Thursday, August 30, 2012
Second Lecture on December 14, 1974
I would like to reread from the course that succinct formulation of the fundamental social law as a sort of meditative motto (p. 43):
"It is not a God, nor a moral law, or an instinct, but simply the modern division of labor that calls for altruism in modern economic life, in labor and in the production of goods. Thus, a purely economic category is demanding that."
I would also like to present this law in the way it was first formulated. It can be found in one of the first early essays Anthroposophy and the Social Question  that were published in 1905/06 but that were not continued because of lack of interest (p. 195):
"The well-being of a community of people working together becomes greater the less the individual demands the products of his work for himself, that is, the more of these products he passes on to his fellow workers and the more his own needs are not satisfied out of his work, but out of the work of others."
Please allow me to still make two further introductory remarks. First: I have perhaps tired you yesterday afternoon with those many quotations. You might say that knowing them by heart is of little use, but that it is matter of using them as a working basis. Yet, one has to know them in order to do that and it is important to hear them again and again. – One can, however, also pose the question: What is the significance of this course – which was originally addressed to an audience with a scientific background – for a circle consisting of people, such as we are here, who have only a general interest and not any type of special economic qualification?
Well, the answer to this question can actually only be given by our ensuing joint endeavor; but perhaps a little bit can already be said in general, in the sense that just in the practical run of economic affairs in human life it is always a question of consciousness that is time and again concentrated on the same main questions. In all practical behavior in economic and social life, we have to do with the following three basic questions:
How do I stand within reality? This question is not formulated by many people as such, but it is felt to be the existential question: What am I living for, why do I work? For the modern, cognitive, and planning human being, this question can only be understood and answered as a question concerning reality. What is the nature of reality? Is it only causal-genetic, something in which death is the origin of life, or is it the other way around, is spirit the origin of life? This is a question of consciousness, a question about living thinking, for which the course gives practical instructions; it is a course in mobility in thinking if one follows it through actively to the end.
The second question is the one concerning the bridge to other human beings. Can we still make ourselves understood? This is the question pertaining to justice, to law and rights. How can rights be formed, how can rights arise amongst people, if while conferring they cannot make themselves understood? Questions of law and rights are questions of conferring, judging, of coming to terms with one another.
The third question is connected with this existential question of meaning and with this question pertaining to justice and mutual understanding: it is the question concerning the sense of individuality, for one’s own and that of one’s fellow human being. For in every social context it is a question of having a feeling for the peculiarity of the person that one is facing. How can I do justice to his character? I can only develop an organ for understanding the character of those I come across, if I properly understand my own human character. In this sense, the Course on National Economy, or whatever one likes to call it, is a practical book, purely by virtue of the fact that by serving as a sort of social scientific book of meditation, it elevates the mind and develops a worldview. As such it gives one of the most important contributions towards answering practical questions of existence. Rudolf Steiner already stated this in his essay that contained the fundamental social law in its original form. I may perhaps read you the sentence that points in this direction:
(P. 200, Anthroposophy and the Social Question)
“It is true in the most original meaning of the word: only the individual can be helped by giving him bread; bread for the entire population can only be obtained by helping the population to acquire a (spiritual) view of the world.”
Now we want to proceed from the new formulation of the threefold idea as found in the Course. The new organization of the economy was originally conceived as a component of the threefold idea; now it is a question of understanding threefolding as components of the economic life. This new exposition and formulation of the threefold idea already begins in the first lecture, which is a prelude with a manifold graphic quality. I would like to discuss only the first, indeed most important point, namely this new exposition. In the first lecture the contrast in economic development between England and Germany in recent times (in the 19th century) is spoken of. It is said, among other things, that the economic development of England was based on its colonies and that it could lean above all, economically speaking, on India as a virgin land at a time when England was becoming a world power. India had exported many practically raw nature products for use in the English economy where they were refined and processed further. In Germany, the economic development from an agricultural to an industrial state had taken place extremely rapidly. Through this rapid transformation, a contrast in the economic conditions and the formation of capital arose, characteristic of the world economy at that time, in the sense that the English economy was built up indirectly via the abundant nature products, raw and half-finished products from India, while, because a huge amount of capital was invested in the machinery for industrial production, the German economy developed rapidly into an industrial economy.
This indicates two different types of economic development and capital formation as well as two different types of human labor, out of which then arise the two different means of creating surplus value that form the subject matter of the second lecture. But now that this contrast has been presented in the light of the second lecture, we would like to begin clarifying it in order to understand thereby in which way a new form of the threefold idea was inaugurated. Rudolf Steiner develops the two basic concepts there forming the pillars of the whole course and pertaining to the two basic ways that human work can be performed in the social organic process. And in this way the problem of price comes to the fore.
The first type of labor and the value it generates occurs naturally when human labor is applied in one way or another to nature by plowing the earth, fertilizing the land, sowing the seeds, breeding cattle, mining coal and ore. Labor being applied to nature: NLV, nature (N) changed by human labor (L). This creates value (V). This is the working world that was of fundamental importance for the emergence of the English economy, because England could lean on a country with abundant natural resources. The value that arises in this way Rudolf Steiner often calls V1.
Then there is another completely different way of generating value: the human mind or spirit (S) is directed towards human labor (L). This leads again to a certain value, namely V2 or L SV. The process leading to division of labor is illustrated by Rudolf Steiner by the following well-known example. In a certain area, people are transforming nature products. Every single worker must somehow travel to his working place. Then someone gets the bright idea that when the work people do is organized in a special way, work could be saved that way. He comes up with a wagon and now the workers do not all need go by foot anymore, he lightens their workload, thereby saving energy and also time. Work applied to nature is conserved by the spirit that is applied to human labor. This gives rise to V2. These are therefore the two fundamentally different ways of generating value, which can only be looked at with a certain reverence, because what happens when V1 is created? By man adding to nature out of his own ability, nature is being brought closer to man. That is a process of transubstantiation. By the mind or spirit being applied to labor, more spirit is incarnated in human events, in the working world and also in the course of nature. This is a process of incarnation.
That is how these two values as well as their interaction arise, and thus arises the just price, because it is always the case that those applying their mind or spirit to labor, must be fed by the others. But they in turn save the others labor. The two ways of creating value enter in a relationship, come together and the question is: How can they be mutually evaluated in the right way? The price problem is a question of the right balance between the two polarities of the social organic process. The price formation is influenced by the relation between these two value formations: How much work on nature is it worth, this work by the spirit, this organizing of human labor by the human mind? Through the interaction of these polarities in the working world, of the value creating processes, the social organic work of art must be designed that expresses itself in price formation.
The body social is created like any other work of art, for each work of art has to do with transubstantiating matter and incarnating spirit in it. The emergence of the social organic work of art in its cultural symptomatic mode of appearance, on the one hand in the (economic) contrast between England and Germany and on the other hand in its basic conceptual structure, that is what makes up the introduction and the foundation of the whole course. And right away you see how the threefold idea is propounded anew. In the transubstantiating labor we have the economic life in a narrow sense. In the incarnating labor we have what actually constitutes the spiritual life. And now both value formations must be brought together and balanced out in such a way that each one is given its due. This is a question of rights.
I have made this little sketch to which we shall return later.
The most important social organic processes take place in the form of purchase and sale. Naturally this a question of price formation, but based on processes that first make price formation possible: the transubstantiating and incarnating labor. In that sense, price plays the decisive role in all events and phases of the social organic process. This form of pricing is again connected with the interaction and opposition of the two ways of creating value: value and counter-value is equal to price. These two types of value, transubstantiating and incarnating value have a tendency to devaluate each other. This has actually become clear from what has been developed, but we will nevertheless ask the question: Why must this be so, that both values devaluate each other?
Perhaps, I will have to speak about a misunderstanding here that, although based on short-sightedness, one runs into all the time: The value formed through labor applied to nature would, so it is maintained, no longer exist, for this labor has been taken over by machines, in agriculture as well as in industry. But this is a basic misunderstanding. For whether I work with my hands, with a scythe or with a complicated machine, wherever means of production are being applied to natural resources, whereby transubstantiation takes place, we are in effect dealing with V1. This is substantiated by the course (p. 93): “Now when the Spirit absorbs processed nature…means of productions arise.” That means, when what arises through the direct treatment of nature products is processed and transformed further by the spirit, when ore is dug out, then refined in the iron and steel works, further processed in a rolling mill, the steel rolled first cold then hot – all this is transubstantiating value formation. But this is by no means the end of it. From the steel, machines can now be made, lathes, milling and woodworking machines and presses. (P. 93):
"What we call means of production is …a nature product that is absorbed by the spirit, a nature product that the spirit must have. From the pen which I possess as my means of production to the most complicated machinery in a factory, means of production are, as it were, nature grasped by the spirit."
We are dealing here with a continuation of the transubstantiating labor in which the incarnating labor is playing a role. But basically, the means of production are refined products of nature. They serve for their part again to further elaborate and process nature. They therefore serve in transubstantiating value formation that occurs wherever labor is being organized and where under certain circumstances also means of production are made through the organizing of labor, in which case both types of labor coincide. So one can say everywhere: Where means of production are used, in the fabrication of these means as well as in their use, transubstantiating labor is at work.
We now have to turn our attention to a process that I have already mentioned and that is basically connected with incarnating work and value formation, V2. This is what organizes labor and that always results in the division of labor. It is not so that one person must always perform all the various strands of the work involved; the labor is divided. By integrating the labor categories, labor is saved and for that reason the results, the products or services become cheaper. We have brought this to mind with the example of the wagon builder. But with the division of labor, all economic processes become more diverse, even though rationalizing the individual labor process makes it simpler; the labor process as the sum total of all the work done becomes more difficult to overlook. This demands a higher grade of consciousness than was the case with the instinctive, simpler type of work where one and the same person united in himself all the labor processes necessary for making a product. Thus, along with the increasing division of labor, with the progress in the formation of V2 , the labor process becomes more and more a question of consciousness. Parallel to that, the demand crops up for a greater awareness of the rights sphere, for a conscious awareness of how these two types of labor and value formations are properly contrasted with each other. That awareness of rights has to do with just price, but also – you will see this right away – with balancing community consciousness against freedom consciousness. For consider: V2 , the incarnating value, can arise only out of the deeds of free, spiritually productive individuals. With the transubstantiating values, it is just the other way around; there it is primarily a matter of people working together. The creative individual works also for others, but out of his individual productivity, while the transubstantiating values arise out of the communal labor of people at work in transforming nature.
From the increasing division of labor and the coincidence of both types of value formation, there not only arises a demand for an enhanced, holistic consciousness, but also for an increased awareness of rights. In that way the basic question of rights poses itself that we considered from another viewpoint in the afternoon, but that I would like to put before you from the viewpoint of the formation and consciousness of rights. With these basic questions of human rights, we have to do again with three questions.
The first one is: How do people place themselves within reality in the right way, and what can I do to help people feel themselves properly grounded within reality? That is basically the existential question: In what kind of reality can I experience myself as a worthy human being? More or less consciously connected with the existential question is the demand for human dignity in work, which, right or not, is proclaimed very strongly. This phrase is often understood to mean nothing more than the improvement of working conditions, the rise in social benefits and the dismantling of what is felt to be unsociable. Actually it is something completely different that is being demanded here, namely a question of consciousness of reality: How is the human being grounded within reality and what does he work for? That is in a certain sense a question of rights: How can I fit in properly and what do I contribute?
The second question is: How can I fit into the community and what can I contribute so that people can integrate into the community, that they make themselves understood in counsel, that they form associations?
The third basic question of community rights is: How do I do justice to an individuality, i.e. how can I do justice to the productive capital that he or she has, or has in him or her, how can I put him or her at the right place in the working world of the social organism? That is the sense for the uniqueness for the human being and the sense that a human being can become the representative of a community. That is the amazing thing: a representative of the community I can only be according to my uniqueness.
In order to answer these basic questions, out of which proper community rights and the forming of just prices can arise, a worldview is required. For you see, we can answer the questions as to what the place of the human being within the community is, and what his relation to his own spirituality is only from a worldview background, from an overview of the nature of the world, the human being and his cognitive abilities.
With this is connected a very essential consciousness factor – I emphasize that it is to begin with a question of consciousness – the overcoming of the self-sufficiency principle. This is naturally an eminently practical code of behavior; its foreground and background lie in a certain mental attitude, which contrasts with the usual self-sufficiency idea, the idea that one must get something in return for what one does and that the human being is actually on earth in order to work for his own needs in life and for those of his dependents. This self-sufficiency attitude is more or less subconsciously something quite natural, but it is, socially and economically speaking, neither sensible nor right, because it contradicts the very nature of economy, which can only prosper if everyone, instead of wanting to have as much as possible, wants to give as much as possible. This is a very primitive formulation of the fundamental social law, but it is actually a truism: there can only be as much in the whole of the economic process as people have put into it. It is completely senseless to want to have something; one can only consider what one can put into the social organic process. Then something can flow back again. But as soon as one concentrates on what ought to flow back to oneself, one leads one’s own productivity astray. It must be clear thereby that every wage-earner practices self-sufficiency. And the tendency in the social conflicts today to demand more and more wage or pay increases is nothing else than getting stuck at the level of the mental attitude of those self-sufficiency practitioners. Now naturally someone will say: The working people today are no longer so concerned with a rise in pay; what interests them is the human dignity of the work, that is, improved working conditions. But that is basically only self-delusion. As long as a person within the social organic process comes to the fore demanding something, he demands advantages for himself and that is always payment. One can put it as beautifully as one can. The living conditions can naturally be far from beautiful and good, but as long as they are demanded, one demands an improvement in pay; one must realize that all other formulations are delusions and self-delusions.
Now it appears to me not without significance with what this self-sufficiency mentality is connected or – I must formulate carefully – why this self-sufficiency mentality is anchored so deeply in the consciousness of people today. We will not trace its origin; that is a very complicated question. But the question just mentioned before can be answered clearly. The predominance of the self-sufficiency mentality is connected with the universal lie that dominates the world today; the lie that the life of the human spirit is only an epiphenomenon, only an ideology, only an emission of the real thing, material processes. Certain representations about reality are connected with that, namely that there is a ready-made reality in materialistic form for the human being and that this reality is sufficient for earning his own livelihood. That is the mentality in the background. It seems very important to me to make this clear to oneself. The universal lie that dominates the world today wanting to drive out the spirit from our world, leads to a certain representation of reality and a certain related mood or sentiment in life, namely that the human being can take care of himself by means of the reality around him and be taken care of by it. Reality is somehow out there and the human being must see to it that he gets what he needs in order to live. This conscious attitude grows into the self-sufficiency mentality of the wage-earner, which totally dominates the situation in the economic and social sphere today. Dominated by the universal lie, the human being make believes that he can and must take care of himself by means of a ready-made reality; that notion then spreads to his behavior on the work floor and to his moral conduct in the labor process. He would be merely a copier of the ready-made reality that is there outside his own realm of consciousness; he imprints this reality more or less exactly into his own consciousness or can only represent it through certain signs or symbols. Similarly, he must be taken care of, supported by an economic and working world by means of the wage that he demands, and just as the human being must be looked after by a world that came into being without his doing, the state (the government) must see to it that he is being taking care of according to his need to be paid. Yet, the truth is not this universal lie; the basic experience, ability and task of the human being is self-realization, not self-deception.
The human being is not taken care of by a ready-made reality; he must constantly implement reality. Each instance of his waking consciousness he realizes the fully incoherent percepts that come to him through his senses by holistically integrating them in his thinking. He is a ‘realizer’ and must give himself away to the world. And only as much as he gives, can be given back by the world, so that his life makes sense. True, this is the fundamental social law of cognition and not the fundamental law of economic life. But the self-sufficiency attitude in cognition and work are one and the same thing in terms of consciousness, but looked at from two different sides.
This is also important for understanding a sentence in the social organic course such as (p. 53):
“Money is realized spirit.”
For money is but an order – I want to say it in a complicated way on purpose – for [acquiring] those elements that can be set to use in the social organic process in such a way that surplus value arises. These elements are the means of production, capital resources. Money is an expression for the fact that means of productions were made, that nature was enhanced, that this enhanced nature was transformed into means of production and that they can continue to be used. Money is an expression for the fact that capital resources are available and that the just necessities of life and the needs of other people can be met by these means of production; indeed, in this way the recipients for their part can become active as spiritual producers, as creators of incarnation values in the social organic process.
Thereby one’s mind is directed to the forming of capital of a sort that is connected with this fact. For isn’t it true: means of production can only arise and be used, but above all be fabricated, if there is capital available. Now, the situation is such that those values, which are to arise by those means, are not there yet at the beginning; they lie in the future. Manufacturing the means of production is an expenditure that can only be reimbursed in the future by those things that are going to be fabricated with them. Thus arises the corresponding need to invest on the part of the entrepreneur who makes means of production available. He must borrow the money, because the profit that he can earn with his means of production lies in the future. Loan capital and also debt capital arise in that way, for the borrower becomes the debtor. Now, it is very interesting to see that this loan, which is put to the disposal of the debtor for creating the means of production, is given to him personally on the basis of the trust that the lender has in the debtor’s overall grasp of the situation and his ability to perform. This is personal credit.
Now what is interesting is that this personal credit reduces costs, as opposed to collateral credit, which is still given today to a large degree on the basis of land. Collateral credit on the other hand increases costs. These are two fundamental insights that one can become conscious of in the sense of the overall context of the course and especially from the viewpoint of the forming of price: personal credit must reduce costs under the assumption that a just price is given.
Now we have seen that creative activity, the creation of incarnation values, has the effect of reducing costs, because it saves labor. That is why the credit used for creation of incarnation values has the effect of reducing costs, while collateral credit on land increases costs. Interest must be paid on collateral credit, because land does not yield any economic value. I am not talking about land that has been worked on and improved, that is a means of production and for that personal credit can be given. But today credit is given for fallow land and that causes an increase in its value. Interest rests on the land that is not used as a means of production and that is why collateral credit increases costs.
This is perhaps the right moment to look within this context at another facet that is connected with the raising and giving of personal and collateral credit. We can ask ourselves: How did this collateral credit that is so prevalent today come about, how did it come to exercise its bad influence? It is easy to see how this came about, for the two types of real surplus value creation generate capital. This capital cannot for its part be used again in the social organic process to purchase goods, to consume goods, or to put the means of production to use; nor can this capital be used to recycle, improve or reuse the means of production after they have been written off. Surplus capital arises; this capital seeks a place to invest and is then accumulated and piled up on land. That is how collateral credit comes about. This collateral credit is one of the greatest pests in today’s economic life. And so the question arises: How can the surplus capital be prevented from piling up on land, thereby causing a shift in the forming of prices due to the ensuing imbalance?
At this point Rudolf Steiner mentions his associations. And one of their most important tasks is to see to it that there is no undue accumulation of capital. The associations are conceived as advisory bodies in which producers, traders and consumers, those active and productive on the side of the transubstantiating value as well as on the side of the incarnating value, come together in order to form common judgments concerning what is just for the social organism. This will lead therefore to the forming of just prices. And in such properly composed advisory bodies or associations the right judgment must therefore be formed concerning how, for example, capital can be prevented from accumulating on land, so as not to lead to the forming of costly collateral credit. And so we see that one of the most important tasks accorded to the associations would be directing the flow of capital. The flow of capital must be directed properly, thus not alone prevented from accumulating, but led in the right direction. Thereby the question arises: what directions are there? And what is the right way to lead them? It is simply a question of not only managing that capital arises in the social organic process, but also that it is consumed again in the right way. The right judgment concerning this can also only be formed in associative or advisory bodies under certain preconditions that must be fulfilled, if these bodies are to be capable of giving advice. This we still need to discuss. In any case, the task of these bodies is to work at directing the flow of capital, something which is presently done by the banks, but purely from the viewpoint of maximizing profit, not from the viewpoint of just price.
The task, perhaps even the main task of the economic life is to check too strong a forming of capital, and to kindle one that is too weak. How can this be done? One of the most important means of kindling capital is by granting personal credit to the right recipients, not to social-organically non-creative people. That is one of the most important means, but not the only one.
How can excessive formation of capital be checked? We would like to leave this question for the moment.
We want to bring to mind a relatively simple way, which in the present economy is until now not sufficiently used. Kindling and checking are not only possible by directing the flow of capital – this function exercised by the banks today will be the future task of the associations – but there is another way. Not only the flow of capital can be directed, but also the flow of working people by transferring workers from one place or from one factory to another, if their activity in the firm or factory in question is not advantageous for the social organism. This would naturally entail a major re-education program, which today is beginning to happen, but not enough. It has been understood that to be able to direct an economy, there is a need for re-training the labor force. By moving the workers from one place to another, the forming of capital can be changed there - under certain circumstance for example weakened, if it can be kindled at another place. And by doing that, one also influences naturally the forming of prices in factories where the products are becoming too cheap, where therefore more is produced than is social-organically justified and demanded, and above all more than is allowed by the social organic balance. This then devalues the commodities. For producing more than necessary does not lead to forming more capital. Thus, the labor can be directed to where too little is produced and where the commodities are becoming too expensive. Then the effect at one place of a healthy rise in prices is the formation of capital, while at another a healthy lowering of the prices results in checking capital formation. The result of more and more production is therefore not in all circumstances the forming of capital, because overproduction leads to a lessening of capital formation.
Now you will ask further: When it is all a matter of arriving at the just price by balancing transubstantiating labor against incarnating labor, how does one manage to do this? It can be understood that it must be done, but how? Already in his book Towards Social Renewal, Rudolf Steiner had developed an enlightening viewpoint on this question. He refers to in the sixth lecture of the World Economy course (p. 72):
“The formula which I gave in my book Towards Social Renewal was as follows: ‘A true price is forthcoming when someone receives as counter-value for a product he has made, sufficient to enable him to satisfy his needs, including of course the needs of his dependants, until he will again have completed a similar product.' Abstract as it is, this formula is none the less exhaustive. In setting up a formula it is always necessary that it should contain all the details. I do believe that for the sphere of economy this formula is no less exhaustive than, say, the theorem of Pythagoras is for all right-angled triangles. But the point is – just as we have to introduce into the theorem of Pythagoras the varying proportions of the sides, so shall we have to introduce many, very many variables into this formula. Economics is precisely an understanding of how the [whole] economic process can be included in this formula.”
Hence, a price is just when somebody receives so much for a product that he can live from that until the time that he has produced a similar product. If Leonardo da Vinci worked five or six years on a painting, he would have to get as a counter-value what his needs are for five or six years; if Picasso paints a picture in half an hour, he would have to get as a counter-value what his needs amount to for half an hour. I am expressing myself paradoxically on purpose. There is something else.
Rudolf Steiner calls the formula exhaustive. We want to occupy ourselves with that. The time has run late, but I still want to mention some points that we can take through the night.
If we look at the incarnating labor, at the organizing labor that produces and works with the means of production, then one must be clear about one thing that, at least to begin with, puts in the right those who would like to belittle spiritual labor. With respect to the past, spiritual work is indeed unproductive, for spiritual or cultural workers are consumers. They need to be clothed, housed and fed and are dependent on what they receive from the transubstantiating labor. That produce must have been made in advance. Spiritual or cultural work is only productive with respect to the future in that it makes new value creation possible and thereby reduces costs or in that it releases new artistic, productive abilities and possibilities in people. The blindness for the value and value creation of spiritual labor is based on the materialistic superstition of our time that is connected with the blindness for realization and reality. Often the people who gravely belittle and defame spiritual workers and those who develop worldviews, as cranks hung up in the clouds, often these people claim to be solid folks with both feet planted squarely on the ground. In truth, these people are extremely far removed from reality, because they are blind to reality, because they do not have an eye for seeing that the basic work that every human being must do consists of realization. The human being is constantly a ‘realizer’. Only in as far as he practices realizing, does he really stand in the world. Only then is he generally viable and capable of living. And to the degree that he neglects and scorns this basic human ability and dignity, his life becomes meaningless and the social economic work of art collapses. For what Rudolf Steiner calls the social organic trinity, namely paying-lending-giving, can in fact not be instituted in the social organic process, until it is recognized that the incarnating labor, thus the value V2, has at least the same significance as the transubstantiating labor V1. For paying and purchasing can take place only if enhanced nature products are available, only if sufficient transubstantiating work can be done. But this labor becomes too expensive unless at the same time labor is organized and therefore made cheaper through the value V2. This is however not possible without lending.
To that must be added a third element, namely the concept of giving that we need for answering the question: How can we check the surplus capital from accumulating on the land? It can be checked by giving it to spiritually creative individuals. This then enhances the potential of incarnation labor and thus the potential of this side of the social organic process. The right appreciation of the role of the spirit, the mind in the social organic process by the rights sphere directs the money flow in the direction of lending and giving, thereby reducing costs.
 These essays are published in Rudolf Steiner, Reincarnation and Immortality, Blauvelt NY, 3rd printing 1974.
 It must be noted here that Herbert Witzenmann is talking about the outdated self-sufficiency principle in the economic sphere, not in the spiritual sphere where it is in the sense of Emerson’s self-reliance and self-realization completely at home.