The deeper one delves into the nature of natural work-democracy, the more villainy one discovers in human thinking, villainy caused by political ideologies. Let us try to elucidate this statement by examining the content of the concept of work.
Thus far we have contrasted work and political ideology, equating work with ‘rationality’ and political ideology with ‘irrationality’. But vital life is never mechanical. Thus, we catch ourselves setting up a new irrational black-white dichotomy. But this blunt dichotomization is justified insofar as politics is indeed essentially irrational and, compared with it, work is essentially rational. For instance, is the construction of a casino work? This example forces us to differentiate vitally necessary work from work that is not vitally necessary. Under the heading of ‘vitally necessary work’, we have to list every kind of work that is indispensable to the maintenance of human life and the social machinery. Hence, that work is vitally necessary the absence of which would be harmful to or would inhibit the living process. That work, on the other hand, the absence of which would not change the course of society and human life is not vitally necessary. We have to designate as non-work that activity that is detrimental to the life process.
For centuries on end it has been precisely vitally necessary work that the political ideology of the ruling but nonworking classes has depreciated. On the other hand, it has represented non-work as a sign of noble blood. All socialist ideologies reacted to this appraisal with a mechanistic and rigid reversal of valuations. The socialists conceived of ‘work’ as relating solely to those activities that had been looked down upon in feudalism, i.e., essentially to manual labour; whereas the activity of the ruling classes was represented as non-work. To be sure, this mechanical reversal of ideologic valuations was wholly in keeping with the political concept of the two economically and personally sharply demarcated social classes, the ruling and the ruled. From a purely economic point of view, society could indeed be divided into ‘those who possessed capital’ and ‘those who possessed the commodity, working power’. From the point of view of bio-sociology, however, there could be no clear-cut division between one class and another, neither ideologically nor psychologically, and certainly not on the basis of work. The discovery of the fact that the ideology of a group of people does not necessarily have to coincide with its economic situation, indeed, that economic and ideologic situation are often
sharply opposed to one another, enabled us to understand the fascist movement, which had remained uncomprehended until then. In 1930 it became dear that there is a ‘cleavage’ between ideology and economy, and that the ideology of a certain class can develop into a social force, a social force that is not confined to that one class.
It was first shown in connection with the suppression of the natural sexuality of children and adolescents that there are fundamental biologic functions of the human animal that have ‘nothing to do with the economic distribution of the classes and that class boundaries overlap and cut across one another. The suppression of sexuality relates not only to all strata and classes of every patriarchal society; it is precisely in the ruling classes that this suppression is often most pronounced. Indeed, sex-economy was able to show that a large part of the sadism made use of by the ruling class to suppress and exploit other classes is to be ascribed chiefly to the sadism that stems from suppressed sexuality. The connection between sadism, sexual suppression and class suppression is excellently expressed in De Coster’s famous Till Eulenspiegel.
The real social functions of work also overlap and cut across the politico-ideological class boundaries. In the socialist parties there were many leading politicians who had never performed vitally necessary work and who knew nothing about the work process. A worker usually gave up his job when he became a political functionary. On the other hand, the classes that political socialism designated as the ‘ruling nonworking’ classes, as opposed to the workers, comprised essential bodies of workers. There is probably nothing more suited to demonstrate the blindness to reality of the typical political ideologies than the fact that the leading members of the political reaction, in Austria for example, were recruited from the circles of the University of Technology. These technicians were engineers in the coal mines, constructors of locomotives, aeroplanes, bridges, public buildings, etc.
Now let us apply work-democracy’s criticism to the concept of the capitalist. In political ideology, the capitalist was either the ‘leader of economy’ or the ‘nonworking parasite’. Both conceptions were mechanical, ideological, politically unrealistic and unscientific. There are capitalists who work, and there are capitalists who do not work. There are capitalists whose work is vitally necessary and others whose work is unnecessary. A capitalist’s political orientation or ideology is wholly immaterial in this respect. The contradiction between work and politics relates to the capitalist as well as the wage earner, in one and the same person. Just as a stonemason can be a fascist, a capitalist can be a socialist. In short, we have come to realize that it is not possible to orient oneself in the social chaos on the basis of political ideologies. The possibility of a concrete reorientation is offered by work-democracy’s scope of ideas, which is based on a realistic appraisal of the concept of work. Accordingly, with respect to vitally necessary work, the political class of capitalists is divided into two groups, which are not only opposed but often antagonistic to one another: One group comprises those who possess capital and who neither work nor plan but make others work for their profit. A Henry Ford may hold this or that political view; ideologically, he may be an angel or a noxious person; but this does not alter the fact that he was the first American to construct an automobile and totally change the technical face of America. Politically and ideologically, Edison was undoubtedly a capitalist; but one would like to meet the political functionary of a workers’ movement who would not use the incandescent lamp, which Thomas Edison took great pains to invent, or who would dare to state publicly that
Edison was a nonworking parasite of society. From the point of view of work-democracy, the same applies to the Wright Brothers, Junkers, Reichert, Zeiss. There are any number of names that could be added to this list. There is a dear distinction between these capitalists, who perform objective work, and the non-working capitalists, who merely exploit the fact that they possess capital. With respect to work, the latter do not constitute a special class type, for they are fundamentally identical to any socialist party bureaucrat who sits in this or that office, from which he determines ‘the policies of the working class’. We have had our fill of the catastrophic effects of the nonworking possessors of capital and the nonworking political functionaries. We know better than to orient ourselves on ideologic concepts; we have to orient ourselves on practical activities. From the point of view of vitally necessary work, many deeply ingrained political concepts, and the ‘political sciences’ dependent upon them, are supplemented and changed. The concept of ‘the worker’ has to be extended. The concept of economic classes is supplemented by the fact of the human structure, whereby the social importance of the economic classes is extremely reduced.
In what follows, the essential changes are to be brought forward that have obtruded themselves upon concepts as a result of the fundamentally new social events and the discovery of the fact of natural work-democracy. I have no illusions about how these changes will be received: This and that political ideology will raise a loud, very dignified and high sounding cry. But this will not have any effect upon the reality of the facts and processes, whether force is applied or not. No matter how far-reaching a political process is, no matter how many hundreds of ‘ists’ are executed, the fact remains that a physician or a technician, educator or farmer, in America, India, Germany or elsewhere, performs vitally necessary work. In practical everyday life, moreover, they accomplish far more, for better or for worse, for the course of life processes than the Comintern as a whole even remotely accomplished since 1923. There was no change in the life of man when the Comintern was dissolved in 1943. But let us imagine that China or America would exclude all teachers or all physicians from the social process on a certain day!
The history of the past twenty years leaves no doubt that the party ideologies advocating the ‘elimination of class differences’, ‘the establishment of national unity’, etc., not only did not effect any change in the existence of class differences, in the fragmentation of the human community and in the suppression of freedom and decency; they merely brought matters to a head, indeed to a catastrophic degree. Hence, the natural scientific solution of the social tragedy of the human animal must begin with the clarification and correction of those ideologic party concepts that perpetuate the fragmentation of human society.
Work-democracy does not limit the concept of ‘the worker’ to the industrial worker. To avoid any misunderstanding, work-democracy calls everyone who performs vitally necessary social work a worker. The concept of the ‘working class’, a concept that was politically and ideologically limited to the body of industrial workers, estranged the industrial worker from the technician and educator, and it created a hostility among the representatives of the various vitally necessary work processes. Indeed, this ideology caused the medical and teaching professions to be subordinated to the ‘revolutionary proletariat’; they were designated as the ‘servants of the bourgeoisie’. Not only the medical and teaching professions, but also the industrial proletariat, objected to such relegation. This is understandable, for the objective and factual relationship and
cooperation between the physician and the workers in an industrial centre are much deeper and more serious than the relationship between the industrial workers and those who wield political power. Since the working community and the interlacing of the various branches of vitally necessary work derive from the natural processes and are nourished by natural interests, they alone are in a position to counter political fragmentation. It is clear that when a vitally necessary group of industrial workers degrades an equally vital group of physicians, technicians or teachers to the status of ‘servants’ and elevates itself to the status of ‘masters’, then the teachers, physicians and technicians fly into the arms of those who preach racial superiority because they do not want to be servants, not even ‘servants of the revolutionary proletariat’.
And the ‘revolutionary proletariat’ flies into the arms of a political party or trade union, which does not burden them with any responsibility and imbues them with the illusion that they are the ‘leading class’. This does not alter the fact that this ‘leading class’, as has been clearly shown, is not in a position to assume responsibility and that it even goes so far as to practise racial hatred, as in America, where unions of white workers deny membership to black workers.
All of this is the result of deeply ingrained ideological party concepts, under whose sway the community, which is produced by work, is suffocated. Hence, it is only the new concept of the worker, i.e., as a person -who performs vitally necessary work,, which is in a position to bridge the gap and to bring the social bodies into line with the organizations of vitally necessary work.
There can be no doubt that this clarification of concepts will not be welcomed by the party ideologists. We can be just as certain that in the attitude towards this clarification of concepts, the ideologic chaff will be clearly and spontaneously separated from the practical wheat, this or that power apparatus notwithstanding. Those who affirm and advocate the natural work community, the basis for which is given by the interlacing of all vitally necessary work, will be practical wheat. On the other hand, those to whom party ideologies and concepts, i.e., ideologies and concepts that obstruct and hamper our society on all sides, are more important than the community of all working men and women, will make a big fuss under one pretext or another, and thus prove themselves to be chaff. But the clarification of these concepts will fall in with the naturally present knowledge surrounding these relationships and, therefore, with the need to arrange social life in accordance with the interrelation of all branches of work.
In this discussion of the concept of the worker, I have merely followed the logic imposed on me by work-democratic thinking. I had to arrive at the above results, whether I wanted to or not. There is a very simple reason for this. Just at the time I was writing these pages, I had to have some signs and placards made up for Orgonon. I am not a carpenter, and therefore I am not able to make the placards myself. Nor am I a painter, so I cannot produce neat lettering. But we needed placards for our laboratory. Hence, I was forced to put myself in contact with a carpenter and a painter and, on terms of equality, discuss the best way of making and lettering the placards. I would not have been able to deal with this need without their experience and practical counsel. It was wholly immaterial whether or not I regarded myself as a very erudite academician and natural scientist; and it was just as immaterial whether the painter or carpenter held this or that „ ‘view’ on fascism or the New Deal. The carpenter could not regard me as the ‘servant of
the revolutionary proletariat”, nor could the painter .regard me as a highly superfluous ‘intellectual’. The work process made it necessary for us to exchange knowledge and experience with one another. For instance, if the painter wanted to do a good job, he had to understand our symbol of the functional method of research. As it turned out, he glowed with enthusiasm for his work when he learned its meaning. From the painter and the carpenter, on the other hand, I learned a great deal about the arrangements of letters and the placards themselves, which had the purpose of correctly expressing the function of the Institute to the outside world.
This example of the objective and rational interlacing of branches of work is clear enough to make more comprehensible the abysmal irrationalism that governs the formation of public opinion and thus burkes the natural process of work. The more concretely I sought to visualize the course of my work in relationship to other branches of work, the better I was able to comprehend work-democracy’s scope of thought. There was no doubt about it: The work process went well when I allowed myself to be instructed by microscope manufacturers and electrical engineers, and when they, in turn, allowed me to instruct them on the function of a lens or an electrical apparatus in their special orgone-physical use. I would not have been able to precede a single step in orgone research without the lens grinder and the electrical engineer. In turn, the electrical engineer and the lens grinder struggle hard with the unsolved problems of the theory of light and electricity, some aspects of which can hope for clarification by the discovery of orgone.
I have described this obvious fact of the interrelation of the various branches of work at some length and in an intentionally primitive way because I had good reason to know that, as simple as all this is, it nonetheless appears to be strange and new to working men and women. To be sure, this sounds hard to believe, but it is true and it is understandable: The fact of the natural interrelationship and indissoluble interdependence of all work processes is not clearly and plainly represented in the thinking and feeling of working men and women. True enough, every working man and woman is automatically familiar with this interrelationship on the basis of his or her practical work, but it sounds strange when they are told that society could not exist without their work or that they are responsible for the social organization of their work. This gap between vitally necessary activity and the consciousness of one’s responsibility for this activity was created and perpetuated by the political system of ideologies. These ideologies are responsible for the hiatus between practical activity and irrational orientation in working men and women. This assertion also sounds peculiar and strange. But one can easily convince oneself of its veracity by picking up and studying very carefully any newspaper in Europe, Asia or anywhere else, regardless of date. It is only seldom and as if by chance that one finds anything about the basic principles and nature of the processes of love, work and knowledge, their vital necessity, their interrelationship, their rationality, their seriousness, etc. On the other hand, the newspapers are full of high politics, diplomacy, military and formal events, which have no bearing upon the real process of everyday life. In this way the average working man and woman are imbued with the feeling that actually they are of little significance, compared with the elevated, complicated and ‘clever’ debates on ‘strategy and tactics’. The average working man and woman get the feeling that they are small, inadequate, superfluous, oppressed and not much more than an accident in life.
The veracity of this assertion with respect to mass psychology can easily be tested. I have often carried out such tests and have always attained the same result:
Some worker comes up with a good idea, which enables him to effect a considerable improvement in his work. We ask him to put his small or big discovery down in writing and to publish it. When we do so, we meet with a peculiar reaction. It is as if the worker, whose work is important and indispensable, wanted to creep into a shell. It is as if he wanted to say -and often he puts it into precisely these words - ‘Who am I to write an article? My work doesn’t count.’ This attitude on the part of the worker towards his work is a typical phenomenon of mass psychology. I described it very simply here, but this is its essence, and anyone can easily persuade himself that it is so.
Now let us approach the editor of any newspaper. We’ll suggest that he reduce the formal, strictly political ‘questions of strategy and tactics’ to two pages of the newspaper and that he reserve the first and second pages of the newspaper for extensive articles on practical everyday questions of technology, medicine, education, mining, agriculture, factory work, etc. He will gaze at us devoid of all understanding and in complete perplexity, and he will have doubts about our state of mind.
These two basic attitudes, i.e., that of masses of people and that of the moulders of public opinion, supplement and determine one another. The nature of public opinion is essentially political, and it has a low estimation of the everyday life of love, work and knowledge. And this is in keeping with the feeling of social insignificance experienced by those who love, work and have knowledge.
However, a rational reassessment of the social conditions is out of the question as long as political irrationalism contributes 99 per cent, and the basic functions of social life contribute only 1 per cent, towards the formation of public opinion and, therefore, towards the formation of the human structure. A complete reversal of the relationship would be the minimal requirement if one wants to deprive political irrationalism of its power and to achieve the self-regulation of society. In other words: The factual process of life must also have an emphatic voice in the press and in the forms of social life, and it must coincide with them.
In this extension and correction of political concepts, we encounter an argument that is difficult to counter. It runs as follows: Political ideologies cannot be simply eliminated, for workers, farmers, technicians, etc., determine the trend of society not only through their vitally necessary work, but also through their political ideologies! The Peasants’ War of the middle Ages was a political revolt that had a revolutionizing social effect. The Communist party in Russia changed the face of Russia. One cannot, it is stated, prohibit or prevent ‘politicizing’ and the formation of political ideologies. They too are human needs and have social effects, just as love, knowledge and work. These arguments are to be countered as follows:
Work-democracy’s scope of thought does not want to prohibit or prevent anything. It is directed exclusively to the fulfilment of the biologic life functions of love, work and knowledge. When it is backed by some political ideology, then natural work-democracy is only promoted. But if a political ideology with irrational claims and assertions gets in the way, then work-democracy will act just as a lumberman would act who, in the process of felling a tree, is attacked by a poisonous snake. He will kill the snake to be
able to continue his work unobstructed. He will not give up his lumberman’s job because there are poisonous snakes in the woods.
It is true that political ideologies are facts that also have actual social effects and that they cannot be simply dismissed or talked away. However, it is work-democracy’s point of view that it is precisely these facts that constitute a terrible portion of the tragedy of the human animal. The fact that political ideologies are tangible realities is not a proof of their vitally necessary character. The bubonic plague was an extraordinarily powerful social reality, but no one would have regarded it as vitally necessary. A settlement of human beings in a primeval forest is a vitally important matter and a real and tangible social fact. But a flood is also such a fact. Who would equate the destructive force of a flood to the activities of the human settlement only because both of them have social effects? Yet, it was precisely our failure to differentiate between work and politics, between reality and illusion; it was precisely our mistake of conceiving of politics as a rational human activity comparable to the sowing of seeds or the construction of buildings that was responsible for the fact that a painter who failed to make the grade was able to plunge the whole world into misery. And I have stressed again and again that the main purpose of this book - which, after all, was not written merely for the fun of it - was to demonstrate these catastrophic errors in human thinking and to eliminate irrationalism from politics. It is an essential part of our social tragedy that the farmer, the industrial worker, the physician, etc., do not influence social existence solely through their social activities, but also and even predominantly through their political ideologies. For political activity hinders objective and professional activity; it splits every profession into inimical ideologic groups; creates a dichotomy in the body of industrial workers; limits the activity of the medical profession and harms the patients. In short, it is precisely political activity that prevents the realization of that which it pretends to fight for: peace, work, security, international cooperation, free objective speech, freedom of religion, etc.
It is true that political parties sometimes change the face of a society. However, from the point of view of work-democracy we maintain that these are compulsive achievements. Originally, when Karl Marx began his critique of political economy, he was not a politician, nor was he a member of a party. He was a scientific economist and sociologist. It was the emotional plague in masses of people that prevented him from being heard; it was the emotional plague that caused him to fall into poverty and Wretchedness; it was the emotional plague that forced him to found a political organization, the notorious ‘Communist Alliance’, which he himself dissolved after a short time. It was the emotional plague that turned scientific Marxism into a Marxism of political parties, which no longer had anything to do with scientific Marxism and even bears a large share of the responsibility for the emergence of fascism. Marx’s exclamation that he was ‘not a Marxist’ is a precise confirmation of this fact. He would never have resorted to the founding of a political organization if rational, and not irrational, thinking were the rule in masses of people. True, political machinery was often a necessity, but it was a compulsive measure made necessary by human irrationalism. If work and social ideology were in accord with one another, if needs, the gratification of needs and the means of gratifying needs were identical with the human structure, there would be no politics, for then politics would be superfluous. When one does not have a house, one might be forced to live in a hollow tree trunk. A tree trunk may be better or worse than a house, but it is not a house. A decent home remains the goal, even if one is
forced for a time to live in a tree. The elimination of politics and of the state from which it springs was precisely the goal that was forgotten by the founders of socialism. I know that it is embarrassing to be reminded of such things. It requires too much thought, honesty, knowledge, and self-criticism, for a physician to regard the main goal of his activity as the prevention of those diseases from the cure of which he makes a living. We shall have to regard as objective and rational sociologists those politicians who help human society to expose the irrational motivations of the existence of politics and its ‘necessity’ so completely that every form of politics becomes superfluous.
This work-democratic critique of politics does not stand alone. In America the hatred of political power mongering and the insights into its social harmfulness is widespread. From the Soviet Union we hear that there too the technocrats are prevailing more and more against the politicians. Perhaps, even the execution of leading Russian politicians by politicians has a social meaning that is concealed from all of us, despite the fact that we have learned to look upon these executions as the manifestation of political irrationalism and sadism. The politics of the European dictators was unrivalled for a whole decade. If one wants to recognize effortlessly the essence of politics, let one reflect upon the fact that it was a Hitler who was able to make a whole world hold its breath for many years. The fact that Hitler was a political genius unmasks the nature of politics in general as no other fact can. With Hitler, politics reached its highest stage of development. We know what its fruits were, and we know how the whole world reacted to them. In short, it is my belief that, with its unparalleled catastrophes, the twentieth century marks the beginning of a new social era, free of politics. Of course, it is impossible to foresee how much of a role politics itself will still play in the uprooting of the political emotional plague, and how much of the role will be played by the consciously organized functions of love, work and knowledge.
End of book
Copyright © 2022-2025 by Michael Maardt. You are on a33.dk • Contact