World Economy
GA 340
3 August 1922, Dornach
Lecture XI
In the opinion of a number of economists, as you are probably aware, it was quite impossible for the World War to last as long as it actually did last. From their knowledge of economic relationships, these economists declared that the economic life, as existing at the time, would not permit such an extensive war to last more than a few months. Yet, as you know, the facts of life refuted this idea. If people thought objectively, this in itself would convince them of the need to revise their science of Economics. For if you took the trouble at this moment to follow up the reasons which some economists, at any rate, adduced for their assertion, you would by no means be able to conclude that they were mere fools. Quite the contrary. You would see that their arguments were not at all bad and carried some conviction. Nevertheless, the reality of life refuted them. The War went on far longer than was theoretically possible. Obviously, therefore, Economic Science did not embrace the reality; the reality turned out quite differently from what Economic Science had supposed.
We can only understand such a thing as this if we see clearly the nature of the evolution of economic life upon the Earth. It consists of a series of successive stages, but one in which the earlier stages continue to exist side by side with the later. Similarly we may say that the lowest organic forms now living are somewhat like the earliest living creatures of Earth-evolution. Thus in a sense the most primitive creatures are still here, existing side by side with the highest creatures which have yet evolved. There is a difference, but there is also a marked resemblance in the forms. So it is in the economic life. The phenomena of primitive phases of economic life are still here today, side by side with those which have attained a higher stage. But in the economic life there is another peculiarity. While in the animal kingdom, for example, the more primitive forms can live literally side by side in space with the more highly evolved, in the economic life the more primitive processes are constantly penetrating into the more highly evolved ones. We might very well compare it with those cases where bacteria penetrate inside higher organisms. Only, in the economic life it is infinitely more complicated. Nevertheless, we can detect certain underlying structures, and from these we can take useful examples which will help us to bring our line of thought to its conclusion.
The more primitive forms of “political economy” must be conceived as private agricultural economies on a large scale. Their magnitude is relative, of course; but we must understand that if the private agricultural economy is self-contained, it includes within it the other members of the social organism. It has its own administration, possibly even its own defence force, its own police, and moreover its own spiritual life. Such a private economy—grown to gigantic proportions, it is true, but still preserving in all essentials the character of a primitive agricultural concern, a gigantic farm—was the so-called kingdom of the Merovingians. It was a “kingdom” in a quite external sense, but it was certainly no State. It was in fact no more that an immense farming estate, comprehending a huge area. The entire social structure of the Merovingian kingdom was really no different from this:—the economic life underlay everything. On it was built an administrative system which accorded with the prevailing ideas of right and justice; and into this was placed a spiritual life—an extraordinarily free one for that time. For, ladies and gentlemen, it is only in more modern times and notably under the influence of “Liberalism” that we have seen the rise of the maximum of unfreedom in the spiritual life. Not until “Liberalism” came did the spiritual life begin to grow more and more unfree; and it reaches the zenith of unfreedom in that embodiment of all political bliss, the Soviet Republic of Russia. Only books approved by the Soviet Government can be sold at all. The Pope does at least content himself with proscribing books; but under the Soviet Government proscription is automatic, inasmuch as no books are printed and published save those which the Government permits.
Now if we trace the further course of evolution, we see how private economies gradually passed over into national economies,1The German “Volkswirtschaft,” here translated “national economy,” is also the ordinary word for “political economy.” The fact (indicated in the lecture) that the Science of “political economy” owes its form to its origin in the period of national economies is, of course, emphasised by the German word in a way that is not possible in English, though we are reminded of it by the title of Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations.—Translators. which again at a certain time—at the beginning of the modern period—tended to become State-economies.2Cf.Lecture I. The way it happens is characteristic. Private economy—initiative in private business—gradually passes over into the hands of government departments, and thus the fiscal administration grows increasingly into industrial organisation. We see the economic passing over into the life of the State; and we see the spiritual life absorbed by the life of the State at the same time. So then we witness the rise of the modern economic and spiritual organism of the State. The State, as such, has grown increasingly powerful. We, as you know, are aware that it will have to be, so to speak, articulated once more in distinct members [wiederum eine gewisse Gliederung erfahren musz] if economic life is to progress.
At the moment, however, we are not concerned with “three-folding.” We observe, as I said, how private economies were gradually joined together. It generally happened on a pretty large scale. Private economies grew into something which could be called economy on a larger scale—national economy; and in this way a new social structure was created. Yet, within the new, the element of private economy was still preserved. The more primitive phase of evolution was still there as an insertion in the new. What is it that arises at this stage in the true sense of national economy? It is a mutual exchange between the several private economies. The exchange is regulated in many different ways. The regulation hovers like a kind of cloud over it all. The exchange, the trade or commerce between so many private economies, is the essential thing that arises with this welding of private economies into a national economy. What is the outcome? We saw yesterday that in the process of economic exchange each of the parties has an advantage, or can have an advantage. The result is, therefore, that the single economies which join together for the sake of mutual exchange (the essential thing in all economic life) profit by so doing. Once more, then, the single economies, the single businesses, gain an advantage by joining together. They profit by it simply because they can now exchange one with another. We can draw up a statement. We can calculate how much the one private economy or business will gain by means of the other private economies with which it is now connected. Each party gains an advantage, and the gain of each and all becomes significant for the entire national economy.
Now at the time when the modern science of Political Economy was founded that particular stage had been reached. National economies had taken shape out of the private economies. This must be borne in mind if we wish to understand the economic ideas of Ricardo or Adam Smith. Only on this foundation can we understand the thoughts which they evolved about “Political Economy,” as they called it. It was this working together of private economies which they actually saw and upon which they based their views. In Adam Smith you can see it again and again—how he thinks from the point of view of private economy or private business and thence draws his conclusions. At the same time he has before him the picture of their joining together into a national economy. Yet even in their ideas about this latter process the older economists retained to a large extent a way of thinking based on private business. Such were the views at which they commonly arrived: they treated national economy on the analogy of private economy. Thus the fertility, the prosperity of a national economy, as they conceived it, lay in this—one national economy would exchange with another, would come into mutual intercourse with another, and would thus derive profit and advantage. The “Mercantilist” school, for example, was based on the advantages arising from such exchange between national economies.
Now already at this early stage, where the single private economies or businesses come together into a large national economy, there is sure to arise a kind of leadership. In effect, the most powerful of the private economies which have merged into a larger complex will naturally assume the leadership; and this would undoubtedly have happened at the transition from the stage of private economy into that of national economy. But it was masked and hidden; it did not come fully to expression, inasmuch as the State undertook the leadership. If this had not happened, one private economy—namely, the most powerful of them all—would naturally have been the leader. So in effect it happened that the single private economies passed imperceptibly into the form, not of national, but of State-economy.
But it was different at the next stage, when in the further course of modern history the mutual exchange between national economies—world-trade, in other words—became more and more comprehensive. Then, indeed, such a leadership emerged quite evidently. It happened, as an absolute matter of course, in the further progress of economic life, that England's national economy became the dominating one. From another point of view I have already drawn your attention to the fact that England evolved directly from trade into industrialism. Let us think what happened while England was acquiring her colonies. She set the standard for currencies. Her colonies, in the manner of private economies, joined together into a larger complex. In the first place this gave rise to those internal advantages which are always the result of mutual exchange. But, not only so: it also gave rise to that powerful economic hegemony which, with the further evolution of world-trade, subsequently exerted a dominant influence on the economic life of the world. While she was gaining her colonies, England set the standard for currencies, because it was precisely through England that gold was forced on those countries which adopted it throughout the world. For, as you may easily compute, in economic intercourse with a rich country having a gold currency, any country which did not possess it would be at a disadvantage. In a word, we may say that under the influence of world-trade England became the leading economic power.
Moreover, while this was going on, it was still possible to develop concepts of national economy in a straight line—with whatever modifications and improvements—from Hume, Adam Smith and Ricardo, and, we may add, Karl Marx—for fundamentally, though he turned their ideas pretty well upside down, Karl Marx only continued along the same lines. The ideas of these economists are only to be understood if we have before us the picture of that economic life, which arose under the dominating influence of England's economic power.
Now with the last third of the nineteenth century, there was a transition from world-trade to world-economy. It is a very remarkable process—this passage from world-trade into world-economy. Definitions are of course inexact, for these transitions tend to take place in successive stages; but if we want a definition we must say: At the stage of world-trade the economic life of the world is characterised by single national economies exchanging with one another. This traffic quickens the whole process of exchange and thus essentially alters prices—alters the whole structure of economic life. But for the rest—in all other respects—the economic life is carried on within the several territories. As against this it may be called “world-economy” when the single economic units not only exchange their products one with another, but when they actually work together industrially: when, for example, half-manufactured products are sent from one country to another, for their manufacture to be continued there. That is a radical example of what I mean by their working together industrially. So long as it is merely a question of raw products, the account will continue to show a condition of pure trade. This cannot yet be described as an actual working-together in the industrial life. But when all factors in human life (in so far as they are affected by economics), that is to say, when all production, all distribution, all consumption—not merely production alone or consumption alone—are fed from the entire world; when all things are intricately interwoven and fed from the entire world—then we have world-economy. And through the rise of this world-economy, certain advantages which existed formerly for the national economies are lost.
Let us look back once more. When private economies join into a national economy, ladies and gentlemen, they gain on the whole; they derive advantages. Every single one derives advantages. But, apart from this, what is it that impels them? It is of course not always conscious insight which impels them thus to join together. Their joining together is, as a rule, not brought about by conscious economic insight, for in most cases the feeling for liberty is too great; the private business man is not as concerned as all that with the piling up of the profits which arise in this way. Economically, these profits certainly arise; but the process is more complicated than that. The fact is that the single private economies or businesses have the same characteristic as every living organism. Namely, their life tends in the course of time to become weaker and weaker. It is a universal law and it applies equally to economic life. An economic life which is not being constantly improved always deteriorates. Thus, as a rule, the merging into larger “wholes” did not take place with the object of making private businesses profitable beyond their original level, but with the object of protecting them from imminent decline.
When once they join together, they gain the corresponding advantage, though of course it varies from one case to another. And we may say that whatever the single economies have lost in course of time is amply made up for by their joining into national economies. Indeed, as a rule, it is more than compensated. Moreover, whatever the national economies have lost in course of time is amply made up for by world-trade and the transition into world-economy. But when world-economy is once achieved, what then? With whom can it exchange? This, in effect, is what has happened. We have seen the economic life of the entire Earth gradually merging into world-economy. And at this point the possibility of reaping further advantages by merger is at an end.
The economists who declared that the World-War could not last as long as in fact it did last were thinking in terms of national economies, and not of world-economy. If world-economy had been national economy, their declarations would have been quite true. But from the very beginning the World-War had the tendency to spread and spread, and by this very fact it had a longer life.
If in the state of world-economy we continue to think in the spirit of national economies, world-economy itself will at a certain point break up. Even if the break-up had not already been precipitated by various dark forces, this would have been the inevitable outcome of men's continuing to think in terms of national economy.
You see how there play into the economic domain circumstances which are quite clearly perceptible, but which cannot in the nature of things be easily taken hold of with figures and statistics. And this will show you, ladies and gentlemen, that it is quite impossible to prolong in a straight line the old economic ideas. We are obliged to admit that a science of Economics is now needed which will express the realities of the immediate present. The economic categories formed about a century ago no longer hold good to-day. What we need is an Economic Science capable of thinking in the spirit of world-economy. Herein you see one of our greatest historical problems.
Observe the leading statesmen of to-day coming together at Versailles, Genoa or the Hague. Science has only provided them with a way of thinking in terms of national economy. Whatever results they arrive at, unless and until they are permeated with world-economic thinking, must lead down-hill. Can they deny that they are tearing the economic life still more to pieces, erecting fresh artificial barriers and thus hindering the transition into a pure world-economy? We see this tendency in the immediate past—the tendency to break the world asunder as far as possible even in the economic life, and at the same time to conceal the tendency under the cloak of political and national pleas. Yet we shall have to pass into a real world-economy and a corresponding Economic Science, or we shall create an economically impossible state of affairs over the Earth. Such a condition of affairs can only continue in being for a time through one part of the Earth stealing advantages at the expense of another by means of differences in currency or the rates of exchange. This is precisely what is happening in economic life at the present moment.
To conceive what world-economics really means, we must see clearly, to begin with, that at the frontiers of the domain of world-economy (if we may use the expression) the conditions will be quite different from those of economic domains bordering on one another. Relatively speaking, world-economy exists today; and therefore, relatively speaking, a Science of World-Economy will have to follow. The domain of world-economy borders on nothing else, and this makes it necessary for us to observe still more precisely those economic processes which emerge within a closed economic domain, independently of its external frontiers. The cardinal problem for modern Economics to solve is the problem of the closed economic domain—a self-contained domain of one giant economy. For today the very smallest question—even the price of breakfast coffee—is influenced by the economic life of the entire Earth. If it is not so, it only means that progress is partial. This state of affairs is actually on the way and our thinking will have to follow suit.
To understand the economic conditions in a closed economic domain, we must see clearly that within the economic domain—in the mutual interplay of production, consumption and commerce (that is, in effect, circulation)—we have on the one hand consumable commodities, some of them relatively lasting, no doubt; while on the other hand we have the thing we call “money.” Now as regards the form of economy to which these things are subject, it makes an essential difference whether we envisage the class of foodstuffs for example (short-lived products) or of clothing (more long-lived) or, let us say, of furniture or houses (more long-lived still). With respect to their use and consumption we have these important differences of duration as between different kinds of economic products. As an instance of a really lasting economic product, we might point once more to the diamond in the Crown of England, or any other crown. Or, again, we might think of the Sistine Madonna. Such things may be to some extent regarded as a kind of product that will keep; we find them especially among works of art. Now in a social organism subject to division of Labour, having therefore an extensive process of circulation, there must be some equivalent of every product. There must be the money-value, representing the price. But a very little observation of the economic realm will convince you that this equivalent between the commodity-value and the money-value is fluctuating. A product is worth so much at one place and so much at another. A product can be worth more if it is worked up in one way, or less if it is worked up in another. Be that as it may, however, in the total economic life you will perceive that, apart from a few exceptional goods of very long duration, we always have to do with goods which pass away in time. They lose their value, and after a certain lapse of time are no longer there.
The one exception, strange to say, in our whole economic life is money. Although it occupies a position of perfect equivalence to the other elements of economic life, money does not wear out. You can get to the root of the matter in this way: If I have £20 worth of potatoes, I must see to it that I get rid of them. I must do something to get rid of them. After a time they are no longer there; they are used up, they are gone. Now if it were in a true relation of equivalence to the goods that are produced, money, too, would have to wear out, like other goods. That is to say, if the body economic contains money which is incapable of being used up—money which does not wear out—we may well be giving money the advantage over goods, which do wear out. This is a most important point and it becomes all the more so when we take the following into account. Think of all that I must do, if—let us say—through my activity and Labour I want to thrive so well that as a result of having a certain amount of potatoes today I shall have double the amount in 15 years' time. And think, on the other hand, how little an individual person has to do if he possesses £20 in money today and wishes to possess double the amount in 15 years' time. He need do nothing at all; he can withdraw his entire labour-power from the social organism and let other people work. All he need do is to lend his money and let other people do the work. Unless he himself in the meantime sees to it that the money is spent, the money need not be used up.
This is the very thing which brings into the body social so much of what is afterwards felt—shall we say—as a social anomaly, as an injustice. Indeed, gigantic changes are brought about in the body social, even economically speaking, by this reshuffling—I will not say of the relationships of property (I will not speak of these) but of the relationships of work and activity. And we may ask: How are these changes related to another factor, by which it is perhaps more easy to apprehend them? For there is still something rather vague about it if I merely describe empirically, as I did just now, this existing discrepancy as between money and the real objects in the economic organism. How can we get a picture-thought of some particular instance?
We can get a picture of it if we consider, to begin with, how absolutely fundamental for the whole economy of a closed domain is the consumption by all the human beings contained in it. This is the very first premiss: the total consumption by all the human beings who live in the economic domain. That is something which is simply there; it is presupposed: the consumption by all the human beings contained in any economic domain.
But there is also another thing which is of fundamental significance; and that is the land as such. Though this was badly misunderstood by the Physiocrats, for example, nevertheless the land is of fundamental significance, in spite of the fact, which has emerged from these lectures, that it must be constantly devalued. Indeed, it is just because of its fundamental significance that it must again and again be devalued. The Physiocrats made the following mistake. They lived in a time when land (as is of course still the case) had capital value. They conceived their ideas under the influence of this fact. They traced the economic relationships, indeed, in a very clear and graphic way. Of all the economists, they were the most rational. And from their standpoint they came to the conclusion that the intrinsic worth of an economic realm lies in the cultivation of the land, i.e., in the production of those goods which actually serve for the nourishment of man. So long as we remain within this field, we must in fact regard the land as the more or less fixed and given foundation of that which constitutes the intrinsic worth of an economic realm. You need only reflect how the workers who work upon the land, who unite with their Labour the Nature-products which subsequently serve for human nourishment, do in effect—so far as food is concerned—feed all the others along with themselves. All others are dependent on them; all others must be nourished by them. The others, it is true, can somehow get the means to pay for it, and pay more or less dearly. But we may think it out in simple terms in order to grasp the essential point. Let us suppose that there is a certain number, A, of eaters. This number A will include all the farm-workers, all the industrial workers, all the investors, all the traders, all the spiritual workers, right up to the freest spiritual life. All these require feeding. There will be another number, B, of those who have nourishment to offer. That is to say, B is the number of those who by their work really provide whatever passes over directly into human nourishment—into that part of the sum-total of economic consumption which represents the food consumed. Now if A is increased to A1, while B remains constant, B's product will have to be further divided; and unless B can also be increased in its value somehow, people will have to be brought into the country and the yield of the land increased.
In other words, you cannot arbitrarily increase the number of spiritual workers, for example, within a given economic domain, without increasing on the other side the number of those who are responsible for the production of foodstuffs. Alternatively you can increase the fertility of the soil. The latter may, of course, be the achievement of spiritual workers, but in that case it follows that the spiritual workers of a period when the fertility is higher must be wiser; they must have higher faculties than those who went before them. Thus the increased yield of farm-Labour is in a certain sense equivalent to the enhancement of the insight with which we elaborate the products we receive from Nature. This may be done in many different ways. A man may enhance the forestry of a whole country by improving the bird-life of the country. It may be done in countless ways; we are only concerned with the principle.
So long as we are only thinking in terms of national economy, it is clear enough that such things can happen. Into a country endowed with a lesser degree of insight cleverer people may immigrate from another country, and they may then improve the cultivation of the land. Or, on the other hand, if more people move up into the classes which are not actually producing food, fresh workers may be called into the country. All these things actually happen within and across the frontiers of national economies which border upon other national economies.
All that we can think upon this matter may now be expressed in the question: What is to be done if on the side of A consumption is in excess of what B can produce? Whatever we may think at this point in terms of purely national economy, it ceases to be thinkable when world-economy arises, and when the conditions of the world are already in a certain sense disposed as for world-economy. What we have to do, ladies and gentlemen, is to form an idea of the changes entailed by the existence of a self-contained economic domain.
We can study it empirically by observing some small economy wherein exports and imports can be more or less disregarded. After all, there have been such economies. Empirically, we can study the condition within a self-contained economic realm. And we find it true: The foundation is the land. What the land yields is subjected to Labour—elaborated—and thus receives an economic value. Thereafter Labour itself is organised. We come to the class of men who are no longer actual producers of food, who are consumers but not producers so far as food is concerned. Above all, when we come to the spiritual workers, we have consumers and not producers, so far as foodstuffs are concerned. In a self-contained economic realm we must therefore distinguish, with respect to food, a certain number of producers who indeed—if I may say so—are very much aware of the fact that they are the producers; and over against them the consumers.
These things, of course, are relative; the transition is gradual. But if we consider the whole of human life within a self-contained economic realm of this kind, we must bring about what I explained a few days ago: The Capital must not be allowed to become congested. Hence at the place where the spiritual life is most highly evolved in the forming of Capital (this “place” is of course spread out throughout the entire economic realm) the excess of Capital which has been acquired must not be allowed to flow into the land, where it would become dammed up. Provision must be made for the elimination of the excess Capital. The Capital must not be allowed to become congested in the land. That is to say, at an earlier stage in the process, the congestion must be prevented by the free gift, to spiritual institutions, of the excess which has been acquired. Only what I described as a kind of “seed” must be allowed to pass on. It is here that the concept of “free gift” confronts us inevitably; there must be free gifts.
Study any of the self-contained economic realms which have arisen in the course of history, and you will see that the free gift is always there. In all essentials, the spiritual life is dependent on what, in the economic sense of the word, are free gifts, pure and simple.
From the simple case where Charles the Bald, out of what he had to give away, maintained his Court Philosopher (which some may regard as a rather superfluous article of furniture!)—Scotus Erigena—to Peter's Pence whereby the Roman Catholics of all the world give their free gifts to the Church in tiny doses, such gifts are always there. Wheresoever an economic life, no matter how gigantic it may become, represents an economic domain more or less self-contained, you have the transformation of accumulated Capital into gift-Capital for the maintenance of spiritual institutions.
In other words, now that we have inevitably come to a closed economic realm, namely that of the entire world, we should reflect that one thing is inevitable in a truly economic sense: What would otherwise become dammed up in the land must vanish into spiritual institutions. I say once more, it must somehow vanish into the spiritual institutions. It must take effect as a free gift.
For a truly modern Economic Science, we must seek an answer to this question: How (in the sense of economics) must we buy and sell, so that the values, primarily created as food-values within the purely material realm, may vanish within the spiritual domain? That is the great question. I will formulate it once more: What form of payment must we strive for in our economic intercourse, so that that which is created by the elaboration of Nature, where the productive process primarily works for the nutrition of mankind, eventually vanishes in spiritual institutions? This is the great economic question, to the answering of which we shall proceed in the next lecture.
Elfter Vortrag
Sie werden ja vielleicht wissen, daß nach der Meinung einer gewissen Anzahl von Volkswirtschaftern es unmöglich war, daß der Weltkrieg so lange gedauert hat, als er gedauert hat; denn diese Volkswirtschafter haben aus ihren Erkenntnissen der volkswirtschaftlichen Zusammenhänge heraus erklärt, daß das Wirtschaftsleben, so wie es einmal ist, nicht gestattet, daß ein so ausgedehnter Krieg, wie dieser Weltkrieg, länger als einige Monate dauere. Die Wirklichkeit hat ja, wie Sie wissen, hier diese Sache ganz stark widerlegt, und wenn man in einer sachgemäßen Weise heute seine Überlegungen anstellen würde, so würde man aus einer solchen Tatsache heraus die Notwendigkeit ableiten müssen, die Volkswirtschaftslehre schon deshalb zu revidieren. Wenn Sie aber sich heute die Mühe machen würden, einzugehen auf die Gründe, welche wenigstens gewisse Volkswirtschafter gehabt haben zu dieser ihrer Behauptung, so würden Sie nicht etwa überall zu der Behauptung kommen können, daß das alles Idioten waren. Das waren sie nämlich gar nicht. Sondern Sie würden sehen, daß ihre Gründe eigentlich gar nicht schlechte waren, und daß die überzeugende Kraft, die aus diesen Gründen hervorgegangen ist, keine allzu schwache war. Dennoch hat die Wirklichkeit die Sache widerlegt. Das Ergebnis der Wirklichkeit war, daß länger Krieg geführt werden konnte, als aus Überlegungen der Volkswirtschaft heraus möglich war. Es hat also offenbar die Volkswirtschaftslehre nicht die Wirklichkeit umspannt, sondern diese Wirklichkeit war anders, als die Volkswirtschaftslehre gemeint hat.
Man kann eine solche Sache nur verstehen, wenn man sich klarmacht, welches die Entwickelung des Wirtschaftslebens auf der Erde überhaupt ist. Denn diese Entwickelung des Wirtschaftslebens besteht eigentlich fortwährend in ihren einzelnen aufeinanderfolgenden Stadien, die auch nebeneinander noch fortwährend da sind. Genau ebenso, wie man sagen kann: Die heutigen niedersten organischen Formen haben eine gewisse Ähnlichkeit mit den ersten Lebewesen unserer Erdenentwickelung, die aber heute noch immer da sind — wenn auch etwas anders, aber ähnlich sind sie da neben den bis heute vollkommenst entwickelten -, so sind auch die Erscheinungen primitiverer Zustände im volkswirtschaftlichen Leben heute durchaus da neben denen, die eine höhere Stufe erlangt haben. — Nur tritt da noch etwas ganz Eigentümliches ein. Während im, sagen wir Tierreich, die primitiveren Formen neben den entwickelteren auch räumlich leben können, greifen in der Volkswirtschaft die primitiveren Vorgänge in die entwickelteren fortwährend ein. Das können wir höchstens vergleichen mit den Fällen, wo, sagen wir, Bakterien in vollkommenere Organismen eingreifen. Aber in der Volkswirtschaft ist das unendlich viel komplizierter noch; dennoch kann man sich, ich möchte sagen, ihre gewisse Grundstruktur vor Augen halten und aus ihr heraus wiederum wichtige Beiträge zu dem erhalten, in das wir dann gipfeln lassen wollen unsere ganze Betrachtung, wie ich schon öfter gesagt habe.
Die Volkswirtschaft muß ja in ihren primitiven Formen vorgestellt werden als die ländliche Privatwirtschaft von einer gewissen Größe. Diese Größe ist relativ; aber wir müssen uns schon klar sein darüber: Wenn diese ländliche Privatwirtschaft eine geschlossene ist, dann enthält sie in sich auch die anderen Glieder des sozialen Organismus, dann hat sie ihre eigene Verwaltung, unter Umständen ihre eigene Wehr, ihre eigene Verteidigung, auch ihre eigene Polizei, und dann hat sie ihr eigenes Geistesleben. Eine solche Privatwirtschaft, die ziemlich ins Riesenmäßige ausgewachsen war, aber doch den Charakter einer primitiven ländlichen Privatwirtschaft im wesentlichen beibehalten hatte, war dasjenige, was man das Reich der Merowinger nannte. Das Reich der Merowinger ist ja nur ein Reich dann, wenn man diesen Begriff sehr äußerlich betrachtet, aber ganz gewiß ist es kein Staat gewesen. Es war eigentlich ein großer Gutsbesitz, der eben nur eine sehr große Fläche umfaßt hat. Und die ganze soziale Struktur im Merowingerreich war eigentlich nicht anders, als daß das Wirtschaftliche gewissermaßen zugrunde lag, daß sich ein Verwaltungsapparat auf baute nach den Anschauungen des damaligen Rechtes, das er auch zu verwirklichen hatte, und daß sich hineinstellte gerade damals ein für die damaligen Verhältnisse außerordentlich freies Geistesleben. Denn die große Unfreiheit des Geisteslebens haben wir ja in der neueren Zivilisation erst heraufziehen sehen unter dem Einfluß des Liberalismus. Erst als dieser Liberalismus gekommen ist, ist eigentlich das Geistesleben immer unfreier und unfreier geworden, und den Gipfelpunkt der Unfreiheit wird Ihnen das Geistesleben ja zeigen in der Verwirklichung aller staatlichen Glückseligkeiten, in der Sowjetrepublik in Rußland. Da dürfen ja nur Bücher verkauft werden, die approbiert sind von der Sowjetregierung. Der Papst verbietet wenigstens nur die Bücher; die Sowjetregierung in Rußland regelt aber nicht nur die Verbote, sondern die regeln sich von selber, weil gar nicht andere Bücher erscheinen können als diejenigen, die erlaubt sind.
Wenn wir nun die Entwickelung weiter verfolgen, so sehen wir, wie im Laufe der Entwickelung allmählich übergegangen ist das Privatwirtschaftliche in das Volkswirtschaftliche, das dann eingelaufen ist zu einer bestimmten Zeit im Beginne der neueren Geschichte in die Staatswirtschaft. Das geschieht ja sehr charakteristisch, indem die Privatwirtschaft, die Initiative der Privatwirtschaft allmählich übergeht in die Verwaltungskörper, indem das Fiskalische sich zur Wirtschaft auswächst. Und so sehen wir, wie übergeht das Wirtschaftliche in das Staatsleben, wie aufgesogen wird das Geistesleben vom Staatsleben, und wir sehen dann den neueren wirtschaftlichen und geistigen Staatsorganismus entstehen, der immer mächtiger und mächtiger geworden ist als Staatsorganismus, und von dem wir uns ja klar sind, daß er wiederum .eine gewisse Gliederung erfahren muß, wenn das Wirtschaftsleben weitergehen soll.
Nun aber, von alledem interessiert uns hier nicht diese Dreigliederung, sondern die Zusammenfügung von Privatwirtschaften, wie sie ja meist geschehen ist in einem größeren Komplex, so daß tatsächlich aus Privatwirtschaften sich so etwas ergibt, wie Wirtschaft in einem größeren Komplex: Volkswirtschaft, also dasjenige, was eine neue soziale Struktur schafft, aber noch das Privatwirtschaftliche fort erhält, also das Primitive noch als Einschluß hat. Was entsteht da im eigentlichen volkswirtschaftlichen Sinn? Da entsteht Austausch zwischen den einzelnen Privatwirtschaften, Austausch, der in der verschiedensten Weise geregelt wird. Aber diese Regelung schwebt wie eine Wolke über dem Ganzen. Aber es ist so, daß der Austausch, das heißt der Handel zwischen den einzelnen Privatwirtschaften, dasjenige ist, was durch dieses Zusammenlegen der Privatwirtschaften zur Volkswirtschaft im wesentlichen eintritt. Nun, das hat die Folge, daß, weil ja, wie wir gesehen haben gestern, beim volkswirtschaftlichen Austausch jeder einen Vorteil hat, wenigstens haben kann, daß die einzelnen Wirtschaften, die sich da zum Austausch, der ja wirtschaftlich das Wesentliche ist, zusammentun, daß sie Vorteil haben. Also wir erleben, daß die einzelnen Wirtschaften Vorteil haben durch diesen Zusammenschluß, einfach weil sie miteinander Austausch treiben können. Und man kann das ganz bilanzmäßig berechnen, wieviel die eine Privatwirtschaft an den anderen Privatwirtschaften, mit denen sie in einem wirtschaftlichen Verband ist, gewinnt. Jede gewinnt irgend etwas, was dann wiederum im volkswirtschaftlichen Sinn eine Bedeutung hat.
Als nun die neuere Volkswirtschaftslehre in der verschiedensten Weise begründet worden ist, da war man im wesentlichen so weit, daß sich die volkswirtschaftlichen Körper aus den privatwirtschaftlichen heraus gebildet haben. Und wenn man zum Beispiel die volkswirtschaftlichen Anschauungen von Ricardo, von Adam Smith verstehen will, dann muß man dasjenige, was diese Leute an Gedanken über die Volkswirtschaft entwickelt haben, daraus verstehen, daß ihre Anschauung bestanden hat in diesem Zusammenwirken von Privatwirtschaften. Bei Adam Smith können Sie überall sehen, wie er vielfach aus Privatwirtschaften heraus denkt und seine Schlüsse zieht. Und das andere Bild war der Zusammenschluß zu einer Volkswirtschaft. Aber über diesen Zusammenschluß haben sie so gedacht, daß ihnen ein gut Teil des privatwirtschaftlichen Denkens geblieben ist, und so haben sie zumeist solche Ansichten ausgebildet, welche die Volkswirtschaft ähnlich behandelt haben wie die Privatwirtschaft, daß man die Fruchtbarkeit der Volkswirtschaft darin gesehen hat, daß nun wieder eine Volkswirtschaft mit der anderen in Austausch kommt, in Wechselwirkung kommt und dadurch Vorteil gewinnt. Das Merkantilsystem zum Beispiel hat darin bestanden, daß man es aufbaute aus den Vorteilen, die sich daraus ergaben.
Nun wird sich aber schon beim Zusammenschluß einzelner Privatwirtschaften zu einer großen Volkswirtschaft etwas herausstellen wie eine Art von Führung, die einfach die mächtigste Privatwirtschaft haben würde, welche aufgegangen ist in einem solchen Komplex. Diese Tatsache, die zweifellos eingetreten wäre beim Übergang des Privatwirtschaftens in das Volkswirtschaftliche, die ist eben gerade dadurch maskiert, kaschiert worden, ist nicht voll zum Ausdruck gekommen, daß das Staatliche übernommen hat diese Führung. Es würde sonst eben eine, nämlich die mächtigste, Privatwirtschaft die führende geworden sein. So daß, ich möchte sagen, allmählich hinübergeströmt ist, hinübergekollert ist dasjenige, was die einzelnen Privatwirtschaften hatten, in die Staatswirtschaft.
Aber als dann wirklich im Verlauf der neueren Zeit nun wieder der Austausch, die Wechselwirkung zwischen den einzelnen Volkswirtschaften, das heißt der Weltverkehr, immer umfassender und umfassender wurde, da zeigte sich nun allerdings, daß diese Führung eintrat, und diese Führung, die trat ein, indem sich, wie etwas Selbstverständliches, in dem wirtschaftlichen Fortgang England mit seiner Volkswirtschaft als eben die dominierende Volkswirtschaft in der neueren Zeit ergeben hat. Und wenn ich Sie schon von einem anderen Gesichtspunkt aus darauf aufmerksam gemacht habe, daß ja England eine kontinuierliche Entwickelung hatte vom Handel nach der Industrie hin, so muß man auf der anderen Seite auch wiederum sagen, daß England während der Erwerbung seiner Kolonien das tonangebende Land geworden ist für die Festsetzung der Währung. Seine Kolonien haben sich ja, wie es sonst bei Privatwirtschaften war, zu einem größeren Wirtschaftskomplex zusammengeschlossen. Dadurch sind zunächst die inneren Vorteile entstanden, die immer beim Austausch entstehen; aber es ist auch jene mächtige wirtschaftliche Führerschaft eingetreten, der es dann möglich war, dadurch eine dominierende Stellung auszuüben im Wirtschaftsleben der Welt bei sich vervollkommnendem Weltverkehr. Das tonangebende Land ist England für die Festsetzung der Währung dadurch geworden, daß nur durch England die Goldwährung erzwungen worden ist in der Welt, wo sie durchgeführt worden ist, weil, wie leicht berechnet werden kann, gegenüber einem reichen goldwährigen Land im Wechselverkehr mit diesem das andere Land, das nicht Goldwährung hätte, eben dadurch Nachteil haben würde. Nun, so können wir sagen: Es ist unter dem Einfluß des Weltverkehrs England die führende Wirtschaftsmacht geworden.
Man kann eigentlich sagen: Solange das so war, konnte man seine volkswirtschaftlichen Begriffe, vielleicht immer mit einiger Änderung und Vervollkommnung, in der geradlinigen Fortsetzung desjenigen ausbilden, was da /7a me, Adam Smith, Ricardo, und eigentlich im Grunde genommen in der Fortsetzung davon dann, nur ja stark auf den Kopf gestellt, Kar/ Marx ausgebildet haben. Denn alles das ist nur zu verstehen, wenn man von den Gedanken, die sich die Leute gemacht haben, die Bilder hat jenes Wirtschaftslebens, das entstanden ist unter dem dominierenden Einfluß der englischen Wirtschaftsmacht.
Nun ist mit dem letzten Drittel des letzten Jahrhunderts der Weltverkehr übergegangen in die Weltwirtschaft, und das ist ein außerordentlicher Übergang, dieser Übergang vom Weltverkehr zur Weltwirtschaft. Wenn wir Definitionen geben, so sind sie natürlich nicht genau, weil die Dinge sukzessive ineinander übergehen wollen. Aber wir müssen sagen: Beim Weltverkehr haben wir die Wirtschaft der Welt darinnen bestehend, daß wir einzelne Volkswirtschaften haben, die untereinander austauschen. Und der Verkehr, der steigert den Austausch, fördert den Austausch und ändert dadurch im wesentlichen alle Preise, die ganze Struktur der Volkswirtschaft. Aber es ist nur dieses da: gewirtschaftet wird eigentlich, in bezug auf alles übrige, in den einzelnen Gebieten. Weltwirtschaft ist dann da, wenn die einzelnen Wirtschaftskörper nicht nur ihre Produkte miteinander austauschen, sondern wenn sie nun auch miteinander wirtschaften, das heißt, wenn zum Beispiel Halbfabrikate von dem einen Land in das andere gehen, wo sie weiterfabriziert werden. Da haben wir dann ein radikales Beispiel vom Zusammenwirtschaften. Wenn es sich nur handelt um die Rohprodukte, wird immer noch bilanzmäßig der reine Verkehr aufrechterhalten. Das kann man noch nicht ein Zusammenwirtschaften nennen. Wenn aber wirklich alle Faktoren des menschlichen Lebens, insofern sie vom Wirtschaftlichen berührt werden, also alle Produktion, aller Verkehr, aller Konsum, gespeist werden aus der ganzen Welt, nicht etwa bloß die Produktion oder der Konsum, sondern alles ineinandergehend gespeist wird aus der ganzen Welt, dann entsteht die Weltwirtschaft. Dann werden aber durch die Entstehung der Weltwirtschaft gewisse Vorteile, die früher vorhanden waren, bei den Volkswirtschaften ausgelöscht.
Sehen wir noch einmal zurück: wenn sich Privatwirtschaften zu Volkswirtschaften zusammenschließen, dann ist das so, daß sie im Ganzen gewinnen, Vorteile haben - jede einzelne. Was drängt aber außerdem noch dazu? Es ist ja nicht immer die Einsicht, die sie dazu drängt, diesen Zusammenschluß zu vollziehen. Es ist so, daß der Zusammenschluß eigentlich nicht durch die wirtschaftliche Einsicht bewirkt wird, weil zumeist das Freiheitsgefühl ein viel zu großes ist. Es ist den Privatwirtschaftern gar nicht so sehr darum zu tun, Vorteile einzuheimsen, die entstehen. Volkswirtschaftlich betrachtet sind dann diese Vorteile da; aber die Sache ist doch noch komplizierter. Die einzelnen Wirtschaften haben nämlich die Eigentümlichkeit eines jeden Organismus, daß sie übergehen in ein immer schwächeres und schwächeres Leben. Das ist einfach allgemeines Weltgesetz, auch für das Wirtschaftsleben. Ein Wirtschaftsleben, das keine Aufbesserung erfährt, geht herunter. Und Zusammenschlüsse entstanden im wesentlichen nicht deshalb, weil man die ursprünglich auf einer gewissen Höhe befindlichen Privatwirtschaften zu einer noch größeren Fruktifikation zusammenschließen wollte, sondern weil man sie behüten wollte vor dem Heruntergehen. So daß man sagen kann: Der Vorteil des Zusammenschließens ist da, wenn sie sich zusammenschließen. — Das ist ja auch für die einzelnen Zusammenschließungen verschieden. So daß man sagen kann: Was die einzelnen Wirtschaften verlieren an innerem Werte, das wird jedenfalls reichlich wettgemacht, gewöhnlich ist ein Überschuß da, durch den Zusammenschluß der Privatwirtschaften in Volkswirtschaften. — Dasjenige, was die Volkswirtschaften allmählich an inneren Werten verlieren, das wird reichlich wettgemacht durch den Weltverkehr und den Übergang zur Weltwirtschaft. Wenn aber die Weltwirtschaft da ist, mit wem soll denn die tauschen? Und wir haben in der Tat das gesamte Wirtschaftsleben der Erde allmählich einlaufen sehen in die Weltwirtschaft. Da hört die Möglichkeit auf, noch durch Zusammenschlüsse Vorteile zu erzielen.
Diejenigen Menschen nun, welche gesagt haben, der Weltkrieg könne nicht so lange dauern, wie er gedauert hat, die haben volkswirtschaftlich gedacht, nicht weltwirtschaftlich; denn wäre die Weltwirtschaft eine Volkswirtschaft gewesen, dann wäre es wahr gewesen. Aber indem tatsächlich der Weltkrieg von Anfang an die Tendenz gehabt hatte, sich immer mehr und mehr auszudehnen, so hatte er schon ein längeres Leben. Wenn volkswirtschaftlich weitergedacht wird innerhalb der Weltwirtschaft, so muß die Weltwirtschaft in einem bestimmten Punkt zusammenbtrechen. Sie hätte das auch müssen, wenn man volkswirtschaftlich weitergedacht hätte, wenn nicht schon vorher aus allerlei dunklen Kräften heraus man diesen Zusammenbruch befördert hätte.
So spielen deutlich erschaubare, aber natürlich weniger deutlich mit Zahlen erfaßbare Verhältnisse ins Wirtschaftsleben herein. Und das wird Ihnen bedeuten, daß es einfach unmöglich ist, in geradliniger Weise fortzusetzen die früheren volkswirtschaftlichen Begriffe, daß wir einfach vor der Notwendigkeit stehen, zu sagen: Wir brauchen heute eine Volkswirtschaftslehre, die aus der unmittelbaren Gegenwart heraus redet, und die auch einsieht, daß alle diejenigen volkswirtschaftlichen Kategorien, die man etwa vor einem Jahrhundert gebildet hat, heute nicht mehr gelten können. Wir brauchen heute wirklich eine Wirtschaftswissenschaft - müssen wir jetzt sagen -, die weltwirtschaftlich denken kann. Und hier sehen Sie eines unserer allergrößten historischen Probleme.
Wenn die heutigen führenden Persönlichkeiten in Versailles, in Genua, im Haag zusammenkommen, dann hat ihnen die Wissenschaft zunächst nur volkswirtschaftliches Denken gegeben. Sie können also nichts anderes tun als dasjenige, was, bevor man es durchsetzt mit weltwirtschaftlichem Denken, notwendigerweise in den Untergang hineingeht. Können sie etwa leugnen, daß sie die Wirtschaft. weiter zerpflücken, daß sie weitere Schranken aufbauen, so daß man verzögert diesen Übergang in die reineWWeltwirtschaft? Daher die Tendenz der allerletzten Zeit, die Welt möglichst auch wirtschaftlich zu zerklüften, indem man dieses Zerklüften in politische und nationale Masken steckt. Aber man muß übergehen zu einer Weltwirtschaft, Weltwirtschaftswissenschaft, oder aber ein unmögliches Erdengebilde in wirtschaftlicher Beziehung herstellen, das nur leben kann, wenn der eine Teil auf Kosten des anderen sich durch Valutadiflerenzen wirtschaftliche Vorteile verschafft. Da sehen Sie in der Tat gerade auf dem Wirtschaftswege intensiv hinein in dasjenige, was unmittelbar in der Gegenwatt eigentlich geschieht.
Nun handelt es sich ja darum, daß, wenn wir uns das Weltwirtschaftliche vorstellen, wir uns klar darüber sein müssen, daß gewissermaßen an den Grenzen des Weltwirtschaftsgebietes andere Verhältnisse eintreten als im Wirtschaftsgebiete, das an andere angrenzt. Und das Weltwirtschaftsgebiet, es ist ja heute relativ da, aber so, daß auch die Weltwirtschaftswissenschaft relativ folgen muß. Das Weltwirtschaftsgebiet grenzt an nichts anderes an, und das macht notwendig, daß man noch genauer auf gewisse wirtschaftliche Vorgänge hinschaut, die sich unabhängig von den Grenzen innerhalb des geschlossenen Wirtschaftsgebietes nun herausstellen. Es ist heute als das Kardinalproblem für die Wirtschaftswissenschaft das des geschlossenen Wirtschaftsgebietes, Riesenwirtschaftsgebietes, zu lösen. Denn die kleinste Frage, auch die Frage des Preises zum Beispiel unseres Frühstückskaffees, ist etwas, was heute unter dem gesamten Einfluß des Wirtschaftslebens der Erde steht. Und wenn es das noch nicht ist, so bedeutet das, daß die Dinge relativ fortschreiten; aber es ist auf dem Weg und unser Denken muß da nachlaufen.
Um aber im geschlossenen Wirtschaftsgebiet die wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse zu studieren, müssen wir uns klar sein, daß wir innerhalb ‚des Wirtschaftsgebietes in der Wechselwirkung von Produktion, Konsumtion und Verkehr - eigentlich Zirkulation — dasjenige haben, was nun konsumfähige Ware ist, verbrauchbare Ware ist, vielleicht auch im relativen Sinn Dauerware ist, und dasjenige, was Geld ist. Es ist ja ein wesentlicher Unterschied mit Bezug auf die Wirtschaftsform, der die Dinge unterliegen, ob wir ins Auge fassen das Gebiet der Lebensmittel zum Beispiel: das sind kurzlebige Produkte, oder das Gebiet der Kleidung: das sind schon längerlebige Produkte, oder, sagen wir dasjenige, was in Zimmereinrichtungen, in Häusern liegt: das ist noch längerlebig. Also in bezug auf den Gebrauch bekommen wir wichtige Zeitunterschiede der wirtschaftlichen Ergebnisse. Ein Dauerprodukt des wirtschaftlichen Lebens wäre zum Beispiel, sagen wir, der ja von anderem Gesichtspunkte Ihnen schon vorgeführte Stein in der Krone von England oder in anderen Kronen, oder auch die Sixtinische Madonna und so weiter; da drinnen würden wir in gewissem Sinne eine Art von Dauerergebnissen sehen müssen; namentlich im Künstlerischen würden wir vielfach eine Art von Dauerergebnissen sehen müssen. Nun muß aber in dem sozialen Organismus, der der Arbeitsteilung unterliegt, der daher auch eine ausgebreitetere Zirkulation hat, für jedes Erzeugnis ein Äquivalent bestehen. Der Geldeswert, der der Preis ist, der muß bestehen. Aber Sie können ja durch ein ganz einfaches Überblicken des Wirtschaftsgebietes sehen, daß diese Äquivalenz zwischen dem Warenwert und dem Geldeswert schwankend ist, veränderlich ist. Ein Produkt ist da das wert, an einem anderen Ort etwas anderes wert. Ein Produkt kann mehr wert sein, wenn es so verarbeitet ist, oder mehr, wenn es anders verarbeitet ist. Aber jedenfalls kann Ihnen daraus hervorgehen, daß wir es im gesamten wirtschaftlichen Leben, abgesehen von einigen relativ sehr lang anhaltenden Dauergütern, zu tun haben mit Gütern, die durchaus auch vergehen, entwertet werden, nach einiger Zeit jedenfalls nicht mehr da sind.
Just dasjenige, was Geld ist, das ist etwas, was merkwürdigerweise im volkswirtschaftlichen Leben, trotzdem es ganz in Äquivalenz steht mit den anderen volkswirtschaftlichen Elementen, sich nicht abnutzt. Radikal können Sie sich das dadurch vorstellen, daß Sie sich zum Beispiel denken: Ich habe für, sagen wir, fünfhundert Franken Kartoffeln. Wenn ich für diese fünfhundert Franken Kartoffeln habe, so muß ich dafür sorgen, daß ich sie losbringe, das heißt ich muß etwas tun, damit ich sie losbringe. Und nach einiger Zeit sind sie eben nicht mehr da, sind sie verbraucht, sind sie weg. Wenn das Geld in Äquivalenz steht mit den Gütern, mit den bearbeiteten Gütern, so müßte es sich abnützen. Das Geld müßte, genauso wie die anderen Güter, sich abnützen. Das heißt, wenn wir nicht abnutzbares Geld im volkswirtschaftlichen Körper drinnen haben, dann verschaffen wir unter Umständen dem Geld einen Vorteil gegenüber den abnützbaren Gütern. Das ist außerordentlich wichtig. Und es wird erst ganz wichtig, wenn man folgendes bedenkt: Wenn man bedenkt, was ich anwenden muß, wenn ich, sagen wir, nach fünfzehn Jahren durch meine ganze Betätigung so weit gekommen sein soll, daß ich dadurch, daß ich heute eine Menge Kartoffeln habe, dann die doppelte Menge Kartoffeln habe, von den Kartoffeln, die es dann geben wird; und wenn man nun bedenkt, wie wenig jemand als einzelne Persönlichkeit zu tun braucht, wenn er heute in Geld fünfhundert Franken hat, um das Doppelte zu haben in fünfzehn Jahren! Es genügt, wenn er gar nichts tut, wenn er seine gesamte Arbeitskraft dem sozialen Organismus entzieht und die anderen arbeiten läßt, daß er beleiht und die anderen arbeiten läßt. Wenn er mittlerweile nicht selber für den Verbrauch sorgt: das Geld hat es nicht nötig, sich abzunutzen.
Dadurch wird aber sehr viel von dem, was dann empfunden wird als eine soziale, sagen wir Unrichtigkeit, erst in den sozialen Körper hineingebracht. Im wesentlichen werden durch jene Umschichtungen und Umlagerungen, nicht etwa der Besitzverhältnisse - von denen will ich gar nicht reden -, aber der Arbeitsverhältnisse und der Betätigungsverhältnisse überhaupt, ungeheure Veränderungen auch in volkswirtschaftlicher Beziehung im sozialen Körper bewirkt, so daß man fragen kann: Diese Umwandlungen, diese Umschichtungen, die da bewirkt werden, in welchem Verhältnisse stehen sie zu einem anderen, an dem man sie in einer noch etwas besseren Weise fassen kann? Es hat noch etwas Unbestimmtes, wenn ich es Ihnen so empirisch, ich möchte sagen, schildere, was da als Unterschied des Geldes mit den Realien im volkswirtschaftlichen Organismus besteht. Wie kann man das im einzelnen im Bild nun fassen?
Im Bild können Sie das dann fassen, wenn Sie sich zunächst vorstellen, wie grundlegend sein muß für die gesamte Volkswirtschaft eines geschlossenen Gebietes der Konsum aller Menschen, die da drinnen sind in diesem Gebiete. Das ist dasjenige, was einmal als die erste Voraussetzung da ist, der Konsum aller derjenigen Menschen, die in diesem Gebiete drinnen sind.
Nun, etwas anderes hat auch noch eine gewisse grundlegende Bedeutung. Man hat diese grundlegende Bedeutung zum Beispiel bei den Physiokraten sehr mißverstanden. Etwas ist aber doch daran, daß dieses andere, nämlich der Grund und Boden, nun doch - wenn es sich auch an sich so herausgestellt hat, daß er fortwährend entwertet werden muß - eine grundlegende Bedeutung hat. Er muß gerade deshalb entwertet werden, weil er eine grundlegende Bedeutung hat. Die Physiokraten haben folgenden Fehler gemacht: Sie haben in einer Zeit gelebt, in der, wie es ja heute auch noch der Fall ist, eben der Grund und Boden Kapitalwert hatte. Unter dem Einfluß dieser Tatsache haben sie gedacht, haben sie die volkswirtschaftlichen Zusammenhänge nun auch verfolgt, sogar in einer recht anschaulichen Weise verfolgt - sie waren nämlich von allen Volkswirtschaftern noch die rationellsten -, und sind dazu gekommen, zu sagen von ihrem Standpunkt aus: Der volkswirtschaftliche innere Wert eines Wirtschaftsgebietes ruht eigentlich in der Kultur des Grund und Bodens, wenn wir unter Kultur des Grund und Bodens alles dasjenige zusammenfassen, was wir als Produktion solcher Güter aufzufassen haben, die im wesentlichen der Ernährung der Menschheit dienen. Solange wir innerhalb des Feldes der Ernährung stehenbleiben, haben wir in der Tat inGrund und Boden die Grundlage zu sehen, die mehr oder weniger feste Grundlage zu sehen für dasjenige, was den inneren Wert eines volkswirtschaftlichen Gebietes ausmacht. Denn denken Sie sich nur, daß ja diejenigen, die den Grund und Boden bearbeiten, also unmittelbar jene Naturprodukte mit Arbeit verbinden, die dann der Ernährung der Menschheit dienen, daß diese Arbeiter mit Bezug auf die Ernährung alle anderen miternähren; die anderen sind angewiesen auf sie; alle anderen werden miternährt von ihnen. Gewiß, die anderen können sich Mittel verschaffen, um das teuer zu bezahlen, aber im wesentlichen können wir ganz primitiv diese Sache auffassen. Wir können uns einfach vorstellen: Es ist da eine gewisse Anzahl, A, von Essern. In dieser Anzahl A sind alle landwirtschaftlichen Arbeiter, Industriearbeiter, Geldleiher, Handelsleute, geistigen Arbeiter bis in das freieste Geistesleben hinauf enthalten: das sind diejenigen, die Ernährung suchen. Und es sind da diejenigen, die Ernährung bieten, B, die also wirklich etwas bieten mit ihrer Arbeit, was in die unmittelbare Ernährung, das heißt in denjenigen Teil des Konsums übergeht, der der Ernährungskonsum ist. Wenn A! größer als A ist und B gleich bleibt, so muß einfach mehr geteilt werden, muß einfach dasjenige, was die B produzieren, mehr aufgeteilt werden. Und wenn tatsächlich B sich nicht durch irgend etwas auch in seinem Wert erhöhen läßt, dann müssen Leute einwandern und die Kulturfähigkeit des Grund und Bodens muß erhöht werden.
Sie können also nicht in einer beliebigen Art innerhalb eines Wirtschaftsgebietes zum Beispiel die Geistesarbeiter vermehren, ohne daß Sie dasjenige, was auf der anderen Seite liegt, diejenigen, die im wesentlichen die Produktion der Ernährung besorgen, auch vermehren. Oder es muß der andere Fall eintreten, daß die Kulturfähigkeit des Bodens erhöht wird. Das kann dann ausgehen von den geistigen Arbeitern. Da müssen aber die geistigen Arbeiter des Zeitalters, in dem die Kulturfähigkeit höher ist, gescheiter sein als die früheren, höhere Fähigkeiten haben als die früheren. Also in dieser Beziehung ist die Erhöhung der ländlichen Arbeit in gewissem Sinn äquivalent mit der Steigerung der Einsichten in die Bearbeitung desjenigen, was aus der Natur stammt. Das kann ja in der verschiedensten Weise sein. Dadurch, daß einer eine rationelle Vogelzucht einrichtet, dadurch kann er unter Umständen die Forstwirtschaft erhöhen. Das kann in der verschiedensten Weise geschehen; wir beschäftigen uns damit nur in prinzipieller Weise.
Solange man bloß volkswirtschaftlich denkt, ist es klar, daß diese Verhältnisse eintreten können. Es können in ein Land von geringeren Einsichten einwandern diejenigen, die schon gescheiter sind in einem anderen Land. Die können dann die Kultur des Grund und Bodens weiter fördern. Oder aber es können, wenn mehr Menschen in die Stände hinaufrücken, die nicht zu dem Nährstand gehören, Leute ins Land gerufen werden, Arbeiter ins Land gerufen werden. Alle diese Dinge spielen sich ja ab in den Volkswirtschaften der Gebiete, die an andere angrenzen oder auch darüber hinaus.
Das alles, was man über solche Dinge denken kann, kann man ausdrücken in der Frage: Wie hilft man ab, wenn auf der einen Seite, A, ein größerer Verbrauch entsteht, als B erzeugen kann? — Was man darüber volkswirtschaftlich denken kann, hört auf, gedacht werden zu können, wenn Weltwirtschaft eintritt und die Verhältnisse sich für die Weltwirtschaft in gewissem Sinne schon eingerichtet haben. Und wir müssen uns einfach Vorstellungen darüber machen, was da anders sein muß, wenn ein geschlossenes Wirtschaftsgebiet da ist.
Das kann man eigentlich zunächst empirisch studieren, wenn man die Kleinwirtschaft nimmt, bei der man ziemlich absehen kann - es hat ja solches immerhin gegeben - von dem Export und Import. Man kann das empirisch studieren, was in einem geschlossenen Wirtschaftskreis eigentlich für Verhältnisse vorliegen. Beim geschlossenen Wirtschaftskreis ist es schon so: Wir nehmen die Grundlage, den Grund und Boden. Dann wird dasjenige, was von Grund und Boden kommt, der Arbeit unterzogen, wird bearbeitet und erhält dadurch einen Wert. Die Arbeit wird dann organisiert: da kommen wir schon in das Menschengebiet hinein, das nun nicht mehr Nährstand ist, sondern das wohl in bezug auf die Nahrungsmittel konsumiert, aber nicht mehr produziert. Und insbesondere, wenn wir heraufkommen zu den geistigen Arbeitern, dann haben wir da Konsumenten, nicht Produzenten in bezug auf Nahrungsmittel. So daß wir unterscheiden müssen im geschlossenen Wirtschaftsgebiet in bezug auf die Ernährung ein produzierendes Feld, das auch sehr stark, ich möchte sagen, sich darauf versteift, ein bloß produzierendes Feld zu sein und ein konsumierendes Feld. Natürlich sind diese Dinge ganz relativ. Es geht allmählich über.
Aber wenn Sie sich nun das gesamte menschliche Leben denken in einem solchen geschlossenen Wirtschaftsgebiet, so muß eben strikte das da sein, was ich Ihnen vor einigen Tagen auseinandergesetzt habe: Es müssen, damit das Kapital nicht stockt, nicht eine Stauung erleidet, an derjenigen Stelle — natürlich ist das im ganzen Wirtschaftsgebiet ausgebreitet -, wo am entwickeltsten ist das geistige Leben in der Kapitalbildung, die erworbenen, erarbeiteten Überschüsse eben nicht hineinfließen in den Grund und Boden - sie würden sich da stauen -, sondern es muß dafür gesorgt werden, daß da Überschüsse nicht mehr vorhanden sind, daß da nichts an Kapital sich staut in Grund und Boden, das heißt, daß schon früher - durch Schenkungen desjenigen, das erarbeitet worden ist, an die geistigen Institutionen — verhindert worden ist, daß eine solche Stauung entstand, mit Ausnahme desjenigen, was ich da als Samen bezeichnet habe. Ja, da tritt uns also der Begriff der Schenkung in seiner vollen Notwendigkeit entgegen. Diese Schenkung muß da sein.
Studieren Sie solche geschlossenen Wirtschaftsgebiete, die in der Geschichte aufgetreten sind, so werden Sie auch sehen: diese Schenkungen sind schon überall da. Im wesentlichen sind es Schenkungen, auf die das geistige Leben angewiesen ist - im wirtschaftlichen Sinn Schenkungen. Sie sind da von dem Einfachen, daß sich Karl der Kahle aus dem, was er verschenken kann, seinen Hofphilosophen sogar hält, was sogar unter Umständen als ein sehr überflüssiges Möbel angesehen werden könnte - Scotus Erigena -, bis hinab zu dem Peterspfennig, wo die Katholiken aller Welt der Kirche ihre Schenkungen in ganz kleinen Dosen verabreichen. Sie haben überall, wo die Wirtschaft, wenn sie auch über gewisse Gebiete hin eine Riesenwirtschaft wird, ein geschlossenes Wirtschaftsgebiet darstellt, das Verwandeln des Kapitals, das erarbeitet worden ist, in Schenkungskapital da, wo es sich handelt um den Unterhalt der geistigen Institutionen.
Mit anderen Worten: Es müßte daran gedacht werden, wenn zwangsmäßig ein geschlossenes Wirtschaftsgebiet da ist, wie es die Weltwirtschaft ist, daß gar nichts anderes geschehen könnte im volkswirtschaftlichen Sinn, als daß alles dasjenige, was sonst sich staut in Grund und Boden, in den geistigen Institutionen verschwindet. Es müßte in den geistigen Institutionen verschwinden, es müßte wirken gleich einer Schenkung. Das heißt wir haben nötig, für die heutige wirkliche Wirtschaftswissenschaft aufzusuchen die Beantwortung der Frage: Wie müssen wir im wirtschaftlichen Sinn kaufen und verkaufen, damit innerhalb des geistigen Gebietes dasjenige an Werten verschwinde, was innerhalb des rein materiellen Gebietes an Ernährungswerten geschaffen wird? — Das ist die große Frage. Ich formuliere sie noch einmal: Welche Art von Zahlung im wirtschaftlichen Verkehr muß erstrebt werden, damit immer innerhalb der geistigen Institutionen dasjenige verschwindet, was geschaffen wird durch die verarbeitete Natur da, wo eben die Produktion arbeitet für die Ernährung der Menschheit? — Das ist die große volkswirtschaftliche Frage, an deren Beantwortung wir dann morgen gehen wollen.
Eleventh Lecture
You may be aware that, according to a certain number of economists, it was impossible for the world war to have lasted as long as it did; because these economists explained, based on their knowledge of economic interrelationships, that economic life as it is does not allow a war as extensive as this world war to last longer than a few months. As you know, reality has strongly refuted this view, and if one were to consider the matter objectively today, one would have to conclude from this fact that it is necessary to revise economic theory for this reason alone. However, if you were to take the trouble today to examine the reasons that at least some economists had for making this assertion, you would not be able to conclude that they were all idiots. They were not idiots at all. Instead, you would see that their reasons were not bad at all, and that the persuasive power that emerged from these reasons was not too weak. Nevertheless, reality has disproved this. The result of reality was that war could be waged for longer than was possible from an economic point of view. So it is clear that economic theory did not encompass reality, but that reality was different from what economic theory had intended.
One can only understand such a thing if one realizes what the development of economic life on earth actually is. For this development of economic life actually consists of successive stages, which also continue to exist side by side. Just as one can say that today's lowest organic forms bear a certain resemblance to the first living beings in our Earth's development, which are still there today — albeit somewhat different, but similar to those that have developed most perfectly to date — so too are the manifestations of more primitive states in economic life today still present alongside those that have attained a higher level. — Only something very peculiar comes into play here. While in, say, the animal kingdom, the more primitive forms can live alongside the more developed ones in the same space, in the economy the more primitive processes constantly interfere with the more developed ones. We can at best compare this to cases where, say, bacteria interfere with more perfect organisms. But in economics, this is infinitely more complicated; nevertheless, I would say that we can keep its basic structure in mind and use it to obtain important contributions to what we want to culminate in our entire consideration, as I have said many times before.
Economics must be presented in its primitive forms as rural private enterprise of a certain size. This size is relative, but we must be clear about one thing: if this rural private economy is a closed one, then it also contains within itself the other members of the social organism; it has its own administration, possibly its own military, its own defense, its own police, and its own intellectual life. Such a private economy, which had grown to enormous proportions but had essentially retained the character of a primitive rural private economy, was what was called the Merovingian Empire. The Merovingian Empire is only an empire if one considers this term in a very superficial way, but it was certainly not a state. It was actually a large estate that covered a very large area. And the entire social structure in the Merovingian Empire was actually no different in that the economy was, in a sense, the foundation, that an administrative apparatus was built up according to the views of the law of the time, which it also had to implement, and that, at that very time, a spiritual life that was extraordinarily free for the conditions of the time emerged. For we have only seen the great lack of freedom in intellectual life arise in more recent civilization under the influence of liberalism. It was only when this liberalism came that intellectual life actually became less and less free, and intellectual life will show you the peak of this lack of freedom in the realization of all state bliss in the Soviet Republic in Russia. Only books that have been approved by the Soviet government may be sold there. The Pope at least only bans books; the Soviet government in Russia, however, not only regulates the bans, but they regulate themselves, because no books other than those that are permitted can be published.
If we now follow the development further, we see how, in the course of development, the private economy gradually transitioned into the national economy, which then, at a certain point in time at the beginning of modern history, merged into the state economy. This happens in a very characteristic way, with private enterprise, the initiative of private enterprise, gradually passing into the administrative bodies, with the fiscal sphere growing into the economic sphere. And so we see how the economic sphere is transferred to the life of the state, how the spiritual life is absorbed by the life of the state, and we then see the emergence of the modern economic and spiritual state organism, which has become more and more powerful as a state organism, and of which we are well aware that it must in turn undergo a certain restructuring if economic life is to continue.
Now, however, we are not interested in this threefold structure, but in the merging of private economies, as has mostly happened in a larger complex, so that private economies actually result in something like an economy in a larger complex: the national economy, that is, that which creates a new social structure, but still preserves the private economy, thus still includes the primitive. What emerges in the true economic sense? What emerges is exchange between the individual private economies, exchange that is regulated in a variety of ways. But this regulation hovers like a cloud over the whole. However, it is the case that exchange, that is, trade between the individual private economies, is what essentially occurs through this merging of private economies into a national economy. Now, the consequence of this is that, as we saw yesterday, because everyone has, or at least can have, an advantage in economic exchange, the individual economies that come together for exchange, which is, after all, the essence of economics, have an advantage. So we see that the individual economies benefit from this merger, simply because they can trade with each other. And it is possible to calculate, in purely accounting terms, how much one private economy gains from the other private economies with which it is in an economic association. Each gains something, which in turn has significance in economic terms.
When the newer economic theory was established in various ways, it was essentially understood that economic entities had developed out of private economic entities. And if, for example, one wants to understand the economic views of Ricardo and Adam Smith, then one must understand the ideas these people developed about the economy from the fact that their view consisted of this interaction between private economies. In Adam Smith, you can see everywhere how he often thinks in terms of private economies and draws his conclusions from them. And the other picture was the merging into a national economy. But they thought about this union in such a way that they retained a good part of their private economic thinking, and so they mostly developed views that treated the national economy in a similar way to the private economy, seeing the fruitfulness of the national economy in the fact that one national economy now interacts with another, and thereby gains an advantage. The mercantile system, for example, consisted of building on the advantages that resulted from this.
However, when individual private economies merge to form a large national economy, something like a kind of leadership emerges, which would simply be the most powerful private economy that has emerged in such a complex. This fact, which would undoubtedly have occurred during the transition from private enterprise to the national economy, has been masked, concealed, and has not been fully expressed, because the state has taken over this leadership. Otherwise, one private economy, namely the most powerful one, would have become the leading one. So, I would say that what the individual private economies had gradually flowed over, rolled over into the state economy.
But then, in more recent times, as the exchange and interaction between the individual national economies, i.e., world trade, became more and more comprehensive, it became apparent that this leadership was emerging, and this leadership emerged as a matter of course in the economic progress of England, with its economy as the dominant economy in more recent times. And if I have already pointed out to you from another point of view that England had undergone a continuous development from trade to industry, then on the other hand it must also be said that during the acquisition of its colonies, England became the leading country in setting the currency. Its colonies, as was otherwise the case with private economies, merged to form a larger economic complex. This initially resulted in the internal advantages that always arise from exchange, but it also led to the emergence of that powerful economic leadership which then made it possible to exercise a dominant position in the economic life of the world as global trade became more sophisticated. England has become the leading country in setting the currency because only England has enforced the gold standard in the world where it has been implemented, because, as can easily be calculated, a country that does not have a gold standard would be at a disadvantage in its exchange transactions with a rich country that does have a gold standard. Well, we can say that under the influence of world trade, England has become the leading economic power.
One can actually say: as long as this was the case, it was possible to develop economic concepts, perhaps always with some changes and refinements, in a straightforward continuation of what Adam Smith, Ricardo, and, in fact, Karl Marx had developed, albeit in a completely reversed form. For all this can only be understood if one has a picture of the economic life that arose under the dominant influence of English economic power, based on the ideas that people had.
Now, in the last third of the last century, world trade has transitioned into the global economy, and this transition from world trade to the global economy is an extraordinary one. When we give definitions, they are of course not precise, because things tend to merge into one another. But we must say: in world trade, we have the world economy consisting of individual national economies that trade with one another. And trade increases exchange, promotes exchange, and thereby essentially changes all prices, the entire structure of the national economy. But it is only this: in relation to everything else, economic activity actually takes place in the individual areas. A global economy exists when the individual economic entities not only exchange their products with each other, but also do business with each other, i.e., when, for example, semi-finished products go from one country to another, where they are further manufactured. This is a radical example of economic cooperation. If only raw products are involved, pure trade is still maintained in terms of balance sheets. This cannot yet be called economic cooperation. But if all factors of human life that are affected by the economy, i.e., all production, all transport, all consumption, are fed from the whole world, not just production or consumption, but everything fed into each other from the whole world, then the global economy emerges. However, the emergence of the global economy eliminates certain advantages that previously existed in national economies.
Let's look back once more: when private economies merge to form national economies, they gain as a whole and enjoy advantages – each and every one of them. But what else drives them to do this? It is not always insight that drives them to carry out this merger. The fact is that the merger is not actually brought about by economic insight, because in most cases the feeling of freedom is far too great. Private economists are not so much concerned with reaping the benefits that arise. From an economic point of view, these advantages are there, but the matter is even more complicated. Individual economies have the peculiarity of every organism in that they transition into an increasingly weaker and weaker existence. This is simply a universal law, including for economic life. An economic life that does not improve declines. And mergers did not arise primarily because people wanted to combine private economies that were originally at a certain level to achieve even greater fruitfulness, but because they wanted to protect them from decline. So one can say that the advantage of merging is there when they merge. — This also varies for the individual mergers. So one can say that what the individual economies lose in intrinsic value is in any case amply compensated for, and there is usually a surplus, by the merger of private economies into national economies. — What the national economies gradually lose in internal value is more than compensated for by global trade and the transition to a global economy. But once the global economy is in place, with whom should it trade? And we have indeed seen the entire economic life of the earth gradually merge into the global economy. This eliminates the possibility of gaining advantages through mergers.
Those people who said that the world war could not last as long as it did were thinking in terms of national economies, not global economies; for if the global economy had been a national economy, then it would have been true. But since the world war had in fact tended to expand more and more from the outset, it already had a longer life. If we continue to think in terms of national economies within the global economy, then the global economy must collapse at a certain point. It would have had to do so if we had continued to think in terms of national economies, had not all kinds of dark forces already promoted this collapse.
Thus, clearly discernible circumstances, which are of course less clearly quantifiable, come into play in economic life. And that will mean to you that it is simply impossible to continue in a straightforward manner with the earlier economic concepts, that we are simply faced with the necessity of saying: Today we need an economic theory that speaks from the immediate present and that also recognizes that all those economic categories that were formed about a century ago can no longer apply today. We really need an economic science today—we must now say—that can think in terms of the global economy. And here you see one of our greatest historical problems.
When today's leading figures meet in Versailles, Genoa, and The Hague, science has initially only given them economic thinking. So they can do nothing other than what, before it is implemented with global economic thinking, will necessarily lead to ruin. Can they deny that they are continuing to dismantle the economy, that they are erecting further barriers, thereby delaying the transition to a pure global economy? Hence the recent tendency to divide the world as much as possible economically, by disguising this division in political and national masks. But we must move toward a global economy, global economics, or else create an impossible economic construct that can only survive if one part gains economic advantages at the expense of another through currency differences. Here you can see, precisely through economic means, what is actually happening in the present.
Now, when we imagine the global economy, we must be clear that, in a sense, conditions at the borders of the global economic area are different from those in the economic area that borders it. And the global economic area is relatively there today, but in such a way that global economics must also follow relatively. The global economic area does not border on anything else, and this makes it necessary to take a closer look at certain economic processes that are now emerging independently of the borders within the closed economic area. Today, the cardinal problem for economics is that of the closed economic area, the giant economic area. For even the smallest question, such as the price of our morning coffee, is something that today is subject to the overall influence of the economic life of the earth. And if this is not yet the case, it means that things are progressing relatively; but it is on the way, and our thinking must follow suit.
However, in order to study economic conditions in a closed economic area, we must be clear that within the economic area, in the interaction of production, consumption, and transport—actually circulation—we have what is now consumable goods, consumable goods, perhaps also durable goods in a relative sense, and what is money. There is a significant difference in terms of the economic form to which things are subject, whether we consider the area of food, for example: these are short-lived products, or the area of clothing: these are longer-lived products, or, let's say, what is found in room furnishings, in houses: these are even longer-lived. So in terms of use, we get important time differences in economic results. A lasting product of economic life would be, for example, the stone in the Crown of England or in other crowns, which has already been shown to you from other points of view, or the Sistine Madonna, and so on; in these we would have to see, in a certain sense, a kind of lasting result; particularly in the arts, we would have to see many kinds of lasting results. However, in a social organism that is subject to the division of labor and therefore also has a more widespread circulation, there must be an equivalent for every product. The monetary value, which is the price, must exist. But you can see from a very simple overview of the economic sphere that this equivalence between the value of goods and the monetary value is fluctuating, changeable. A product is worth one thing in one place and something else in another. A product can be worth more if it is processed in one way, or more if it is processed in another. But in any case, you can see from this that, apart from a few relatively long-lasting durable goods, we are dealing in economic life as a whole with goods that are also perishable, that lose their value, and that in any case are no longer there after a certain time.
Money is something that, strangely enough, does not wear out in economic life, even though it is completely equivalent to other economic elements. You can imagine this in radical terms by thinking, for example: I have, say, five hundred francs worth of potatoes. If I have potatoes worth five hundred francs, I have to make sure that I sell them, which means I have to do something to sell them. And after a while, they are no longer there, they are used up, they are gone. If money is equivalent to goods, to processed goods, then it should wear out. Money, just like other goods, should wear out. This means that if we have non-wearable money in the economic system, we may give money an advantage over wearable goods. This is extremely important. And it becomes even more important when you consider the following: when you consider what I have to do if, say, after fifteen years of activity, I have come so far that, because I have a lot of potatoes today, I will have twice as many potatoes as there will be then; and if you now consider how little an individual needs to do if he has five hundred francs in money today to have twice as much in fifteen years! It is enough if he does nothing at all, if he withdraws his entire labor power from the social organism and lets others work, that he lends and lets others work. If he does not provide for his own consumption in the meantime, the money does not need to be used up.
However, this introduces a great deal of what is then perceived as a social, let's say, injustice into the social body. Essentially, these shifts and rearrangements, not of ownership structures—which I do not want to discuss at all—but of working conditions and employment conditions in general, bring about enormous changes in the social body, also in economic terms, so that one may ask: How do these transformations, these shifts that are taking place, relate to something else that allows us to grasp them in a somewhat better way? There is still something vague about it when I describe to you in such empirical terms, I would say, the difference between money and real assets in the economic organism. How can this be understood in detail in the image?
You can understand this in the image if you first imagine how fundamental the consumption of all the people within a closed area must be for the entire economy of that area. That is the first prerequisite: the consumption of all the people within that area.
Well, something else also has a certain fundamental significance. This fundamental significance was greatly misunderstood by the physiocrats, for example. But there is something to be said for the fact that this other thing, namely land, does have a fundamental significance, even if it has turned out that it must be continuously devalued. It must be devalued precisely because it has fundamental significance. The physiocrats made the following mistake: they lived in a time when, as is still the case today, land had capital value. Influenced by this fact, they thought about and pursued economic relationships, even in a very vivid way—they were, in fact, the most rational of all economists—and came to say, from their point of view: The intrinsic economic value of an economic area actually lies in the cultivation of land, if we define the cultivation of land as everything that we consider to be the production of goods that essentially serve to feed humanity. As long as we remain within the field of nutrition, we must indeed see in the soil the basis, the more or less solid foundation for what constitutes the intrinsic value of an economic area. For just think that those who work the land, that is, who directly combine their labor with those natural products that then serve to feed humanity, that these workers feed everyone else in terms of nutrition; the others are dependent on them; everyone else is fed by them. Certainly, the others can obtain the means to pay for this at a high price, but essentially we can understand this matter in a very primitive way. We can simply imagine: there is a certain number, A, of eaters. This number A includes all agricultural workers, industrial workers, moneylenders, merchants, intellectual workers, right up to the freest intellectual life: these are the ones who seek food. And then there are those who provide food, B, who really offer something with their work that goes into immediate food production, that is, into that part of consumption that is food consumption. If A! is greater than A and B remains the same, then more simply has to be shared; what B produces simply has to be divided up more. And if B cannot be increased in value by any means, then people must immigrate and the cultivability of the land must be increased.
So you cannot arbitrarily increase the number of intellectual workers within an economic area, for example, without also increasing the number of those on the other side, those who are essentially responsible for food production. Or the other case must occur, namely that the cultivability of the soil is increased. This can then come from the intellectual workers. But the intellectual workers of the age in which cultivability is higher must be smarter than their predecessors and have higher abilities than their predecessors. So in this respect, the increase in rural work is in a certain sense equivalent to an increase in insight into the cultivation of what comes from nature. This can take many different forms. By setting up a rational bird breeding operation, for example, one can, under certain circumstances, increase forestry. This can happen in many different ways; we are only concerned with it in principle.
As long as one thinks purely in terms of economics, it is clear that these conditions can arise. Those who are already more intelligent in one country may immigrate to a country with less insight. They can then further promote the cultivation of the land. Or, if more people move up the social ladder who do not belong to the farming class, people can be called into the country, workers can be called into the country. All these things take place in the economies of areas that border on others or even beyond.
Everything that can be thought about such things can be expressed in the question: How can we help when, on the one hand, A, consumption exceeds what B can produce? — What can be thought about this in economic terms ceases to be thought about when the global economy emerges and conditions for the global economy have already been established in a certain sense. And we simply have to imagine what must be different when there is a closed economic area.
This can actually be studied empirically, starting with small economies, where exports and imports can be fairly easily disregarded – after all, such economies have existed. It is possible to study empirically what conditions actually exist in a closed economic system. In a closed economic system, we take the basis, the land. Then what comes from the land is subjected to labor, is processed, and thereby acquires value. The labor is then organized: here we enter the realm of human beings, who are no longer producers of food, but rather consumers of it. And especially when we come to the intellectual workers, we have consumers, not producers, in relation to food. So that in a closed economic area, we have to distinguish between a productive field, which is also very strongly, I would say, focused on being a purely productive field, and a consuming field. Of course, these things are quite relative. It is gradually changing.
But if you now think of the whole of human life in such a closed economic area, then what I explained to you a few days ago must strictly apply: In order to prevent capital from stagnating, from suffering a bottleneck, at the point where intellectual life is most developed in capital formation – which is, of course, spread across the entire economic area – the surpluses that have been acquired and earned must not flow into land — they would accumulate there — but rather it must be ensured that there are no more surpluses, that no capital accumulates in land, that is, that such accumulation has already been prevented earlier — through donations of what has been earned to intellectual institutions — with the exception of what I have referred to as seed money. Yes, so here we encounter the concept of donation in all its necessity. This donation must be there.
If you study such closed economic areas that have occurred in history, you will also see that these donations are already everywhere. Essentially, they are donations on which intellectual life depends — donations in the economic sense. They range from the simple fact that Charles the Bald, from what he can give away, even keeps his court philosopher, who could even be considered a very superfluous piece of furniture under certain circumstances — Scotus Erigena — down to the Peter's Pence, where Catholics all over the world give their gifts to the Church in very small doses. Wherever the economy, even if it becomes a giant economy across certain areas, represents a closed economic area, the transformation of the capital that has been earned into donation capital is present where it concerns the maintenance of intellectual institutions.
In other words, it should be borne in mind that when there is a closed economic area, as is the case with the global economy, nothing else can happen in economic terms except that everything that would otherwise accumulate in land disappears into spiritual institutions. It would have to disappear into spiritual institutions; it would have to act like a donation. This means that we need to find the answer to the question for today's real economic science: How must we buy and sell in an economic sense so that the values created in the purely material realm of nutrition disappear within the spiritual realm? — That is the big question. I will formulate it once again: What kind of payment in economic transactions must be sought so that what is created by processed nature, where production works for the nourishment of humanity, always disappears within spiritual institutions? That is the big economic question, which we will try to answer tomorrow.