The Social Question
GA 328
25 February 1919, Zürich
V. The social will as the basis towards a new, scientific procedure.
The theme for this evening's lecture has been requested as “The social will as a basis towards a new, scientific procedure.” I don't know exactly what the motives are for proposing this theme, but when the request came to me I found it extraordinarily lucky because it corresponds in tone to what I consider necessary with regard to the facts which the social movement has brought into the present, and is expressed far more clearly than what formerly had been discussed and negotiated regarding the social question in the course of the last decades.
It is possible to follow the development of the social movement over a long time, up to our present times and to notice how the social impulses in their aims tend more and more to the one or other side, having something sneaking into this social will, into the social mood of recent times which can seem like a wrapping of something from quite another time when superstitions ruled in the Middle ages. These superstitions appear now again when you engage yourself deeply in the second part of Goethe's “Faust” and come to the scene where Goethe allows his Wagner to create the Homunculus, the manikin who would like to be on the way to becoming a human being, developed out of the manikin. According to Goethe it depended on Middle Age superstitions to desire the creation of something out of mere theory, mere outer dry and sober facts assimilated in the human mind into something with being, something thought up which becomes alive. The impossibility of taking abstractions drawn from outer life and forming something alive with them, was Goethe's concern in particular. The Middle Ages don't rule our current thinking as such, but it appears to me as a metamorphosis, one could say, in all the impulses and instincts of many of our contemporaries who want to address the social will and allow some superstitions to dominate. One can observe the development of social life, how it has in the course of history up to the present resulted in thoughts developing out of certain principles, certain foundations which they want to accomplish, or, as you can hear from various opinions, they want it carried out themselves, which means, just as through abstract principles the Homunculus was formed, they can create something called a social organism.
Towards such a social organism there is a striving of, what one could call, the unconscious part of modern humanity. It is only necessary to make the following clear, in order to understand this. The social life of humanity as such is admittedly nothing new; it only appears to be different in more recent times. The social structure of a community is determined, in our more recent times, by the human instincts and human subconscious impulses. The most significant aspect of the rising forces of our more recent times is that humanity can no longer remain stuck on mere instinctive will impulses, that simply out of the nature of development it must prepare the form of the social structure out of a conscious will. If it is to be prepared through a conscious will, then the will needs a basis of thoughts which need to be developed in the right way. These thoughts towards its foundation would not be mere thoughts derived out of abstractions but out of reality; they would be thoughts which familiarise one's own will with the forces in natural events which weave within the world's own powers. To a certain extent one must be allied in one's own will with the creative powers of natural existence.
This is something which wide circles of humanity still need to learn. They must learn to think that they actually can't proceed if they think: ‘What must happen in order to withdraw from a social structure formed out of a life many experience as intolerable, is to replace it with a feasible social structure.’—One cannot proceed this way. One can't imagine what social illnesses are, to a certain extent. One can only apply one's best aspirations by finding it out of people themselves, how they live together in the community and bring mutual harmony in their reciprocal relationships to unfold what is necessary in these alternate lives, to establish a social structure.
After long years of studying the social question it has come to me that the basic question, which is considered today as a uniform abstract formulation, should be seen in a threefold way: the first, being like a spiritual question, the second, like a question of law and the third as an economic question. What has arisen out of the modern capitalist economic life has developed from the basis of technology and this has hypnotised people's focus in recent times only on to economic life, and have quite drawn away the awareness of the social question beside the economic question to above all also a spiritual question and a question of rights.
I'm going to allow myself to deal with the spiritual question first, not from the basis as perhaps some of you may believe the consideration of spiritual life involves me in particular, but because I am of the conviction that if the Proletarian thinkers of today become unbiased toward the spiritual aspect, in search of a solution for the social question, it can make a contribution to just those realistically orientated observers of the social question, that the spiritual aspect must take a stand first of all. To do so is to develop insight into the soul of those people touched in their real nature by the modern social movement. You need to try and recognise the will impulses of what actually lives in the socialistic orientated circles. Above all, the origins of these will impulses need to be discovered.
You see, as technology and capitalism moved into our more recent human lives, humanity branched off more and more into the so-called ruling class, away from the development in the most varied areas of Proletarianism. Between the Proletarian forces of will and the non-proletarian life today lies a gap, no one can lie about it, a gap which can hardly be bridged if not at least an attempt is made, not only with antiquated thoughts and old will impulses active in the social movement, but with new thoughts and will impulses.
In the course of time a belief has developed within the Proletariat—and one can as far as relationships go, not at all see this belief as something unfounded—a belief has formed that the socially disadvantaged class can expect nothing from the present ruling class if they build on their goodwill, their ideas and so on. There has, if I may say so, developed a deep mistrust between the individual human classes. This mistrust has come out of the origins, which up to now did not play a role in human consciousness, origins which have always been available in the subconscious. As a result, at the start of our more recent times, the bourgeois working class has met with one final important trust and they, not out of their convictions but by feeling, have been tricked out of this final important trust. You see, we are talking about the Proletarian point of view today. Many, also earlier personalities who believed they could bring the Proletarian will and thinking into an expression, actually knew nothing about the origins of these thoughts and will impulses. What comes as challenges out of life itself, living in the social movement actually stands in a remarkable contrast with the challenges and social impulses which are being considered by the Proletarians themselves. If I want to briefly express what I mean, I must say: the Proletarian, the social culture has thus come about, but within the proletarian feelings, within the social culture and the life, rules the inheritance out of just those viewpoints and concepts of life which came about at decisive moments in their historic development.
This decisive moment in the more recent historic development must surely allow the observer to notice that within this development, the newer scientific way of thinking has grown—I ask you to please take note, I don't say natural science but the newer scientific way of thinking—in such a way out of the old spiritual impulses, but that this scientific way of thinking no longer involves the same spiritual power which the old-world view had. The old-world view sent roots and spread into human impulses as the modern scientific way of thinking. The old-world view was capable of sending impulses into the soul, through the person's sensing and experiencing towards solving a stirring question: ‘What am I actually as a person in the world?’—Such a power living in the soul has not come through the modern scientific way of thinking. Obviously through a historic necessity, which is no less of a historical disaster, the old-world view positioned itself at a decisive moment in a hostile opposition towards the newer scientific way of thinking instead of allowing it to flow into a fuller friendship which it should have carried into the spiritual life of the soul. So the following facts came about.
The capitalist machine of economic order tore a number of people out of the context of their lives, out of a context in which they had stood up to then which had quite a different relationship with regards to human feelings for their sense of dignity. There existed a connection between what a person was and what he did. Just think about the relationship which clearly continued in the old crafts up to the 13th Century and still continue in remnants later. Out of this relationship a large number of people were thrown at the machine of the modern economic order. Here was no kind of relationship to elements of production; here was no possibility to establish some or other process between the people and what they were actually doing. This is how it came about that this side of human beings, who didn't invent the modern machine age, could ask: ‘What am I worth as a human being? What am I really worth?’
This question is not to be answered out of a context, of life having become overpowered and worthless, but the answer is to be found within those who were not dependent on the outer context of life. Here nothing other rose out of these classes than what the machine age and the economic ordering imposed at the same historic time: the result was the modern scientific way of thinking.
The old classes didn't need to apply this scientific way of thinking to their beliefs and to their concept of life; they only needed to apply it to their theoretical principles. They instilled in life traditional impulses inherited from origins of olden times. The Proletarians were the only ones who were torn out of all they could not identify as their concept of life which was connected to the old outlook on life. They were, through their purely outward existence, predestined to take what was new and allow it to enter their soul content. So this Proletarian is, as paradoxical as it sounds, as unbelievable as many may see it, the actual, purely scientifically orientated person.
To acknowledge the entire scope of this fact one should not only think about what one has learnt about the Proletarian Movement but one needs to be transported through one's destiny by the possibility to think with the Proletarian, with the thoughts of such people who from one or the other side became the carriers of the Proletarian Movement. One could clearly sense what follows, as it spread itself from olden times into the direct social present.
Isn't it true, you could say: ‘Yet, the scientific way of thinking still has been extensively accepted in middle-class circles.’—If you consider intelligent middle-class circles, you will think about people whose beliefs are quite scientifically orientated: yet in their feelings, in their entire life experience, they stand within relationships which are not totally determined by scientific orientation. A person can be a materialistic thinker in modern times, can call him or herself enlightened, call themselves atheists, can acknowledge it as an honest conviction, but can't renounce all the rest of their experiences out of the old connections of life which have not originated from a scientific orientation but which had emerged out of times which carried spiritual impulses—as has been sketched as a force, in the foregoing.
Purely scientific orientation itself works quite differently. I don't say, the scientist, because obviously the scientific orientation influenced quite uneducated Proletarians: but it works quite differently where it has been imposed as a view of life on to the Proletarian.
I want to clarify this by an example. For many years I shared a podium with Rosa Luxemburg who has passed away in such a tragic way. She addressed the theme of “Science and the Worker.” I need to repeatedly think how she stirred a large audience towards being aware that actually all prejudices which are in relation to human social situations are human classifications according to the old ruling classes and this is connected to representations of what old spiritual viewpoints contained. The modern Proletarian, she believed, originated not solely from angelic, divine origins but they had at one time indecently climbed around trees from animalistic origins which she had developed, on the basis that as she had followed their development, she could substantiate the conviction: a human being is the same as another human being. All previous classification was based on some or other form of prejudice.—You should not consider her formulation but what kind of force such words had on the proletarian natured soul.
Purely considering the concept, I actually meant to say: The Proletarian is completely “scientifically” orientated in his point of view in more recent times. The scientific orientation failed to fill his soul in such a way that it could answer the question: ‘What am I actually, as a human being?’
Where did the Proletarian get this point of view? What is the basis of this scientific orientation which he sometimes had to receive in such a false way? It is after all a science. He took it as the inheritance of the middle-class people. It developed out of an old viewpoint of life, from within middle-class people at the transition into the more recent machine and capitalistic age, when machines and capitalism overpowered the people.
The following which is often heard with corresponding colouring is this: within the Proletarians their spiritual life became something which can be experienced as an ideology. This is heard most often when the background of the Proletarian view of the world is dissected: art, religion, science, ethics, law and so on are ideological mirror images of the outer materialistic reality.
However, this experience that everything is like this, that spiritual life is ideological, this didn't originate from within the Proletarians, the Proletarians received it as a dowry from the bourgeoisie. This last and big belief which the Proletarians took in from the middle-class was a result of the nourishment it received, spiritual nourishment for the soul. It could well be that as it was exposed to spiritual life, as it was called out of the old relationship to the machine and introduced into the social structure, that it could only look at what had developed as knowledge about the people and the world; it could only look upon what it had received out of the bourgeoisie: through belief, dogmatically—I could call it—it acquired ideology from the bourgeoisie. It hadn't entered into the convictions but as an experience of disillusionment which it had to be if one does not look at the spiritual as something which is created out of itself, containing a higher reality, but if one looks at it is a mere ideology. Within the subconscious awareness of a large number of carriers of the social movement it wasn't known but was clearly being experienced: ‘We have met the bourgeoisie with a strong trust, we have entered into an inheritance which should have brought us the salvation of our souls and the strength to carry it though. The middle classes didn't bring this; only ideology, which has no reality and which contributes nothing towards the support of life.’
One can argue a lot whether ideology is really the basis of spiritual life, or not. It doesn't come down to that but it comes down to spiritual life being experienced by the majority as an ideology, and so the soul becomes desolate, remains empty, the centrifugal spiritual force becomes paralysed and the result is what has happened today: The stripping of the social will from belief that somehow something spiritual could have developed, somewhere rise as a centre, a real centre from which our world view or something similar can bring salvation, also in relation to the desired formation of the social movement. I would like to say: as a negative, spiritual life has been incorporated into the development of the modern Proletarian humanity above all things; as a positive, that it demands yearnings from these people. It demands soul-supporting and as an inheritance has been given the depletion of the soul.
This is something which blows and runs quietly though our entire present day social movement which can't be grasped by concepts, which in fact makes out the form of one of the branches—we got to know three—of the present day social movement. As soon as one perceives that this is so, one can correctly ask: Where has it come from and how can it be remedied? Instead of letting will be paralysed, this social will, how can it be fired up and empowered? This is a question one must ask oneself.
Now an event occurred when the spiritual life came to a decisive point which I've indicated already. The ruling class at the time was through their situation in life connected to, what we today call, the state. It has often been stressed by some individuals—I can't enter into this today due to our limited time in how true this is—it has often been stressed that modern humanity believe that what we call the state, today, has always existed in this way. That is completely untrue. What we call the state, which for example in the Hegelian world appeared as an expression of the divine itself, was basically only a product of thinking in the last four to five Centuries. The social organism of earlier times was quite different.
Just take a single fact, take the most recently appeared fact that the free schools of earlier times, which were independently built opposite the state, were filled out by state institutions, and that, to some extent, the state had become the custodian of mankind's spiritual goods. This happened due to the civil interests in the beginning of more recent times.
The state was there to let the folk grow their souls towards it; they connected all their needs to it. Out of this impulse grew a new relationship between spiritual goods and the state, made the state the custodian of the spiritual goods of mankind and demanded from those approaching the custodian that their lives be actually defined by it.
If one looks deeper into the inner weaving of the human spiritual goods then it involves not only an outer administration of the spiritual goods—the legislation regarding universities as part of the state, of schools, of folk schools becoming part of the state—but that the state is determining the content of the spiritual goods.
Certainly mathematics doesn't have a state characteristic, but other branches of our spiritual goods have their character, have sustained the unification of these spiritual goods with interests of the state in more recent times. This growing together is not without participation of becoming an ideology from the side of spiritual goods. The spiritual goods can only really protect its own true worth, which it carries within, when it can govern itself through its own forces, when out of its direct initiative can give the state what it is, when it however doesn't receive demands from the state.
Certainly there will still be many today who will see no fundamental social facts in what I've just said. They will however see that, in reality, only the ruling spirit of mankind can give laws, when this spirit is separated and stands independently from the outer state organisation. I know that kind of objections can be made against this but this is not important. What is relevant is that the spirit, in order to unfold itself properly, calls for the ability to always develop out of the direct free initiatives of the human individual.
In this way one arrives at the true form of one of the members of the modern social question, that one considers the spiritual life in the right way and see the necessity, that whatever is pushed into the structure of the state is gradually brought out again, so that it can unfold its own supporting power and then work back again, just because when it is freed, while it develops independently with the other members of the social structure, it can as a result really work on the social structure.
If one wants to talk about the practical aspects of the first member of the social question, one must say: The tendency of development for the spiritual life must be denationalized in the widest sense. If the spiritual life member should be denationalised which probably appears today as a paradox, one can speak in this way: the relationship in which a ruling individuality appears to people, who is involved in criminal or private law involving people—one can in certain psychological orientated circles still see that, but taking the thing from quite the wrong side—one so personal, the direction belongs directly to what must be considered internally as spiritual life. So I am counting all which is relevant in religious convictions, all artistic life, all which is related to private and criminal law, to move towards developing the tendency for denationalization.
Why should anyone who hears about mass regulation immediately think about violent revolution? Even in socialist circles of more recent times, people are gradually not thinking like this anymore. I also don't consider that from one day to the next, everything can be denationalized; but I think that through the social will humanity can enter into measures here and there—it must also happen here or there on a daily basis—towards a re-orientation for such a gradual detachment of the spiritual life from that of the state. You can imagine realistically what is actually meant by this.
The state we must see as something which in recent times has grown out of the ruling classes, created out of a particular soul of the middle classes becoming educated. To the state this bourgeoisie has now contributed not only spiritual life, but also what the later human development has overpowered in the social organism: namely the economic life. This economic life having been introduced into the life of the state has introduced the further nationalisation of traffic interests, post, railways and so on. This has resulted in a certain superstition towards the state, towards nationalised orientated associations. The last remainders of these beliefs are the beliefs of the socialist orientated people: that actually the salvation of a communal administration is only possible through a communal economy. Also, that is an inheritance accepted by the middle-class viewpoint and way of thinking.
Now spiritual life has been put on one side and the economy on the other side; in the middle, the state is positioned.
You can ask what will actually remain of the state? As we will soon see in what follows, the economic life couldn't tolerate being mixed into actual state life. Perhaps we can reach a clear picture of this question if we clearly envisage what the bourgeois classes found in the developing modern state. They found the stronghold of their rights in this state.
Let us now examine what the actual laws represent. I'm not thinking about criminal law or about private law as it isn't in the relation of one person to another, because I'm thinking of public law. Public law belongs, for example, to the dealings of ownership. What is property finally? Ownership is only the expression of the authorization of something which one personally and alone may possess and work on. Ownership has sprouted from a law. Everything which we see as material objects has its roots in the relationship of people to laws. Such laws have in our recent times, before the conception of our modern state, rejected the bourgeoisie earlier and everything connected to them; such laws found themselves best protected when they took on everything which referred to such laws as those from within the state itself.
So the tendency started of economic life being ever more drawn into the life of the state. The state penetrates the structure of the economic life with a number of laws. Now, these laws should in no way be taken in their future development to the state life. The social will must gradually develop towards the precise differentiation between everything comprising the life of law, what spiritual life actually is and what the economic life is.
The modern social movement makes it particularly clear that the ruling circles haven't taken anything of the life of rights from their modern state. While much has been taken out of the economic life, also out of the purely isolated economic life, and incorporated into the legal state structure, there is something which has not been incorporated into this legal structure and that is the labour of the Proletarian workers. This labour of the Proletarian workers was left within the circulation of the economic processes.
This struck most deeply into the minds of the modern Proletarians and could be made clear through Marxism and its followers—there is always the labour market just as there is a goods market. Just like goods are offered on the goods market and there is a demand for it, so you bring your labour—the only thing you own—on to the labour market, and it is only valid as goods. You are sold like goods; you stand in the more modern economic process as goods.
Through this we come to the true form of the second modern social claim. This is expressed from out of a certain subconscious sense regarding human worth; the modern Proletarian found it unbearable that his labour was bought and sold as goods on the labour market.
Certainly, the theory of the socialist thinker states: ‘It has come about through the objective laws of the economic life itself; the force of labour was placed on the market like other goods.’ This is in the awareness, perhaps even in the awareness of the Proletarians. However, in their subconscious, something else was weaving. In their subconscious the continuation of the old slavery prevailed, the old question of serfdom. In the subconscious one only saw how the entire person during the time of slavery could be bought and sold, that later somewhat less of the person was in bondage and all that was now left over was the labour of the workers. With this he allows himself to be taken completely into the economic process. This he felt was impossible, as unworthy.
From this the second social demand has come about in more recent times: disrobing labour from the characteristic of goods.
I know that still today many people think: ‘How can that be done? How else is it at all possible to organise economic life than through the remuneration of work activity, labour?’—With this you have already bought it! However, one needs to hold something up against it, which Plato and Aristotle already took as obvious and said it was evident, that there has to be slaves. So modern thinking needs to be forgiven if it finds it necessary to carry labour to the market.
Now one can't always imagine what will perhaps be a reality in the near future. Today however we must ask: How can labour be disrobed from the character of goods? It can only happen if it is drawn up in the area of a pure legal state, such a state which eliminates it from the spiritual life on the one side, as characterized earlier, and eliminated on the other side from all that belongs to, what was characterised earlier, as the economic process. If we divide the entire social organism, or we think of it as divided into three members: into an independent spiritual life, into legal life and economic life, then we have instead of Homunculus in the area of economy a real Homo in the area of the economic life, then we have our spiritual eyes focused on the real social organism which is alive, not one made up of chemical agents.
I don't really want to enter into a game of analogy between biology and sociology—that's far from me—neither fall into the mistake of Schäffle nor Meray in his “World Mutation”; I don't want to go into all of that, it is not relevant here. What is of relevance is to see how, in a single natural human organism, three independent systems rule—I have presented this scientifically, at least as a sketch, in my last book “Riddles of the Soul”—likewise in the social organism three independently applicable systems need to be seen: the spiritual system, the judicial system—now the system of public rights, as mentioned where private and criminal law are excluded—and the actual economic system.
However, if you have between the spiritual and the economic life, the regulated state life, the regulated judicial life, then you have something which is capable of life inserted into the social organism, just as in the natural human organism you find the relatively independent systems of circulation, lung-heart system and circulation system, the heart-lung system between the head system and digestive system. Then again if it is fully developed from its own basis as merely economic—we think of a democratic administration on the basis of judicial life—if each one can equally have a say about his rights, that the only basis of ruling will be according to the relationship of one person to another, then the incorporation of labour in the economic process will be something quite different than the case is now.
You see, I'm not giving you some or other principle, or theory: this is how it must be done when the power of labour is to be disrobed from its characterisation of goods—but rather, I say to you: ‘We must place people in such a division in the social members that, through their actions, through their thoughts, through their will, a viable social organism is created.’—I don't want to offer general remedies but I only want to say how humanity must become members of the social organism in order for their healthy social will to continuously result in making the social organism capable of life. In this way I will, in place of theoretical thinking, introduce intimately related and trustworthy thoughts. What will happen if, despite economic life, there would exist a foundation which maintains and governs itself out of its own forces, and out of this purely human foundation, employment laws can be negotiated? Then something will come about which work in a similar way into the economic process as does the natural foundation of economic processes. We very clearly see these natural foundations of the economic process when we really study the economic process. They regulate the economic process in such a way that its regulation deprives a person of what he or she can do themselves, in the economic process. Isn't it so, you only have to observe the obvious?
Just take for once—I want to use radically clear examples—the fact that in certain regions, rather removed from our area, the banana is an extraordinarily important item. However, the work which involves bringing bananas to a place where they can be consumed is exceptionally little from our point of view, in comparison with products in our natural European region; bringing wheat from its point of origin right through to its point of consumption. This work which renders the bananas consumable is nothing in comparison to wheat, roughly compares it is as one to one hundred, or the relationship could be even greater than one to a hundred. So, one hundred times more effort is needed than that of bananas, to bring wheat to the point of consumption. So we can quote the biggest variables within the economic area which exist in connection with the regulation of economic life. These are not only dependent on what a person contributes: it depends on the yield of the earth, other relationships and so on; these things place themselves within the economic life as a constant factor, like people are one of the independent economic factors. This is how it can be seen from the one side.
Now consider for yourself the labour laws as quite separate on the other side from the economy, then it will, when it no longer has economic interests in the determination of working hours, in the application of labour independently contributing to an independent purely person to person interrelationship, it will create something independent of the economic life, which plays from the other side into this economic life, just like each side plays from the natural foundations of given factors.
One must orientate the formation of prices, which has actual worth in the goods market to how the natural factors work. One will in future, when the social organism should be viable, also have to address how production should take place, how the circulation of goods should take its course. When this commodity circulation does not determine remuneration, working hours and labour law, but when it is independent of commodity circulation, of the goods market, in the region of the state life, purely out of human endeavours, purely out of mere human points of view agree about the working hours, then it will be so that one commodity will cost as much as it will cost for the time needed to produce that particular work, which is however regulated through independent economic life, because economic life today for instance regulates employment so that the price of goods often has to regulate the economic process in working hours and employee-employer relationships. The opposite will appear by correctly dividing the members of the social organism.
These relationships can only be indicated today. You can see, however, that they come out of a social intention which is quite different from what has placed us into such a sad situation within world events; they come out of a social will which has not originated from some non-profitable spinning of human thoughts, spinning as one has to so that this or that is done in the right way, but they come out of thoughts which are so familiar with reality that it doesn't come to light when people in this or that relationship in this or that way become members of the social organism. Then they will, because they have become members of the social organism in a healthy way, be able to determine laws, then they will work in the right way.
One only has to have experienced how other social intentions determined relationships in real life, even in the then already conquered Austria. It was a state, but a state does not live purely as a life of laws; in a state, there lives, in quite a pronounced way, the economic life which has sprung from the interests of single human circles. Just think how the old Austrian parliament was up to the end of the nineties (1890's). Out of this parliament's representation originated relationships which played right into the catastrophe of war. This parliament consisted of the four curiae: the Chamber of Commerce, the great land owner, from the curia of the cities, markets and industrial sites and the curia of the established economic circles. These economic circles were not represented on the basis of an economic parliament but their interests determined the being of the state, therefore public laws were determined according to them. Just as it is impossible for a confessional inclined party, which the last German Reichstag was, to be created and influence institutions of the legal life of the state out of definitions, just so little is a social organism viable which is destined to determine the economic circles of the legal life. The life of rights must develop separated from that; only out of the relationship of one person to another, considered in a completely democratic manner. Then the rights life will regulate in a corresponding manner the threefold organism, with on the one side the economic life and on the other side the natural foundation of this economic life.
Within the economic life, which in turn has established representatives from the most varied fields, pure economic factors and interests would be needed. One would then have a social organism—if I might express myself according to the habits of the time—with three classes, three areas, each creating its own laws and own management. They will stand in a relationship, one could call it, as sovereign states and if they continue, they reckon with one another. That could invite complications, make the people uncomfortable; but it is the one and only way to make a healthy social organism viable in future. The economic life itself can only be determined out of its factors when only economically active interests appear from its foundation, which can only be determined through the necessary relationships between production and consumption. These relationships between production and consumption can only result in the economy from the associative basis, an associative basis as it could have been in the trade union, cooperative context. However today the trade union, cooperative context still maintains the character out of the state from which it has grown. They need to grow into the economic life, must become mere serving bodies of the economic life. Only then will the social organism develop in a healthy way.
I know that what I've been saying will appear extraordinarily radical. Whether it appears radical or not, is not important. What is important is for the social organism to be workable, that people, in their starting from the old instinctive social life moving towards the conscious social life, are permeated with impulses which come out of insight of how one needs to stand within the totality of the social organism. People today are considered uneducated if they don't know their multiplication tables; a person is considered uneducated if he does not know something he is supposed to know as education, but a person is not considered uneducated if he has no social awareness, or if his soul is within the social organism in a state of sleep. This is something which has to change fundamentally in future! It would be different if a judgement would consider that, what belongs to the most elementary schooling should include being equipped with a social will, just as much as one should be equipped with the multiplication tables. Today every person should know what three times three is. In the future, it would not appear more difficult to know the relationship between capitalism and ground rental if I want to choose something out of today's life. It should not be more difficult in future than to know that three times three is nine. However, this knowledge will become the foundation for a healthy involvement in the social organism which means a healthy social life. A healthy social life needs to be strived for.
In a healthy human consciousness, it is preparing itself, as I have said. One only has to have an inkling for what is being prepared and what strives towards revelation and form in our more recent time.
Just think back to the great ideals of the French Revolution: Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood. Whoever followed these ideas in the minds of people who have in the course of time experienced it as a destiny, knows, how often they have struggled with the logic within the contradiction which exist in Freedom on the one side, which point to personal initiatives, and Equality on the other side, which should be brought about in the centralization of the state orientated social organism. This is not possible. Yet, the solution for this confounding has emerged in our more recent time. Why capitalism today has not yet understood the concept of a threefold social organism is due to the concept of a completely centralised state.
If you grasp the idea which already today appear in this intention which is expressed in the ideals of Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood, then it is easy to understand that it is being considered from the point of view of the threefold organised social organism. Its first member would be the spiritual life. It should be completely permeated with the idea, the principle, of freedom. Here everything should be based on the free initiatives of people and it can be so, would be most fruitful, if it is stated this way. With reference to the constitutional state, in relation to what is between the spiritual and the economic life regulated by the being of the state, the actual political system exists, which has to permeate everything regarding the equality of relationships between people. With reference to the economic life, the one and only thing which is valid is Brotherhood, social community living the outer and inner life of one person through the other.
In the economic life within the social organism, interest is the ruling factor. This interest however brings quite a specific characteristic into the economic member. Why is it apparent that basically everything comes out of economic life? It all comes down to economic life, that in the best, most appropriate manner, the economic life shows it can also be consumed. I'm talking about consumption in the narrower sense where the spiritual is excluded. Consumption can refer for instance to labour, human labour. This is felt by the modern person: becoming a mere element of consumption in terms of his labour. He even has to, like he earns interest through his labour, through spiritual production, also inherit interests through his rest, through his calm capacity for the spiritual. The human being becomes consumed in the economic life. He has to pull himself continuously out of the economic life by the other two members of the healthy social organism, if he doesn't want to be completely consumed within the economic life.
The social question is not the same in modern life as when it originated and perhaps could be solved, and was actually solved. No, the social question exists as something which has entered modern life and can no longer be avoided in the future of humanity. There will always be a social question in the future. However, this social question will not for once, not through this or that measure, be solved, but could be regulated, through the continuous intentions of people which means that those who use people in the economic process, should be regulated from the political standpoint and forever balance out the consumption with spiritual production, through the independent spiritual organism.
Whoever has seen over the last decades how the social question has developed—and it has relatively not been all that long ago that the social question has taken on its present form—whoever has observed in intimate detail how the social question has developed out of its origins, could in relation to the social intentions/will and its focus for the future form of human life, arrive at thoughts which could be characterised in the following way.
Many people, even enlightened people, don't see the social question as something existentialistic. In my youth, I became acquainted with an Austrian minister who officiated over the Bohemian-German border and made the most grotesque declaration: “The social question stops at Bodenbach.” I remember very clearly how a large group of the first social democratic miners marched past my parents' house, heading for their gathering. I noticed how the social will had come about, not as thoughts about a social movement but through the communal life of the social movement. I had to say to myself, much has to be done and many mistakes have to be made! Even with socialistically orientated thoughts of more recent times, these mistakes were quite numerous. It appears that exactly in this area people's minds developed in such a way that they didn't experience this. The mistakes became terribly widespread.
Out of such a spirit of observation I have endeavoured to speak to you tonight about the social will. You have invited me as member of a community who studies what the social intention of humanity's healing should bring in future.
Those older people, like me for example, who speak to people who through the decades can look back, know about all that had to be gone through to get to the present moment. Then again you find some things that need to be gone through, in addition also the conviction that the mistake was not fruitless, that even today when the facts are expressed often in a frightening way, people manage to be strong enough to find the way out of what the biggest part of today's humanity has experienced as unbearable.
It is in this sense that I ask you to accept what I have allowed myself to speak about this evening. The facts speak clearly in some areas. The facts also clearly say: the more people, who are still young, can now take up a true, viable social intention, the more will the human social organism be viable and efficient. Whoever wishes to speak the word, let him do so. Doctor Boos, who has given a lecture about a week ago, announced that he was willing to have discussions.
A speaker says something (stenographic details incomplete).
Dr Steiner: What you have claimed has taken on a form as a result of you not considering what must come to the fore through the relatively independent formation, on the one hand of the constitutional state and on the other, the economic life. The labour organisations which are partly production companies or consumer companies, or even could have connections between both, are only involved with economic factors which take place within the economic life itself.
The regulation of labour law is preferred by a relatively independent state. Here nothing is decided other than on a democratic basis, I call it, as relevant to the relationship of one person to another. This is why I mention this regarding the basis of the purely democratic state, that a link exists between both factors, on this basis people stand equally before the law. As a result, the mere wishes of single economic organisations will come to an end because they must balance out the democratic legal life with the interests of other circles.
So, this is just what should be processed, a remedy should be considered towards anything damaging, which would certainly develop if for instance the working hours are fixed within the organisation of the economic life. Economic organisations should only be involved with the economy itself: in other words, the regulation in the sense of labour laws. By contrast, the fixing of working hours, only underlying the state corporation, involves the relation of one person to another.
We must not forget what a great change can develop between one person and another with one-sided interests grinding it down. Self-evidently, nothing can be totally perfect in the world, but one-sided interests will be grinded down in the democratic state structure which has its basis of equality between people.
Just consider for instance what happens when a certain economic organisation is interested in a project of short duration—they will have to be comfortable with balancing this with the interests of the individuals who would suffer during this short working time. If one doesn't consider some or other subconscious force then it would—just like in a natural organism it would always in an approximately natural way result in how many men and how many women there are, which obviously is no strict natural law nor will it become one—it would also prevent something unhealthy being created when in the right way the single factors of the social organism cooperate and not develop individual small interests, which are most harmful to others.
The foundation of my way of thinking differs from many other social thinking patterns due to the latter being more abstract. Logically the one can easily be derived from the other; results flow from one logic into another. Crucial to such questions is only actual life experience. Obviously I can't prove logically—no one can—that a discrepancy of interests may enter into such a future organism, but accept that when the forces within their own circles, which are appropriate to them, can develop, then it will be a humane development. I mean, if you consider what I have wanted to present, the fixing of working time out of the purely economic process in the legal circle of the state, then this damage will be able to develop in practical areas. This is what I wanted to add.
Another speaker says something (stenographic details incomplete).
Dr Steiner: I would like to comment on the honourable previous speaker's words as follows. Understandably with every lecture it is not possible to say everything one wants to in a single lecture, and I don't know which omissions our previous honourable speaker's conclusion has been drawn from in my lecture where I gave no opinion regarding the modern worker psyche, that I don't want to take the modern labour movement into account, and so on. Every person does it in his own way. I have for many years, for example, been a teacher in the various fields of a workers' educational school and have given rise to speech exercises in political organisations. I am entitled to be aware of a large number of workers who present their speeches today, speeches they have learnt to give as a result of my speech exercises. During these speech exercises all possible kinds of questions were discussed, questions which actually were not far from the most intimate particulars of the workers' psyche. So I don't know—I had naturally no reason to place this particular practical side of my social activities and intentions out in the open, but I can't quite rightly understand out of which omissions my talk should come from what went before, that I should be so far removed from the practical labour movement.
Certainly it is obvious that within the modern social movement the worker himself should be considered. Just contemplate by yourselves, what I have been stressing the entire evening regarding how things can actually appear within the Proletarians. I have spoken about the Proletariat as such; you would have noticed if you were listening attentively, how my belief has woven my lecture into a practical presentation as to what lives in a practical way in the proletarian labour force of today.
Regarding the accusation that I have perhaps been too one-sided in my presentation of what seems to me the fundamental meaningful fact, that the middle-class thinking methods will be conquered by the labour force, particularly by the leaders of the working class, this declaration which I have done and which I have drawn from single instances has made it clear from one side, really more accurate through the study of the workers' psyche and the entire modern labour movement.
I would like to add an example which I would like to draw your attention to. A Russian author who I know personally has recently pointed out to me in an unusual way how a philosophy adhered to by younger people in Zurich has played a big role: the Avenarius philosophy which for their part has certainly grown out of the middle-class substrate. I can hardly imagine that Avenarius considered how his philosophy would play such a role in the Russian labour movement as it is playing today. As far as I know it is strongly represented, right in Zurich, by Adler who translated the natural scientific derived philosophical conviction of Mach. Both these philosophic directions are to some extent the official philosophies of Bolshevism, of the most radical socialism. The Russian author Berdjajev said in a lecture—it is contained in the translation of a very interesting book about “Russia's political soul”—in this lecture Berdjajev has in a very clear manner worked out the political soul.
So you can give a multitude of examples; I could give you numerous examples which are similar to those which I took from the address of the deceased Rosa Luxemburg, which would prove to you that the last important heirloom, deeply interwoven with the workers movement and the middle-class life, is the scientifically orientated method of thinking. The possibility to make spiritual life into an ideology is of middle-class origin. The middle-class, if such a categorization may be made, firstly took scientifically orientated methods of thinking in the region of natural knowledge, and made it into an ideology. They did not transfer it within their class over on to scientifically orientated thinking. This latter consequence only then attracted the proletarian thinking. Certainly, proletarian thinking also drew other consequences but these consequences were drawn out of the basis which today is clearly recognisable as rooted within the middle-class' scientific method of imagination, which now created something further. The importance of this should not be misunderstood.
That which dwelled within the totality, which has developed a deep interest for the participation of the modern worker psyche in the modern labour movement, waited, I want to say, with a certain concern on the one side, but also with a certain inner satisfaction on the other side for the moment when it would appear within the modern socialist movement. What now lies in the subconscious will one day be noticed, brought into awareness and it will be said: ‘Aha, this we had in our soul's higher thinking’—if I might use this expression—‘in our soul's higher thinking, and it must come to the fore. We have the desire for our human dignity to be scientifically orientated; this is what the middle-class line of inheritance of science has now made possible. We must look for a spiritual life elsewhere.’
I believe in any case that when this moment arrives, when the entire, full longing surfaces out of a specific side of modern people only, namely the proletarian people—if it has not come into full expression in modern times—when this longing in the modern Proletariat has reached its complete education of the scientific way of thinking in their world view, with the power of old religions, when this has happened that it no longer depends on them being goods, drawn as the consequence out of the middle-class thinking methods, then one will be able to argue that the fruitful organization of social will has arrived.
To mere socialism and in its relation to what the previous honourable speaker offered, regarding the philosophy of Bergson, I believe one should not make such dogmatic statements. Understandably I don't want to discuss such philosophic questions today. The previous speaker said that Bergson was a typical representative of the bourgeois thinking methods. If this is so then socialism would have developed out of Bergson's philosophy, derived directly out of bourgeois foundations! Today one can for instance refer to Bergson's philosophy as containing many “Schopenhauer-isms” and that Bergson was much more influenced by Schopenhauer than any of you can imagine.
Now, should one want to discuss such a thing in detail, then one has to be able to argue extensively. I can't do this today but I only mention this to you because there are within the proletarian world sensitive thinkers, for instance, Mehring, Franz Mehring, who is really in many ways similar to Bergson; he characterised Schopenhauer as the representative of the most bourgeois philistinism in philosophy!
One can have different views about these things and I don't believe one should be dogmatic about it. One can have the view that Bergson is an advanced philosopher who has irrational elements within his philosophy. However, one could ask what an irrational element has to do with the social question. A Proletarian can be just as irrational as a middle-class person. I don't quite understand what this whole irrational element has to do with it. Here one already has to draw a dogmatic precondition: Bergson is the absolute example of a modern philosopher; if the Proletarians really want to think, they must become Bergsonians, not so? This involves the whole issue.
Undoubtedly there are tendencies which appear in the most varied areas of life, tendencies which focus themselves in the direction I have characterised. It would really be sad to order human life, if it is always going so straight, to go over, I would say, and always evolve it in the opposite direction from the straight one! Not so, this can't of course be the case. I would even say in the area of the judiciary, certain things are fuelled by quite psychologically orientated people. Such innumerable examples can of course be cited but it is also a secondary derivation if one doesn't really validate it but merely offers a favourite opinion. Certainly one may sympathise with things which have been said about impulses that have principles according to historic periods; but without going into the latter further—if one wants to go into all these things I will have to keep you here for a very long time—so without further examination into references I want to say the following: very many people are inwardly obstinate when one mentions threefoldness, which I spoke about today. They say three different branches which are directed and guided by different principles are not possible.
However, I haven't spoken about three different members which are directed by three different principles, but about a threefold social organism! Just consider that this threefold social organism in our time must gradually find its whole way of thinking in a corresponding way, like for instance the ancient subdivisions which you find with Plato and which were then justified. Someone once said to me after my lecture: “So we have once again a reference to Plato: the nutritionists/guardians, the fighters/auxiliaries and the producers/labourers/educational state.” Actually, what I have said is the opposite of divisions into nutrition, defence and educational states because people are not divided into classes but divisions are sought for in the social organism. We human beings will simply not be divided up! It can well be that the same person who is active in the spiritual member, is active in the judicial and even the economic member. The human being is as a result emancipated from such one-sidedness in some or other member of the social organism. It is therefore not important that people should be divided into such independent classes when a healthy social organism is developed, but that the social organism orders itself according to its own laws. That is the radical difference. Earlier, people were divided. Now, according to the way of thinking relevant to our time, the social organism will be divided by itself so that people can look at their life situation according to their needs, their relationships and abilities and how to be active in one or the other division. For instance, it will be quite possible that in future an economically active person may at the same time be a deputy in the field of the purely political state. He will then obviously make his economic interests effective in a different way as he would in relation to the field of the constitutional state. The three divisions provide the demarcation of their territories. Everything doesn't get confused and allow them to get mixed up.
It is better if the things are separated. There are of course the same human systems which are differentiated into the one or the other branch. Just as in the natural human organisation—above all I don't want to play the game of analogy but still need to mention this—there are three centralized parts: the nerve-sense system, lung-breathing system and the digestive system, there are three members in the social organism. This is something which doesn't yet belong to ordinary thinking habits, which I believe however, will be able to find its way into thinking habits and that people would not take it less thoroughly, I think, than when they only grapple with their own favourite opinion.
Dr Roman Boos: May I be permitted to refer to a question addressed to the speaker in relation to the field of criminal law? Now, when there was talk about the freedom of judges, was there also a breach against the statement that no punishment without law will be made—it seems to me this is what is meant, that criminal law as such should not be given out of free spiritual life but out of the political member, that the question possibly contains a misunderstanding with Dr Weiβ who stated that an offence is made against the principle that no punishment could be given if no specific law has not been broken. May I ask you to say more about this?
Dr Steiner: Isn't it true that in this question you obviously touch on the system of public law with the system of practical jurisdiction? What I stressed is the separating of practical judging. For this reason, I used the expression “judging,” expressly the practical judging from the general public legal life, which I thought should be central in healthy social organisms whose public political life should see to it, that a specific law will determine a procedure. That judging can't be done in the most arbitrary way is quite self-evident. However, I haven't considered such things which are abstract and in their abstraction, they are more or less obvious. Today I have also not spoken about the scope of the law but about the social organism and about the social will. Now I ask you with reference to this theme, to consider the following.
You see, I have nearly spent as much of my life in Austria as in Germany. I could get thoroughly acquainted with the Austrian life; you may believe me that it is not an impulsive assertion if I say that much of what has taken place in the so-called state recently is connected to events which during the (eighteen) seventies and eighties had resulted from deep incongruities. Don't forget that in such a state as Austria, in other fields it isn't as radically characterised, but is present in some or other form as well—particularly because in Austria the various language regions are mixed and overlap and you can for instance have the experience that a German, when he is by chance involved in some or other circuit court officiated by a Czech judge who can't speak German, is convicted by a Czech in a language he fails to understand. He doesn't know what he is convicted of and what has happened to him; all he notices is that he is led away. Just so is the reverse case when a German judge who can't speak Czech, judges a Czech who can't understand German. What I am indicating is the individual arrangement, the free formation of relationships of the judgement to the judge.
So, a state like Austria could expect great success from this. Thus, this impulse resulted in always, over the next maybe five or ten years—relationships shifted continuously—for the convicted being able to choose their judges freely.
(Gap in stenographic record)
This is not simply an object of the spiritual life, but it is foremost an object in the life of the judicial state; in that only one law is focused on, which had originated from a deed and secondly became a law of the state, already concerned with its competence; in each case it will obviously show the concerned result.
However, another question is this: when you look at things more closely you will see that all the solutions to these cases are very consequential. Today I could only give you the initial conditions; I need not talk the entire night but need to continue tomorrow again.
Das Soziale Wollen als Grundlage Einer Neuen Wissenschaftsordnung
Vortrag vor der Zürcher Studentenschaft, SSV
Als Thema für den heutigen Abend ist gewünscht worden «Das soziale Wollen als Grundlage einer neuen Wissenschaftsordnung». Ich weiß nicht, aus welchen Motiven heraus gerade dieses Thema gestellt worden ist, aber als seine Forderung zu mir gelangte, fand ich es außerordentlich glücklich, denn es schlägt in der Tat denjenigen Ton an, der mir notwendig dünkt gerade gegenüber den Tatsachen, welche die soziale Bewegung in die Gegenwart hereingetragen hat, und die ja wahrhaftig eine viel deutlichere Sprache sprechen als alles dasjenige, was vorbereitend diskutiert, verhandelt worden ist über die soziale Frage im Laufe der letzten Jahrzehnte.
Man kann durch lange Zeiten verfolgen diese Entwickelung der sozialen Bewegung in der neueren Zeit, der Gegenwart, und man konnte gerade gegenüber dem sozialen Wollen, das sich immer mehr und mehr nach der einen oder nach der anderen Seite in diesen sozialen oder anderen Wollungen aussprach, bemerken, daß sich etwas hereingeflüchtet, hereingeschlichen hat in dieses soziale Wollen, in die soziale Gesinnung der neueren Zeit, das einem erscheinen kann wie eine Umhüllung eines auf einem ganz anderen Gebiete herrschenden Aberglaubens älterer mittelalterlicher Zeiten, eines Aberglaubens, der einem wiederum vor Augen tritt, wenn man sich vertieft in den zweiten Teil von Goethes «Faust» und dort auf die Szene stößt, wo Goethe seinen Wagner den Homunkulus bereiten läßt, das Menschlein, das auf dem Wege sein möchte, aus einem Homunkulus ein Mensch zu werden. Es beruht der Aberglaube des Mittelalters auch nach der Meinung Goethes darauf, daß man damals aus dem, was nur der theoretische, nur die äußeren Tatsachen nüchtern und trocken zusammenstellende, zusammenfassende menschliche Verstand, der Wesenhaftes ausdenken kann, daß man nach diesem Ausgedachten etwas wirklich Lebendiges formen wollte. Die Unmöglichkeit, aus den Abstraktionen, die abgezogen sind vom äußeren Leben, etwas Lebendiges selbst zu formen, die trat Goethe ganz besonders vor Augen. Dieses Mittelalter aber beherrscht ja nicht gerade das heutige Denken selbst, aber es scheint mir in all den Impulsen, in den Instinkten unserer Zeitgenossen, vieler unserer Zeitgenossen, die sich soziales Wollen zusprechen möchten, eine Metamorphose, möchte ich sagen, manchen Aberglaubens zu herrschen. Man beobachtet die Entwickelung des sozialen Lebens, wie es sich im Laufe der Menschheitsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart herein ergeben hat, man denkt sich aus gewisse Prinzipien, gewisse Grundsätze, nach denen verfahren werden soll, oder, wie man auf manchen Seiten hört, die sich selber verwirklichen wollen, und dann meint man dadurch, mit abstrakten Prinzipien, nach denen der Homunkulus geformt werden sollte, auch das formen zu können, was man den sozialen Organismus nennen kann.
Nach diesem sozialen Organismus nämlich strebt eigentlich, ich darf sagen, das Unbewußte der modernen Menschheit hin. Man braucht sich nur das Folgende klarzumachen, um das zu verstehen. Das soziale Leben der Menschheit ist ja selbstverständlich als solches nichts Neues, es tritt nur in einer anderen Erscheinung in der neueren Zeit auf. Die soziale Struktur des gesellschaftlichen Organismus wurde bis eigentlich in die neuere Zeit herauf aus menschlichen Instinkten, aus dem Unterbewußten der menschlichen Impulse heraus bestimmt. Und das ist das Bedeutsame in den heraufkommenden Kräften der neueren Zeit, daß die Menschheit nicht mehr stehenbleiben kann bei einem bloß instinktiven Wollen, daß sie einfach, durch die Natur der Entwickelung herausgefordert, zu einem bewußten Wollen gerade mit Bezug auf die Gestaltung der sozialen Struktur sich ausrüsten muß. Will man sich aber mit einem bewußten Wollen ausrüsten, so braucht man diesem Wollen zugrundeliegende, wirklichkeitstragende Gedanken, nicht bloß Gedanken, die ganz aus der Wirklichkeit abstrahiert sind, sondern Gedanken, die das eigene Wollen verwandt machen mit den Kräften, die im Naturgeschehen, die im Weltenwalten selber drinnen sind. Man muß gewissermaßen mit seinem eigenen Wollen verwandt werden mit den Schöpferkräften des natürlichen Daseins.
Das ist etwas, was aber weite Kreise der Menschheit erst noch lernen müssen. Sie müssen daran denken lernen, daß man eigentlich so gar nicht verfahren kann, daß man sich denkt: Was soll geschehen, um aus einer sozialen Struktur, die aus einem von vielen als unerträglich empfundenen Leben heraus kommen soll, eine mögliche soziale Struktur hinzustellen. Man kann gar nicht so verfahren. Man kann nichts ausdenken, was gewissermaßen die sozialen Krankheiten sind. Man kann nur seine besten Bestrebungen darauf richten, aus dem Menschen selbst zu finden, wie die in der Gesellschaft zusammenlebenden Menschen ihre gegenseitigen Verhältnisse in gegenseitige Harmonien bringen müssen, um in diesem Wechselleben das zu entfalten, was notwendig ist, um die soziale Struktur herbeizuführen.
Da hat sich mir, wie ich glaube, aus langjährigen Studien der sozialen Frage ergeben, daß man diese Grundfrage, die man gerade durch das abstrakte Denken heute als eine einheitliche betrachtet, daß man diese soziale Frage in drei Gliedern sehen muß, dreigliederig sehen muß, und zwar sehen muß erstens als eine Geistesfrage, zweitens als eine Rechtsfrage und drittens als eine Wirtschaftsfrage. Dasjenige, was im modernen kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsleben heraufgekommen ist, heraufgekommen ist auf Grundlage des Technischen, das sich ausgebildet hat in der neueren Zeit, das hat, wie hypnotisiert, den menschlichen Blick einzig und allein auf dieses Wirtschaftsleben hingelenkt, hat die Aufmerksamkeit ganz davon abgezogen, daß die soziale Frage neben einer Wirtschaftsfrage vor allen Dingen auch eine Geistesfrage ist und eine Rechtsfrage.
Ich werde mir erlauben, zuerst die Geistesfrage zu behandeln, nicht aus dem Grunde, weil vielleicht, wie einige glauben, die Betrachtung des geistigen Lebens mir subjektiv besonders nahe liegt, sondern weil ich allerdings der Meinung bin, daß, wenn auch gerade proletarisch denkende Menschen der heutigen Zeit es ablehnen, im Geistigen etwas zu sehen, was zur Lösung der sozialen Frage etwas beitragen kann, gerade für den wirklichkeitsgemäßen Betrachter dieser sozialen Frage sich das Geistige an erste Stelle stellen muß. Da muß man, um das einzusehen, die Seele des von der modernen sozialen Bewegung berührten Menschen in ihrer wahren Gestalt betrachten. Man muß versuchen zu erkennen, was eigentlich gerade in den sozialistisch orientierten Kreisen an Willensimpulsen lebt. Man muß vor allen Dingen ergründen, woher diese Willensimpulse gekommen sind.
Sehen Sie, als mit Technik und Kapitalismus das neuere Menschheitsleben heraufzog, da gliederte sich immer mehr und mehr der herrschende Teil der Menschheit, die sogenannte herrschende Klasse, von demab, was sich in den verschiedensten Gebieten als das Proletariertum herausbildete. Zwischen dem proletarischen Wollen und dem nichtproletarischen Leben herrscht ja heute, das wird der Einsichtige nicht leugnen, eine Kluft, die kaum zu überbrücken ist, wenn man nicht wenigstens den Versuch macht, nicht nur mit den alten Gedanken und alten Willensimpulsen in der sozialen Bewegung tätig zu sein, sondern mit neuen Gedanken und Willensimpulsen. Es hat sich ja im Laufe der Zeit immer mehr und mehr herausgebildet innerhalb des Proletariertums selbst der Glaube - und man kann, so wie die Verhältnisse liegen, diesen Glauben durchaus nicht als einen irgendwie unbegründeten ansehen -, es hat sich der Glaube herausgebildet, daß die sozial benachteiligte Klasse von den sozial bis jetzt herrschenden Klassen nichts zu hoffen habe, wenn sie auf deren guten Willen, deren Ideen und so weiter bauen. Es hat sich, wenn ich so sagen darf, ein tiefes Mißtrauen eingeschlichen zwischen den einzelnen Menschenklassen. Und dieses Mißtrauen hat sich ergeben aus Untergründen, die bisher gar nicht in das Bewußtsein der Menschheit recht hinaufspielen, die im Unterbewußten noch immer vorhanden sind. Es hat sich daraus ergeben, daß die arbeitende Klasse dem Bürgertum, namentlich im Anfange der neueren Zeit, ein letztes großes Vertrauen entgegengebracht hat, und daß sie, nicht in ihrer Überzeugung, aber in ihrem Gefühl von diesem letzten großen Vertrauen getäuscht worden ist. Sehen Sie, man redet heute von proletarischer Weltanschauung. Viele, auch führende Persönlichkeiten, die glauben das proletarische Wollen in ihrem Denken zum Ausdruck zu bringen, die wissen eigentlich nicht, welches der Ursprung ihres ganzen Denkens und Wollens ist. Was an Forderungen, die aus dem Leben selbst kommen, heute in der sozialen Bewegung lebt, das steht eigentlich in einem merkwürdigen Kontraste mit dem, was über diese Forderung, über diese sozialen Lebensimpulse sogar vom Proletariat selbst gedacht wird.
Wenn ich kurz ausdrücken soll, was ich auf diesem Gebiete meine, so muß ich sagen: Es ist proletarische, es ist soziale Kultur also entstanden; aber innerhalb des proletarischen Fühlens, innerhalb der sozialen Kultur und des Lebens herrscht ein Erbgut gerade aus denjenigen Anschauungen und Lebensauffassungen heraus, die sich in dem entscheidenden Augenblicke ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung gerade im Bürgertum ergeben haben.
Diesen entscheidenden Augenblick der neueren geschichtlichen Entwickelung muß der Betrachter dieser Entwickelung doch darinnen sehen, daß sich die neuere wissenschaftliche Denkungsweise entwickelt hat — ich bitte zu beachten, daß ich nicht sage: die Naturwissenschaft, sondern die neuere naturwissenschaftliche Denkungsweise — in einer solchen Art aus alten geistigen Impulsen heraus, daß diese wissenschaftliche Denkungsatt nicht dieselbe Stoßkraft, dieselbe geistige Stoßkraft mitbekommen hat, welche die alten Weltanschauungen hatten.
Die alten Weltanschauungen wurzelten in breiteren menschlichen Impulsen als die moderne wissenschaftliche Denkungsweise. Diese alten Weltanschauungen waren imstande, Impulse in die menschliche Seele hineinzusenden, durch die der Mensch empfindungs- und gefühlsmäßig sich die ihn immer so berührende Frage beantworten konnte: Was bin ich eigentlich als Mensch in der Welt? -Solche Stoßkraft in das Seelenleben hinein ist der neueren wissenschaftlichen Denkungsweise nicht gegeben. Selbstverständlich, aus einer geschichtlichen Notwendigkeit heraus, die aber deshalb nicht minder ein geschichtliches Verhängnis ist, haben sich die alten Weltanschauungen im entscheidenden Augenblick feindlich gestellt der neueren wissenschaftlichen Denkungsweise gegenüber, statt in sie hineinfließen zu lassen in voller Freundschaft mit ihr, was sie für das geistige Leben des Menschen für seine Seele Tragendes hatte. Und so kam folgender Tatbestand.
Die Maschine, die kapitalistische Wirtschaftsordnung, riß eine Anzahl von Menschen aus dem bisherigen Lebenszusammenhang heraus, aus diesem Lebenszusammenhang, in dem diese Menschen bisher gestanden hatten, aus ganz anderen Lebensverhältnissen für ihr Menschheitsempfinden, für die Empfindung ihrer Menschenwürde. Es war ein Zusammenhang zwischen dem, was der Mensch ist und tut. Denken Sie nur einmal an den Zusammenhang, der im alten Handwerk bis zum 13. Jahrhundert ganz deutlich bestand und später auch noch in Resten bestand! Aus diesem Zusammenhange heraus ist eine große Gruppe von Menschen an die Maschine geworfen, in die moderne Wirtschaftsordnung hineingeworfen. Da gibt es kein irgendwie geartetes Verhältnis zu den Produktionsmitteln; da gibt es keine Möglichkeit, irgendeine Wirkung herzustellen zwischen dem Menschen und dem, was er eigentlich tut. Und so ist gerade jene Seiteim Menschen, die der moderne Proletarier im Maschinenzeitalter nicht entwickelt, darauf angewiesen, zu fragen: Was bin ich als Mensch wert? Was bin ich als Mensch wert?
Diese Frage ist nicht mehr aus überkommenen, wertlos gewordenen Lebenszusammenhängen heraus zu beantworten, sondern sie ist aus dem eigenen Inneren heraus zu holen, aus demjenigen, was unabhängig ist von den äußeren Lebenszusammenhängen. Und da ergab sich nichts anderes für diese Menschenklasse, als dasjenige, was mit dem Maschinenzeitalter, mit der Wirtschaftsordnung in welthistorischer Gleichzeitigkeit heraufkam: es ergab sich die moderne wissenschaftliche Denkungsweise.
Die alten Klassen waren nicht genötigt, diese wissenschaftliche Denkungsweise zu ihrem Glauben, zu ihrer Lebensauffassung zu machen; sie brauchten sie bloß zu ihrer theoretischen Überzeugung zu machen. Denn dasjenige, was sie ins Leben hineinstellte, das war etwas Überliefertes, das waren Impulse, die aus anderen Zeiten herrührten und die sie erbten aus älteren Zeiten. Der Proletarier allein war es, der aus allem herausgerissen war, der daher auch nicht sich bekennen konnte zu irgendwelcher Lebensauffassung, die mit den alten Lebenszusammenhängen verbunden war, und der gerade durch sein ganzes äußerliches Dasein prädestiniert war, das Neue, das heraufkam, zu seinem Seeleninhalt zu machen. So ist er, so paradox es klingt, so unglaublich es für viele ausschaut, so ist er gerade, dieser Proletarier, der eigentliche, bloß wissenschaftlich orientierte Mensch.
Um die ganze Tragweite dieser Tatsache zu würdigen, muß man nicht nur gelernt haben über die Proletarierbewegung zu denken, man muß durch sein Schicksal in die Möglichkeit versetzt gewesen sein, mit dem Proletarier zu denken, namentlich mit solchen Menschen aus der Proletarierklasse zu denken, die von der oder jener Seite her gerade zu Trägern wurden der proletarischen Bewegung. Da konnte man das Folgende ganz deutlich fühlen, wie es sich heute aus älteren Zeiten gerade ausbreitet in die unmittelbare soziale Gegenwatt.
Nicht wahr, Sie können sagen: Ja, die wissenschaftliche Denkungsweise haben doch bürgerliche Kreise in ausgiebigem Maße angenommen. — Aber nehmen Sie selbst intelligente bürgerliche Kreise, denken Sie an solche Menschen, die ganz und gar in ihrem Denken, in ihren Überzeugungen wissenschaftlich orientiert sind: mit ihrem Fühlen, mit ihrer ganzen Lebensempfindung stehen sie doch in Zusammenhängen drinnen, die nicht ganz und gar bestimmt sind durch die wissenschaftliche Orientierung. Man kann materialistischer Denker der modernen Zeit sein, kann sich aufgeklärt nennen, kann Atheist sein, kann das wirklich als seine ehrliche Überzeugung bekennen, aber man braucht durchaus nicht sich loszusagen von allen empfindungsgemäßen Resten der alten Lebenszusammenhänge, die doch nicht aus dieser wissenschaftlichen Orientierung heraus entstanden sind, sondern die entstanden sind in Zeiten, in denen noch geistige Impulse die vorhin skizzierte Stoßkraft hatten.
Ganz anders wirkte die rein wissenschaftliche Orientierung. Ich sage nicht, die Wissenschaften, denn selbstverständlich wirkte diese wissenschaftliche Orientierung auf ganz ungelehrte Proletatier, ungebildete Proletarier, aber ganz anders wirkte sie eben da, wo sie als Lebensanschauung über das Proletariat hingetragen worden ist.
Ich möchte Ihnen das an einem Beispiel klarmachen. Ich stand vor vielen Jahren gemeinsam an einem Vortragstisch mit der ja jetzt in so tragischer Weise untergegangenen Rosa Luxemburg; sie sprach über das Thema: «Die Wissenschaft und die Arbeiter.» Ich muß immer wieder und wiederum denken, wie sie zündend für eine große Versammlung daraufhinwies, daß eigentlich alle Vorurteile, die mit Bezug auf menschliche soziale Stellung, menschliche Rangordnung in den alten herrschenden Klassen sind, zusammenhängen mit den Vorstellungen, die alte geistige Weltanschauungen in sich getragen haben. Dem modernen Proletarier, meinte sie, komme es einzig und allein zu, darauf zu hören, wie der Mensch nicht einen engelhaften, göttlichen Ursprung genommen hat, sondern wie er einstmals ganz unanständig auf Bäumen herumgeklettert sein soll, aus tierischen Untergründen herauf sich entwickelt hat, aus Untergründen, die wahrhaftig, wenn sie in ihrer Entwickelung verfolgt werden, die Überzeugung begründen müssen: Mensch ist gleich Mensch. Und alle früheren Rangunterschiede rühren von irgendwelchen Vorurteilen her. - Man muß da nicht auf die Formulierung sehen, sondern auf die Stoßkraft muß man sehen, wie solche Worte auf die proletarisch gesinnten Seelen wirken.
Hinsehen rein auf den Begriff, habe ich eigentlich gemeint, wenn ich sage: Der Proletarier ist in der neueren Zeit in seiner ganzen Weltanschauung «wissenschaftlich» orientiert. Und diese wissenschaftliche Orientierung füllte seine Seele nicht so aus, daß er in der wünschenswerten Weise empfindungsgemäß, wie er es brauchte, die Frage beantworten konnte: Was bin ich eigentlich in der Welt als Mensch?
Und woher hat der Proletarier diese Weltanschauung bekommen? Woher rührte diese wissenschaftliche Orientierung, die er manchmal in ganz unrichtiger Weise aufzunehmen hat? Sie ist doch eine Wissenschaft. Die hat er genommen aus dem alten Erbgut der bürgerlichen Menschenklasse. Sie ist entstanden aus alter Weltanschauung heraus innerhalb der bürgerlichen Menschenklasse beim Übergange in das neuere Maschinen- und kapitalistische Zeitalter, als da Maschine und Kapitalismus die Menschen überwältigt hat.
Das nächste, was man so oftmals mit der entsprechenden Färbung betonen hört, ist: Innerhalb des Proletariats ist das menschliche Geistesleben zu dem geworden, was als Ideologie empfunden wird. Das hören Sie am alleröftersten, wenn die Untergründe der proletarischen Weltanschauung auseinandergesetzt werden: daß Kunst, Religion, Wissenschaft, Sitte, Recht und so weiter ideologische Spiegelbilder der äußeren materiellen Wirklichkeit sind.
Aber diese Empfindung, daß das alles so ist, daß das geistige Leben ein ideologisches ist, die ist nicht entstanden innerhalb des Proletariats, die hat der Proletarier empfangen als Mitgift vom Bürgertum. Und das letzte Vertrauen, das letzte große Vertrauen, das das Proletariat entgegengebracht hat dem Bürgertum, das bestand darinnen, daß es Nahrung übernommen hat, geistige Nahrung für seine Seele. Es konnte ja, da es entblößt war des Geisteslebens, als es gerufen wurde aus älterem Zusammenhang zur Maschine und hineingestellt wurde in die soziale Struktur, es konnte nur hinaufschauen zu dem, was sich entwickelt hatte als Wissen über den Menschen, über die Welt; es konnte nur hinaufschauen zu dem, was sich aus dem Bürgertum ergeben hat: es übernahm gläubig, dogmatisch, möchte ich sagen, es übernahm Ideologie von dem Bürgertum. In die Überzeugung ist es noch nicht hineingegangen, aber in die Empfindung als die Enttäuschung, die das bieten muß, wenn man das Geistige nicht ansehen kann als etwas, was eine in sich selbst begründete höhere Wirklichkeit enthält, sondern wenn man es ansehen muß nur als Ideologie. In den unterbewußten Empfindungen lebt es bei einer groBen Anzahl der Träger der sozialen Bewegung, wird noch nicht gewußt, wird aber deutlich empfunden: Wir haben ein großes Vertrauen entgegengebracht dem Bürgertum; wir haben ein Erbgut angetreten, das uns Seelenheil, das uns tragende Kräfte hätte bringen sollen. Das Bürgertum hat sie uns nicht gebracht; nur die Ideologie hat es uns gebracht, die keine Wirklichkeit enthält, die nicht das Leben tragen kann.
Man kann viel streiten, ob Ideologie wirklich das ist, was der Grundcharakter des Geisteslebens ist, oder nicht. Darauf kommt es nicht an, sondern darauf kommt es an, daß dieses Geistesleben heute von einem großen Teile der Menschheit als Ideologie empfunden wird, und daß, wenn man das Leben als Ideologie empfindet, die Seele verödet wird, leer bleibt, die geistige Schwungkraft gelähmt wird, und das entsteht, was heute entstanden ist: Die Entblößung des sozialen Wollens von dem Glauben, daß irgendwo etwas Geistiges sich entwickeln könnte, irgendwo ein Mittelpunkt auftreten könnte, ein wirklicher Mittelpunkt, aus dem unserer Weltanschauung oder dergleichen das Heil kommen könnte, auch mit Bezug auf die wünschenswerte Gestaltung der sozialen Bewegung. Ich möchte sagen, als ein Negatives ist das Geistesleben hineingetragen in die Entwickelung der modernen proletarischen Menschheit vor allen Dingen; und ein Positives fordern die Sehnsüchte dieser Menschheit. Ein Seelentragendes fordern sie, und ein die Seele Verzehrendes ist ihnen als Erbgut gegeben worden.
Das ist etwas, was so weht und still rinnt durch unsere ganze gegenwärtige soziale Bewegung, was man nicht mit Begriffen erfaßt, was aber die Gestaltung des einen der Glieder — wir werden drei kennenlernen — der sozialen Bewegung, der gegenwärtigen sozialen Bewegung ausmacht. Und sobald man einsieht, daß dies so ist, dann frägt man sich auch sachgemäß: Woher ist es gekommen und wie kann ihm abgeholfen werden? Statt daß das Wollen weiterhin gelähmt ist, dieses soziale Wollen, wie kann es befeuert werden, wie kann es durchkraftet werden? Diese Frage muß man sich vorlegen.
Nun trat ein Ereignis ein, als das moderne Geistesleben an den entscheidenden Punkt kam, den ich schon angedeutet habe. Die herrschenden Klassen von damals, die waren durch ihre ganzen Lebensverhältnisse mit dem verbunden, was wir heute Staat nennen. Es ist von einzelnen Menschen oftmals betont worden - ich kann das alles heute der Kürze der Zeit wegen nicht anführen, inwiefern es richtig ist —, es ist oft betont worden, daß der moderne Mensch glaube, das, was er heute Staat nennt, hätte eigentlich so immer bestanden. Das ist aber durchaus nicht richtig. Das, was wir heute Staat nennen, was zum Beispiel im Hegeltum geradezu wie der Ausdruck des Göttlichen selbst erscheint, das ist im Grunde nur ein Produkt des Denkens der letzten vier bis fünf Jahrhunderte. Die sozialen Organismen früherer Zeiten waren ganz anders.
Nehmen Sie nur eine einzige Tatsache, nehmen Sie die jüngst noch aufgetretene Tatsache, daß sich aus den freien Lehranstalten, freien höheren Lehranstalten früherer Zeiten, die ganz auf sich selbst gebaut waren gegenüber dem Staate, lauter Staatsanstalten herausgebildet haben, daß gewissermaßen der Staat zum Verwahrer des Geistesgutes der Menschheit geworden ist. Daß er das geworden ist, das ist ein bürgerliches Interesse im Beginne der neueren Zeit. Der Staat war es, der dem Bürger an die Seele heranwuchs, dem er mit all seinen Bedürfnissen verbunden war. Und aus diesem Impuls heraus erwuchs das Verhältnis, das neuere Verhältnis zwischen dem Geistesgut der Menschheit und zwischen dem Staate, erwuchs das, daß dieser Staat Verwahrer dieses Geistesgutes der Menschheit wurde, und daß er verlangte von denjenigen, die zu diesem Verwahrer kommen sollten, daß sie ihr Leben für ihn eigentlich einrichteten.
Wenn man etwas tiefer hineinblickt in das innere Gefüge des menschlichen Geistesgutes, dann kommt man darauf, daß nicht etwa bloß die äußere Verwaltung dieses Geistesgutes, die Gesetzgebung über Universitäten staatlich geworden ist, über Schulen, Volksschulen staatlich geworden ist, sondern staatlich ist auch der Inhalt dieses Geistesgutes geworden.
Gewiß, die Mathematik trägt nicht einen staatlichen Charakter; aber andere Zweige unseres Geistesgutes haben ihr Gepräge, haben das Zusammenwachsen dieses Geistesgutes mit staatlichen Interessen in der neueren Zeit erhalten. Und dieses Zusammenwachsen ist nicht ohne Anteil an dem Werden zur Ideologie von seiten des Geistesgutes. Dieses Geistesgut kann nur seine eigene innere Wirklichkeit recht bewahren, in sich tragen, wenn es sich selbst, unter seine eigenen Kräfte gestellt, verwalten kann, wenn es aus seiner unmittelbaren Initiative heraus dem Staat gibt, was des Staates ist, wenn es aber vom Staate nicht die Forderungen zu empfangen hat.
Gewiß, es wird heute noch viele geben, die in dem, was ich eben ausgesprochen habe, keine fundamentale soziale Tatsache sehen. Man wird aber sehen, daß erst dann wiederum der in der Wirklichkeit waltende Geist der Menschheit das Rechte geben kann, wenn dieser Geist von der äußeren staatlichen Organisation getrennt, auf sich selbst gestellt ist. Ich weiß, was man für Einwände dagegen machen kann, aber darauf kommt es nicht an; sondern allein darauf kommt es an, daß der Geist, um recht gedeihen zu können, fordert, daß er immerfort hervorgehen kann aus der unmittelbaren freien Initiative der menschlichen Persönlichkeit.
So kommt man auf die wahre Gestalt des einen Gliedes der modernen sozialen Frage heran, daß man das geistige Leben recht betrachtet und die Notwendigkeit einsieht, daß dasjenige, was in die Struktur des Staates hineinstößt, allmählich aus diesem Staat wiederum herausgebracht wird, so daß es seine eigene innere Tragkraft entfalten kann und dann wiederum zurückwirken kann, gerade weil es befreit ist, weil es sich selbständig neben den anderen Gliedern der sozialen Struktur entwikkelt, und gerade dadurch richtig auf diese soziale Struktur wirken kann. Soll man über das Praktische in diesem ersten Gliede der sozialen Fragen reden, so muß man sagen: Die Tendenz der Entwickelung muß auf Entstaatlichung des geistigen Lebens im weitesten Umfange gehen. Und sogar ein Glied dieses geistigen Lebens muß entstaatlicht werden, demgegenüber es heute wahrscheinlich höchst paradox erscheint, daß man so über dasselbe reden kann: das Verhältnis, in das eine richtende Persönlichkeit eintritt zu den Menschen, die mit dem Strafgesetz oder irgendwie mit dem Privatrecht zu tun haben, das ist ein so menschliches — man hat in gewissen psychologisch orientierten Kreisen heute das auch eingesehen, aber die Sache von einer ganz verkehrten Seite angefaßt -, ein so persönliches, daß das Richten unmittelbar auch zu demjenigen gehört, was zum Internen des Geisteslebens gerechnet werden muß. So daß ich sowohl dasjenige, was als religiöse Überzeugung in der Menschheit geltend ist, alles künstlerische Leben, aber auch alles auf Privatrecht und Strafrecht Bezügliche zu dem rechnen muß, bei dem die Tendenz sich zu entwickeln hat nach Entstaatlichung.
Warum sollte derjenige, der von radikalen Maßregeln hört, gleich an eine gewaltsame Revolution denken? Auch in sozialistischen Kreisen der neueren Zeit denkt man ja allmählich nicht daran. Ich denke mir auch nicht, daß von heute auf morgen alles entstaatlicht werden kann; aber ich denke mir, daß in das soziale Wollen der Menschheit das eingehen kann, daß die einzelnen Maßnahmen, die zu treffen sind gegenüber dem.oder jenem-und daß muß ja selbst täglich da oder dort geschehen -, hinorientiert werden nach einem solchen allmählichen Loslösen des geistigen Lebens vom Staatlichen. Sie werden ganz konkret sich vorstellen können, was damit eigentlich gemeint ist.
Den Staat müssen wir als etwas betrachten, was dem in der neueren Zeit immer mehr und mehr sich zur herrschenden Klasse ausbildenden Bürgertum besonders an die Seele gewachsen ist. Dieses Bürgertum hat nun in diesen Staat hineingetragen nicht nur das geistige Leben, sondern auch dasjenige, was sozusagen innerhalb der neueren menschheitlichen Entwickelung wie überwältigt hat den ganzen sozialen Organismus: nämlich das wirtschaftliche Leben. Dieses wirtschaftliche Leben hineintragen in das Staatsleben hat damit begonnen, daß man gerade Verkehrsinteressen, Post, Eisenbahn und so weiter verstaatlicht hat. Daraus ist ein gewisser Aberglaube gegenüber dem Staat, gegenüber der staatlich orientierten menschlichen Gemeinschaft entstanden. Und der letzte Rest dieses Glaubens ist der Glaube der sozialistisch orientierten Menschen: daß eigentlich das Heil nur zu sehen ist in der gemeinsamen Verwaltung des gesamten Wirtschaftslebens. Auch das ist also als ein Erbgut übernommen worden von der bürgerlichen Denk- und Anschauungsweise.
Nun ist das Geistesleben auf die eine Seite gestellt, das Wirtschaftsleben auf die andere Seite gestellt; mitten drinnen steht der Staat.
Sie können sich fragen: Was soll denn nun eigentlich dem Staat verbleiben? — denn wir werden gleich nachher sehen, daß auch das wirtschaftliche Leben die Konfundierung mit dem eigentlichen Staatsleben nicht verträgt. Wir kommen zu einer klaren Ansicht über diese Frage vielleicht dadurch, daß wir uns vor Augen halten, was eigentlich an dem sich herausbildenden modernen Staat die bürgerlichen Klassen gefunden haben. Sie haben in diesem Staat gefunden den Hort ihrer Rechte.
Blicken wir nun auf das hin, was eigentlich Rechte sind. Ich denke dabei nicht nur an das Strafrecht, ich denke dabei auch nicht an Privatrechte, insofern sie sich nicht auf das Verhältnis von Persönlichkeit zu Persönlichkeit beziehen, sondern ich denke an das öffentliche Recht. Zum Öffentlichen Recht gehören zum Beispiel auch die Verhandlungen über die Besitzverhältnisse. Denn was ist schließlich Eigentum? Eigentum istnur der Ausdruck für die Berechtigung, daß man irgend etwas als Persönlichkeit allein besitzt und bearbeiten darf. Das Eigentum wurzelte in einem Rechte. Alles dasjenige, das wir eigentlich vielfach als äußere Sache betrachten, das wurzelt in seinem Verhältnis zum Menschen in Rechten. Solche Rechte hatte sich in der neueren Zeit, die unserer modernen Staatsauffassung vorangingen, das Bürgertum und was mit ihm verwandt war, schon früher erworben; solche Rechte fand es am besten beschützt, wenn es hereinnahm alles dasjenige, was sich auf solche Rechte beziehen konnte, in das Staatsleben selbst.
Und so entstand die Tendenz, das Wirtschaftsleben immer mehr und mehr hereinzuziehen in das Staatsleben. Das Staatsleben durchdringt die Struktur des Wirtschaftslebens mit einer Summe von Rechten. Nun, diese Rechte sollen dem Staatsleben auch keineswegs in der Entwickelung der Zukunft genommen werden. Aber das soziale Wollen muß sich gerade dahin ausbilden, genau zu unterscheiden zwischen alledem, was Rechtsleben ist, was eigentliches Geistesleben ist, und was Wirtschaftsleben ist.
Die moderne soziale Bewegung macht dies ganz besonders dadurch anschaulich, daß die herrschenden Kreise etwas nicht hereingenommen haben in das Rechtsleben ihres modernen Staates. Während sie vieles aus dem Wirtschaftsleben herausgenommen haben, aus dem bloßen isolierten Wirtschaftsleben herausgenommen und in die Rechtsstruktur des Staates eingegliedert haben, haben sie eines nicht in die Rechtsstruktur des Staates eingegliedert: und das ist die Arbeitskraft des proletarischen Arbeiters. Diese Arbeitskraft des proletarischen Arbeiters ist drinnengelassen worden in der Zirkulation des Wirtschaftsprozesses.
Das ist es, was zutiefst eingeschlagen hat in das Gemüt des modernen Proletariers, daß ihm durch den Marxismus und seine Nachfolger klargemacht werden konnte: Es gibt immer einen Arbeitsmarkt, wie es einen Warenmarkt gibt. Und wie auf dem Warenmarkt Waren angeboten werden und nach ihnen Nachfrage ist, so bringst du deine Arbeitskraft — das einzige, was du besitzest — auf den Arbeitsmarkt, und sie gilt nur als Ware. Sie wird gekauft wie Ware; sie steht in dem modernen Wirtschaftsprozeß wie eine Ware drinnen.
Damit kommen wir auf die wahre Gestalt der zweiten modernen sozialen Forderung. Diese drückt sich darinnen aus, daß aus einem gewissen Unterbewußtsein seiner Menschenwürde heraus der moderne Proletarier es unerträglich fand, daß seine Arbeitskraft als Ware auf dem Warenmarkt gekauft und verkauft wird.
Gewiß, die Theorie der sozialistischen Denker sagt: So ist es gekommen durch die objektiven Gesetze des Wirtschaftslebens selbst; die haben die Arbeitskraft auf den Markt hingestellt eben wie andere Waren. Das ist im Bewußtsein, vielleicht im Bewußtsein des Proletariers selbst. Aber im Unterbewußtsein waltet etwas ganz anderes. Im Unterbewußtsein waltet eine Fortsetzung der alten Sklaverei, der alten Leibeigenschaftsfrage. Da sieht man in diesem Unterbewußtsein nur, daß während der Sklavenzeit der ganze Mensch als Ware auf dem Arbeitsmarkt war und als Ware gekauft und verkauft werden konnte, daß dann etwas weniger von dem Menschen in der Leibeigenschaft es war, und daß jetzt noch geblieben ist die Arbeitskraft des Arbeiters. Damit gibt er sich aber auch ganz an den Wirtschaftsprozeß hin. Das empfindet er als unmöglich, als unwürdig.
Daraus entsteht diese zweite soziale Forderung der neueren Zeit: Die Arbeitskraft zu entkleiden des Warencharakters.
Ich weiß, daß heute noch viele, sehr viele Menschen denken: Wie soll das gemacht werden? Wie soll denn anders überhaupt ein Wirtschaftsleben eingerichtet werden als dadurch, daß man die Arbeitstätigkeit, die Arbeitskraft entlohnt? -— Damit aber kauft man sie schon! Aber man braucht ja auch nur dem entgegenhalten, daß schließlich auch Plato und Aristoteles durchaus es selbstverständlich fanden, es für selbstverständlich hielten, daß Sklaven da sein müssen. So muß man es schon verzeihen den modernen Denkern, daß sie es für notwendig halten, daß die Arbeitskraft zu Markte getragen werden muß.
Man kann sich nicht immer denken, was vielleicht schon in allernächster Zeit eine Wirklichkeit ist. Aber fragen muß man heute: Wodurch kann die Arbeitskraft des Charakters der Ware entkleidet werden? Das kann dadurch allein geschehen, daß sie heraufgehoben wird in das Gebiet des reinen Rechtsstaates, desjenigen Staates, aus dem ausgeschieden wird das geistige Leben auf der einen Seite, wie früher charakterisiert, und ausgeschieden wird auf der anderen Seite alles dasjenige, was im vorher charakterisierten Sinne zum Wirtschaftsprozeß gehört. Gliedern wir den ganzen sozialen Organismus oder denken wir ihn uns gegliedert in diese drei Glieder: in das selbständige Geistesleben, in das Rechtsleben und in das Wirtschaftsleben, dann haben wir statt des Homunkulus im Gebiete des Wirtschaftslebens den wirklichen Homo im Gebiete des Wirtschaftslebens, dann haben wir unser geistiges Auge gestellt auf den wirklich lebensfähigen, nicht den aus chemischen Agenzien zusammengesetzten sozialen Organismus.
Ich will wahrhaftig hier nicht Analogiespiel treiben zwischen Biologie und Soziologie — das liegt mir fern, ganz fern —, will weder in die Fehler des Schäffle noch des Meray in seiner «Weltmutation» fallen; das alles will ich nicht, darauf kommt es nicht an. Aber es kommt darauf an, zu sehen, so wie im einzelnen menschlichen natürlichen Organismus drei selbständig nebeneinander herrschende Systeme tätig sind - ich habe dies im wissenschaftlichen Bereich in meinem letzten Buche «Von Seelenrätseln» wenigstens skizzenhaft ausgeführt —, so müssen auch im sozialen Organismus drei selbständig anzuwendende Systeme herrschen: das geistige System, das richterliche System, dann das System des öffentlichen Rechtes — wie gesagt, Privatrecht und Strafrecht ist ausgeschlossen -, und das eigentliche Wirtschaftssystem.
Dann aber, wenn man zwischen dem Geistesleben und dem Wirtschaftsleben das regulierende Staatsleben hat, das regulierende Rechtsleben, dann hat man etwas so Lebensfähiges eingegliedert in den sozialen Organismus, wie manin den natürlichen menschlichen Organismus eingegliedert findet als ein relativ selbständiges System das Zirkulationssystem, das Lungen-Herzsystem, zwischen das Kopfsystem und das Verdauungssystem. Dann aber, wenn es auf eigenem Boden ganz und gar herausgestaltet ist aus dem bloßen Wirtschaftsleben - denken wiran eine Verwaltung, eine demokratische Verwaltung auf diesem Boden des Rechtslebens -, wenn jeder in der gleichen Weise seine Rechte in Anspruch zu nehmen hat, die das Verhältnis von Mensch zu Mensch allein auf diesem Boden regeln, dann wird die Eingliederung der Arbeitskraft in den Wirtschaftsprozeß zu etwas ganz anderem, als es jetzt der Fall ist.
Sie sehen, ich gebe Ihnen nicht an irgendein Prinzip, irgendeine Theorie: so kann man es machen, wenn man die Arbeitskraft des Warencharakters entkleiden will -, sondern ich sage Ihnen: Wie müssen sich die Menschen zunächst stellen, den sozialen Organismus gliedern, damit durch ihre Tätigkeit, durch ihr Denken, durch ihr Wollen dasjenige entsteht, was als sozialer Organismus lebensfähig ist. - Ich will kein allgemeines Heilmittel angeben, sondern ich will nur erzählen, wie die Menschheit im sozialen Organismus gegliedert sein müsse, damit aus ihrem gesunden sozialen Wollen heraus fortdauernd sich ergibt, was den sozialen Organismus lebensfähig macht. Ich will sozusagen an die Stelle des theoretischen Denkens ein mit der Wirklichkeit innig verwandtes und vertrautes Denken setzen. Was wird entstehen, wenn, ganz abgesehen vom Wirtschaftsleben, auf einem für sich bestehenden Boden, der nach seinen eigenen Kräften relativ selbständig sich verwaltet und regiert, wenn auf diesem Boden über Arbeitsrecht so rein aus den menschlichen Untergründen heraus verhandelt wird und daraus Gesetze gegeben werden? Dann wird etwas daraus entstehen, was ähnlich in den Wirtschaftsprozeß hineinwirkt wie jetzt die Naturgrundlagen dieses Wirtschaftsprozesses. Diese Naturgrundlagen des Wirtschaftsprozesses, wir sehen sie ja, wenn wir den Wirtschaftsprozeß wirklich studieren, klar und deutlich vor uns. Sie regeln den Wirtschaftsprozeß so, daß sich ihre Regelung dem, was der Mensch selber tun kann zu diesem Wirtschaftsprozeß, entzieht. Nicht wahr, man braucht nur Auffälliges zu beobachten.
Nehmen Sie nur einmal - ich will radikal deutliche Beispiele anführen — die Tatsache, daß in gewissen Gegenden, die allerdings den unsrigen entfernt liegen, die Banane ein außerordentlich bedeutsamer Artikel ist. Aber die Arbeit, die man hat, um die Banane hinzubringen an den Ort, wo sie konsumiert werden kann, ist außerordentlich gering an ihrem Ausgangspunkt, sagen wir im Vergleich zu der, die notwendig in unseren natürlich europäischen Gegenden ist, um den Weizen von seinem Ausgangsort bis zu seinem Konsumott zu bringen. Diese Arbeit, die die Banane konsumfähig macht im Verhältnis zu dem Weizen, verhält sich so ungefähr wie eins zu hundert, oder das Verhältnis ist sogar ein noch größeres als eins zu hundert. Also hundertmal größere Arbeit, als man für die Banane braucht, ist notwendig für die Konsumtion von Weizen. Und so könnten wir auch innerhalb des Wirtschaftsgebietes die großen Unterschiede anführen, welche in bezug auf die Regelung des Wirtschaftslebens bestehen. Diese sind unabhängig von dem, was der Mensch selbst hinzubringt: die liegen in der Ergiebigkeit des Bodens, in anderen Verhältnissen noch, und dergleichen; die stellen sich hinein in das Wirtschaftsleben wie ein konstanter Faktor, wie ein vom wirtschaftenden Menschen unabhängiger Faktor. Das stellt sich von der einen Seite aus her.
Denken Sie sich nun das Arbeits-Rechtsleben ganz abgesondert auf der anderen Seite von dem Wirtschaftsleben, dann wird sich, wenn nicht mehr wirtschaftliche Interessen in die Festsetzung der Arbeitszeit, in die Verwendung der Arbeitskraft selbständig hineinspielen in den rein menschlichen Verkehr zwischen Mensch und Mensch, etwas bilden, unabhängig vom Wirtschaftsleben, das von der anderen Seite ebenso hineinspielt in dieses Wirtschaftsleben, wie von jener Seitehineinspielen die von der Naturgrundlage gegebenen Faktoren.
Man muß sich in der Preisbildung, man muß sich in dem, was die Ware Wert hatam Warenmarkt, nach dem richten, wie die Naturfaktoren wirken. Man wird sich in der Zukunft, wenn der soziale Organismus lebensfähig sein soll, auch danach zu richten haben, wie produziert werden muß, wie die Warenzirkulation verlaufen muß. Wenn nicht diese Warenzirkulation bestimmt Entlohnung, Arbeitszeit, Arbeitsrecht überhaupt, sondern wenn unabhängig von der Warenzirkulation, von dem Warenmarkt, auf dem Gebiete des staatlichen Rechtslebens, bloß aus den menschlichen Bedürfnissen, bloß aus rein menschlichen Gesichtspunkten heraus die Arbeitszeit festgesetzt werden wird, dann wird es so sein, daß einfach eine Ware so viel kostet, als das Notwendige kostet zu ihrer Aufbringung der Zeit, die für eine bestimmte Arbeit notwendig ist, die aber geregelt ist durch ein von dem Wirtschaftsleben unabhängiges Leben, während zum Beispiel das Wirtschaftsleben heute von sich aus regelt das Arbeitsverhältnis, so daß nach den Preisen der Ware sich vielfach im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß regeln muß Arbeitszeit, Arbeitsverhältnis. Das Umgekehrte wird eintreten bei einer richtigen Gliederung des sozialen Organismus.
Man kann heute diese Verhältnisse erst andeuten. Sie sehen aber, sie entspringen aus einem sozialen Wollen, welches ganz verschieden ist von dem, das uns heute in eine so traurige Lage im Weltgeschehen hineinversetzt hat; sie entspringen aus dem sozialen Wollen, das nicht in einer gewissen gemeinnützigen Weise aus dem menschlichen Denken alles herausspinnen wird, herausspinnen, wie man es muß, damit dies oder jenes in der richtigen Weise vor sich geht, sondern sie entspringen aus einem Denken, das so mit der Wirklichkeit verwandt ist, daß es nicht zutage tritt, wenn die Menschen in diesem oder jenem Verhältnis so oder so im sozialen Organismus gegliedert sein werden. Dann werden sie, weil sie dann gesund gegliedert sind im sozialen Organismus, das Rechte festsetzen, dann werden sie in der rechten Weise wirken.
Man muß nur erlebt haben, wie die anderen Sozialwollenden im wirklichen Leben drinnen die Verhältnisse bestimmten, eben in dem schon jetzt untergegangenen Österreich. Ein Staat war es, aber im Staate lebte nicht bloß das Rechtsleben, im Staate lebte sogar in ganz ausgesprochener Weise das von den Interessen der einzelnen menschlichen Kreise entsprungene Wirtschaftsleben. Denken Sie doch nur einmal, wie das alte österreichische Parlament war bis in das Ende der neunziger Jahre! Und aus dem, was in diesem Parlament vertreten war, gingen doch die Verhältnisse hervor, die bis in die Weltkriegskatastrophe hineinspielten, aus diesem Parlament, das aus vier Kurien bestand: der Handelskammer, der Großgrundbesitzer, aus der Kurie der Städte, Märkte und Industrialorte, und der Kurie der festeingefahrenen Wirtschaftskreise. Diese Wirtschaftskreise waren nicht auf dem Boden eines Wirtschaftsparlaments vertreten, sondern ihre Interessen bestimmten das Staatswesen, also die öffentlichen Rechte wurden nach ihren Interessen bestimmt. Geradeso wie es unmöglich ist, daß eine konfessionelle Gesinnungspartei, wie es im letzten deutschen Reichstag war, entsteht, und aus den Definitionen, Institutionen heraus das Rechtsleben des Staates beeinflußt, ebensowenig ist ein sozialer Organismus lebensfähig, der so gestimmt ist, daß wirtschaftliche Interessenkreise das Rechtsleben bestimmen. Abgesondert muß dieses Rechtsleben sich entwickeln, heraus nur aus dem, was das Verhältnis zwischen Mensch und Mensch meinetwillen in ganz demokratischer Weise betrifft. Dann wird durch dieses Rechtsleben in entsprechender Weise der dreigliederige Organismus auf der einen Seite das Wirtschaftsleben, auf der anderen Seite durch die Naturgrundlage dieses Wirtschaftsleben regeln.
Und innerhalb dieses Wirtschaftslebens, das nun wiederum Vertreter der verschiedensten Seiten dastehen hat, werden rein wirtschaftliche Faktoren und Interessen nötig sein. Man wird den sozialen Organismus haben, in dem — wenn ich mich jetzt nach den Gewohnheiten der Zeit ausdrücken darf nun drei Klassen, drei Gebiete sind, jedes mit eigener Gesetzgebung und eigener Verwaltung. Sie stehen zueinander, ich möchte sagen, als souveräne Staaten, wenn sie sich auch durchdringen; sie rechnen miteinander. Das mag kompliziert sein, das mag dem Menschen unbequem sein; aber es ist das Gesunde, ist dasjenige, was einzig und allein den sozialen Organismus für die Zukunft lebensfähig machen wird. Denn das Wirtschaftsleben selbst wird aus seinen Faktoren heraus nur dann bestimmt werden können, wenn auf seinem Boden einzig und allein Wirtschaftsinteressen tätig erscheinen, die nur bestimmt werden können durch das im Wirtschaftsleben notwendige Verhältnis zwischen Produktion und Konsumtion. Dieses Verhältnis zwischen Produktion und Konsumtion kann sich aber im Wirtschaftsleben nur ergeben auf assoziativer Grundlage, auf assoziativer Grundlage, wie es hätte werden können im Gewerkschafts-, Genossenschaftszusammenhang. Aber heute tragen Gewerkschafts-, Genossenschaftszusammenhänge durchaus noch den Charakter, daß sie gerade herausgewachsen sind aus dem Staatsleben. Sie müssen hineinwachsen in das Wirtschaftsleben, müssen bloß dem wirtschaftlichen Leben dienende Körperschaften werden. Dann entwickelt sich der soziale Organismus in einer gesunden Weise.
Ich weiß, daß dasjenige, was ich gesagt habe, manchem außerordentlich radikal erscheint. Aber ob radikal oder nicht, darauf kommt es nicht an; sondern es kommt darauf an, daß der soziale Organismus lebensfähig werde, daß die Menschen, indem sie den Anfang machen von dem alten instinktiven sozialen Leben zu dem bewußten sozialen Leben, sich durchdringen mit Impulsen, die aus der Einsicht entspringen, wie man drinnensteht im ganzen sozialen Organismus. Man ist heute ein ungebildeter Mensch, wenn man das Einmaleins nicht kann; man ist heute ein ungebildeter Mensch, wenn man irgend etwas anderes, was zur Bildung nun einmal gehört, nicht weiß; aber man ist kein ungebildeter Mensch, wenn man kein soziales Bewußtsein hat, oder wenn man mit schlafender Seele im sozialen Organismus drinnensteht. Das ist etwas, was in der Zukunft gründlich anders werden muß! Es wird anders werden, wenn das Urteilentstehen wird, daß es einfach zur allerelementarsten Schulbildung gehört, sich mit sozialem Wollen auszurüsten, wie man sich mit der Kenntnis des Einmaleins ausrüstet. Heute muß jeder wissen, wieviel drei mal drei ist. In Zukunft wird es auch nicht schwieriger erscheinen, zu wissen, wie sich Kapitalzins zur Grundrente verhält, wenn ich etwas aus dem heutigen Leben heraus wähle. Es soll gar nicht schwieriger sein in Zukunft, als zu wissen, daß dreimal drei neun ist. Aber dieses Wissen wird eine Grundlage geben für ein gesundes Drinnenstehen im sozialen Organismus, das heißt für ein gesünderes soziales Leben. Und dieses gesunde soziale Leben muß angestrebt werden.
Es bereitet sich vor im gesunden Menschheitsbewußtsein dasjenige, was ich gesagt habe. Man muß nur einen Spürsinn haben für das, was sich vorbereitet und was in unserem gegenwärtigen neueren Leben nach Offenbarung und nach Gestaltung ringt.
Denken Sie zurück an die drei großen Ideale der Französischen Revolution: Freiheit, Gleichheit und Brüderlichkeit. Derjenige, der verfolgt, was diese Ideen in den Köpfen der Menschen im Laufe der Zeit für Schicksale durchgemacht haben, der weiß, wie oftmals die Menschen logisch gerungen haben mit dem Widerspruch, der besteht zwischen der Freiheit auf der einen Seite, die auf die einzelne persönliche Initiative hinweist, und der Gleichheit auf der anderen Seite, die realisiert werden soll in der Zentralisierung des staatlich orientierten sozialen Organismus. Das geht doch nicht. Aber die Sucht nach dieser Konfundierung ist entstanden in der neueren Zeit. Daß der Kapitalismus von heute noch nicht die Konzeption fassen konnte nach dem dreigliederigen sozialen Organismus, das ist entstanden aus der Idee des ganz zentralisierten Staates heraus.
Faßt man heute dasjenige, was schon in diesem Wollen, das sich in den drei Idealen: Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit zum Ausdrucke bringt, auf, so faßt man es heute leicht so auf, daß man es betrachtet von dem Gesichtspunkte des dreigliederig geordneten sozialen Organismus. Dann findet man als erstes Glied das geistige Leben. Es muß sich ganz durchdringen von dem Prinzip, dem Impuls der Freiheit. Da muß alles gestellt sein auf die freie Initiative des Menschen, und kann es auch, wird am fruchtbatsten wirken, wenn es so gestellt ist. In bezug auf den Rechtsstaat, in bezug auf das zwischen dem geistigen und dem wirtschaftlichen Leben regulierende Staatswesen, das eigentlich politische System, ist dasjenige, was alles durchdringen muß, die Gleichheit von Mensch und Mensch. Und in bezug auf das Wirtschaftsleben kann einzig und allein gelten die Brüderlichkeit, das soziale Miterleben des ganzen äußeren und inneren Lebens des einen Menschen durch den anderen.
Im sozialen Organismus kann innerhalb des Wirtschaftslebens nur herrschen das Interesse. Dieses Interesse aber, das bringt eine ganz bestimmte Eigenschaft des wirtschaftlichen Organgliedes hervor. Worauf deutet eigentlich im Grunde genommen alles, worauf läuft alles hinaus im Wirtschaftsleben? Es läuft alles darauf hinaus im Wirtschaftsleben, daß in der besten, zweckmäßigsten Weise, was der Wirtschaftsprozeß erzeugt, auch verbraucht werden kann. Ich rede vom Verbrauchen im engeren Sinne, aus dem das Geistige dann ausgeschlossen ist. Verbraucht werden kann zum Beispiel Arbeitskraft, menschliche Arbeitskraft. Das fühlt aber der moderne Mensch: bloß verbraucht darf seine Arbeitskraft nicht werden. Er muß ebenso, wie er ein Interesse erwirbt durch seine Arbeitskraft, bei der geistigen Produktion auch ein Interesse erwerben durch seine Ruhe, durch seine ruhevolle Aufnahmefähigkeit des Geistigen. Der Mensch wird im Wirtschaftsleben verbraucht. Er muß sich fortwährend aus diesem Wirtschaftsleben herausreißen durch die anderen beiden Glieder des gesunden sozialen Organismus, wenn er innerhalb des Wirtschaftslebens nicht verbraucht werden soll.
Die soziale Frage ist nicht so daim modernen Leben, wie sie jetzt entstanden ist und vielleicht gelöst werden kann, und dann eben gelöst ist. Nein, die soziale Frage ist als etwas da, was in das moderne Leben eingetreten ist und nicht mehr aus diesem Leben in aller Menschenzukunft herauskommen wird. Eine soziale Frage wird es im Hinblick auf die Zukunft immer mehr geben. Aber diese soziale Frage wird auch nicht auf einmal, nicht durch diese oder jene Maßnahme, sondern durch das fortdauernde Wollen der Menschen gelöst werden, indem immerzu dasjenige, was der Wirtschaftsprozeß vom Menschen verbraucht, reguliert wird durch das Rechtsleben vom rein politischen Standpunkt aus, und immerzu das Verbrauchte wiederum durch die geistige Produktion ausgeglichen werden kann durch den selbständigen geistigen Organismus.
Wer gesehen hat, wie sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten die soziale Frage entwickelt hat - es ist ja verhältnismäßig noch nicht so lange her, daß die soziale Frage sich zu ihrer gegenwärtigen Gestaltung vorbereitet hat —, wer aufmerksam und mit innigem Anteil beobachtet hat, wie sich diese soziale Frage aus ihren Anfängen heraus entwickelt hat, der kann gerade mit Bezug auf soziales Wollen und seinen richtunggebenden Impuls für die zukünftige Gestaltung des Menschenlebens zu Gedanken kommen, die man vielleicht durch das Folgende charakterisieren kann.
Die soziale Frage sahen viele Menschen, auch viele recht aufgeklärte Menschen vor Jahrzehnten noch überhaupt nicht als etwas Existierendes an. Ich habe noch in meiner Jugend einen österreichischen Minister kennengelernt, der hinübersah über die böhmisch-deutsche Grenze und den grotesken Ausspruch getan hat: Die soziale Frage hört bei Bodenbach auf! - Und ich erinnere mich noch sehr gut daran, wie die ersten sozialdemokratischen Bergleute mit einer großen Gruppe an der Wohnung meiner Eltern vorbeigezogen sind und zu ihrer Versammlung gezogen sind. Ich habe dann beobachtet, wie das soziale Wollen entstanden ist, nicht als Denken über die soziale Bewegung, sondern durch das Miterleben dieser sozialen Bewegung. Da mußte ich mir sagen: Vieles mußte durchgemacht werden, viele Irrtümer auch mußten durchgemacht werden! Und selbst bei sozialistisch orientierten Denkern der neueren Zeit sind diese Irrtümer recht zahlreich gewesen. Es scheint gerade auf diesem Gebiete, daß die Menschen durch die Köpfe, die sie entwickeln, dies nicht erleben. Der Irrtum ist zu einer furchtbaren Breite gekommen.
Aus einem Geiste, der sich mir aus solchen Beobachtungen heraus ergeben hat, habe ich versucht, heute Abend über das soziale Wollen zu Ihnen zu sprechen. Sie haben mich dazu eingeladen als Mitglieder einer Menschengemeinschaft, die hinschaut auf dasjenige, was das soziale Wollen zum Menschenheil in der Zukunft bringen soll.
Diejenigen, die als ältere Leute, wie zum Beispiel ich, immer durch Jahrzehnte zu solchen Menschen sprechen, die blicken zuweilen auch zurück auf dasjenige, was alles durchwandelt werden mußte, um zu dem Heutigen zu kommen. Dann aber bekommen sie durch manches, was durchwandelt werden mußte, doch auch die Überzeugung, daß der Irrtum nicht fruchtlos war, daß, selbst wenn heute die Tatsachen eine traurige, oftmals eine erschreckende Sprache sprechen, die Menschen doch stark genug sein werden, den Ausweg zu finden aus demjenigen, was als unerträglich von einem großen Teile der Menschheit heute empfunden wird.
In diesem Sinne bitte ich Sie, aufzunehmen dasjenige, was ich mir erlaubte, am heutigen Abend zu Ihnen zu sprechen. Denn die Tatsachen sprechen auf manchem Gebiet eine deutliche Sprache. Und sie sprechen auch das deutliche Wort: Jemehr Menschen unter jenen, die heute noch jung sind, wahrhaftiges, lebensfähiges soziales Wollen aufnehmen, desto lebensfähiger wird der tüchtige, menschliche soziale Organismus sein.
Wer sich zum Wort zu melden wünscht, der möge es tun. Herr Dr. Boos, der heute vor einer Woche ungefähr einen Vortrag gehalten hat, hat sich bereit erklärt, die Diskussion zu führen.
Ein Redner meldet sich zum Wort (Stenogramm unvollständig).
Dr. Steiner : Dasjenige, was Sie geltend gemacht haben, das bekommt seine Form dadurch, daß Sie übersehen haben, was eintreten muß durch die Gliederung zu relativer Selbständigkeit des Rechtsstaates auf der einen Seite, und des Wirtschaftslebens auf der anderen Seite. Die Arbeitsorganisationen, die zum Teil Produktionsgesellschaften, oder Konsumtionsgesellschaften, oder auch Verbindungen zwischen beiden sein werden, die haben es überhaupt nur zu tun mit Wirtschaftsfaktoren, die innerhalb des Wirtschaftslebens selbst spielen.
Die Regelung des Arbeitsrechtes, die fällt dem relativ selbständigen Staate zu. Dort wird nicht anders entschieden als auf demokratischer Basis, sagte ich, alles dasjenige, was da betrifft das Verhältnis von Mensch zu Mensch. Deshalb erwähnte ich auch bei dem Boden dieses rein demokratischen Staates, daß das ein Verbindungsglied zwischen den beiden anderen Faktoren ist; auf diesem Boden herrscht Gleichheit der Menschen vor dem Gesetze. Da werden aufhören die bloßen Wünsche einzelner wirtschaftlicher Organisationen, weil sie sich in dem demokratischen Rechtsleben ausgleichen müssen mit den Interessen anderer Kreise. — Also das ist gerade das, was bewirkt werden soll; dem soll ebenabgeholfen werden, was Sie als einen Schaden empfinden, der ganz gewiß entstehen würde, wenn zum Beispiel die Arbeitszeit selbst festgesetzt würde innerhalb der Organisation des Wirtschaftslebens. Die Organisationen des Wirtschaftslebens haben es nur zu tun mit dem Wirtschaftsleben selbst: die Regelung im Sinne des Arbeitsrechtes also. Aber die Feststellung der Arbeitszeit, die unterliegt nurmehr der Staatskörperschaft, die es zu tun hat mit dem Verhältnis von Mensch zu Mensch.
Wir dürfen nicht vergessen, welch große Veränderungen von Mensch zu Mensch dadurch auftreten werden, daß einseitige Interessen sich abschleifen werden. Selbstverständlich, ganz vollkommen wird natürlich nichts auf der Welt sein; aber einseitige Interessen werden sich abschleifen im demokratischen Staatsgebilde, das die Gleichheit des Menschen vor dem Menschen zu seiner Grundlage hat.
Denken wir nur daran, daß wenn zum Beispiel eine gewisse Wirtschaftsorganisation ein Interesse hat, eine bestimmte kurze Zeit zu arbeiten, so wird sie sich bequemen müssen, dieses Interesse auszugleichen mit den Interessen derjenigen Menschen, die leiden würden unter dieser kurzen Arbeitszeit. Aber wenn man gar nicht denkt an irgendwelche unterbewußte Kräfte, so wird sich — geradeso wie sich im Naturorganismus wenigstens annähernd ergibt, immer annähernd natürlich, daß immer gleichviel Männer und gleichviel Frauen da sind, was aber doch natürlich nicht ein striktes Naturgesetz sein darf oder werden kann, so wird sich auch ergeben, daß, wenn in der richtigen Weise die einzelnen Faktoren des sozialen Organismus zusammenwirken, nicht ein Unzuträgliches dadurch entstehen wird, daß einzelne kleine Interessen werden entwickeln können, die für andere in weitestem Maße schädlich sind.
Dasjenige, was meiner sozialen Denkweise zugrunde liegt, das unterscheidet sich von vielen anderen sozialen Denkweisen dadurch, daß diese letzteren mehr abstrakt sind. Logisch kann man immer das eine von dem anderen sehr gut ableiten; es folgt manches Logische aus dem anderen. Entscheidend in solchen Fragen kann aber eigentlich nur die Lebenserfahrung sein. Natürlich kann ich nicht logisch beweisen — das kann kein Mensch -, daß nicht in einem solchen zukünftigen Organismus einmal eine Diskrepanz der Interessen eintreten kann; aber anzunehmen ist, daß, wenn die Kräfte sich innerhalb ihres eigenen Kreises, der ihnen angemessen ist, entwickeln können, dann eine humane Entwickelung eintreten wird. Ich meine, wenn Sie das gerade betrachten, was ich vorlegen möchte, die Festsetzung der Arbeitszeit aus dem bloBen Wirtschaftsprozeß heraus in den Rechtskreis des Staates, daß dann diese Schäden nicht werden entstehen können im praktischen Gebiete. Das ist es, was ich dazu zu sagen habe.
Ein weiterer Redner äußert sich (Stenogramm unvollständig).
Dr. Steiner: Ich möchte zu der Ausführung des verehrten Vorredners folgendes bemerken: Selbstverständlich leidet ja gewissermaßen jeder Vortrag daran, dal man nicht in einem einzelnen Vortrage alles sagen kann, und ich weils nicht, aus welchen Auslassungen meines Vortrages der verehrte Vorredner die Schlußfolgerung gezogen hat, daß ich keine Stellungnahme hätte zu der modernen Arbeiterpsyche, daß ich die moderne Arbeiterbewegung nicht berücksichtigen würde und dergleichen. Jeder tut das selbstverständlich nach seiner Art. Ich war jahrelang zum Beispiel Lehrer auf den verschiedenen Gebieten einer Arbeiterbildungsschule, habe mit den Arbeitern in Gewerkschaften und auch in politischen Organisationen Redeübungen getrieben. Ich darf heute das berechtigte Bewußtsein haben, daß eine ganz zahlreiche Menge von Arbeitern, die heute in Deutschland ihre Reden halten, das Reden dazu in meinen Redeübungen gelernt haben. Bei diesen Redeübungen wurden alle möglichen Fragen besprochen, und Fragen, die nun wahrhaftig nicht ferne standen den allerintimsten Eigentümlichkeiten der Arbeiterpsyche. Also ich weiß nicht - ich hatte natürlich keine Veranlassung, auch diese besondere praktische Seite meines sozialen Wirkens und’ Wollens ins helle Licht zu stellen, aber ich kann auch nicht recht verstehen, aus welchen Auslassungen meiner Rede hervorgegangen sein soll, daß ich der praktischen Arbeiterbewegung so absolut fernstehen sollte.
Gewiß, es ist ein Selbstverständliches, daß innerhalb der modernen sozialen Bewegung gerade die Arbeiter selbst berücksichtigt werden. Aber bedenken Sie nur, daß ich den ganzen Abend immer betont habe, wie es aussieht eigentlich gerade innerhalb des Proletariats. Ich habe ja von dem Proletariat als solchem gesprochen. Sie haben bemerken können, wenn Sie gut zugehört haben, wie gerade das in meinen Vortrag hereinspielte, was ich glaube, praktisch auseinandergesetzt zu haben, was praktisch gerade in der proletarischen Arbeiterschaft von heute lebt.
Was nun den Vorwurf betrifft, daß ich vielleicht zu einseitig dargestellt habe die, wie mir scheinen will, fundamental bedeutsame Tatsache, daß die bürgerliche Denkweise übernommen worden ist von der Arbeiterschaft, von namentlich den Führern der Arbeiterschaft, so beruht dieser Ausspruch, den ich getan habe und den ich ja auch nur von einzelnen Seiten her selbstverständlich beleuchtet habe, wirklich auf einem genaueren Studium gerade der Arbeiterpsyche und der ganzen modernen Arbeiterbewegung.
Ich möchte Sie dabei zum Beispiel auf folgendes aufmerksam machen: Ein mir auch persönlich bekannter russischer Schriftsteller hat jüngst auf eine sehr eigentümliche Weise darauf hingewiesen, daß die Philosophie, die Jünger hat, gerade hier in Zürich eine große Rolle gespielt hat: die Philosophie des Avenarius, die doch ihrerseits gewiß aus rein bürgerlichem Untergrund erwachsen ist. Ich kann mir wenigstens nicht vorstellen, daß Avenarius daran gedacht hat, daß seine Philosophie in der Arbeiterbewegung in Rußland diejenige Rolle spielt, die sie heute spielt. Soviel ich weiß, ist sehr stark hier vertreten, gerade in Zürich, von Adler namentlich, die aus der Naturwissenschaft entnommene philosophische Überzeugung von Mach. Diese beiden philosophischen Richtungen sind gewissermaßen die Amtsphilosophien des Bolschewismus, des radikalsten Sozialismus. Der russische Schriftsteller Berdjajev sagt das in einem Aufsatz — er ist enthalten in der Übersetzung eines sehr interessanten Buches über «Rußlands politische Seele» —, und in diesem Aufsatz hat Berdjajev in sehr deutlicher Weise gerade diese politische Seele herausgearbeitet. Und so könnte man Ihnen zahlreiche Beispiele anführen; ich könnte Ihnen zahlreiche Beispiele anführen, die ähnlich wären dem, das ich Ihnen vorhin entnommen habe aus der Rede der verstorbenen Rosa Luxemburg, die Ihnen beweisen würden, daß eben das letzte bedeutende und gerade in die Arbeiterbewegung tief eingreifende Erbstück aus dem bürgerlichen Leben die bürgerliche Denkweise ist, die wissenschaftlich orientiert ist. Die Möglichkeit, das geistige Leben überhaupt zur Ideologie zu machen, ist bürgerlichen Ursprungs. Das Bürgertum, wenn man solche Kategorien gebrauchen darf, hat zuerst die wissenschaftlich orientierte Denkweise auf dem Gebiete des Naturerkennens zur Ideologie gemacht. Sie hat es nicht innerhalb ihrer Klasse auf das eigentlich wissenschaftliche Denken übertragen. Diese letztere Konsequenz hat dann das proletarische Denken gezogen. Gewiß, das proletarische Denken hat andere Konsequenzen gezogen; aber es hat eben Konsequenzen gezogen aus den Grundlagen, die heute deutlich zu erkennen sind als innerhalb der bürgerlichen wissenschaftlichen Vorstellungsart wurzelnd, und nur etwas weiter fortgebildet. Das sollte eben in seiner Wichtigkeit nicht verkannt werden.
Denn derjenige, der tiefer drinnensteht auch in der Gesamtheit, der tieferes Interesse entwickelt hat für den Anteil, den die moderne Arbeiterpsyche an der modernen Arbeiterbewegung hat, der wartet, ich möchte sagen, mit einer gewissen Sorge auf der einen Seite, aber auch mit einer gewissen inneren Befriedigung auf der anderen Seite auf den Moment, wo das innerhalb der modernen sozialistischen Bewegung zum Vorschein kommen wird. Man wird eines Tages bemerken, zum Bewußtsein heraufbringen, was jetzt noch im Unterbewußten ruht, man wird eines Tages bemerken: Aha, das haben wir noch in unserem Seelenoberdenken — wenn ich den Ausdruck gebrauchen darf -, in unserem seelischen Oberdenken; das muß heraus. Wir haben die Sehnsucht, unsere ganze Menschenwürde wissenschaftlich zu orientieren; das hat uns die bürgerliche Erblinie der Wissenschaft bis jetzt nicht möglich gemacht. Wir müssen ein anderes Geistesleben suchen.
Ich glaube allerdings, daß dann, wenn dieser Moment eingetreten sein wird, wenn die ganze, volle Sehnsucht des vielleicht von einer gewissen Seite her einzig modernen Menschen, nämlich des proletarischen Menschen herauskommt — wenn es auch in der modernen Zeit noch nicht zum vollen Ausdruck gekommen ist —, wenn diese Sehnsucht des modernen Proletariers nach einer völligen Ausbildung der wissenschaftlichen Denkweise zur Weltanschauung, mit der Kraft der alten Religionen, wenn das eingetreten sein wird, wenn er nicht mehr, weil er darauf gekommen ist, daß er nicht mehr Ware sein soll, die Konsequenz der bürgerlichen Denkweise ziehen wird, dann wird der Moment eingetreten sein, wo man überhaupt erst wird davon reden können, daß fruchtbares Organisieren des sozialen Wollens da ist.
In dem bloßen Sozialismus und in seiner Beziehung, die der verehrte Herr Vorredner hervorgehoben hat, zu der Philosophie des Bergson, glaube ich, daß man nicht so dogmatisch sich stellen darf. Ich will ja selbstverständlich nicht über solche philosophischen Fragen heute diskutieren. Der Herr Vorredner sagte, daß Bergson ein typischer Vertreter und Repräsentant der bürgerlichsten Denk weise ist. Dann würde der Sozialismus aus der Philosophie des Bergson gerade eben recht bürgerliche Untergründe herausgenommen haben! Man kann heute zum Beispiel nachweisen, daß Bergsons Philosophie ihrem Inhalte nach von ganz unermeßbar vielen «Schopenhauerianismen» durchzogen ist, daß Bergson viel mehr beeinflußt ist von Schopenhauer, als Sie nur irgend denken.
Nun, wollte man eine solche Sache ausführlich erörtern, so müßte man eben wirklich recht ausführlich sein können. Ich kann das heute nicht; aber ich erwähne Ihnen nur, daß es auch einen innerhalb der proletarischen Welt sich als Denker fühlenden Menschen gibt, wie zum Beispiel Mehring, Franz Mehring, der also in vielem in Wirklichkeit ähnlich ist dem Bergson; der hat Schopenhauer gerade als den Repräsentanten des bürgerlichsten Spießertums in der Philosophie charakterisiert!
Über diese Dinge kann man verschiedener Ansicht sein, und ich glaube nicht, daß man über diese Dinge so dogmatisieren darf. Man kann ja die Ansicht haben, daß Bergson der fortgeschrittenste Philosoph ist und irrationale Elemente drinnen hat in seiner Philosophie. Aber man möchte fragen: Was hat denn irrationales Element mit der sozialen Frage zu tun? - Irrational kann doch geradesogut ein Proletarier sein wie ein Bürgerlicher. Ich kann nicht recht einsehen, was das ganze Irrationale damit zu tun hat. Da muß man schon die dogmatische Voraussetzung machen: Bergson ist absolut derjenige, der der moderne Philosoph ist; wenn also die Proletarier richtig denken sollen, so müssen sie Bergsonianer werden, nicht wahr. Das ging durch die ganze Frage.
Denn zweifellos ist es, daß auf den verschiedensten Gebieten im modernen Leben Tendenzen aufgetreten sind, die sich nach dem hin richten, was ich heute charakterisiert habe. Es wäre doch nun wirklich traurig um das menschliche Leben bestellt, wenn es immer gerade, möchte ich sagen, überzwerch gehen würde, wenn es immer in der entgegengesetzten Richtung von dem Rechten sich entwickeln würde! Nicht wahr, das kann natürlich nicht der Fall sein. Ich sagte selbst, daß zum Beispiel auf dem Gebiete des Gerichtswesens von einigen ganz psychologisch orientierten Menschen gewisse Dinge angefacht sind. Solche Beispiele könnte man natürlich unzählige anführen. Aber es ist auch eine Ableitung der Diskussion auf Nebengeleise, wenn man nicht eingeht auf dasjenige, was geltend gemacht worden ist, sondern eine Lieblingsmeinung vorbringt. Gewiß, man kann ja sehr sympathisieren mit manchem, was heute als doch mehr auf geschichtliche Perioden hindeutende Prinzipien in bezug auf Impulse gesagt worden ist; aber ohne mehr auf das letztere einzugehen - wollte man auf alle diese Dinge eingehen, müßte ich Sie aber sehr lange hier aufhalten -, also ohne mehr auf das letzte einzugehen, möchte ich sagen: Sehr viele Menschen sind heute noch innerlich obstinat, wenn man von dieser Dreigliederung spricht, von der ich heute gesprochen habe. Siesagen dann: Es kann doch nicht drei verschiedene Glieder geben, die nach verschiedenen Prinzipien gelenkt und geleitet werden.
Aber ich habe nicht von drei verschiedenen Gliedern gesprochen, die nach drei verschiedenen Prinzipien gelenkt würden, sondern von einer Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus habe ich gesprochen! Bedenken Sie nur, daß diese Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus in unserer Zeit ihrer ganzen Denkweise nach ebenso entsprechend gefunden werden muß nach und nach, wie zum Beispiel die uralten Gliederungen, die Sie bei Plato auch finden und die damals berechtigt waren. Mir hat einmal jemand hinterher nach meinem Vortrag gesagt: Also haben wir doch wiederum einen Hinweis auf die alten Gliederungen Platos: Nährstand, Wehrstand, Lehrstand !- Das, was ich gesagt habe, ist das Gegenteil der Gliederung in Nähr-, Wehr- und Lehrstand; denn es werden nicht die Menschen in Stände gegliedert, sondern es wird eine Gliederung versucht des sozialen Organismus. Wir Menschen sollen gerade nicht abgeteilt werden! Es kann ganz gut derselbe Mensch tätig sein in dem geistigen Glied, oder tätig sein im rechtlichen und sogar in dem wirtschaftlichen Gliede. Der Mensch ist gerade dadurch emanzipiert von irgendwelcher Einseitigkeit in irgendeinem der Glieder des sozialen Organismus. Es handelt sich also nicht darum, daß die Menschen in solche selbständigen Klassen abgeteilt werden sollen, wenn man den gesunden sozialen Organismus entwickelt, sondern daß der soziale Organismus selber nach seinen Gesetzen geordnet wird. Das ist der durchgreifende Unterschied. Früher hat man Menschen gegliedert. Nun soll, der Denkweise unserer Zeit entsprechend, der soziale Organismus selbst gegliedert werden, damit der Mensch hinschauen kann auf dasjenige, worin er drinnen lebt, um je nach seinen Bedürfnissen, nach seinen Verhältnissen und Fähigkeiten in dem einen oder in dem anderen Gliede tätig sein zu können. Es wird zum Beispiel ganz gut möglich sein, daß in der Zukunft ein Mensch, der im Wirtschaftsleben tätig ist, zu gleicher Zeit Abgeordneter ist auf dem Gebiet des rein politischen Staates. Er wird aber dann ganz selbstverständlich seine wirtschaftlichen Interessen in einer anderen Weise geltend machen müssen, als er geltend machen kann dasjenige, was allein in Betracht kommt auf dem Gebiete des Rechtsstaates. Diese drei Glieder werden selber sorgen für die Abgrenzung ihrer Territorien. Es wird nicht alles durcheinanderkonfundiert werden, daß sich das eine in das andere hineinmischt.
Es wird auf viel bessere Weise erreicht, wenn die Dinge getrennt werden. Es sind ja natürlich dieselben menschlichen Anlagen, die in dem einen und anderen Gliede entscheiden. Aber so wie es in der menschlichen natürlichen Organisation - trotzdem ich kein Analogiespiel treiben will, möchte ich dies erwähnen - drei insich zentralisierte Teile hat: das Nerven-Sinnessystem, das Lungen-Atmungssystem und das Stoffwechselsystem, so hat der gesunde soziale Organismus drei Glieder. Das ist etwas, was heute noch zu den gewöhnlichen Denkgewohnheiten nicht gehört, von dem ich aber glaube, daß es sich in die Denkgewohnheiten der Menschen hineinfinden wird, und daß man es doch nicht weniger gründlich, meine ich, nehmen muß, als man es nimmt, wenn man nur gewissermaßen seine Lieblingsmeinung auseinandersetzt.
Dr. Roman Boos : Darf ich mir noch gestatten, die Frage an den Herrn Referenten zu richten in bezug auf das, was eben auf strafrechtlichem Gebiet gefragt worden ist? Nun,wenn von der Freiheit der Richter gesprochen worden ist, ob damit auch ein Verstoß gegen den Satz gemeint ist, daß keine Strafe ohne Gesetz ausgesprochen werden soll —- wie mir scheint, ist das so gemeint, daß das Strafgesetz als solches doch nicht aus dem Gebiet des freien Geisteslebens heraus gegeben werden soll, sondern aus der politischen Instanz, daß die Frage wahrscheinlich ein Mißverständnis enthält bei dem Herrn Dr. Weiß, der gemeint hat, es werde ein Verstoß gegen das Prinzip gefordert, daß keiner zu einer Strafe verurteilt werden kann, der nicht ein bestimmtes Gesetz übertreten hat. — Darf ich vielleicht noch bitten, sich dazu zu äußern?
Dr. Steiner: Nicht wahr, in dieser Frage berühren sich ja selbstverständlich das System des öffentlichen Rechts mit dem System der praktischen Gerichtsbarkeit. Was ich betont habe, ist die Trennung des praktischen Richtens. Deshalb habe ich den Ausdruck «Richten» gebraucht, ausdrücklich des praktischen Richtens von dem allgemeinen öffentlichen Rechtsleben, das ich bei dem gesunden sozialen Organismus im politischen Staat zentralisiert so denken muß, daß der gesunde soziale Organismus in seinem Öffentlichen Rechtsleben dafür sorgen muß, daß entsprechend nach einem von ihm bestimmten Gesetze verfahren werden muß. Daß nicht in der willkürlichsten Weise gerichtet werden kann, das ist ganz selbstverständlich. Aber ich habe nicht an solche Dinge gedacht, die abstrakt sind und die in ihrer Abstraktheit mehr oder weniger selbstverständlich sind. Ich habe auch heute nicht über, sagen wir, den Wirkungsbereich des Rechtes zu sprechen gehabt, sondern ich habe über den sozialen Organismus und über soziales Wollen zu sprechen gehabt. Und da bitte ich Sie, im Sinne des Themas das Folgende zu bedenken.
Sehen Sie, ich habe eine fast ebensolange Zeit meines Lebens in Österreich zugebracht wie in Deutschland. Ich habe das österreichische Leben gründlich kennenlernen können; Sie dürfen mir glauben, daß es nicht eine abrupte Behauptung ist, wenn ich sage, daß vieles von dem, was im österreichischen sogenannten Staate in letzter Zeit geschehen ist, zusammenhängt mit Ereignissen, die sich gerade in den siebziger, achtziger Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts als tiefe Mißverhältnisse ergeben haben. Vergessen Sie nicht, daß in einem solchen Staate wie Österreich auf anderen Gebieten würde sich das nicht in so radikaler Weise charakterisieren lassen, aber vorhanden ist es in dieser oder jener Form auch -, besonders weil in Österreich durcheinandergeschoben sind die verschiedenen Sprachgebiete, Sie es zum Beispiel erleben konnten, daß ein Deutscher, weil er gerade zufällig in irgendeinen Gerichtssprengel hineingehörte, in dem ein tschechischer Richter amtierte, der nicht Deutsch konnte, daß er abgeurteilt wurde von einem tschechischen Richter in einer Sprache, die er nicht verstand. Er wußte nicht, was über ihn geurteilt wurde und was geschah mit ihm; er merkte nur, daß man ihn abführte. Ebenso war es umgekehrt der Fall, wenn ein deutscher Richter, der nicht Tschechisch verstand, einen Tschechen aburteilte, der kein Deutsch verstand. Was ich meine, ist die individuelle Gestaltung, die freie Gestaltung des Verhältnisses des zu Verurteilenden zum Richter.
Also ein solcher Staat wie Österreich hätte hiervon einen großen Erfolg zu erwarten. Aber dieser Impuls hätte erfordert, daß immer, für vielleicht fünf oder zehn Jahre - die Verhältnisse verschieben sich fortwährend -, jedenfalls von dem zu Verurteilenden oder zu Richtenden sein Richter hätte gewählt werden können, in freier Wahl des Richters.
[Lücke im Stenogramm]
Das ist einfach ein Gegenstand gar nicht des geistigen Lebens, sondern es ist von vornherein ein Gegenstand des Lebens im Rechtsstaat; dafür, daß also nur nach einem Gesetze gerichtet wird, welches bestanden hat, als die Tat begangen worden ist, wird das zweite, das staatliche Gesetz, als zu seiner Kompetenz rechnend, schon sorgen; es wird schon für jeden Fall seine Konsequenzen ziehen, selbstverständlich.
Aber die Frage ist eine ganz andere; wenn Sie die Dinge genauer nehmen, so werden Sie sehen, daß alle Lösungen dieser Fälle sehr, sehr konsequent sich ergeben. Ich konnte Ihnen ja heute nur die allerersten Voraussetzungen sagen; ich müßte sonst nicht nur die ganze Nacht, sondern auch noch am morgigen Tage weiter reden.
Social Will as the Basis for a New Scientific Order
Lecture given to the Zurich Student Union, SSV
The requested topic for this evening is “Social Will as the Basis for a New Scientific Order.” I do not know what motivated the choice of this particular topic, but when the request reached me, I found it extremely fortunate, because it strikes a chord that I consider necessary, especially in view of the facts that the social movement has brought into the present, and which truly speak a much clearer language than anything that has been discussed and negotiated in preparation for the social question over the last few decades.
One can trace this development of the social movement in recent times, in the present, over a long period of time, and one could notice, precisely in relation to social aspirations, which have increasingly expressed themselves in one direction or another in these social or other aspirations, that something has crept in, has crept into this social will, into the social sentiment of modern times, which may appear to be a covering for a superstition of older medieval times that prevailed in a completely different area, a superstition that comes to mind again when one delves into the second part of Goethe's “Faust” and come across the scene where Goethe has his character Wagner prepare the homunculus, the little man who wants to be on his way from becoming a homunculus to becoming a human being. According to Goethe, medieval superstition is based on the fact that at that time, people wanted to form something truly alive from what was only theoretical, only the external facts soberly and dryly compiled and summarized by the human mind, which is capable of conceiving the essential. Goethe was particularly aware of the impossibility of forming something living from abstractions that are detached from external life. This medieval mindset does not exactly dominate today's thinking, but it seems to me that in all the impulses and instincts of our contemporaries, many of our contemporaries who would like to claim social aspirations, a metamorphosis, I would say, of certain superstitions prevails. One observes the development of social life as it has unfolded in the course of human history up to the present, and one devises certain principles, certain tenets, according to which one should proceed, or, as one hears on some sides, which want to realize themselves, and then one thinks that with abstract principles, according to which the homunculus should be formed, one can also form what one might call the social organism.
For it is actually the unconscious of modern humanity that strives for this social organism, I may say. One need only realize the following to understand this. The social life of humanity is, of course, nothing new as such; it only appears in a different form in modern times. Until modern times, the social structure of the social organism was actually determined by human instincts, by the subconscious of human impulses. And that is what is significant in the emerging forces of modern times, that humanity can no longer remain at the level of mere instinctive will, that it must simply, challenged by the nature of development, equip itself with a conscious will precisely in relation to the shaping of the social structure. But if one wants to equip oneself with conscious will, one needs thoughts that underlie this will and are based on reality, not just thoughts that are completely abstracted from reality, but thoughts that connect one's own will with the forces that are inherent in natural events, in the workings of the world itself. In a sense, one must become related with one's own will to the creative forces of natural existence.
This is something that large sections of humanity still have to learn. They must learn to remember that one cannot actually proceed in this way, thinking: What must happen in order to create a possible social structure out of a social structure that is perceived by many as unbearable? One cannot proceed in this way. One cannot devise anything that are, in a sense, social diseases. One can only direct one's best efforts toward finding within human beings themselves how people living together in society must bring their mutual relationships into mutual harmony in order to develop in this alternating life what is necessary to bring about the social structure.
From my many years of studying social issues, I have come to believe that this fundamental question, which is regarded as a unified one precisely because of abstract thinking today, must be viewed in three parts, as a three-part question: first, as a question of the spirit; second, as a question of law; and third, as a question of economics. What has emerged in modern capitalist economic life has emerged on the basis of technology, which has developed in recent times and has, as if hypnotized, directed human attention solely to this economic life, completely distracting attention from the fact that the social question is not only an economic question but above all a spiritual question and a legal question.
I will take the liberty of dealing first with the spiritual question, not because, as some believe, the consideration of spiritual life is subjectively particularly close to my heart, but because I am of the opinion that, even if proletarian-minded people of today refuse to to see anything in the spiritual realm that can contribute to the solution of the social question, it is precisely for the realistic observer of this social question that the spiritual must come first. To understand this, one must consider the soul of the person affected by the modern social movement in its true form. One must try to recognize what actually lives in the socialist-oriented circles in terms of impulses of will. Above all, one must fathom where these impulses of will have come from.
You see, as modern human life dawned with technology and capitalism, the ruling section of humanity, the so-called ruling class, became increasingly separated from what was developing in various areas as the proletariat. Today, there is a gulf between proletarian will and non-proletarian life that is almost impossible to bridge, as anyone with insight will acknowledge, unless one at least attempts to engage in social movements not only with old ideas and old impulses of will, but with new ideas and impulses of will. Over time, a belief has developed more and more within the proletariat itself—and, given the circumstances, this belief cannot be regarded as unfounded in any way—the belief that the socially disadvantaged class has nothing to hope for from the classes that have ruled society until now if it relies on their good will, their ideas, and so on. If I may say so, a deep mistrust has crept in between the different classes of people. And this mistrust has arisen from underlying factors that have not yet fully entered the consciousness of humanity, but which still exist in the subconscious. It has arisen from the fact that the working class, especially at the beginning of modern times, placed its ultimate trust in the bourgeoisie, and that it was deceived, not in its convictions, but in its feelings, by this ultimate trust. You see, today people talk about the proletarian worldview. Many people, including leading figures, who believe they are expressing proletarian will in their thinking, do not actually know what the origin of their entire thinking and will is. The demands that arise from life itself and are alive in today's social movement stand in strange contrast to what even the proletariat itself thinks about these demands, about these social impulses of life.
If I were to briefly express what I mean in this area, I would have to say: Proletarian, social culture has thus emerged; but within proletarian sentiment, within social culture and life, there is a legacy that stems precisely from those views and attitudes toward life that arose in the bourgeoisie at the decisive moment of their historical development.
The observer of this development must see this decisive moment in recent historical development in the fact that the newer scientific way of thinking has developed — please note that I am not saying natural science, but the modern scientific way of thinking — in such a way from old spiritual impulses that this scientific way of thinking did not acquire the same driving force, the same spiritual driving force that the old worldviews had.
The old worldviews were rooted in broader human impulses than the modern scientific way of thinking. These old worldviews were able to send impulses into the human soul through which people could answer, intuitively and emotionally, the question that always moved them so deeply: What am I actually as a human being in the world? Such momentum in the life of the soul is not given to the newer scientific way of thinking. Of course, out of historical necessity, which is nonetheless a historical disaster, the old worldviews took a hostile stance toward the newer scientific way of thinking at the decisive moment, instead of allowing it to flow into them in full friendship, which was fundamental to the spiritual life of human beings and their souls. And so the following situation arose.
The machine, the capitalist economic order, tore a number of people out of their previous context of life, out of the context of life in which these people had previously existed, out of completely different living conditions for their sense of humanity, for their sense of human dignity. There was a connection between what man is and what he does. Just think of the connection that existed quite clearly in the old crafts until the 13th century and later still existed in remnants! Out of this connection, a large group of people were thrown into the machine, thrown into the modern economic order. There is no relationship whatsoever to the means of production; there is no possibility of creating any effect between the human being and what he actually does. And so it is precisely that side of the human being that the modern proletarian in the machine age does not develop that is dependent on asking: What am I worth as a human being? What am I worth as a human being?
This question can no longer be answered from outdated, worthless contexts of life, but must be drawn from within oneself, from that which is independent of external contexts of life. And for this class of people, there was nothing else but what came with the machine age, with the economic order in world-historical simultaneity: modern scientific thinking emerged.
The old classes were not compelled to make this scientific way of thinking their belief, their view of life; they only needed to make it their theoretical conviction. For what they brought into life was something handed down, impulses that originated in other times and which they inherited from older times. It was the proletarian alone who was torn out of everything, who therefore could not profess any view of life connected with the old contexts of life, and who, precisely because of his entire external existence, was predestined to make the new, the emerging, the content of his soul. So, as paradoxical as it sounds, as unbelievable as it seems to many, it is precisely this proletarian who is the true, purely scientifically oriented human being.
In order to appreciate the full significance of this fact, one must not only have learned to think about the proletarian movement, one must also have been enabled by one's fate to think with the proletarian, namely to think with those people from the proletarian class who, from one side or the other, became the bearers of the proletarian movement. There, one could clearly feel how the following is spreading from older times into the immediate social present.
It is true that you can say: Yes, bourgeois circles have adopted the scientific way of thinking to a large extent. — But take intelligent bourgeois circles yourself, think of people who are completely scientifically oriented in their thinking and convictions: with their feelings, with their whole sense of life, they are still involved in contexts that are not entirely determined by scientific orientation. One can be a materialistic thinker of modern times, one can call oneself enlightened, one can be an atheist, one can truly profess this as one's honest conviction, but one does not need to renounce all emotional remnants of the old contexts of life, which did not arise from this scientific orientation, but which arose in times when spiritual impulses still had the driving force outlined above.
The purely scientific orientation had a completely different effect. I am not referring to the sciences, because this scientific orientation naturally had an effect on completely uneducated proletarians, but it had a completely different effect where it was carried over to the proletariat as a worldview.
I would like to illustrate this with an example. Many years ago, I stood at a lectern together with Rosa Luxemburg, who has now tragically passed away; she spoke on the topic: “Science and the workers.” I keep thinking about how she pointed out to a large audience that all the prejudices related to human social status and human hierarchy in the old ruling classes are connected to the ideas that old intellectual worldviews carried with them. She believed that modern proletarians should focus solely on the fact that humans did not originate from angelic, divine sources, but rather that they once climbed trees in a completely indecent manner and developed from animal origins—origins which, when traced back in their development, must lead to the conviction that Man is equal to man. And all former differences in rank stem from some kind of prejudice. One must not look at the wording, but at the impact such words have on proletarian-minded souls.
Looking purely at the concept, what I actually meant when I said: In recent times, the proletarian has been “scientifically” oriented in his entire worldview. And this scientific orientation did not fill his soul to such an extent that he could answer the question in the desirable way, according to his feelings, as he needed to: What am I actually in the world as a human being?
And where did the proletarian get this worldview? Where did this scientific orientation come from, which he sometimes has to accept in a completely incorrect way? It is, after all, a science. He took it from the old heritage of the bourgeois class. It arose from the old worldview within the bourgeois class during the transition to the newer age of machines and capitalism, when machines and capitalism overwhelmed people.
The next thing one often hears emphasized with the corresponding coloring is: Within the proletariat, human intellectual life has become what is perceived as ideology. You hear this most often when the foundations of the proletarian worldview are discussed: that art, religion, science, customs, law, and so on are ideological reflections of external material reality.
But this feeling that everything is like this, that spiritual life is ideological, did not arise within the proletariat; the proletarian received it as a dowry from the bourgeoisie. And the last trust, the last great trust that the proletariat placed in the bourgeoisie, consisted in the fact that it took on nourishment, spiritual nourishment for its soul. Since it was deprived of spiritual life when it was called away from its older context to the machine and placed into the social structure, it could only look up to what had developed as knowledge about man and about the world; it could only look up to what had emerged from the bourgeoisie: it accepted, faithfully, dogmatically, I would say, it accepted the ideology of the bourgeoisie. It has not yet entered into conviction, but into the feeling of disappointment that must arise when one cannot regard the spiritual as something that contains a higher reality founded in itself, but must regard it only as ideology. It lives in the subconscious feelings of a large number of the bearers of the social movement; it is not yet known, but it is clearly felt: we have placed great trust in the bourgeoisie; we have inherited a legacy that should have brought us salvation and sustaining strength. The bourgeoisie did not bring us this; only ideology brought it to us, which contains no reality, which cannot sustain life.
One can argue at length whether ideology is really the fundamental character of spiritual life or not. That is not the point. The point is that this spiritual life is perceived today by a large part of humanity as ideology, and that when life is perceived as ideology, the soul becomes desolate, remains empty, spiritual momentum is paralyzed, and what has arisen today comes into being: the stripping of social will of the belief that something spiritual could develop somewhere, that a center could emerge somewhere, a real center from which salvation could come for our worldview or the like, also with regard to the desirable shaping of the social movement. I would like to say that, above all, spiritual life has been brought into the development of modern proletarian humanity as a negative factor; and the longings of this humanity demand a positive factor. They demand something that sustains the soul, and something that consumes the soul has been given to them as their heritage.
This is something that hurts and quietly runs through our entire current social movement, something that cannot be grasped in terms of concepts, but which constitutes the formation of one of the members — we will get to know three — of the social movement, the current social movement. And as soon as one realizes that this is the case, one also asks oneself appropriately: Where did it come from and how can it be remedied? Instead of continuing to be paralyzed, how can this social will be fired up, how can it be energized? This is the question we must ask ourselves.
Now an event occurred when modern intellectual life reached the decisive point I have already indicated. The ruling classes of that time were, through their entire living conditions, connected with what we today call the state. It has often been emphasized by individual people—I cannot cite all of this today due to time constraints, insofar as it is correct—it has often been emphasized that modern man believes that what he today calls the state has actually always existed. But that is not at all correct. What we call the state today, which in Hegelianism, for example, appears to be the very expression of the divine itself, is basically only a product of the thinking of the last four to five centuries. The social organisms of earlier times were quite different.
Take just one fact, take the recent fact that the free educational institutions, the free higher educational institutions of earlier times, which were entirely self-sufficient in relation to the state, have developed into state institutions, that the state has, in a sense, become the custodian of humanity's intellectual heritage. That it has become this is a bourgeois interest at the beginning of modern times. It was the state that grew close to the soul of the citizen, to which he was connected with all his needs. And out of this impulse grew the relationship, the modern relationship between the intellectual heritage of humanity and the state, grew the fact that this state became the custodian of this intellectual heritage of humanity, and that it demanded of those who were to become its custodians that they actually organize their lives for it.
If one looks a little deeper into the inner structure of the human intellectual heritage, one comes to the conclusion that it is not only the external administration of this intellectual heritage, the legislation on universities, that has become state-run, that legislation on schools and elementary schools has become state-run, but that the content of this intellectual heritage has also become state-run.
Certainly, mathematics does not have a state character; but other branches of our intellectual heritage have been marked by the convergence of this intellectual heritage with state interests in recent times. And this convergence has not been without influence on the development of ideology on the part of intellectual property. This intellectual property can only preserve its own inner reality, carry it within itself, if it can administer itself, under its own powers, if it can give the state what belongs to the state out of its own immediate initiative, but if it does not have to receive demands from the state.
Certainly, there will still be many today who do not see what I have just said as a fundamental social fact. But it will be seen that only then can the spirit of humanity, which reigns in reality, give what is right, when this spirit is separated from the external state organization and stands on its own. I know what objections can be made to this, but that is not the point; the only thing that matters is that, in order to flourish properly, the spirit demands that it can always emerge from the immediate free initiative of the human personality.
This brings us to the true form of one aspect of the modern social question, namely that we must consider spiritual life correctly and recognize the necessity that that which intrudes into the structure of the state must gradually be brought out of this state again, so that it can develop its own inner strength and then have an effect in return, precisely because it is liberated, because it develops independently alongside the other elements of the social structure, and precisely because of this it can have the right effect on this social structure. If one is to talk about the practical aspects of this first element of social issues, one must say: the trend of development must be towards the denationalization of spiritual life in the broadest sense. And even one element of this spiritual life must be denationalized, in contrast to which it probably seems highly paradoxical today that one can speak of it in this way: the relationship that a judging personality enters into with people who have to do with criminal law or private law in some way is so human — this has also been recognized in certain psychologically oriented circles today, but the matter is approached from a completely wrong angle — so personal that judging immediately belongs to what must be counted as part of the inner life of the spirit. So I must include in this category not only what is accepted as religious conviction in humanity, all artistic life, but also everything related to private law and criminal law, where the tendency must develop toward denationalization.
Why should anyone who hears of radical measures immediately think of a violent revolution? Even in socialist circles of recent times, this is gradually no longer being considered. I do not think that everything can be denationalized overnight; but I do think that it is possible for the social will of humanity to accept that the individual measures to be taken in relation to this or that – and this must happen every day here and there – are oriented towards such a gradual separation of intellectual life from the state. You will be able to imagine quite concretely what this actually means.We must regard the state as something that has become particularly dear to the soul of the bourgeoisie, which in recent times has increasingly developed into the ruling class. This bourgeoisie has now brought into this state not only spiritual life, but also that which, so to speak, has overwhelmed the entire social organism within recent human development: namely, economic life. Bringing this economic life into state life began with the nationalization of transport interests, the postal service, the railways, and so on. This gave rise to a certain superstition about the state, about the state-oriented human community. And the last remnant of this belief is the belief of socialist-oriented people: that salvation can only be found in the joint administration of the entire economic life. This, too, has been inherited from the bourgeois way of thinking and viewing the world.
Now, intellectual life is placed on one side, economic life on the other; and in the middle stands the state.
You may ask yourself: What should actually remain for the state? — because we will see shortly that economic life also cannot tolerate confusion with actual state life. We can perhaps arrive at a clear view on this question by considering what the bourgeois classes actually found in the emerging modern state. They found in this state the refuge of their rights.
Let us now look at what rights actually are. I am not thinking only of criminal law, nor am I thinking of private rights, insofar as they do not relate to the relationship between individuals, but rather I am thinking of public law. Public law also includes, for example, negotiations on ownership. After all, what is property? Property is merely the expression of the right to own and use something as an individual. Property is rooted in a right. Everything that we often regard as an external thing is rooted in rights in its relationship to human beings. In more recent times, preceding our modern conception of the state, the bourgeoisie and those related to it had already acquired such rights; it found that such rights were best protected when it incorporated everything that could relate to such rights into the life of the state itself.
And so the tendency arose to draw economic life more and more into state life. State life permeates the structure of economic life with a sum of rights. Now, these rights should by no means be taken away from state life in the development of the future. But social will must develop precisely in order to distinguish between all that is legal life, what is actual intellectual life, and what is economic life.
The modern social movement illustrates this particularly clearly in that the ruling circles have not included something in the legal life of their modern state. While they have taken many things out of economic life, out of mere isolated economic life, and incorporated them into the legal structure of the state, there is one thing they have not incorporated into the legal structure of the state: the labor power of the proletarian worker. This labor power of the proletarian worker has been left inside the circulation of the economic process.
This is what has had a profound impact on the mind of the modern proletarian, who has been made to understand by Marxism and its successors that there is always a labor market, just as there is a commodity market. And just as goods are offered on the goods market and there is demand for them, you bring your labor power—the only thing you possess—to the labor market, and it is considered only as a commodity. It is bought like a commodity; it is included in the modern economic process like a commodity.
This brings us to the true nature of the second modern social demand. This is expressed in the fact that, out of a certain subconscious awareness of his human dignity, the modern proletarian found it intolerable that his labor power should be bought and sold as a commodity on the commodity market.
Certainly, the theory of socialist thinkers says: This has come about through the objective laws of economic life itself, which have placed labor power on the market just like other commodities. This is in the consciousness, perhaps in the consciousness of the proletarian himself. But in the subconscious, something quite different prevails. In the subconscious, a continuation of the old slavery, the old question of serfdom, prevails. In this subconscious, one sees only that during the time of slavery, the whole person was a commodity on the labor market and could be bought and sold as a commodity, that then there was a little less of the person in serfdom, and that now all that remains is the worker's labor power. But with that, he also surrenders himself completely to the economic process. He feels that this is impossible, that it is undignified.
This gives rise to the second social demand of modern times: to strip labor of its commodity character.
I know that even today many, very many people think: How can this be done? How else can economic life be organized other than by remunerating work activity, labor? — But that means buying it! But one need only counter that Plato and Aristotle also found it perfectly natural, took it for granted, that slaves must exist. So one must forgive modern thinkers for considering it necessary that labor power must be brought to market.
One cannot always imagine what may become a reality in the very near future. But today we must ask: How can labor be stripped of its commodity character? This can only be achieved by elevating it to the realm of the pure constitutional state, the state from which intellectual life, as previously characterized, is separated on the one hand, and on the other hand, everything that belongs to the economic process in the sense previously characterized is separated. If we divide the entire social organism or think of it as divided into these three parts: independent intellectual life, legal life, and economic life, then instead of the homunculus in the realm of economic life, we have the real homo in the realm of economic life, then we have set our spiritual eye on the truly viable social organism, not the one composed of chemical agents.
I truly do not want to play with analogies between biology and sociology here — that is far from my mind, very far —, nor do I want to fall into the errors of Schäffle or Meray in his “Weltmutation” (World Mutation); I do not want any of that, it is not important. But what does matter is to see that, just as three independent systems operate side by side in the individual human organism—I have outlined this in scientific terms in my latest book, Von Seelenrätseln (Mysteries of the Soul)—so too must three independent systems prevail in the social organism: the spiritual system, the judicial system, then the system of public law — as I said, private law and criminal law are excluded — and the actual economic system.
But then, if one has the regulating state life, the regulating legal life, between spiritual life and economic life, one has integrated something as viable into the social organism as one finds integrated into the natural human organism as a relatively independent system: the circulatory system, the lung-heart system, between the head system and the digestive system. But then, when it is developed entirely on its own ground from mere economic life – think of an administration, a democratic administration on this ground of legal life – when everyone has to claim their rights in the same way, which regulate the relationship between people solely on this ground, then the integration of the workforce into the economic process becomes something completely different from what it is now.
You see, I am not giving you some principle, some theory: this is how you can do it if you want to strip labor of its commodity character – but I am telling you: how must people first position themselves, structure the social organism, so that through their activity, through their thinking, through their will, that which is viable as a social organism can come into being. I do not want to prescribe a universal remedy, but only to describe how humanity must be structured within the social organism so that its healthy social will continuously produces what makes the social organism viable. I want, so to speak, to replace theoretical thinking with thinking that is intimately related to and familiar with reality. What will come about if, quite apart from economic life, on a basis that exists in its own right, which administers and governs itself relatively independently according to its own powers, if labor law is negotiated on this basis purely from human foundations and laws are enacted from this? Then something will come about that will have a similar effect on the economic process as the natural foundations of this economic process have now. These natural foundations of the economic process are clearly visible to us when we really study the economic process. They regulate the economic process in such a way that their regulation eludes what human beings themselves can do in relation to this economic process. Isn't that true? One only needs to observe what is conspicuous.
Take, for example—and I want to give radically clear examples—the fact that in certain regions, albeit far away from ours, bananas are an extremely important commodity. But the work involved in bringing bananas to the place where they can be consumed is extremely small at their point of origin, say, compared to what is necessary in our European regions to bring wheat from its point of origin to its point of consumption. This work, which makes bananas consumable in relation to wheat, is roughly one to one hundred, or the ratio is even greater than one to one hundred. So a hundred times more work than is needed for bananas is necessary for the consumption of wheat. And so we could also cite the great differences that exist within the economic area with regard to the regulation of economic life. These are independent of what man himself brings to bear: they lie in the fertility of the soil, in other conditions, and the like; they enter into economic life as a constant factor, as a factor independent of the economic man. That is one side of the picture.
Now imagine labor law as being completely separate from economic life, then, if economic interests no longer play an independent role in determining working hours and the use of labor in purely human interactions between people, something will develop that is independent of economic life and that influences economic life just as much as the factors provided by nature influence it.
In pricing, in determining the value of goods on the commodity market, one must be guided by the effects of natural factors. In the future, if the social organism is to be viable, one will also have to be guided by how production must take place and how the circulation of goods must proceed. If it is not this circulation of goods that determines remuneration, working hours, and labor law in general, but if, independently of the circulation of goods and the commodity market, working hours are determined in the sphere of state legal life, solely on the basis of human needs and purely human considerations, then it will be the case that a commodity simply costs as much as the time necessary to produce it, which is necessary for a certain job, but which is regulated by a life independent of economic life, whereas, for example, economic life today regulates the employment relationship on its own, so that working hours and employment relationships must often be regulated in the economic process according to the prices of commodities. The opposite will occur with a proper structure of the social organism.
Today, we can only hint at these conditions. But you see, they spring from a social will that is quite different from the one that has put us in such a sad situation in world affairs today; they spring from a social will that does not spin everything out of human thinking in a certain charitable way, as one must do in order for this or that to proceed in the right way, but they spring from a way of thinking that is so closely related to reality that it does not come to light when people are structured in this or that way in the social organism. Then, because they are healthily structured within the social organism, they will establish what is right, and then they will work in the right way.
One only has to have experienced how the other socialists determined conditions in real life, in Austria, which has now already disappeared. It was a state, but it was not only legal life that existed within the state; economic life, which arose from the interests of individual human circles, also existed within the state in a very pronounced way. Just think of what the old Austrian parliament was like until the end of the 1890s! And from what was represented in this parliament emerged the conditions that played into the catastrophe of the World War, from this parliament, which consisted of four curias: the Chamber of Commerce, the large landowners, the curia of cities, markets, and industrial centers, and the curia of established economic circles. These economic circles were not represented on the basis of an economic parliament, but their interests determined the state system, meaning that public rights were determined according to their interests. Just as it is impossible for a confessional party, as was the case in the last German Reichstag, to emerge and influence the legal life of the state through definitions and institutions, so too is a social organism that is structured in such a way that economic interest groups determine legal life not viable. This legal life must develop separately, based solely on what concerns the relationship between people in a completely democratic manner. Then, through this legal life, the threefold organism will regulate economic life on the one hand and the natural basis of this economic life on the other.
And within this economic life, which in turn has representatives from a wide variety of sides, purely economic factors and interests will be necessary. We will have a social organism in which — if I may express myself in the language of the times — there are now three classes, three areas, each with its own legislation and its own administration. They stand in relation to each other, I would say, as sovereign states, even though they interpenetrate; they deal with each other. That may be complicated, it may be inconvenient for people, but it is healthy, it is the only thing that will make the social organism viable for the future. For economic life itself can only be determined by its factors if the only interests at work in its sphere are economic interests, which can only be determined by the necessary relationship between production and consumption in economic life. However, this relationship between production and consumption can only arise in economic life on an associative basis, on an associative basis, as it could have been in the context of trade unions and cooperatives. Today, however, trade unions and cooperatives still have the character of having grown out of state life. They must grow into economic life and become bodies that serve economic life. Then the social organism will develop in a healthy way.
I know that what I have said seems extremely radical to some. But whether it is radical or not is not important; what is important is that the social organism becomes viable, that people, by making the transition from the old instinctive social life to conscious social life, become imbued with impulses that spring from the insight into how one stands within the whole social organism. Today, one is considered uneducated if one cannot do basic arithmetic; today, one is considered uneducated if one does not know anything else that is part of education; but one is not considered uneducated if one has no social consciousness or if one stands within the social organism with a dormant soul. This is something that must change radically in the future! It will change when the judgment arises that it is simply part of the most elementary school education to equip oneself with social will, just as one equips oneself with knowledge of the multiplication tables. Today, everyone must know how much three times three is. In the future, it will not seem any more difficult to know how capital interest relates to ground rent, if I choose something from today's life. It should not be any more difficult in the future than knowing that three times three is nine. But this knowledge will provide a basis for a healthy standing within the social organism, that is, for a healthier social life. And this healthy social life must be strived for.
What I have said is preparing itself in the healthy consciousness of humanity. One only needs to have a sense of what is preparing itself and what is striving for revelation and formation in our present, newer life.
Think back to the three great ideals of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity. Anyone who has followed what these ideas have undergone in the minds of people over time knows how often people have struggled logically with the contradiction that exists between freedom on the one hand, which points to individual personal initiative, and equality on the other, which is to be realized in the centralization of the state-oriented social organism. That is not possible. But the addiction to this confusion has arisen in recent times. The fact that today's capitalism has not yet been able to grasp the concept of the threefold social organism has arisen from the idea of a completely centralized state.
If we take up today what is already expressed in this desire, which finds expression in the three ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, we can easily understand it today from the point of view of the threefold social organism. Then we find spiritual life as the first link. It must be completely permeated by the principle, the impulse of freedom. Everything must be based on the free initiative of human beings, and it can be, and will be most fruitful if it is based on this. With regard to the constitutional state, with regard to the state system that regulates the relationship between spiritual and economic life, the political system itself, what must permeate everything is the equality of human beings. And with regard to economic life, the only thing that can apply is brotherhood, the social sharing of the entire outer and inner life of one person by another.
In the social organism, only interest can prevail within economic life. But this interest produces a very specific characteristic of the economic organ. What does everything in economic life actually point to, what does it all boil down to? Everything in economic life boils down to the fact that what the economic process produces can also be consumed in the best and most expedient way. I am talking about consumption in the narrower sense, from which the spiritual is then excluded. For example, labor, human labor, can be consumed. But modern man feels that his labor must not be merely consumed. Just as he acquires an interest through his labor, he must also acquire an interest in spiritual production through his rest, through his peaceful receptivity to the spiritual. People are consumed in economic life. They must continually tear themselves away from this economic life through the other two limbs of the healthy social organism if they are not to be consumed within economic life.
The social question is not so much a part of modern life as it has now arisen and can perhaps be solved, and then is solved. No, the social question is something that has entered modern life and will no longer disappear from this life in the future of all humanity. There will be more and more social questions in the future. But this social question will not be solved all at once, not by this or that measure, but by the continuing will of the people, in that what the economic process consumes from the people is constantly regulated by legal life from a purely political standpoint, and what is consumed can in turn be constantly balanced by spiritual production through the independent spiritual organism.
Anyone who has seen how the social question has developed in recent decades — it is not so long ago that the social question prepared itself for its present form —, who has observed attentively and with deep interest how this social question has developed from its beginnings, can come to thoughts, particularly with regard to social will and its guiding impulse for the future shaping of human life, which can perhaps be characterized by the following.
Decades ago, many people, including many quite enlightened people, did not consider the social question to be something that existed at all. In my youth, I met an Austrian minister who looked across the Bohemian-German border and made the grotesque statement: “The social question ends at Bodenbach!” And I still remember very well how the first social democratic miners marched past my parents' apartment in a large group on their way to their meeting. I then observed how social consciousness arose, not as a reflection on the social movement, but through witnessing this social movement. I had to say to myself: a lot had to be gone through, and a lot of mistakes had to be made too! And even among socialist-oriented thinkers of more recent times, these mistakes have been quite numerous. It seems that in this area in particular, people do not experience this through the minds they develop. The error has become terribly widespread.
From a spirit that has arisen in me from such observations, I have tried to speak to you this evening about social will. You have invited me as members of a community of people who look to what social will should bring to human welfare in the future.
Those of us who, as older people, such as myself, have been speaking to such people for decades, sometimes look back on all that had to be transformed in order to arrive at the present. But then, through some of the things that had to be transformed, they also become convinced that the error was not fruitless, that even if today's facts speak a sad, often frightening language, people will still be strong enough to find a way out of what is perceived as unbearable by a large part of humanity today.
In this sense, I ask you to take on board what I have taken the liberty of saying to you this evening. For the facts speak clearly in many areas. And they also speak clearly: the more people among those who are still young today take on board a genuine, viable social will, the more viable the efficient, human social organism will be.
Anyone who wishes to speak may do so. Dr. Boos, who gave a lecture about a week ago today, has agreed to lead the discussion.
A speaker asks to speak (stenogram incomplete).
Dr. Steiner: What you have asserted takes shape because you have overlooked what must happen as a result of the division into relative independence of the constitutional state on the one hand and economic life on the other. The labor organizations, some of which will be production companies, or consumer companies, or even combinations of the two, will only have to deal with economic factors that play a role within economic life itself.
The regulation of labor law falls to the relatively independent state. There, I said, decisions are made on a democratic basis, everything that concerns the relationship between people. That is why I also mentioned, with regard to the foundation of this purely democratic state, that it is a link between the other two factors; on this foundation, equality of people before the law prevails. The mere wishes of individual economic organizations will cease to exist because they must be balanced with the interests of other groups in democratic legal life. — So that is precisely what is to be achieved; what you perceive as damage that would certainly arise if, for example, working hours were set within the organization of economic life, is to be remedied. The organizations of economic life only have to deal with economic life itself: regulation in the sense of labor law, in other words. But the determination of working hours is now only subject to the state body that deals with human relations.
We must not forget the great changes that will occur between people as a result of unilateral interests being worn down. Of course, nothing in the world will be completely perfect, but unilateral interests will be worn down in a democratic state structure based on the equality of people before other people.
Let us just consider that if, for example, a certain economic organization has an interest in working for a certain short period of time, it will have to reconcile this interest with the interests of those people who would suffer from this short working time. But if one does not think at all about any subconscious forces, then — just as in the natural organism, at least approximately, always approximately natural, that there are always equal numbers of men and women, which of course cannot and must not be a strict law of nature, it will also turn out that if the individual factors of the social organism interact in the right way, nothing harmful will arise from the fact that individual small interests can develop which are extremely harmful to others.
What underlies my social thinking differs from many other social ways of thinking in that the latter are more abstract. Logically, one can always deduce one thing from another very well; some logical conclusions follow from others. However, only life experience can really be decisive in such questions. Of course, I cannot logically prove—no one can—that a discrepancy of interests cannot arise in such a future organism; but it can be assumed that if the forces can develop within their own sphere, which is appropriate for them, then a humane development will occur. I believe that if you consider what I would like to present, namely the establishment of working hours from the purely economic process into the legal sphere of the state, then these damages will not be able to arise in the practical realm. That is what I have to say on the matter.
Another speaker comments (stenogram incomplete).
Dr. Steiner: I would like to comment on the remarks of the previous speaker as follows: Of course, every lecture suffers in a sense from the fact that one cannot say everything in a single lecture, and I do not know from which omissions in my lecture the previous speaker drew the conclusion that I have no opinion on the modern worker's psyche, that I do not take the modern labor movement into account, and so on. Everyone does this in their own way, of course. For example, I was a teacher for many years in various fields at a workers' educational school, and I practiced public speaking with workers in trade unions and also in political organizations. Today, I can rightly say that a large number of workers who give speeches in Germany today learned how to speak in my speech exercises. During these speech exercises, all kinds of questions were discussed, including questions that were certainly not far removed from the most intimate peculiarities of the working-class psyche. So I don't know—of course, I had no reason to highlight this particular practical aspect of my social work and intentions, but I also cannot quite understand how omissions from my speech could have led to the conclusion that I am so completely detached from the practical labor movement.
Of course, it goes without saying that workers themselves are taken into account within the modern social movement. But just consider that I emphasized throughout the evening what the situation actually looks like within the proletariat. I spoke of the proletariat as such. If you listened carefully, you will have noticed how my lecture reflected what I believe to be a practical analysis of what is currently happening among the proletarian working class.
As for the accusation that I may have presented too one-sided a view of what I believe to be a fundamentally important fact, namely that the bourgeois way of thinking has been adopted by the working class, and in particular by the leaders of the working class, this statement I have made, which I have of course only examined from certain angles, is really based on a more detailed study of the working-class psyche and the entire modern labor movement.
I would like to draw your attention to the following example: a Russian writer whom I know personally recently pointed out in a very peculiar way that the philosophy that has followers has played a major role here in Zurich: the philosophy of Avenarius, which certainly grew out of a purely bourgeois background. At least, I cannot imagine that Avenarius ever thought that his philosophy would play the role it plays today in the labor movement in Russia. As far as I know, Adler in particular strongly advocates Mach's philosophical convictions, derived from natural science, here in Zurich. These two philosophical directions are, in a sense, the official philosophies of Bolshevism, of the most radical socialism. The Russian writer Berdyaev says this in an essay—it is included in the translation of a very interesting book on “Russia's political soul”—and in this essay Berdyaev has very clearly elaborated on this political soul. And so one could give you numerous examples; I could give you numerous examples similar to the one I took earlier from the speech by the late Rosa Luxemburg, which would prove to you that the last significant legacy of bourgeois life, one that has had a profound impact on the labor movement, is the bourgeois way of thinking, which is scientifically oriented. The possibility of turning intellectual life into ideology in the first place is of bourgeois origin. The bourgeoisie, if one may use such categories, was the first to turn the scientifically oriented way of thinking in the field of natural science into ideology. It did not transfer this to actual scientific thinking within its own class. This latter consequence was then drawn by proletarian thinking. Certainly, proletarian thinking drew other conclusions; but it drew conclusions from foundations that are clearly recognizable today as rooted in the bourgeois scientific way of thinking, and only developed a little further. The importance of this should not be underestimated.
For those who are more deeply involved in the whole, who have developed a deeper interest in the role that the modern working-class psyche plays in the modern labor movement, are waiting, I would say, with a certain concern on the one hand, but also with a certain inner satisfaction on the other, for the moment when this will come to light within the modern socialist movement. One day, people will notice, will bring to consciousness what now still lies in the subconscious; one day, people will notice: Aha, we still have that in our higher thinking—if I may use the expression—in our higher thinking; that has to come out. We have a longing to orient our entire human dignity scientifically; the bourgeois lineage of science has not made this possible for us until now. We must seek a different spiritual life.
I believe, however, that when this moment arrives, when the whole, full longing of the perhaps, from a certain point of view, only modern human being, namely the proletarian human being, comes out — even if it has not yet found full expression in modern times — when this longing of the modern proletarian for a complete education of the scientific way of thinking into a worldview, with the power of the old religions, when that has come about, when he no longer, because he has realized that he should no longer be a commodity, will draw the consequences of bourgeois thinking, then the moment will have come when one can speak of the fruitful organization of social will.
In pure socialism and in its relationship to Bergson's philosophy, which the esteemed previous speaker emphasized, I believe that one should not take such a dogmatic stance. Of course, I do not want to discuss such philosophical questions today. The previous speaker said that Bergson is a typical representative of the most bourgeois way of thinking. Then socialism would have taken precisely bourgeois foundations from Bergson's philosophy! Today, for example, it can be proven that Bergson's philosophy is permeated by an immeasurable number of “Schopenhauerianisms” in terms of its content, that Bergson is much more influenced by Schopenhauer than you might think.
Now, if one wanted to discuss such a thing in detail, one would have to be able to go into great detail. I cannot do that today, but I will just mention that there are also people within the proletarian world who consider themselves thinkers, such as Mehring, Franz Mehring, who in many ways is actually similar to Bergson; he characterized Schopenhauer as the representative of the most bourgeois philistinism in philosophy!
One can have different opinions about these things, and I do not believe that one should be so dogmatic about them. One can hold the view that Bergson is the most advanced philosopher and that there are irrational elements in his philosophy. But one might ask: What does the irrational element have to do with the social question? A proletarian can be just as irrational as a bourgeois. I cannot quite see what all this irrationality has to do with it. One must make the dogmatic assumption that Bergson is absolutely the modern philosopher; so if the proletarians are to think correctly, they must become Bergsonians, mustn't they? That ran through the whole question.
For it is undoubtedly true that tendencies have emerged in various areas of modern life that are in line with what I have characterized today. It would be truly sad for human life if it always went, so to speak, in the opposite direction, if it always developed in the opposite direction from what is right! Of course, that cannot be the case. I myself said that, for example, in the field of the judiciary, certain things have been stirred up by some very psychologically oriented people. One could, of course, cite countless such examples. But it is also a diversion of the discussion onto a side track if one does not address what has been asserted, but instead puts forward a favorite opinion. Certainly, one can sympathize greatly with some of what has been said today about principles relating to impulses that point more to historical periods; but without going into the latter any further – if I were to go into all these things, I would have to keep you here for a very long time – so without going into the latter any further, I would like to say: Many people today are still inwardly obstinate when it comes to the threefold division I have spoken about today. They say: There cannot be three different divisions that are governed and guided by different principles.
But I did not speak of three different members governed by three different principles; I spoke of a threefold structure of the social organism! Just consider that this threefold structure of the social organism must gradually be found in our time, in accordance with its entire way of thinking, just as, for example, the ancient divisions that you also find in Plato and that were justified at that time. Someone once said to me after my lecture: So we have another reference to Plato's ancient divisions: the productive, the defensive, and the educational classes! What I said is the opposite of the division into productive, defensive, and educational classes, because it is not people who are divided into classes, but rather an attempt is made to divide the social organism. We humans should not be divided! The same person can very well be active in the intellectual sphere, or in the legal sphere, or even in the economic sphere. It is precisely this that emancipates humans from any one-sidedness in any of the spheres of the social organism. It is therefore not a question of dividing people into such independent classes when developing a healthy social organism, but of organizing the social organism itself according to its own laws. That is the fundamental difference. In the past, people were divided into classes. Now, in accordance with the thinking of our time, the social organism itself should be divided into classes so that people can look at what they are living in and be active in one or the other class according to their needs, circumstances, and abilities. For example, it will be quite possible in the future for a person who is active in economic life to be at the same time a representative in the purely political sphere of the state. However, he will then naturally have to assert his economic interests in a different way than he can assert what is solely relevant in the sphere of the constitutional state. These three branches will themselves ensure the demarcation of their territories. There will be no confusion, with one branch interfering in the affairs of another.
This will be achieved much more effectively if the branches are kept separate. Of course, it is the same human dispositions that decide in one branch and the other. But just as the human body has three centralized parts—I don't want to draw analogies, but I would like to mention this—the nervous and sensory system, the pulmonary and respiratory system, and the metabolic system, so too does a healthy social organism have three branches. This is something that is not yet part of common thinking, but I believe that it will find its way into people's thinking, and that it should be taken no less seriously than one takes, so to speak, one's favorite opinion.
Dr. Roman Boos: May I take the liberty of addressing a question to the speaker regarding what has just been asked in the field of criminal law? Well, when the freedom of judges was mentioned, whether this also means a violation of the principle that no punishment should be imposed without a law—it seems to me that this means that criminal law as such should not be issued from the realm of free intellectual life, but from the political authority, that the question probably contains a misunderstanding on the part of Dr. Weiß, who meant that a violation of the principle is being demanded that no one can be sentenced to punishment who has not violated a specific law. — May I perhaps ask you to comment on this?
Dr. Steiner: Yes, of course, in this question the system of public law touches on the system of practical jurisdiction. What I emphasized is the separation of practical judgment. That is why I used the term “judgment,” explicitly referring to practical judgment as distinct from general public legal life, which I must think of as centralized in the healthy social organism in the political state, in such a way that the healthy social organism must ensure in its public legal life that proceedings are conducted in accordance with a law determined by it. It goes without saying that judgments cannot be made in the most arbitrary manner. But I have not thought about such things, which are abstract and, in their abstractness, more or less self-evident. Even today, I did not have to talk about, say, the scope of the law, but rather about the social organism and social will. And so I ask you to consider the following in the context of the topic.
You see, I have spent almost as much of my life in Austria as in Germany. I have been able to get to know Austrian life thoroughly; you can believe me when I say that it is not an abrupt assertion when I say that much of what has happened in the Austrian so-called state in recent times is connected with events that arose as profound imbalances in the 1870s and 1880s. Do not forget that in a state such as Austria, this would not be so radically apparent in other areas, but it does exist in one form or another – especially because the different language areas are mixed up in Austria. You could experience, for example, that a German, because he happened to belong to a court district in which a Czech judge who did not speak German presided, was judged by a Czech judge in a language he did not understand. He did not know what was being judged about him and what was happening to him; he only noticed that he was being led away. The same was true in reverse when a German judge who did not understand Czech judged a Czech who did not understand German. What I mean is the individual shaping, the free shaping of the relationship between the person being judged and the judge.
So a state such as Austria could expect great success from this. But this impulse would have required that, for perhaps five or ten years—circumstances are constantly changing—the person being judged or sentenced could have chosen his judge, in a free choice of judge.
[gap in the stenogram]
This is simply not a matter of intellectual life, but rather, from the outset, a matter of life in a constitutional state; the second, the state law, will ensure that judgments are made only according to a law that existed when the act was committed, as this falls within its jurisdiction; it will draw its own conclusions in each case, of course.
But the question is quite different; if you take a closer look at things, you will see that all the solutions to these cases are very, very consistent. Today, I could only tell you the very first prerequisites; otherwise, I would have to talk not only all night, but also tomorrow.