This highly controversial saying, which goes back to St. Paul, is one of the most significant of all, because all existing or utopian social systems can be derived from it. All either arise from agreement with it or from protest against it.
Civilization versus war, barbarism and extreme poverty
An important qualification is, however, called for. No society, except those at war or in the worst periods of barbarism, has ever strictly adhered to it. At the earliest age, humans are not yet capable ofwork. The biological survival of society would be endangered if it did not sustain the growing new generation. At their latest period of age, humans are no longer capable of work. A society that does not feed its old people would be considered inhumane, unless it acts out of extreme necessity, as was the case in ancient Japan and probably in many other parts of the world. Before the industrial era, some mountains in Japan were still called Sute-Baba-Yama, that is “mountains where grandmothers are abandoned”. Japan has always been a country where special reverence was shown to the elderly. But extreme food shortages could force people to choose between the survival of newborns and that of the elderly. In some particularly poor mountain areas, the elderly were sacrificed in such cases.
But not only in the case of those not yet or no longer able to work did almost all societies make an exception to the abovementioned rule. It also applied to the sick and other temporarily or permanently disabled people.
The saying therefore applies only to the employable part of society. Should employable people be allowed to eat even if they don’t work?
Sometimes you may hear that it was the unfortunate insistence on the “primacy of labor” that brought about the social aberrations of our time, for example capitalism. I consider this to be superficial and untenable chatter. After all, the question underlying this saying is a different one. Should people be entitled to the services of their fellows even if they themselves are not willing to provide services for others? If you ask the question in this way, the answer will be obvious to anyone in their right mind. Of course not! Human coexistence consists of mutual give and take. If one of the parties rejects this obligation, the other party does not have to adhere to it either.
Anarchism versus humans as social beings
However, there have always been a small number of outsiders who do not accept this conclusion. Anarchists are the most implacable defenders of individual self-determination. No one other than the sovereign individual himself should rule over his destiny. Of course, we allow such a person as much food as anyone else. But as he rejects all restrictions of self-determination by others, he cannot demand any benefits from others. Consistent anarchism abolishes the principle of mutual give and take. It is irreconcilably opposed to the social existence of man, has never formed real societies and is nothing more than a rather curious ideological fringe phenomenon.
In fact, the principle of mutual give and take seems to be universal. I don’t know of any social system that questions it. What is not universal, is the way in which work is understood, i.e. the way in which giving and taking are implemented. If a person is of good will and tries very hard but, due to mental or physical weakness, contributes little or perhaps nothing at all to the good of others, what should count? Good will results?
The answer to this question produces completely different types of social communities. In families, religious sects, and very small communities, it was possible that good intention alone was completely sufficient, even if such people did not make any useful contribution to the community in the usual sense. Almost every family knows an outsider within their ranks who does not conform to the social rules of the game but is still supported because he “belongs” to them. We know of many tribes and small societies where even the mentally disturbed or physically deformed “belonged” in this elementary sense. In some of these societies, it was believed that the gods chose to speak through the mouths of such outsiders. They were maintained by the community even though they did not perform any useful work in the usual way.
Real existing socialism, capitalism versus classless society (as propagated by the Enlightenment and in the author’s theoretical works)
“Real existing socialism” of the former German Democratic Republic had carried the emphasis on goodwill as the basis for “belonging” right into modern mass society. There were millions of people in East Germany who, by the standards of Western capitalism, were underemployed but nevertheless led lives that were just as good (or bad) as those of any average citizen. Of course, even a socialist state cannot survive without real productivity. But loyalty to the regime counted for at least as much as actual contribution. In truth it even counted for a lot more. Outstanding knowledge and skills did not save anyone from prison if they openly spoke out against the regime. On the other hand, a calculating justification and glorification of the communist system could catapult a person into the highest political ranks and offices – regardless of any character flaws and other shortcomings. In real socialism, you could eat even if you didn’t really work – poverty was shared, so to speak (only the elite or “nomenklatura” allowed themselves a generous exception to this rule).
The capitalist system, as it is implemented in a democracy, is based on fundamentally different assumptions. It is the result and only the result that counts, not good will. When towards the end of the 1980s American companies discovered that they could significantly increase their profits by outsourcing production to emerging markets (at that time mainly to China), they pushed ahead with this “globalization” without regard for their own workforce. From then on, once well-off workers became impoverished in emerging „rust belts“. Later on these people formed a reliable core of the Trump electorate, with Democrat Hilary Clinton adding to misery by deriding the social losers as “deplorables”. The “belonging” of this predominantly white and formerly well-protected working class did not count in the face of the capitalist imperative to increase efficiency and profit.
However, greater efficiency itself was an undeniable fact that even European industries could not escape. Since American industrial goods became much more competitive through outsourcing, Europeans were forced to do the same. In my early book “Die Arbeitslose Gesellschaft” (Unemployed Society), which at the time (1998) turned out to be quite successful, I predicted that this process would only end when its powerful pioneers, the Americans, decided to stop it. Precisely that has now happened. The US, and now Europe in its wake, are pursuing an increasingly protectionist policy.
In fact, they have no other choice if they want to maintain at least some of their industries. Just as emerging nations have to be protectionist because their initially far inferior companies would otherwise have no chance against far superior pioneers, so must “old industrial nations” also protect themselves, since emerging countries can offer their labor and nature at close to zero cost.
Capitalist efficiency can only achieve its favorable effects if a socially minded government sets appropriate limits. A developed and generous unemployment insurance system, combined with broad retraining measures, can significantly mitigate the hardships of efficiency. This is indeed imperative, as societies only benefits from an efficient economy in the long term if they are thus protected.
Max Weber has shown that capitalism existed at least in rudimentary form in all great cultures. But it was the Protestant ethic that first gave the spirit of capitalism a religious blessing. The pursuit of profit was not considered a sin provided it served the good of the community rather than selfish ends. Nor was efficient economic activity an end in itself but should be a form of worship (an “inner-worldly asceticism”, as Weber had called it). It was not until the Enlightenment in the 18th century that efficient economic activity was completely removed from its previous religious context and became purely secular. However, the Enlightenment added an essential element because its aim was to abolish all hereditary privileges and replace them with demonstrable knowledge and skills.
Classless Society
If the Enlightenment had succeeded in realizing this crucial point, mankind would now live in a classless society, because knowledge and skills are not inherited. With each generation, they pass to new minds, since each generation must learn them anew. In contrast, large sums of money and all kinds of material assets can be passed on by way of inheritance – without any effort being required from the respective heirs. Great wealth usually provides many more advantages than even great individual knowledge and ability. Today’s capitalism, with its inheritability of privileges, which the Enlightenment fought so fiercely but unsuccessfully against, has the unmistakable tendency to createnew feudalistic conditions and political plutocracies. In contrast to Karl Marx, who wanted to establish a classless society by inciting one part of the population against the other, the Enlightenment correctly recognized the evil and proposed the right medicine against it.