The Rudolf Steiner Archive

10. Economic Profit and the Zeitgeist

[ 1 ] There are conflicting views on the profit of the economic entrepreneur. Its defenders say that man is so constituted that he will only use his abilities for any undertaking that serves the community as a whole if he is induced to do so by the prospect of profit. Therefore, although profit springs from egoism, it renders services to the community which it would have to do without if it were to eliminate it from the economic cycle. The opponents of this view say that we should not produce in order to profit, but in order to consume. Institutions must be set up whose essence is that people use their powers for the benefit of the whole, even if they are not tempted to do so by the prospect of profit.

[ 2 ] In public life, such conflicting opinions are usually dealt with in such a way that they are not thought through to the end, but allowed to be decided by power. If one is democratically minded, one finds it justified that institutions are realized, or, if they exist, remain realized, which correspond to the interests and wishes of the majority. If one is obstinately convinced of the legitimacy of what is in accordance with one's own wishes and interests, then one strives for an authoritative central power which makes arrangements that are in accordance with these wishes and interests. One then only wants to gain so much influence over this central authority that what one strives for happens through it. What today is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" springs from this attitude. Those who demand it do so out of their desires and interests; they do not try to find out through realistic thinking whether their demand is aimed at institutions that are in themselves objectively possible.

[ 3 ] Mankind is currently at a point in its development where it is no longer possible for people to live together in such a way as to assert what they want. Quite independently of what this or that person, this or that group of people wants: in the area of public life, from the present time onwards, only endeavors that proceed from thoughts that have been thought through to the end will have a healthy effect. No matter how strongly one may resist, out of human passion, to allow this working of ideas thought through to the end, demanded by the spirit of humanity, to enter into life: one will ultimately have to turn to it, because one will see that its opposite has socially unhealthy consequences.

[ 4 ] The view of the necessary tripartite organization of the social organism is held in the sense of ideas thought through to the end. However, it is inconsistent with this intention that among the opponents of this view there are many who find it unclear. This is due to the fact that such opponents do not strive for clarity in their own thoughts, but merely for conformity with their interests, wishes and prejudices. If they are then confronted with thoughts that think things through to the end, then nothing else appears before their eyes but the conflict with what they mean; and they justify themselves unclearly to themselves by finding what is in conflict with them unclear.

[ 5 ] In the assessment of the economic significance of profit, opinions intrude that are not objectively justified. On the one hand, it is certain that the pursuit of profit is selfish. But it is inadequate to reckon with this egoism as a reason for judgment when one thinks of eliminating profit from the economic cycle. For there must be something in this cycle by which one can recognize whether there is a need for a produced good. In the present economic system, this knowledge can only be derived from the fact that the good yields a profit. A good that yields a profit that is sufficiently large in the economic context can be produced; one that does not yield a profit should not be produced, because it must become a disturbance in the price equilibrium of the circulating goods. Profit may mean whatever in ethical terms; in economic terms, in the traditional form of economy, it is the distinguishing mark of the necessity of producing a good.

[ 6 ] For the further development of economic life, it is a matter of eliminating profit for the reason that it leaves the production of goods at the mercy of the market, which the spirit of the age demands be eliminated. One clouds one's sound judgment, however, if one includes in the fight against profit the reference to its selfish nature. For what matters in life is that in one area of reality one asserts those reasons which are objectively justified in that area. Reasons that come from another area may be correct in themselves: they cannot bring the necessary judgment in the factually conditioned direction.

[ 7] For economic life it is a question of replacing the distinguishing mark of profit by the activity of persons who are involved in the economic cycle with the task of mediating between consumption and production in a rational manner, so that the chance of the market is eliminated. The right insight into this transformation of the signs of profit into rational action results in those motives which have hitherto obscured judgment in this field being eliminated from economic life and transferred to the realms of legal and spiritual life.

[ 8 ] Only when one realizes how the idea of the threefold structure of the social organism has received its form from the striving to create the healthy foundations for proper and professional action in the various areas of life will one be able to judge this idea fairly and correctly assess its practical value. As long as disorderly legal and spiritual impulses are to come from administrative institutions of economic life, which can only be practical if nothing but objective and professional judgment and action prevail in them, social life cannot be healthy. In the party groupings of the present day, motives prevail which are still far removed from the characterized demands of the spirit of the times. This has the effect that the opinions existing in these party groupings must receive the idea of the threefold organization of the social organism with prejudice. But it is necessary to dispel the belief that it is possible to bring about a transformation of unhealthy social conditions today by continuing to pursue the old party aspirations. Rather, the first thing to think about is the transformation of party opinions themselves. The way to do this, however, is not for sections of the existing parties to split off, whose members then claim to represent the "right" party opinion and accuse the others of having abandoned the "right view". For this leads from the dispute over party opinions to the even nastier dispute over the power of certain groups of people. What is needed in the present, however, is unbiased insight into the demands of the "spirit of the times".