The Reorganization of the Social Organism

GA 330 — 25 April 1919, Stuttgart

III. What and How Should Socialization Take Place?

Speech to workers of the Daimler factory

The sense in which my topic is to be treated today can be seen from the appeal that each of you has received. The subject today is to treat that which is called socialization today, which sounds like a world-historical call on the one hand and like a general human call on the other, from a broader and wider perspective than it is usually treated. And not because it corresponds to some kind of preference, but because the great and powerful demand of our time can only be grasped in the right way if one approaches the subject as broadly and generously as possible.

If I had spoken to a labor assembly five or six years ago in the same way that I want to speak to you today, the conditions for the speaker to communicate with his audience would have been very different than they are today. That is the case, it is just not well understood in the broadest circles yet. You see, five or six years ago a meeting like this would have listened to me, would have formed an opinion, according to the social views it held, as to whether one or other of the things the speaker said might differ in one way or another from its own social views, and it would have rejected him if he had put forward anything that was not in line with its own views. Today, it must depend on something quite different, because these five to six years have passed as significant, incisive events containing humanity, and today it is already necessary that trust in someone who wants to say something in terms of socialization, not only when he wants exactly the same thing as you, but when he shows that, with regard to the justified demands of the time, which are expressed in the ever-growing proletarian movement, he has an honest and sincere feeling and desire for these justified demands of the time. Today, we are facing very different facts – time has developed rapidly – than those we faced five or six years ago. Today, we have to look at very different things than we did five or six years ago. The following is offered by way of introduction.

You see, respected, very clever socialist thinkers, shortly before the autumn revolution of 1918 in Germany approached, they said something like the following: When this war is over, the German government will have to treat the socialist parties quite differently than it has treated them in the past. Then it will have to hear them. Then it will have to draw them into its council. — Well, I do not want to continue the matter, as I said, so spoke respected socialist leaders. What does that show? That shows that shortly before November 1918, these respected socialist leaders thought that after the war they would have to deal with some kind of government that would be there in the old sense, and which would only take these socialist personalities into account. How quickly things have changed, how quickly something has come about that even these socialist leaders could not have imagined! The kind of government that they believed would still be there has disappeared into the abyss. But that makes a huge, enormous difference, and today you are all faced with completely different facts. Today you are no longer in a position to seek 'consideration', but today you are in a position to participate in the new development of the social order that must take place. A positive demand is made of you, the demand to know, to think about what has to happen, how we can reasonably move forward in terms of the recovery of the social organism. A completely different language must now be spoken than before. Above all, it is important to look back and remember what led us into the terrible situation of the present; what should change for the better, what must change. Let me just mention a few introductory remarks.

I do not want to trouble you much with personal remarks. But if you are not a theorist, not an abstract scientist, but, like me, have acquired your views on the necessary social development through more than thirty years of life experience, then what you have to say in general and what you feel personally merge into one. As I said, I do not want to bore you with any particularly long personal statements, but perhaps it may be noted in the introduction that I was forced, personally forced, in the spring of 1914 in a small meeting in Vienna – a larger probably would have laughed at me at the time for the reasons I will speak of in a moment — to summarize what, figuratively speaking, had emerged in my bloody life experience regarding the social question and social movement. At that time, as a conclusion of decades of experience and decades of observation of the social life of today's so-called civilized world, I had to say the following: the prevailing tendencies of life will become ever stronger until they finally destroy themselves. The one who spiritually understands social life sees everywhere how terribly the tendencies towards social ulcerous growths are sprouting. This is the great cultural concern that arises for the one who sees through existence. That is the terrible thing, which has such a depressing effect and which, even if one could suppress all enthusiasm for recognizing the processes of life by the means of a spirit-cognizing science, would lead one to speak of the remedies that can be used against it – one would like to scream words about it to the world, as it were. If the social organism continues to develop as it has done so far, cultural damage will occur that is to this organism what cancerous growths are to the natural human organism.

Now, if someone had said this in the spring of 1914, the so-called clever people would naturally have thought him a fantasist. For what did the very clever people, those to whom, as the leading class, the fate of humanity was entrusted, what did they actually say about what was in store for the world? Today, one has to investigate a little critically what the minds of these leading people were made of, otherwise people will always object that it is not necessary to speak as seriously as we want to today. What did these so-called leading personalities say at that time? Let us listen, for example, to the Foreign Minister who was jointly responsible for foreign policy at that time. In a decisive session of the German Reichstag, in front of several hundred enlightened gentlemen, he had the following to say about what was about to happen. He said: The general relaxation in Europe is making gratifying progress. We are doing better every day with the Petersburg government. This government does not listen to the comments of the press pack, and we will continue to cultivate our friendly relations with St. Petersburg as we have done in the past. We are in negotiations with England, which have not yet been concluded, but which have progressed so far that we can hope to establish the very best relations with England in the near future.

This general relaxation has made such great progress, these relations with St. Petersburg have been so well initiated by the government, these negotiations with England have borne such fruit, that soon after, the time began in which, to put it mildly, ten to twelve million people within Europe were killed and three times as many were maimed. Now I may ask you: How were the gentleman and those to whom he belonged as a class informed about what was going on in the world? How strong was their intellect to grasp what was needed for the immediate future? Were they not truly stricken with blindness? And was there not added to this that terrible, that hideous arrogance that labeled anyone as a fantasist who pointed out that there is a social cancer that will break out in a terrible way in the near future? These questions must be asked today. They must be asked because numerous personalities today, despite the loudly speaking facts, are as blind as those with regard to what is only at the beginning of its development today: the form which this social movement, which has been going on for more than half a century, has taken in its newer form since the fall of 1918. That is what one would like to achieve today, that there would be people - such people must be among the proletarian population today - who have in their heads a consciousness of what must actually happen.

Those who, over the past few decades, have learned not only to think like so many who talk about socialism today, but to think and feel like the proletariat, have been led by their fate to do so. Today, they must think about the social question in a much more serious and broader way than many do. He must look at what this movement has become today as a result of its development over the last five, six, seven decades since Karl Marx's great reputation spread throughout the world; he must realize how the social movement, how the social programs today have to step out of the stage of criticism and to enter the realm of creation, the realm where one can know what needs to be done to rebuild the human social order, the necessity of which must be felt today by everyone who lives with an alert soul.

In three fundamental areas of life, the working class has sensed what is actually good for it, what must change for it in its entire position in the world, in human society, and so on. But the conditions of the last few centuries, especially of the nineteenth century and particularly of the beginning of the twentieth century, have had the effect that, while more or less unconsciously, instinctively the worker felt with his heart very well that the paths to his future ideal are three, yet, so to speak, the attention was directed only to a single goal. The modern bourgeois social order has, so to speak, relegated everything to the economic sphere. The modern worker was not allowed, not able, to gain a completely free, fully conscious view of what is actually necessary from his employment relationship. He could, because modern technology, namely modern capitalism, had harnessed him to the mere economic order, he could actually only believe, because the bourgeoisie had shifted everything to the economic level, that the downfall of the old, the collapse of the old, and the construction to be longed for and achieved, would have to develop in the economic sphere, in the sphere where he saw that capital, human labor and goods were at work. And today, when the justifiable call for socialization is heard, even when other areas of life are taken into account, only the economic order is actually considered. As if hypnotized, I would say, the gaze is directed purely at economic life, purely at what is understood by the names capital, labor and goods, living conditions, material achievements. But deep down in the proletarian's heart, even if he is not quite sure in his head, there sits what tells him that the social question is a threefold one, that this newer social question, which he suffers from, for which he wants to stand up, for which he wants to fight, is a spiritual question, a legal or state question and an economic question. Therefore, today, allow me to treat this social question, this social movement, as a spiritual question, as a legal question, and as an economic question.

You only have to look at economic life to see that there is much more at stake than just economic life. If we are right to call for socialization today, we must also ask: yes, what should be socialized and how should it be socialized? Because from these two points of view,

What should be socialized?

How should it be socialized?

we must, above all, consider economic life as it has developed in recent times, and how it actually is in our day, if we have no illusions about it, at least for our region, it is more or less in collapse. We must realize today that we can no longer learn anything from all the things that people in the sense of capitalism, in the sense of private enterprise, have regarded as practical and appropriate for people. Anyone who today believes that one can get ahead with institutions that are only conceived in the same way as one has previously conceived is truly indulging in the greatest illusions. But we must learn from these institutions. You see, the most characteristic thing that has emerged in social life over a long period of time, but especially to this day, is that on the one hand we have the previously leading classes, accustomed in their thinking to what has been comfortable for them for a long time; those have repeatedly praised and even adulated in their spokesmen and themselves all that modern culture and modern civilization have produced that is so glorious and great. How often have we not heard: Man today rushes across miles in a way that was previously unimaginable; thought travels at lightning speed by telegraph or telephone. External artistic and scientific culture is spreading in an unimagined way. — I could continue this song of praise, which I do not want to sing and which countless people who have been able to participate in this culture have sung over and over again, for a long time. But today, indeed, the times demand that we ask: how was this new culture possible from an economic point of view alone? It was only possible because it arose as a superstructure over the physical and mental misery, over the physical and mental distress of the broad masses, who were not allowed to participate in the much-praised culture. If it had not been for this broad mass, if it had not worked, this culture could not have existed. That is the crux of the matter; that is the historical question of today, which must not be ignored.

From this, however, the hallmark of all modern economic life emerges. This characteristic consists in the fact that today any follower, any member of the propertied class, can easily provide a popular “proof”; recently, this proof has been provided more abundantly. For a while, people kept quiet about it because, foolish as it is, stupid as it is, one can no longer dare to tell the working class, the truly socially minded people, about this folly. But today it is being heard more and more often, today when so much folly is going through the air, through the so-called intellectual air. It is easy for those who still want to represent today's declining economic order to say: Yes, if you now really divide up all the capital income and ownership of the means of production, the division does not particularly improve what the individual proletarian has. It is a foolish and stupid objection, because it is not at all a matter of this objection, because it is not at all about this objection, but about something much more fundamental, greater and more powerful. What it is about is this: that this whole economic culture, as it has developed under the influence of the ruling classes, has become such that a surplus, an added value, can only give a few the fruits of this culture. Our entire economic culture is such that only a few can enjoy the fruits. Nor is more added value given than what only a few can enjoy. If the little that is given were to be distributed among those who also have a right to a dignified existence, it would not even begin to suffice. Where does this come from?

This question must be posed differently than it is by so many today. I would like to give you just a few examples; I could multiply these examples not a hundredfold, but a thousandfold; perhaps some examples in the form of questions. I would like to ask: Within the German economic culture of the last decades, did all machines really need exactly as much coal as was absolutely necessary for these machines? Ask the question objectively and you will get the answer that our economic system was in such a state of chaos that many machines required much more coal in the last decades than would have been necessary according to the technical advances. But what does that mean? It means nothing other than that much more human labor was expended for the production and extraction of these coals than should have been expended and could have been expended if truly socio-economic thinking had been present. This human labor was used uselessly, it was wasted. I ask you: Are people aware that in the years before the war, we used twice as much coal in the German economy as we should have been allowed to use? We wasted so much coal that today we have to say that we could have gotten by with half the coal production if the people who had to supply the technology and the economy had been up to the task. I am giving this example for the reason that you see that there is an opposite pole to the luxury culture of the few on the one hand. This luxury culture has not been able to produce capable minds that would have been up to the newer economic life. As a result, an infinite amount of labor has been wasted. As a result, productivity has been undermined. These are the secret causes, quite objective causes, by which we have been brought into the situation in which we now find ourselves. Therefore, the social and socialization question must also be solved in a technical and objective way. The culture of the past has not produced the minds that would have been able to somehow create an industrial science. There was no industrial science; everything is based on chaos, on chance. Much was left to cunning, to cheating, to senseless personal competition. But that had to be. Because if one had gone into the matter on the basis of industrial science, then what would have resulted would no longer be what only a luxury culture has produced for a few from the surplus value of the working, producing population. Today, the question of socialization must be approached in a completely different way than many people approach it.

You see, someone can come to me today and say: Yes, you are of the opinion that there should no longer be any idle rentiers in the future? Yes, I do hold that view. But if he fights for the current economic order as one of its supporters, he will tell me: But just consider how little it is when you add up all the pension assets and distribute them, and how small it is in relation to what all the millions of working people have together. I will tell him: I know just as well as you do that the pension assets are few, but look, a counter-question: it is a very small ulcer that someone has on some part of their body. This ulcer is very small in relation to the whole body. But does it depend on the size of the ulcer or on the fact that when it occurs it shows that the whole body is unhealthy? It is not a matter of calculating the size of the rentier's fortune, nor of necessarily morally condemning the rentiers – it is not their fault, they have inherited this wisdom of being rentiers or something like that – but it is that, just as in the natural human organism a disease, an unhealthy thing, shows itself in its entirety when an ulcer breaks out, so the unhealthiness of the social organism shows itself when idleness or rent is possible in it at all. The rentiers are simply proof that the social organism is unhealthy; they are proof that all idlers, like all those who cannot work themselves, use the labor of others for their sustenance.

Thoughts must simply be brought into a completely different channel. It must be possible to convince oneself that our economic life has become unhealthy. And now the question must be asked: How is it that within the economic cycle, capital, human labor, and goods develop in such an unhealthy way – namely for the question of the broad masses of humanity as to whether one can lead a dignified existence as a worker? This must be asked. But then one can no longer stop at mere economic life; then, when one sees this question in all its depth, one is necessarily led to grasp the social question in three aspects: as a spiritual question, as a state or legal question, and as an economic question. Therefore, you must give me a quarter of an hour if I first speak about the social question as a spiritual question. Because anyone who has studied this aspect a little knows why we do not have an industrial science, why we do not have what has long since resulted from the minds of people a healthy management, a healthy socialization of our economic life. If the soil is diseased, no fruit will grow on it. If the spiritual life of a people is not healthy in a particular age, then the fruit that should grow on it is not the economic overview, as a way to control the economic order so that real benefit can arise from it for the masses. All the chaos that exists in our economic life today has arisen from the soil of a sick spiritual life in recent times. Therefore, we must first look at this: what is going on in those buildings that the worker passes at most when he walks across the street on Sunday, when he is freed from his factory or place of work? What goes on in those institutions where the so-called higher intellectual life takes place, from which, in turn, orders and instructions are issued for the lower school system, for the ordinary elementary school? I ask you, hand on heart, what do you actually know about how those personal abilities that are actually guiding in spiritual life, in legal life, in economic life are fabricated in the universities, in the grammar schools, in the secondary modern schools? You know nothing about it! You know something about what is taught to your children at school, but even there you do not know what intentions and aims for this school teaching flow down from the higher educational institutions into the ordinary schools. The broad masses of the proletariat basically have no idea which paths lead people growing up in the field of intellectual life. And this is part of what creates the abyss, the deep divide: on the one side, the proletariat; on the other, the others. What has been done in recent times to improve the situation? Because there was no other way than to make certain concessions to democracy, a few scraps in all possible forms of so-called newer education were given to the people; adult education centers were established, people's courses were held, art was shown to the people, so benevolently: the people should also have some. What has been achieved with all this, what is it actually? It is nothing but a terrible cultural lie. All this has only served to make the gulf even more significant. For when could the proletarian look with an upright, honest, whole-hearted, whole-souled gaze at what is painted within the bourgeois class, at what is fabricated within the bourgeois class as science? If he shared a common social life with those who produced it, if there were no class difference! For it is impossible to have a common spiritual life with those to whom one does not belong socially. That is what has, spiritually, above all, created the great divide. That is what points, spiritually, to what has to happen.

Dear attendees! As I said, I do not intend to say much about myself. But what I have to say to you is spoken by someone who has spent his life, as far as possible, and later more and more so, in spiritual endeavors far removed from those who are supported by the state or modern economic life in their spiritual endeavors. Only then could one form a truly independent spiritual life, a healthy judgment, if one had made oneself independent of all that is connected with the modern state, with modern economic life in a spiritual sense. For you see, you count yourself among the proletariat; you can count yourself among them; you can proudly call yourself a proletarian in contrast to the civil servant, who belongs to a different social order. That is how it is in the material world. You know what the proletarian has to go through in the world compared to the civil servant. But in the spiritual realm, there are basically no real proletarians; there are only those who openly admit to you: If I had ever bowed down under the yoke of a state or a capitalist group, I could not stand before you today and tell you what I am telling you about modern social ideas, because it would not have entered my head. Only those who have kept themselves free from the state and the capitalist economic order, who have built their spiritual life themselves, can say that. But the others, they are not proletarians, they are laborers. That is it, that today the concept of the intellectual laborer, who is intellectually dependent on the present state and the present economic order, that he is in charge of the intellectual sphere and thus, basically, also economically and state-wise. This is what has emerged from the capitalist bourgeois economic order over the past few centuries, what has led the state to be a servant of the bourgeois economic order, and what in turn has led intellectual life to submit to the state.

The enlightened, the enlightened in their own opinion, the very clever people, they are proud when they can say today: In the Middle Ages, well, it was the case that philosophy – as the whole of science was called back then – trailed behind theology. Of course we do not want to wish back that time, I certainly do not want to call back the Middle Ages, but what has happened in the course of the modern development? Today, because it has become very proud, the scientist no longer carries the train of theology, but with regard to the state, what does he do then? Well, here is a blatant example: You see, there was a great modern physiologist, he is dead now, who was also the luminary of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. I hold him in high esteem as a naturalist. Just as Shakespeare once said, “Honorable people they all are,” I would like to say, “Clever people they all are, all of them.” But this man revealed something about what characterizes this modern intellectual life in particular. He said – one would not believe it, but it is true – the scholars of the Berlin Academy of Sciences saw themselves as the scientific protection force of the Hohenzollern. – Yes, you see, again an example that could easily be multiplied a hundredfold, a thousandfold.

Now I ask you: Is it any wonder that the modern proletarian, when he looked at this intellectual life, perceived this intellectual life as a luxury intellectual life? Is it any wonder that he says to himself: This intellectual life is not rooted in a special spirit, it truly does not carry the human soul, nor does it reveal that it is the outflow of a divine or moral world order. No, it is the consequence of economic life. People live spiritually in the way they acquire their capital. That is what their intellectual life makes possible for them. Therefore, even in the modern proletariat, a truly free view of a spiritual life that truly nourishes the soul could not arise. But I know from decades of experience: the modern proletarian has a deep longing for a true spiritual life, not for a spiritual life that stops at the bourgeois border, but one that seeps into the souls of all people. That is why the appeal that I am commanded to speak about today states that in the future this intellectual life must be self-contained and not only contain the last remnants of intellectual life, art and the like that still remain. In Berlin, they have also wanted to incorporate these heavily into the omnipotence of the state.

The whole of intellectual life, from the lowest level of education to the highest, must be left to its own devices, because the spirit thrives only when it has to prove its reality and strength anew every day. The spirit never thrives when it is dependent on the state, when it is the state's lackey, the servant of economic life. What has become of this field has paralyzed people's minds. Oh, when we look at the ruling classes today, when we, who want to understand the call for socialization, look at those who run the factories today, at those who run the workshops, who run the schools, the universities, who run the states – oh, it makes one's soul ache – they can't think of anything, the seriousness of the situation does not sink into their heads. Why not? Yes, how have people gradually become accustomed to economic life, to legal or state life, and to intellectual life? The state, so to speak, takes over when the human being is beyond just the first years of education – which the state has not yet taken over because the first years of a person's education are not run cleanly enough for the state – with its school, it takes over the human being. He then educates him in such a way that this person only has to accomplish - as it was until the great war catastrophe over the entire civilized world - what he is commanded, what he is ordered, what the state - from its theologians, from its physicians, as it turned out during the war, in particular from its lawyers, from its philologists - actually wants. If there is an intelligent person among them, in the examination commissions, then you can hear a clever word from them. I once sat with the gentlemen of an examination commission, and when we talked about how bad our grammar school system actually is, he said: Yes, it is also a shame when you have to examine people and then see what kind of people you have to let loose on young people.

I am telling you this as a cultural-historical fact, as a symptom, so that attention is drawn to what lives among the people who have led the world, to whom, in a certain way, the leadership of the people was entrusted, and why people have finally brought the world into this terrible catastrophe. The causes that have brought humanity to this catastrophe are made up of millions of details. And among these causes, the social phenomenon of spiritual life is predominant, and because socialization is on our minds today, it is the socialization of spiritual life that matters most. What matters is that human talents and abilities be cultivated in the right way, just as what is to grow in the field is cultivated, as is the case in agriculture. This has not been done so far. The state took over the human being, trained him for its use, and all activity, all independence, was driven out of the human being. In the end, the human being had only one ideal in relation to economic life and intellectual life from the legal life of the state: economic activity. The state had taken him over and trained him for itself. Now, when man is well trained, the state economic life begins for him. He was provided for; then he was well-behaved, even if he no longer wanted to work, provided for until his death in the form of a pension, that is, through the work of those who had no pension. And when he had died, the church took care of the matter after death. The church gave him a pension for after death. In this way, a person was provided for economically until death if he belonged to the ruling classes, and in the grave he was also retired after death. Everything was in order for him; he no longer needed to think for himself or intervene in the social order in such a way that something beneficial could arise from it; he did not need to participate actively. Therefore, it has gradually become the case that people were no longer able to reflect on what should happen, on what should come into the world as a kind of new development. Those who were excluded from all of this, to whom the state would not even have granted the small insurance pension until death if they had not forced it, and to whom the ruling classes have also not handed down any intellectual life, because the intellectual life that gave them a patent for the soul after death was not wanted by the proletarians, who demand a new order. Therefore, we have as our first demand precisely that for an emancipation of intellectual life, for a reorganization of intellectual life. That is the first question that matters.

The second question arises when we turn our attention to the field of law, to the area that is supposed to belong to the actual state. However, we only find ourselves coming together sympathetically in this area today if we look at the economic area from it. What is actually in the economic area? In the economic area, there is the production of goods, the circulation of goods, and the consumption of goods. The commodities have certain values that are expressed in the price. But through the economic development of recent times, in its connection with the development of the state, the bourgeoisie has introduced into economic life something of which the proletarian demands in the most justified way today: it must no longer be part of economic life, and that is human labor. Just as it has struck the souls of the proletarian-feeling, when Karl Marx pronounced the significant word of surplus value, so the other word struck the souls of the proletarians, that in an unjustified way, the labor of man has become a commodity in the modern economic order. Here the proletarian feels: as long as my labor power must be bought and sold on the labor market, like goods on the commodities market according to supply and demand, I cannot answer yes to the question: Do I lead a dignified existence? What does the modern proletarian know of the intellectual life? Despite all popular entertainments, despite all guidance in the galleries and so on, he only knows that which he calls surplus value. Surplus value means that which he must supply for an intellectual life that cannot become his; that is what he knows of intellectual life. That is why the word surplus value struck so sympathetically into the proletarians' minds. And when Karl Marx formulated it, the modern proletarian's feelings ran counter to this concept of surplus value. And because human labor power must never be a commodity, Marx's other concept of “labor power as a commodity” struck the hearts and minds of the proletarians like a bolt of lightning as a profound truth.

Anyone who truly understands human life knows that what I have just said, that in the modern economic cycle the human labor of the proletarian is unlawfully treated as a commodity, that this in turn is based on an enormous lie. For human labor is something that can never be compared by any price with a commodity, with a product. This can even be proved quite thoroughly. I know that the lectures I am now giving in this way – especially to the leading classes – are repeatedly and repeatedly said to me, directly or indirectly, to be difficult to understand. Well, just recently someone told me: They are just difficult to understand for those who do not want to understand them. And when I recently gave a talk in Dornach to a gathering of proletarians that was similar to the talk I am giving you today, someone from the type of people who find these words so difficult to understand said that he had not understood them properly after all. A proletarian replied: Well, you have to be a fool not to understand it. I, for one, do not fear this difficulty of comprehension, for I was a teacher for many years at the Workers' Education School founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht, and I know that the proletarian understands much of what the bourgeois finds quite incomprehensible. I do not fear that you will not understand me when I say: All tendencies, all goals of economic life, are directed towards consuming commodities. The issue, therefore, is to consume the commodity in a healthy way. What cannot be consumed is produced in an unhealthy way. In some way, the commodity must be consumable. But if the capitalist economic system turns human labor into a commodity, then those who turn it into a commodity are only interested in consuming it. But human labor power must not be merely consumed, and so we need an economic system, and above all we need a socialization that not only determines the working hours but also, and above all, determines the hours of rest, because these must be there if a communal social life is to be there. This shows that recovery can only come about when the leading circles of society, the then rightful leading circles of society, have as much interest in the worker having his rest period as today's capitalists have in the worker having his working hours.

Therefore, I say to you: human labor power can never be compared in price to any other commodity. Therefore, buying human labor power on the labor market – you understand what that means – is a great social lie that must be eradicated. How do we go about divesting human labor power of the character of a commodity? That is a great social question.

The first question was the intellectual question. The second is a great social question: How does the modern laborer come to strip his labor power of the character of the commodity? For what does the modern proletarian feel about the way his labor power is used in today's economy? He may not always have time to sort out his feelings and what is going on in his heart, and he may not be able to express himself clearly about these matters, but he says to himself: In ancient times there were slaves; the capitalists bought and sold human beings, just as one buys and sells a cow, the whole human being. Later there was serfdom; then they no longer sold the whole person, but only a part of the person, but still enough. At present, despite all the assurances of freedom and humanity, despite the so-called employment contract, the proletarian knows very well that now his labor is still being bought and sold. He knows that. The so-called employment contract does not deceive him about that. But in the depths of his soul, in the depths of his mind, he feels: I can sell a horse or a pair of boots at the market and then go back. But I cannot take my labor power and sell it to the factory owner and then go back; I must go along as a human being with my labor power. So I am still selling my entire self when I have to be in a wage relationship, when I have to sell my labor power. Thus the modern proletarian experiences the connection of the true character of his labor power with the old slavery. That is why he experiences it, which unfortunately the leading classes have failed to grasp at the right moment: that today the world-historical moment has arrived when labor power can no longer be a commodity. Economic life can only have the cycle of commodity production, commodity consumption, and commodity circulation.

Only people who can only think in the old way, such as Walther Rathenau in his latest booklet, which is titled “After the Flood,” show a certain fear of this realization. Walther Rathenau says: If you separate labor from the economic cycle, then the value of money must fall terribly. — Well, he only looks at it from one side. For those who think like him, this decline in the value of money will indeed have great significance. We will not talk about that any further. The point is that economic life itself can only be properly understood if one sees how this economic life is connected, on the one hand, to the natural conditions of economic life. There is the soil, it produces coal, it produces wheat. In the soil, for example, are the natural forces that belong to the soil and that produce the wheat. From above, the necessary rain falls. These are natural conditions. You can get around them to some extent with technical aids, but economic life does have its limits there. How terribly foolish it would be if someone wanted to legislate based on economic cycles and write a law that said: If we want reasonable prices and reasonable economic conditions, then in 1920 we need a year with so-and-so many rainy days and so-and-so many sunny days, and the forces under the ground must work in such and such a way. You are right to laugh. It would be very foolish to want to make laws about what nature itself determines, to want to invent requirements from the economic life as to how nature should work with its forces. Just as we come up against a limit with the economic life, as the soil of a particular country can only provide a certain amount of raw materials, so on the other hand the economic life must border on that which stands outside this economic life, on the life of the constitutional state. And in the life of the state under the rule of law, only that which is the common concern of all people, and which can truly be based on democracy, may be established and regulated. Thus we arrive at a threefold structure of the healthy social organism.

Spiritual life stands on its own; spiritual life must be free. In this respect, talent and human abilities must be cultivated in the right way. One statesman, who has said many a hot-headed thing during the terrible catastrophe of the war, has also said: In the future, the path will be free for the hardworking! — In these serious times, fine phrases and empty talk that are only true in terms of the letter no longer suffice. If people say, “A free hand to the capable,” but they are predisposed by blood and social prejudices to consider their nephew or sibling the most capable, then not much will be achieved by such a grand motto. We must take the cultivation of human talent seriously in the free spiritual life, and then we will socialize the spiritual life. The state is responsible for everything in which all people are equal, for which special talents are not considered, but for which what is considered is what is innate in man, just as the ability to see blue or red is innate in a healthy eye. The state is responsible for the sense of justice. This sense of justice can lie dormant in the soul, but it is placed in the heart of every human being. The proletarian sought to live out this sense of right. What did he find? Just as he found intellectual luxury in the sphere of intellectual life, which was like a smoke that emerged from the economic life, so in the sphere of the state he found not the living out of the sense of right, but class privileges, class prerogatives and class disadvantages. There you have the root of the anti-social element in modern life. The State is the owner of everything in which all men are equal. They are not equal in respect of their mental and physical abilities and aptitudes. These belong to the sphere of the free spiritual life. The State will only be healthy when it no longer absorbs spiritual and economic life in the sense of the modern bourgeois order, or one might say, in the sense of the bourgeois order that is now heading towards its decline. Instead, it should release spiritual life on the one hand and economic life on the other for their own socialization. That is what is at stake. Then it will be possible for the worker, as an equal of all people in the territory of the state, to regulate the measure and type and character of his labor power before he has to plunge into economic life at all. In the future, it must be as impossible for economic conditions or economic necessities to determine labor law as it is simply impossible for natural conditions to make it impossible for the economic cycle or other factors to regulate the forces of nature, rain and sunshine. Independently of economic life, it must be determined by the state, on democratic soil, where one person is equal to another, in the state, which is completely separate from economic life, what labor law is, and what is opposed to this labor law, what disposition of a thing is, what is called ownership today, but what must cease to the greatest extent possible and must give way to a healthy state in the future. If economic life is not determined by the worker, but rather, conversely, economic life must be guided by what the worker determines about his work in a state democracy, then an important requirement has been met.

Now, one might object: then economic life becomes dependent on the law and right of labor. Very well, but it will be a healthy dependency, a dependency as natural as the dependency on nature. The worker will know before he goes to the factory how much and how long he has to work; he will no longer have to deal with any foreman about the extent and nature of his work. He will only have to talk about what exists as a distribution of what has been produced together with the supervisor. That will be a possible employment contract. There will be contracts only about the distribution of what has been achieved, not about labor. This is not a return to the old piecework wage; that would only be the case if this process of socialization were not thought of in the round.

I can also briefly mention another issue that stands in the way of labor law, which will liberate the worker. Conventional socialism talks a lot about private property becoming common property. But the big question of this socialization will be precisely how to do it. In our current economic system, we only have a little healthy thinking about property in one area. This is in the area that, according to modern bourgeois phraseology, modern bourgeois dishonesty, has gradually become the most insignificant property after all, namely intellectual property. In relation to this intellectual property, you see, people still think a little bit sanely. They say to themselves: however clever a person may be, he brings his abilities with him at birth, but that has no social significance. On the contrary, he is obliged to offer them to human society; these abilities would be of no use if the person were not part of human society. Man owes what he can create from his abilities to human society, to the human social order. It does not truly belong to him. Why do we manage our so-called intellectual property? Simply because we produce it; by producing it, we show that we have the abilities to do so better than others. As long as we have these abilities better than others, we will best manage this intellectual property in the service of the whole. Now, at least, people have realized that this intellectual property is not inherited endlessly; thirty years after death, intellectual property belongs to all of humanity. Anyone can print what I have produced thirty years after my death; they can use it in any way they like, and that is right. I would even agree if there were more rights in this area. There is no other justification for the administration of intellectual property than that, because one can produce it, one also has the better abilities. Ask the capitalist today whether he agrees to take responsibility for what he considers to be the right thing for the valuable material property that he possesses! Ask him! And yet this is the healthy way. It must be the basis of a healthy order that everyone can acquire capital through the intellectual organization that will be the healthy administration of human abilities – you will find this explained in more detail in my book 'The Crux of the Social Question'. But it must come about that the means and ways are found to this great, comprehensive socialization of capital, that is, of capital income and the means of production, so that everyone who has the abilities to do so can come to capital and the means of production, but that he can only have the administration and management of capital and the means of production as long as he can or wants to exercise these abilities. Then they will pass over, when he no longer wants to exercise them himself, to the community in certain ways. They will begin to circulate in the community.

This will be a healthy way to socialize capital if we can get what is today capital in inheritance law, in the creation of pensions, of idler's rights, of other superfluous rights, what accumulates in capitals, into the social organism. We need not even say: private property must become social property. The concept of property will have no meaning at all. It will be as meaningless as it would be if blood were to accumulate in individual places in my body. Blood must be in circulation. What is capital must go from the capable to the capable. Will the worker agree to such socialization? Yes, he will, because his situation in life compels him to be reasonable. He will say to himself: If the one with the right abilities is the manager, then I can trust him, then my labor power is better applied under the right manager than under the capitalist, who does not have the abilities, but who has only been put in his place by an unhealthy accumulation process of capitals. I can only hint at these things now. The future doctrine of socialization will be the concrete, true development of the circulation of capital and the means of production, which Karl Marx also presented in an abstract way as a great goal for humanity: From each according to his abilities and needs.

We have gone through a hard time of human suffering, a hard time of trial for humanity. Today we no longer need to say, as some have done, that there must be a new race of people who can socialize according to the principle: To each according to his abilities and needs! No, we can have the right belief. If we only want it, then such healthy social ideas will be able to take hold of the tripartite division into spiritual life, legal life and economic life. For this economic life will only become healthy when it is separated from the other two. Then, in the economic sphere, associations will be formed, as I have described in my book, and cooperatives will be formed, which, in a healthy way, do not aim to produce and profit, but which start from consumption and do not make production in such a way that workers are squandered, but rather that workers are called upon to improve consumption and to satisfy needs.

Allow me to tell you the beginning that we made in the society that you do not love, because I understand it so much being maligned – allow me to tell you how, in a particular area, attempts were made to economically socialize intellectual life. When I was obliged, about twenty years ago, to lead this society with my friends, it was important to me to say to myself: If you distribute the books that are produced by me on the basis of this society in the same capitalist way as is the custom in the book trade today, then you are committing a sin against healthy social thinking. For how are books produced today? Many people today consider themselves capable of producing good books. Well, if everything that is printed today were to be read, then we would have our work cut out for us. But you see, that is why there is this custom in the book trade: someone considers themselves a genius and writes a book. The book is printed in a thousand copies. Of most of these books, 950 copies are pulped because only fifty are sold. But what does that mean in economic terms? You see, so many people who have to produce the paper, so many typesetters, so many bookbinders and so on have been employed to do the work; this work is unproductive, this work is wasted. Therein lies the great harm. Oh, you would be amazed if you only tried to answer the question of how much of the work that the honored attendees sitting here have to do is wasted. That is the great social harm. So how did I try to do it? I said to myself: There is nothing to be done with the book trade. We founded a small bookstore ourselves. But then I first made sure that the needs for which the book was to be printed existed. That is, I had to make the effort to create the consumers first; not, of course, by putting up a pillar like the pillars with the advertisement: Make good soups with Maggi! but by first creating the needs – one can argue against these needs, of course – and then starting to print, when I knew that not a single copy would be left lying around, not a single action would be in vain. Attempts have also been made to produce bread, which was not possible under present conditions in the same way, but where it could be carried out, it was precisely in economic terms that it proved fruitful, if one starts not from blind production aimed only at getting rich, but from needs, from consumption. Then, when that happens, real socialization can be carried out through the cooperative economy.

So today I had to talk to you about socialization on a broader basis. Because only what arises on this broad basis is the truly practical. Otherwise, socialization will always be botched if we do not ask the very first question: What does the state have to do? First it must release spiritual life in one direction, then economic life in another direction; it must remain on the ground of the life of right. There is nothing impractical about that, but it is a socialization that can be carried out every day.

What is needed? Courage, nothing else! But why do people want to see it as impractical? I have met enough people who, over and over again in the last four and a half years, have said that this world war catastrophe is so terrible that people have not experienced such horrors in the history of mankind, that it is the greatest experience in the historical development of humanity. Well, I have not yet found people who also say: If people were condemned to be led into such misery by old thoughts, by old habits of thinking, then they must now pull themselves together to leave these old thoughts and come to new thoughts, to new habits of thinking. Above all, we need a socialization of minds. The minds that we carry on our shoulders must contain something different from what has been in people's minds so far. That is what we need. Therefore, the question must be approached in a broad way.

And now, in conclusion, I would like to say this: when the dawn of modern times broke, those people who had the greatest concern for the progress of civilized humanity were imbued with three great ideals: liberty, equality, fraternity. These three great ideals have a strange history. On the one hand, every healthy and inwardly courageous person feels that these are the three great impulses that must now finally guide modern humanity. But very clever people in the nineteenth century repeatedly demonstrated the contradictions that actually exist between these three ideas: liberty, equality, fraternity. Yes, there is a contradiction, they are right. But that does not change the fact that they are the greatest ideals, despite the contradictions. They were formulated at a time when humanity was still hypnotized by the unitary state, which has been revered like an idol up to the present day. In particular, those who have made the state their protector and themselves the protectors of the state, the so-called entrepreneurs, could speak to the employee as Faust spoke to the sixteen-year-old Gretchen about the god: “The state, my dear worker, is the all-embracing, the all-sustaining; does it not embrace and sustain you, me, itself? And subconsciously it can think: but especially me! — The gaze was directed as if hypnotized to this idol, the unified state. There, in this unified state, these three great ideals do indeed contradict each other. But those who did not allow themselves to be hypnotized by this unified state in the field of intellectual life, who thought of freedom as I myself did in my book “The Philosophy of Freedom”, which I wrote in the early 1890s and which had to be republished now, in our time of great social issues and great rethinking, they knew: Only because people believed that they had to be realized in the unified state did contradictions arise between the three greatest social ideals.

If we recognize correctly that a healthy social organism must be one that is structured in three, then we will see that in the realm of spiritual life, freedom must prevail, because abilities, talents and gifts must be cultivated in a free way. In the realm of the state, absolute equality must prevail, democratic equality, because in the state lives that which makes all human beings equal. In economic life, which is supposed to be separate from the life of the state and the life of the spirit, but which is to be supplied by the life of the state and the life of the spirit, fraternity must prevail, fraternity on a large scale. It will arise from associations, from cooperatives, which will emerge from the professional associations and from those communities that are formed from healthy consumption, together with healthy production. Equality, liberty and fraternity will reign in this threefold organism. And through this new socialization it will be possible to realize what people who think and feel healthily have longed for a long time. We must only have the courage to regard many an old party program as a mummy in the face of new facts. We must have the courage to admit: new ideas are needed for new facts and for the new phases of human development. And I have had experiences with all classes in my life observations, which truly span decades, that have arisen from a destiny that has taught me to feel and think not about, but with the proletariat, and I have gained from this the feeling that the proletariat is the healthy element, that even what has now emerged as a consequence of the impermissible fusion of economic life with state life, that this is felt by the proletarian in the right way. Those who have listened to me today will know that I am sincere in my belief that the modern proletariat's demands are justified and historic. But I also know that in the final analysis, when it comes to the question of strikes, the reasonable proletarian thinks like the reasonable man in general. I know that the reasonable worker does not strike for the sake of striking, he only strikes because the economic system has brought it about that political demands are mixed up with economic demands. Not until this separation of political life from economic life has occurred will economic life be able to be completely brought into reasonable channels. We would also understand this, especially if we had the opportunity to talk about it in more detail. We would understand the need for every strike: it could be avoided; the reasonable worker would only want to undertake it out of necessity. This is also something that belongs to healthy socialization, that we get beyond what we actually do not want to do, what is unreasonable to do. Even the modern economic order has brought it about that what is unwanted, what is considered unreasonable, is often done.

You will understand me, and you will also understand when I say, precisely from this point of view: however bad my experiences have been with the old classes, people must still find their way to threefolding, and I hope for much from the healthy senses of the modern proletariat. I have seen how behind what the modern proletariat calls its class consciousness there stands an unconscious human consciousness; how the class-conscious proletarian is really asking how to arrive at a world order that answers the question, ” Is human life worth living and worth living for me? — Today the proletarian can only answer this question arising out of the economic order, out of the legal order, and out of the intellectual life with a No; tomorrow he wants to answer it with a Yes. And between this 'No' and this 'Yes' lies true socialization, lies that by which the truly self-conscious proletariat will liberate and redeem this proletariat and thereby liberate and redeem all that is human in man, which deserves to be liberated and redeemed.

Closing words after the discussion

Well, esteemed attendees, in the final analysis the discussion has not really yielded anything of such significance with regard to what I said that I needed to detain you much longer with this closing speech. But first I would like to answer the direct question that was put to me at the end: why I used so much agitation in my talk. Well, I certainly do not want to enter into a discussion with the esteemed questioner, as you will understand, as to whether, because it is said of me that I am a philosopher, I am only entitled to speak in an incomprehensible, unagitated way, that is, in figures of speech. That is not my point. But I was somewhat surprised, very much surprised, that the word “agitational” was applied at all to what I said. Because I am truly not aware of having spoken a single word other than what emerges from my conviction of truth, from my view of the current situation. What is agitative? If, let us say, a man who is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative listens to the very moderate words of someone who is very much on the left, and the latter finds them inflammatory, are they necessarily inflammatory? Why does he speak in an inflammatory way to the dyed-in-the-wool conservative? It is not his fault. The words only become so in the mind of the ultra-conservative man. So, you see, what one person regards as demagogic does not have to be demagogic for another. What one person finds quite unpleasant, he often calls demagogic. Now your technical manager has also spoken to you. If everyone who comes from the same background as your esteemed technical manager were to speak as your esteemed technical manager does, then, ladies and gentlemen, we would soon achieve what we want to achieve. If a great many people thought like this, then it would not be necessary for a few to say that the words of those like me, who want to speak the truth and do not want to create an abyss, only serve to widen the gap. But on the other side, on the right side of the abyss, there are also people quite unlike your esteemed technical director, who addressed you, and who speaks quite differently from him. There will not be a great gulf fixed between him and us. Perhaps the gulf will only begin where he, too, stands more on the other side. I believe that what I said about the fate of many intellectual workers could be understood.

You see, you could experience different things if you are really involved in the newer development of humanity. Many, more than 27 or 28 years ago, I once attended a meeting at which Paul Singer spoke. Some people from the proletariat somehow made it clear that they did not value intellectual work the same as physical labor. They should have listened to how Paul Singer, in agreement with the vast majority, defended intellectual work! I have never seen intellectual work misunderstood by the proletariat. I was not talking about any gap between physical and intellectual labor, I was talking about the gap between the proletariat, human labor, and capitalism. We must be clear about that. And let us be clear, such speeches as we have heard from your esteemed leader, to our great joy – at least to mine and certainly to your great joy – such speeches, we do not easily hear them on the other side either. We will not easily find people whose hands can be grasped.

And finally, one more thing: Yes, certainly, I say things that may make it necessary to act quickly with regard to many things. As a scientist myself, I understand very well the words of the esteemed previous speaker when he says: Development must proceed slowly; one must have patience to wait. Thirty years ago, mathematicians discovered things that are only now being recognized. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, and I now address your technical director, whom I greatly respect: But there are things in social life today that we cannot afford to wait for, but rather we are obliged to open our minds a little and be capable of quick understanding. That is why I was more pleased about the following than about the emphasis on slowness.

I have given lectures on social issues in various cities in Switzerland. I have come to understand that someone who falls outside the usual program is initially met with mistrust. In Basel, friends initially tried to get the Socialist Party's executive committee to have me give a lecture in their circle. The board – I do not blame them, I understand it, I also spoke today of justified mistrust – perhaps because they did not want to refuse me, based themselves on principle and said that they did not know whether it was desirable to let outside influences approach party members. So they rejected my lecture. That seems to be the opinion of some leaders now. They drew the conclusion that I should not speak. Then a Social Democrat came to me and said he would try to get me to come and speak at the Railway Workers' Association. That too was rejected. I then gave a lecture in Zurich. We then made leaflets in Basel, simply handed them out on the street and took the largest hall for a social lecture in Basel, and I was able to give this lecture in front of more than 2,500 people. You see, that was very recently. Now, just before I had to leave, after I had given this lecture to the proletariat of Basel, I received an invitation from the railway workers' association, which had refused at the time, that I should now give a similar lecture to its members. So things are fourteen days apart: first the association refuses, then it knew what it was getting and now also demanded its lecture. That was a rapid development, a development in a fortnight. I believe that today we must pay more attention to such rapid thinking, which takes place in a fortnight, than to such thinking that tells us that things must happen slowly. Today I would like to be much more pleased about those who first want to assert their free will, but who want to learn and want to learn quickly. Because, my dear attendees, we are heading for a terrible time if we want to adapt to slowness. We need a healthy impulse for thoughts that go just as fast as the facts will go. That is what we want to write on our hearts today. I know that the honored speaker did not mean to walk slowly out of laziness, but other people are lazy. But anyone who is serious today knows how quickly we will have to rethink and relearn if we do not want to be left behind and end up in misery and destruction.