a social organism must have a real interest in administering the entire capital property in such a way that the individual gifted in a particular direction, or that groups of people capable of special things, can dispose of capital in such a way that it arises solely from their own initiative. From the intellectual worker to the artisan, every man, if he wishes to serve his own interest without prejudice, must say: I wish that a sufficient number of capable persons or groups of persons should not only be able to dispose of capital entirely freely, but that they should also be able to arrive at the capital on their own initiative; for they alone can have a judgment as to how, through the mediation of capital, their individual capabilities will produce goods for the social organism in an expedient manner.

[ 22 ] It is not necessary in the course of this paper to describe how, in the course of the development of mankind, private property has arisen from other forms of property in connection with the exercise of individual human faculties in the social organism. Up to the present such property has developed under the influence of the division of labor within this organism. And the present conditions and their necessary further development will be discussed here.

[ 23 ] However private property has been formed, through the exercise of power and conquest and so on, it is a result of social creation linked to individual human abilities. Nevertheless, there is currently an opinion among socialist thinkers that its oppressive nature can only be eliminated by transforming it into common property. The question is posed thus: How can private ownership of the means of production be prevented from arising so that the oppression of the dispossessed population caused by it ceases? Those who pose the question in this way do not focus their attention on the fact that the social organism is a constantly growing and developing organism. One cannot ask of this growing thing: How should it best be arranged so that through this arrangement it will then remain in the state that one has recognized as the right one? This is how one can think about something that continues to work essentially unchanged from a certain starting point. This does not apply to the social organism. Through its life it continually changes that which arises in it. If you want to give it a supposedly best form in which it should then remain, you undermine its living conditions.

[ 24 ] A vital condition of the social organism is that those who can serve the community through their individual abilities should not be deprived of the possibility of such service on their own free initiative. Where such service includes the free disposal of the means of production, the prevention of this free initiative would be detrimental to the general social interests. What is usually argued with reference to this matter, that the entrepreneur needs the prospect of profit to stimulate his activity, Öor is bound to the possession of the means of production: this is not to be asserted here. For the way of thinking from which the opinion of a further development of social relations, as presented in this book, flows, must see in the liberation of intellectual life from the political and economic community the possibility that such an incentive may cease to exist. Liberated spiritual life will quite necessarily develop social understanding of its own accord; and from this understanding will arise incentives of quite a different kind from those which lie in the hope of economic advantage. But it cannot be a question merely of the impulses which make private ownership of the means of production popular among men, but of whether the free disposal of such means, or that regulated by the community, corresponds to the conditions of life of the social organism. And here it must always be borne in mind that for the present social organism one cannot take into consideration the conditions of life which one believes to observe in primitive human societies, but only those which correspond to the present stage of development of mankind.

[ 25 ] At this present stage the fruitful exercise of individual faculties by capital cannot enter into the circulation of economic life without the free disposal of the same. Where production is to be fruitful, this disposition must be possible, not because it brings advantage to an individual or a group of people, but because it can best serve the general public if it is expediently supported by social understanding.

[ 26 ] Man is, as it were, connected with what he produces himself or in community with others, as with the skill of his own bodily members. The suppression of the free disposal of the means of production is equivalent to a paralysis of the free use of the dexterity of his bodily members.

[ 27 ] However, private property is nothing other than the mediator of this free disposal. For the social organism, nothing else comes into consideration with regard to property than that the owner has the right to dispose of the property on his own free initiative. We see that in social life two things are connected which are of quite different importance for the social organism: the free disposal of the capital basis of social production, and the legal relation into which the disposer enters with other men by the fact that through his right of disposal these other men are excluded from free activity through this capital basis.

[ 28 ] It is not the original free disposal that leads to social damage, but merely the continuance of the right to this disposal, when the conditions have ceased which bind individual human capacities together with this disposal in an expedient manner. Whoever looks at the social organism as a becoming, growing thing will not be able to misunderstand what is indicated here. He will ask how that which serves life on the one hand can be managed in such a way that it does not have a harmful effect on the other. What lives cannot be fruitfully arranged in any other way than by the fact that in becoming that which comes into being also leads to disadvantage. And if one is to cooperate in a becoming itself, as man must in the social organism, the task cannot consist in preventing the emergence of a necessary institution in order to avoid harm. For this would undermine the possibility of life for the social organism. It can only be a matter of intervening at the right moment when the expedient turns into a harmful one.

[ 29 ] The possibility of freely disposing of the capital base on the basis of individual abilities must exist; it must be possible to change the associated right of ownership at the moment when it turns into a means for the unjustified development of power. In our time we have an institution which takes account of the social demand indicated here, partly implemented only for so-called intellectual property. Some time after the death of the creator, this becomes the free property of the general public. This is based on a conception corresponding to the nature of human coexistence. As closely as the production of a purely spiritual good is bound to the individual talent of the individual, this good is at the same time a result of social coexistence and must be transferred to it at the right moment. But it is no different with other property. That with its help the individual produces in the service of the whole is only possible with the cooperation of this whole. Thus the right to dispose of property cannot be administered separately from the interests of the whole. It is not a question of finding a means by which the ownership of the capital base can be extinguished, but of finding a means by which this property can be administered in such a way that it serves the whole in the best possible way.

[ 30 ] This means can be found in the tripartite social organism. The people united in the social organism act as a whole through the rule of law. The exercise of individual faculties belongs to the spiritual organization.

[ 31 ] Just as everything in the social organism of an outlook that has an understanding of actualities and that does not allow itself to be completely dominated by subjective opinions, theories, desires and so on, gives rise to the necessity of the tripartite organization of this organism, so in particular does the question of the relationship of individual human capacities to the capital basis of economic life and the ownership of this capital basis. The constitutional state will not have to prevent the emergence and administration of private ownership of capital as long as the individual capabilities remain so connected with the capital base that the administration means a service for the whole of the social organism. And it will remain a constitutional state with regard to private property; it will never take possession of it itself, but will ensure that it passes at the right time into the right of disposal of a person or group of persons who can again develop a relationship to the property that is conditioned by individual circumstances. The social organism can thus be served from two quite different starting points. From the democratic basis of the constitutional state, which has to do with what affects all people in the same way, it will be possible to ensure that property rights do not become property injustices in the course of time. By the fact that this state does not administer property itself, but ensures that it is transferred to the individual human capacities, these will unfold their fruitful power for the entirety of the social organism. So long as it seems expedient, such an organization will enable the rights of property, or the disposal of the same, to remain with the individual element. It may be imagined that the representatives in the constitutional state will at different times make very different laws concerning the transfer of property from one person or group of persons to another. At the present time, when a great distrust of all private property has developed in wide circles, a radical transfer of private property into common property is being considered. If one were to go far along this road, one would see how the possibility of life for the social organism would be prevented. Experience would teach us to take a different path later. But it would undoubtedly be better to take steps in the present to establish institutions which would give health to the social organism in the sense indicated here. As long as a person, alone or in connection with a group of persons, continues the productive activity which he has brought together with a capital basis, he must retain the right of disposal over that mass of capital which results from the initial capital as operating profit, if the latter is used for the extension of the productive enterprise. From the moment such a person ceases to manage the production, this capital mass should be transferred to another person or group of persons for the operation of a similar or other production serving the social organism. The capital that is extracted from the production enterprise and is not used for its expansion should also follow the same path from its creation. The personal property of the person in charge of the enterprise should only be that which he acquires on the basis of those claims which he believed he could make on the basis of his individual ability when he started the production enterprise, and which appear to be justified by the fact that he has received capital from the trust of other people by asserting the same. If the capital has been increased by the activity of this person, so much will pass into his individual property from this increase that the increase of the original emoluments corresponds to the increase of capital in the sense of an interest payment. - The capital with which a production operation has been initiated will, according to the will of the original owners, be transferred to the new manager with all the obligations assumed, or will flow back to them if the first manager can no longer or no longer wishes to manage the operation.

[ 32 ] In such an arrangement, one is dealing with transfers of rights. The rule of law is responsible for making the legal provisions on how such transfers are to take place. It will also have to supervise the implementation and manage its administration. One can imagine that the individual provisions regulating such a transfer of rights will be found to be correct in very different ways based on legal awareness. A conception which, like the one presented here, is intended to be realistic will never want to do more than point to the direction in which the regulation can move. If this direction is approached with understanding, one will always find something appropriate in the specific individual case. But the right thing will have to be found from the particular circumstances for the practice of life in accordance with the spirit of the matter. The more realistic a way of thinking is, the less it will want to establish laws and rules for individual things on the basis of preconceived requirements. - On the other hand, one or the other will necessarily result from the spirit of the way of thinking. One such result is that the constitutional state will never be allowed to usurp the disposal of capital through its administration of the transfer of rights. It will only have to ensure that the transfer is made to a person or group of persons who make this process appear justified by their individual abilities. On the basis of this premise, the provision that whoever has to proceed with a transfer of capital for the reasons described above can freely choose his successor in the utilization of capital will also have to apply in general. He will be able to choose a person or group of persons, or transfer the right of disposal to a corporation of the intellectual organization. For he who has rendered appropriate services to the social organism through capital management will also judge the further use of this capital from his individual abilities with social understanding. And it will be more useful for the social organism if this judgment is relied upon than if it is dispensed with and the regulation is carried out by persons who are not directly connected with the matter.

[ 33 ] A regulation of this kind will come into consideration in the case of masses of capital of a certain amount which are acquired by a person or a group of persons through means of production (which include land), and which do not become personal property on the basis of claims originally made for the exercise of individual capacities.

[ 34 ] The acquisitions made in the latter manner and all savings resulting from the performance of one's own labor remain the personal property of the acquirer or his descendants until the death of the acquirer or until a later date. Until that time, the person to whom such savings are given for the creation of the means of production will also have to pay an interest resulting from legal consciousness and to be determined by the rule of law. In a social order which rests on the foundations described here, a complete distinction can be made between the earnings which come into existence on the basis of labor with the means of production and the wealth which is acquired on the basis of personal (physical and mental) labor. This distinction corresponds to legal consciousness and the interests of the social community. What someone saves and makes available as savings to a production enterprise serves the general interests. For it is what makes production management by individual human abilities possible. Whatever increase in capital is produced by the means of production - after deduction of the legitimate interest - owes its origin to the action of the entire social organism. It should therefore also flow back into it in the manner described. The constitutional state will only have to determine that the transfer of the masses of capital in question shall take place in the manner indicated; but it will not be incumbent upon it to decide to what material or intellectual production a transferred or even a saved capital is to be made available. This would lead to a tyranny of the state over intellectual and material production. The latter, however, is guided by individual human abilities in the best way for the social organism. It will only be left to those who do not themselves wish to choose to whom they should transfer the capital they have created, to employ a corporation of intellectual organization for the right of disposal.

[ 35 ] After the death of the acquirer or some time thereafter, assets acquired through savings shall also pass with the interest income to a spiritually or materially productive person or group of persons - but only to such a person, not to an unproductive person for whom it would become an annuity - who is to be chosen by the acquirer by testamentary disposition. Here too, if a person or group of persons cannot be chosen directly, the transfer of the right of disposal to a corporation of the spiritual organism may be considered. Only if someone does not make a disposition of their own accord will the constitutional state intervene on their behalf and have the disposition made by the spiritual organization.

[ 36 ] Within such a regulated social order, both the free initiative of the individual and the interests of the social community are taken into account; indeed, the latter are fully satisfied by the fact that the free initiative of the individual is placed at their service. Whoever has to entrust his work to the direction of another person will, with such an arrangement, be able to know that what has been worked out together with the leader will be fruitful in the best possible way for the social organism, thus also for the worker himself. The social order meant here will create a relationship corresponding to the healthy feeling of men between the rights of disposal, regulated by legal consciousness, over capital embodied in the means of production and human labor on the one hand, and the prices of the products created by both on the other. - Perhaps some will find imperfections in what is presented here. They may be found. The point of a realistic way of thinking is not to give perfect "programs" once and for all, but to indicate the direction in which practical work is to be done. Special indications such as those given here are actually only intended to explain the marked direction in more detail, as with an example. Such an example may be improved. If this is only done in the direction indicated, then a fruitful goal can be achieved.

[ 37 ] Justified personal or family impulses will be reconciled with the demands of human universality through such institutions. It will certainly be possible to point out that the temptation to transfer property to one or more descendants during one's lifetime is very great. And that in such descendants one can create apparent producers who are then, however, inefficient in relation to others and would be better replaced by these others. But this temptation can be minimized in an organization governed by the institutions mentioned above. For the rule of law need only require that under all circumstances the property which has been transferred to one member of the family from another shall, after the lapse of a certain time following the death of the latter, revert to a corporation of the spiritual organization. Or the circumvention of the rule can be prevented in another way by law. The rule of law will only see to it that this transfer takes place; who shall be chosen to inherit should be determined by an institution arising from the spiritual organization. By fulfilling such conditions, an understanding will develop that descendants are made suitable for the social organism through education and instruction, and that social harm is not caused by the transfer of capital to unproductive persons. One in whom truly social understanding lives has no interest in his connection with a capital base having an after-effect on persons or groups of persons whose individual capacities do not justify such a connection.

[ 38 ] No one will regard what is set forth here as a mere utopia, which has any sense of what is really practicable. For it points precisely to such institutions as can arise quite directly at any point in life out of present conditions. It will only be necessary to take the decision to gradually dispense with the administration of intellectual life and economic activity within the constitutional state and not to defend oneself if, as should happen, private educational establishments really come into being and economic life stands on its own foundations. State schools and state economic institutions need not be abolished from one day to the next; but from perhaps small beginnings one will see the possibility of a gradual dismantling of the state educational and economic system. Above all, however, it would be necessary for those personalities who can imbue themselves with the conviction of the correctness of the social ideas presented here or similar ones to ensure their dissemination. If such ideas are understood, confidence is thereby created for a possible salutary transformation of the present conditions into those which do not show their harm. This confidence, however, is the only one from which a truly healthy development can emerge. For whoever is to gain such confidence must be able to see how new institutions can be practically linked to the existing ones. And it seems to be the very essence of the ideas that are developed here that they do not want to bring about a better future by destroying the present even further than has already occurred; but that the realization of such ideas builds on what already exists and, by building on it, brings about the dismantling of what is unhealthy. An enlightenment that does not strive for trust in this direction will not achieve what must be achieved at all costs: a further development in which the value of the goods and abilities acquired by mankind up to now is not thrown to the winds, but preserved. Even the most radical thinker can gain confidence in a social reorganization while preserving traditional values if he sees himself confronted with ideas that can initiate a truly healthy development. He too will have to realize that whichever class of men comes to power, it will not eliminate the existing evils if its impulses are not carried by ideas that make the social organism healthy and viable. To despair because one cannot believe that a sufficiently large number of people, even in the turmoil of the present, will understand such ideas, if the necessary energy can be directed to their propagation, would be to despair of the susceptibility of human nature to the impulses of what is healthy and appropriate. This question of whether one should despair of this should not be asked at all, but only the other one: what should be done to make the enlightenment of trust-inspiring ideas as powerful as possible.

[ 39 ] The effective dissemination of the ideas presented here will initially be hindered by the fact that the habits of thought of the present age will not be able to cope with them for two reasons. Either it will be objected in some form or other that it is impossible to imagine that the unified social life can be torn apart, since in reality the three branches of this life are connected everywhere; or it will be found that even in the unified state the necessary independent significance of each of the three members can be achieved, and that what is presented here is in fact a web of ideas that does not touch reality. The first objection is based on the fact that unreal thinking is assumed. That it is believed that people can only create a unity of life in a community if this unity is first brought into the community by arrangement. But the opposite is demanded by the reality of life. Unity must arise as the result; the activities flowing together from different directions must ultimately bring about unity. This realistic idea ran counter to the development of recent times. Therefore, what lived in people resisted the "order" brought into life from outside and led to the present social situation. - The second prejudice arises from the inability to see through the radical difference in the workings of the three links of social life. One does not see how man has a special relationship to each of the three members, which can only be developed in its own way if there is a ground in real life that exists for itself, on which this relationship, separated from the other two, can develop in order to work together with them. A view of the past, the physiocratic view, held that either men make governmental regulations over economic life which are contrary to the free self-development of this life; then such regulations are harmful. Or the laws run in the same direction in which economic life runs by itself, if it is left to itself; then they are superfluous. As a school opinion, this view has been overcome; as a habit of thought, however, it still haunts people's minds everywhere. It is thought that if an area of life follows its laws, then everything necessary for life must follow from this area. If, for example, economic life is regulated in such a way that people feel the regulation to be satisfactory to them, then legal and spiritual life must also result correctly from the ordered economic sphere. But this is not possible. And only a way of thinking that is alien to reality can believe that it is possible. In the cycle of economic life there is nothing that contains of itself an impulse to regulate that which flows from the consciousness of right concerning the relationship of man to man. And if one wants to regulate this relationship from the economic impulses, one will involve man with his labor and with the disposal of the means of labor in economic life. He becomes a wheel in an economic life that works like a mechanism. Economic life has a tendency to move continually in one direction, in which it is necessary to intervene from another side. It is not when the legal measures run in the direction produced by economic life that they are good, or when they run counter to it that they are harmful; but when the direction in which economic life runs is continually influenced by the rights which concern man only as man, he will be able to lead a humane existence in economic life. And only then, when the individual faculties grow up on their own ground, quite apart from economic life, and continually supply economic life with the forces that cannot be generated from within it, will economic life be able to develop in a way that is beneficial to human beings.

[ 40 ] It is curious: in the field of purely external life one easily sees the advantage of the division of labor. It is not believed that the tailor should breed his own cow to supply him with milk. For the comprehensive organization of human life, it is believed that the unitary order must be the only profitable thing.


[ 41 ] It is self-evident that objections must arise from all sides, especially in the case of a direction of social ideas that corresponds to real life. For real life generates contradictions. And whoever thinks according to this life must want to realize institutions whose contradictions in life are balanced by other institutions. He must not believe that an institution which proves to be "ideally good" in his mind will, if it is realized, also develop without contradiction. - It is a perfectly justified demand of contemporary socialism that the modern institutions, in which production takes place for the sake of the profit of the individual, should be replaced by those in which production takes place for the sake of the consumption of all. But precisely those who fully recognize this demand will not be able to come to the conclusion of this newer socialism: Therefore the means of production must pass from private to common ownership. Rather, he will have to recognize the quite different conclusion: Therefore, what is produced privately on the basis of individual prowess must be brought to the commonwealth through the right channels. The economic impulse of recent times has been to create revenue by the quantity of goods produced; the future will have to strive to find the best mode of production and the ways from the producer to the consumer by association from the necessary consumption. The legal institutions will ensure that a production enterprise remains connected with a person or group of persons only as long as this connection is justified by the individual abilities of these persons. Instead of the common ownership of the means of production, a circulation of these means will occur in the social organism, which will always bring them anew to those persons whose individual abilities they can utilize in the best possible way for the community. In this way the connection between personality and means of production is temporarily established, which has hitherto been effected by private property. For the manager of an enterprise and his sub-managers will owe it to the means of production that their abilities will bring them an income commensurate with their requirements. They will not fail to make the production as perfect as possible, for the increase of this production will not bring them the full profit, but a part of the revenue. After all, the profit flows to the general public only in the sense described above, up to the degree that results after deducting the interest that the producer receives due to the increase in production. And it is actually already in the spirit of what has been described here that, if production decreases, the producer's income must decrease to the same extent as it increases with the expansion of production. But the income will always flow from the intellectual achievement of the leader, not from such profit as is based on conditions which have their foundation not in the intellectual work of an entrepreneur, but in the interaction of the forces of common life.

[ 42 ] It will be seen that by the realization of such social ideas as are here presented, institutions which at present exist will receive a completely new meaning. Property will cease to be what it has been up to now. And it will not be returned to an outmoded form, such as that represented by common property, but will be carried forward to something completely new. The objects of property are brought into the flow of social life. The individual cannot administer them out of his private interest to the detriment of the community; but neither will the community be able to administer them bureaucratically to the detriment of the individual; but the suitable individual will find access to them in order to be able to serve the community through them.

[ 43 ] A sense of the general interest can develop through the realization of such impulses that place production on a sound basis and protect the social organism from the dangers of crisis. - An administration that is only concerned with the cycle of economic life can also lead to balances that arise as necessary from this cycle. If, for example, a business is not in a position to pay its borrowers interest on their labor savings, it will be possible, if it is recognized as meeting a need, to make up the shortfall from other businesses by free agreement with all those involved in the latter. A self-contained economic cycle, which receives the legal basis from outside and the continuous inflow of the individual human abilities that come to light, will only have to do with economic activity. It will thus be able to be the initiator of a distribution of goods that provides everyone with what he can justly have according to the prosperity of the community. If one person appears to have more income than another, this will only be because the "more" benefits the community as a whole due to their individual abilities.

[ 44 ] A social organism organized in the light of the conception presented here will be able to regulate the taxes necessary for legal life through an agreement between the leaders of legal life and those of economic life. And all that is necessary for the maintenance of the spiritual organization will flow to it through the remuneration of the individuals who participate in the social organism, which will be made out of free understanding. This spiritual organization will have its healthy foundation through the individual initiative of individuals capable of spiritual work asserting themselves in free competition.

[ 45 ] But only in the social organism meant here will the administration of justice find the necessary understanding for a just distribution of goods. An economic organism which does not make use of the labor of men from the needs of the individual branches of production, but which has to do business with what the law makes possible for it, will determine the value of goods according to what men render to it. It will not let people do what is determined by the value of goods, which is independent of human welfare and human dignity. Such an organism will see rights arising from purely human conditions. Children will have the right to education; the father of a family will be able to have a higher income as a worker than as a single person. The "more" will accrue to him through institutions established by agreement between all three social organizations. Such institutions can correspond to the right to education in that the administration of the economic organization determines the possible amount of the educational income according to the general economic conditions and the constitutional state determines the rights of the individual according to the opinions of the spiritual organization. Again, it is in the nature of realistic thinking that with such an indication only the direction in which the institutions can be effected is indicated as by an example. It would be possible that for the individual quite different institutions would be found to be correct. But this "right" can only be found through the timely interaction of the three independent members of the social organism. Here, in contrast to much that is considered practical in the present, but is not, the way of thinking on which it is based would like to find what is really practical, namely a structure of the social organism that causes people to bring about what is socially expedient in this structure.

[ 46 ] Just as children have the right to education, so the aged, the disabled, widows and the sick have the right to a livelihood, to which the capital basis must flow into the circulation of the social organism in a similar way to the designated capital contribution for the education of those who are not yet able to work themselves. The essential point in all this is that the determination of what a non-self-earning person receives as income should not result from economic life, but that, conversely, economic life becomes dependent on what results in this respect from legal consciousness. Those who work in an economic organism will have all the less of what they have earned through their work, the more must flow out for those who do not earn. But the "less" will be borne equally by all those involved in the social organism if the social impulses meant here find their realization. Through the constitutional state, separated from economic life, what is a general matter of humanity, the education and maintenance of those not able to work, is also really made such a matter, for in the field of legal organization, that in which all men who have come of age have a say is at work.

[ 47 ] A social organism, which corresponds to the type of conception characterized here, will transfer the surplus performance, which a person achieves on the basis of his individual abilities, to the community, just as it will take the justified maintenance for the reduced performance of the less able from this community. "Surplus value" will not be created for the unjustified enjoyment of the individual, but to increase that which can provide the social organism with spiritual or material goods; and to cultivate that which arises within this organism from its womb without being able to serve it directly.

[ 48 ] Those who incline to the view that the separation of the three members of the social organism has only an ideal value, and that it also arises "of itself" in the case of a uniformly organized state organism or in the case of an economic cooperative encompassing the territory of the state and based on common ownership of the means of production, should direct their attention to the special kind of social institutions that must arise when the threefold structure is realized. There, for example, the state administration will no longer have to recognize money as legal tender, but this recognition will be based on the measures emanating from the administrative bodies of the economic organization. For in a healthy social organism, money can be nothing other than an order for goods produced by others and which can be obtained from the whole area of economic life because goods produced by oneself have been delivered to this area. Through monetary transactions, an economic area becomes a unified economy. Everyone produces for everyone else in a roundabout way through the entire economic life. Within the economic area, one only deals with commodity values. For this area, the services that arise from the intellectual and state organization also take on the character of commodities. What a teacher does for his pupils is a commodity for the economic cycle. The teacher is not paid for his individual abilities any more than the worker is paid for his labor. Both can only be paid for what, starting from them, can be goods and commodities in the economic cycle. How free initiative and the law are to act in order that the commodity may come into existence is as outside the economic cycle as the effect of the forces of nature on the grain yield in a blessed or a lean year. For the economic cycle, the spiritual organization and also the state are individual commodity producers with regard to what they claim as economic yield. But what they produce is not a commodity within their own territory; it only becomes a commodity when it is absorbed by the economic cycle. They do not do business in their own territories; the administration of the economic organism does business with what they produce.

[ 49 ] The purely economic value of a commodity (or of something done), in so far as it is expressed in the money which represents its equivalent value, will depend on the expediency with which the administration of the economy is organized within the economic organism. It will depend on the measures of this administration to what extent economic fruitfulness can develop on the intellectual and legal basis created by the other members of the social organism. The monetary value of a commodity will then be the expression of the fact that this commodity is produced by the institutions of the economic organism in the quantity corresponding to its needs. If the conditions set forth in this paper were realized, the decisive factor in the economic organism would not be the impulse to accumulate wealth by the mere quantity of production, but the production of goods would adapt itself to needs through the cooperatives that would arise and combine in the most varied ways. In this way the relation between the value of money and the means of production in the social organism corresponding to these needs will be established.1Only through an administration of the social organism, which comes about in this way in the free cooperation of the three members of the social organism, will a healthy price relation of the produced goods be established as a result for economic life. This must be such that every worker receives for a product as much in return as is necessary to satisfy all the needs of himself and the persons belonging to him, until he has again produced a product of the same labor. Such a relation of prices cannot be established by official determination, but must result from the living interaction of the associations active in the social organism. But it will arise if the interaction is based on the healthy interaction of the three organizational elements. It must occur with the same certainty as a stable bridge must occur when it is built according to the right mathematical and mechanical laws. But no one will make such an objection who is able to recognize how, in the exposition of this book, social life is thought to be based on living and not mathematical laws. In the healthy social organism, money will really only be a measure of value; for behind every coin or banknote there is the commodity performance on which alone the owner of the money can have arrived at the money. The nature of relations will make it necessary to establish institutions which will deprive money of its value for the holder when it has lost the meaning just indicated. Reference has already been made to such institutions. After a certain time, the ownership of money passes to the general public in a suitable form. And so that money that does not work in production enterprises is not retained by holders by circumventing the measures of economic organization, recoinage or reprinting can take place from time to time. From such conditions, however, it will also result that the interest drawn from a capital will always decrease in the course of the years. Money will wear out, just as goods wear out. But such a measure to be taken by the state will be just. "Interest on interest" will not be possible. He who makes savings has, however, performed services which entitle him to later services in return for goods, just as present services entitle him to the exchange of present services in return; but the claims can only go up to a certain limit, for claims arising from the past can only be satisfied by present labor. Such claims must not become a means of economic violence. The realization of such conditions places the currency question on a sound basis. For no matter how the form of money is formed from other conditions: currency becomes the rational organization of the entire economic organism through its administration. The question of currency will never be satisfactorily solved by any state through laws; present states will only solve it if they renounce the solution from their side and leave the necessary to the economic organism to be separated from them.


[ 50 ] Much is said of the modern division of labor, of its effect as a saving of time, perfection of goods, exchange of commodities, and so on; but little consideration is given to how it affects the relation of the individual to his work. He who works in a social organism based on the division of labor never actually earns his own income, but acquires it through the labor of all those involved in the social organism. A tailor who makes a skirt for his own use does not place this skirt in the same relation to himself as a man who, in primitive conditions, still has to provide himself with everything necessary for his subsistence. He makes himself the skirt in order to be able to make clothes for others; and the value of the skirt for him depends entirely on the achievements of others. The skirt is actually a means of production. Some people will say that this is a conceptual division. As soon as he looks at the value formation of commodities in the economic cycle, he will no longer be able to hold this opinion. Then he will see that in an economic organism based on the division of labor, one cannot work for oneself. You can only work for others and let others work for you. One can no more work for oneself than one can eat oneself. But you can create institutions that contradict the nature of the division of labor. This happens when the production of goods is only geared to handing over to the individual as property what he can only produce as an achievement through his position in the social organism. The division of labor forces the social organism so that the individual lives in it according to the conditions of the whole organism; it excludes economically egoism. If this egoism is nevertheless present in the form of class privileges and the like, a socially untenable condition arises which leads to upheavals in the social organism. We are currently living in such conditions. There may be some who think nothing of it when one demands that legal relations and other things must be based on the egoism-free creation of the division of labor. Such a person may then only draw the conclusion from his presuppositions. This would be: nothing at all can be done; the social movement can lead to nothing. However, one cannot do anything fruitful with regard to this movement if one does not want to give reality its due. The way of thinking, out of which the account given here is written, wants to arrange what man has to do within the social organism according to what follows from the living conditions of this organism.


[ 51 ] He who can only form his concepts according to the accustomed institutions will become anxious when he hears that the relationship of the labor leader to the worker should be detached from the economic organism. For he will believe that such a detachment would necessarily lead to monetary devaluation and a return to primitive economic conditions. (Dr. Rathenau expresses such opinions in his pamphlet "After the Flood", which appear justified from his point of view). But this danger is countered by the threefold structure of the social organism. The economic organism, in union with the legal organism, separates money relations entirely from labor relations, which are based on law. Legal relations cannot have a direct influence on monetary relations. For the latter are the result of the administration of the economic organism. The legal relationship between labor manager and worker cannot be expressed unilaterally in the monetary value, because after the elimination of the wage, which represents an exchange relationship between goods and labor, this is merely the measure of the mutual value of the goods (and services). - From the consideration of the effects which the threefold organization has for the social organism, one must gain the conviction that it will lead to institutions which do not exist in the present forms of government.

[ 52 ] And within these institutions it will be possible to eradicate what is currently perceived as class struggle. For this struggle is based on the incorporation of labor wages into the economic cycle. This writing represents a form of social organism in which the concept of labor wages undergoes a transformation just like the old concept of property. But this transformation creates a viable social context for people. - Only a frivolous judgment will find that the realization of what is described here does nothing more than transform the wages of labor into piece-rate wages. It may be that a one-sided view of the matter leads to this judgment. But here this one-sided view is not described as the right one, but the replacement of the relation of remuneration by the contractual relation of division in relation to the work done jointly by the labor leader and the worker in connection with the whole arrangement of the social organism is envisaged. Those to whom the part of the income due to the worker appears as a piece-wage do not realize that this "piece-wage" (which, however, is not really a "wage") is expressed in the value of the work done in a way which brings the social condition of the worker in relation to other members of the social organism into a quite different relation from that which has arisen from the one-sidedly economically conditioned class rule. The demand for the eradication of class struggle is thus satisfied. - And to those who profess the opinion, which can also be heard in socialist circles, that development itself must bring the solution of the social question, that one cannot put forward views which are to be realized, it must be replied: Certainly development will have to bring what is necessary; but in the social organism man's impulses of ideas are actualities. And when time will have advanced a little and that which can only be thought today will be realized: then this very realization will be contained in the development And those who think "only of development" and not of the production of fruitful ideas will have to take their time with their judgment until that point where what is thought today will be development. But it will then be too late to accomplish certain things which are already demanded by present facts. In the social organism it is not possible to consider development objectively as in nature. One must affect the development. That is why it is fatal for healthy social thinking that it is currently confronted with views that want to "prove" what is socially necessary in the same way as one "proves" in natural science. A "proof" in the social conception of life can only arise for those who can include in their view that which lies not only in the existing, but that which is germinating in human impulses - often unnoticed by them - and wants to be realized.

[ 53 ] One of the effects by which the tripartite organization of the social organism will have to prove its foundation in the essence of human social life is the detachment of judicial activity from state institutions. It will be up to the latter to determine the rights that are to exist between people or groups of people. The adjudication itself, however, lies in institutions that are formed out of the spiritual organization. This judgment is highly dependent on the possibility that the judge has a sense and understanding of the individual situation of the person to be judged. Such a sense and understanding will only exist if the same bonds of trust through which people feel drawn to the institutions of the spiritual organization are also decisive for the establishment of the courts. It is possible for the administration of the spiritual organization to appoint the judges, who can be taken from the most diverse spiritual professions, and who also return to their own professions after a certain period of time. Within certain limits, each person then has the opportunity to choose the personality from among those appointed for five or ten years in whom he has so much confidence that, if it comes to it, he wants to receive a decision from him in a private or criminal case during this time. There will then always be so many judges in the vicinity of each person's place of residence that this choice will have significance. A plaintiff must then always turn to the judge responsible for a defendant. - Consider what a drastic effect such an institution would have had in the Austro-Hungarian regions. In mixed-language regions, a member of any nationality could have chosen a judge of his own nation. Anyone familiar with the Austrian situation will also know how much such an institution could have contributed to the equalization of the nationalities. - But apart from nationality, there are wide areas of life for whose healthy development such an institution can have a beneficial effect. - For a closer knowledge of the law, the judges and courts of justice appointed in the manner described above will be assisted by officials whose election is also to be carried out by the administration of the spiritual organism, but who do not have to judge for themselves. Similarly, courts of appeal will have to be formed out of this administration. It will be in the nature of that life which takes place through the realization of such conditions that a judge can be close to the habits of life and the way of feeling of those to be judged, that through his life outside the office of judge - which he will only preside over for a time - he will become familiar with the circles of life of those to be judged. Just as a healthy social organism will draw on the social understanding of the people involved in its life everywhere in its institutions, so too in its judicial activity. The execution of judgments falls to the rule of law.


[ 54 ] The institutions that become necessary through the realization of what has been described here for areas of life other than those indicated need not be described here for the time being. This description would, of course, take up an unlimited amount of space.

[ 55 ] The individual institutions of life described will have shown that the underlying way of thinking is not, as some might think - and as was actually believed when I orally presented what I have described here and there - a renewal of the three estates, the nurturing, military and teaching estates. The opposite of this division into estates is being sought. People will neither be divided into classes nor into estates socially, but the social organism itself will be structured. But it is precisely through this that man will be able to be truly human. For the division will be such that his life will be rooted in each of the three members. In the member of the social organism, in which he stands through his profession, he will stand with objective interest; and with the others he will have vital relationships, for their institutions will stand in a relationship to him that challenges such relationships. The social organism, which is separated from man and forms the basis of his life, will be divided into three parts; each man as such will be a link between the three members.