Three social ages

- Yg. 1922, No. 12 -

"Guy" (plural: Guys), said my grandfather - because he thought feudal and spoke feudalistically - "Guy, he must". The tone was coarse and good-natured, and was occasionally accompanied by a warm costume parade. The person concerned did not always like to hear the rumbling, but he obeyed not only unconditionally, but even trustingly, as a fateful command, which is responsible for himself, leaves no choice and in general afterwards seems to be reasonably justified. If a mistake had a visible effect, it was made up for being unvarnished. On the whole, it was tolerably fair despite all the hardships. If the premise was right, if there could be a relationship between human and human as between man and horse, then the inference was permissible to find oneself, if only the servant under the care of his master thrived as well as the average horse under the care of his coachman , Out of peace, peace rarely broke. In individual cases retaliation fodder predisposition, Fuchtelmbrauchbrauch, infidelity. As a rule, however, the dispute did not even arise from the Enlightenment, and the customs before and after the abolition of serfdom often resembled each other enough. Love died only gradually and from above.

"Man" (plural: people), said my father - for he thought liberally and spoke liberalistically - "man, you may". The tone sounded polite and haughty and was occasionally accompanied by the mild spice of a parent's tears. The person concerned did not always listen to the sermon, but obeyed only under conditions and without trust, such as a mood of fate that does not take its own responsibility, leaves a certain choice, and later seems reasonably justified by its ambiguity. If a mistake was revealed, it was trimmed by beautification. By and large, with all the mildness, it was rather unfair. If the assumption was true that a relationship between adult human beings could be the same as that between teacher and pupil, the conclusion was that they would not find themselves there if the commissioner, under the guidance of his employer, flourished as poorly as the villain in his penman's doctrine. Out of peace, peace seldom lasted. In isolated cases Zuckerbrot, Ehrenstachel, Wortgeklingel proved themselves. As a rule, however, the suspicion did not rest even in the halls of the Enlightenment, and the customs before and after a still so honest conciliatory meeting did not differ. Hate died only gradually with the death of the upper class.

"Comrade," says my son - for he thinks socially and speaks socialistically - "Comrade, you like". The sound sounds rude and humble and is occasionally accompanied by the cold mockery of a pedagogical smile. The person concerned does not like to hear the call and reluctantly obeys the fateful thing with those shy reservations that already scent the self-responsible disappointment behind too much scope and freedom of choice. Why is equal rights affirmed on a daily basis and still experiences inequality every hour? Why the truth, the need to gloss over the dependence of all of them? On the whole, it may be fairer, but not more enjoyable than before. If the assumption is correct, if the pruned lion lends itself to a lamb's soul, the conclusion is that one can find oneself in it, if one does not behave differently with the bellhammer than with the German shepherd, but in the pasture also differently than in the jungle. Out of itself there is no peace in the world. In individual cases, patience and affection help. As a rule, evil defies the means of the intellect, and enlightenment brings it no further than to dampen hatred in addition to love.

"Brother," would say, who neither ... al nor thought ... istisch speaking, "brother, we want". The tone sounded proud and modest, and would occasionally be accompanied by the hot flame of an unintended educational act. The person concerned listened and obeyed with passion, like someone to whom an inner voice gives faith in itself, in its work, in its destiny. Brotherhood did not claim equality, promised no freedom, insisted on no justice, expected neither thanks nor reward, but surrendered, which alone would guarantee a worthy relationship between the people and a lasting peace. Even the exception confirms the rule; for whoever tried to take part in such a society proved for the first time that society would finally endure on its own: it would simply banish the unsoccupied, unruly fool or smuggler into a hermitage.

Meanwhile, gentlemen, why are we racking our brains? We say neither "fellows" nor "people" nor "comrades" nor "brothers" to each other, but just "gentlemen", gentlemen, and know what we mean: the manners of unrelated togetherness, of diverging togetherness, in short of exploiters a so-called society. Every society, let alone the brotherhood, is regarded as Utopian in our non-social age.

1922, 12 ***