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 [1]
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.
N LV Social Organic Work of
Art L
sV
Economic Life Price Spiritual Life
Rights Sphere
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.[2]
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.
[1] These essays are published in Rudolf Steiner, Reincarnation and Immortality, Blauvelt
NY, 3rd
printing 1974.
[2] 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment