# The Developmental History of Social Opinion

## GA 185a — 10 November 1918, Dornach

### Second Lecture

Today I will again present similar reflections as yesterday. From many points of view, these reflections are certainly not what is called purely anthroposophical, but I think we live in a time and in circumstances where the very ground of the anthroposophical spiritual science movement on which we stand is the ground on which such reflections must be made — not only should and can be made, but must be made in the present. I would like to refrain from passing judgment on this occasion as well – I say: as far as possible – and only provide material for assessment, insofar as such an assessment seems necessary to me, for those who feel compelled to judge the current conditions. Yesterday I started from the assumption that in view of the present catastrophic events, the question of guilt, in the usual sense of the word, tends to divert the whole judgment into false and incorrect channels. For judgment is led astray the moment emotions, sympathies and antipathies of any kind are allowed to enter into such momentous matters as this catastrophe. This must be said, although it is so natural that such sympathies and antipathies should enter in, so natural, indeed, that I would almost say it is self-evident. But one can still try to find at least some directions from the facts in order to judge, to find directions to the judgment that must develop gradually, to the judgment that seeks its basis in the tragedy and in the doom of current events, and not always again and again only by asking: “Was there or was there not at such and such a time and place any thought of the coming war, or any intention of making war?” or similar questions.

When considering such matters, it must be clearly understood that in most cases such a judgment has no real substance. For what does it mean when someone somewhere has heard – one has, of course, heard many such things – that a war must come out of these or those conditions? The question in such cases is always whether at some point, where, for example, there is a desire for war, one is also in a position to carry that desire through, to bring about the war, or to do anything significant to bring it about. Innumerable people here and there may have desired war; if they were incapable of doing anything to bring it about, then their words are mere verbiage. In order to understand the events of the present, it is necessary to understand what it really means to view history symptomatically. No one can weigh the motives and the facts and get a healthy direction for their judgment if they do not at least strive in this direction, because in the present, all events are extremely complicated. And when you pick up a fact here or a rumor there, it is always a matter of assessing the weight that such a fact or such a rumor can have within the context of events. Even when listing the facts, one must pay particular attention to what I have in mind.

You see, for anyone who wants to recognize – and actually everyone in the present should strive to recognize the right thing in this area – it was also a matter of worrying about the right things, of asking the right question about the events, which of course prevented some people from using the measure of passion they had within them.

I have had many opportunities to ask questions and learn about things in this regard. For example, I have genuinely waited for a definitive answer wherever possible, and I have asked the question not just a few times within the borders of Germany but also to Austrian people: What is actually the real goal of this so-called war, as stated by the responsible authorities? — Only once did I get a very vague answer from any responsible authority, and I saw that actually everywhere within the German and Austrian borders where one could ask about a so-called war goal, one knew nothing about a war goal. The only thing I was ever given as a vague answer was that people wanted freedom of the seas. That is the only thing I was ever answered.

Now, of course, I know that one can answer: Yes, but the Pan-Germans, what extensive war aims they had set up - and so on. Yes, one must not forget that in such times many people say many things, that agitation is carried out. But there was never any possibility that what was said, for example, by the Pan-German side, could be taken seriously for any other purpose than to incite and spread folly. It is extremely important to weigh things up, to know, for example, that in Central Europe, especially at the beginning of the war, those who were in a position to contribute something, to do something in the direction of the war or to refrain from doing something in the direction of the war, had no real war aim. This fact alone gives a direction to the judgment when one knows that, especially in the early days of the war, people had absolutely no idea what they were actually fighting for. Who would be in a position to imagine that one would decide to start a war out of the blue when one has no idea what to do with that war! Because even the vague answer I got, about the freedom of the seas, was actually just a makeshift answer because the person in question didn't know anything else and this was something that could at least be said in shame. That is one thing that I would like to put before your soul like a factual context.

Another thing seems important to me and will become more and more important and more and more important when assessing the situation, the more one wants to judge objectively about things. Yesterday I explained that the actual decision on what should or should not be done in Germany at the end of July and the beginning of August was unfortunately entirely in the hands of the military leadership, which could only make the decision based on strategic considerations, namely according to the circumstances and the situation. Thus one cannot even speak of a single will in German politics, for example, in late July and early August and the period before that. One cannot speak of an overall will or of any single will that was somehow connected with this catastrophe. One can say, quite simply, that there was no political goal, no political thought, no political idea at all in Central Europe. That is certainly a strange fact. But it is a fact that must be taken into account. There were military ideas about how to wage war if it came. True, military ideas in a healthy situation are always based on so-called conditional sentences: “if it comes,” because the military should never have to decide whether or not to take action when war breaks out. Sound thinking about the relationship between politics and warfare is something that has certainly not been cultivated in the last four years. For example, I have repeatedly heard to my dismay that in the area of the Central European states, Clausewitz's sentence has been repeated: war is the continuation of politics by other means. Well, there is no more foolish sentence than this, because it is constructed according to the logical pattern of the sentence: Divorce is the continuation of marriage by other means. But this sentence was quoted everywhere as a clever sentence – I mean the former – and understood everywhere as a clever sentence.

In view of this relationship between politics and warfare in Central Europe, it seems important to me that the world be made aware of what the German military leadership actually wanted if it came to war. The German military leadership had its assumptions, the assumptions for a strategic undertaking if it should come to war, based on the following information. The basis for the army command was this: if war should break out due to some European complication, the alliance relationships are such that two alliance areas will face each other and automatically join forces; the Central Powers – which Italy was always believed to be part of, in a foolish but honest way – will face the Central Powers – Russia-France-England on the other side. One could not think differently, given the various alliances, as far as they were known. After that, the strategic plan had to be formulated, so to speak. And where did this strategic plan go? It is important to bear in mind the fact: What did the military leadership want? The military leadership wanted the following: it wanted to penetrate France through Belgium as far as necessary to render the Russo-French alliance ineffective. The army command did not want to do more than cause France to renounce the alliance with Russia with regard to the conduct of the war. In view of the structure of the German military system, which I partially characterized yesterday, nothing more could be expected than a purely strategic transit through Belgium, which would naturally result in Belgium being fully compensated for this transit, and nothing more than a likewise, in so far as it caused destruction, indemnifiable incursion into France, such as annexation of French territory and the like. It was only a matter of, as it were, keeping France out of a possible two-front war. Strategically, nothing more was to be gained from the west.

Of course, this was only to be carried out as long as there was no effective connection between France and England. In this respect, the responsible German people indulged in the indeed irresponsible thought that they would succeed in preventing England from establishing any kind of connection with France. The moment that connection was established, the whole plan of campaign to the west was of course thrown overboard. This is the one thing that must be taken into account. And one must bear in mind that for someone who was subject to any kind of responsibility at all, this was the only thing that mattered. On the other side, to the east, it was also not a matter of annexation, but of maintaining what was philistinely called the status quo ante. So that - it may or may not be contested - in the first period after the outbreak of this catastrophic military involvement, in the center of Europe, no one thought otherwise than that it was a defensive war. Then various events occurred which, I might say, have completely clouded the judgment.

You see, there are various things to be touched upon, which, of course, can only be properly considered if one has the will to deal with them appropriately. First of all, I would like you not to lose sight of the fact that, quite apart from the machinations of the forces to which I referred yesterday, of financial and industrial groups and the like – but you may believe that in all parts of the world one is no more innocent or guilty than the other, quite apart from these things, as a result of the various antecedents, I would say, the outbreak of war was looming before Europe, and when it came to the question: must the German army, in purely military terms, intervene? — then one must not lose sight of a scene, for example, which has also become publicly known, although I do not know whether it has been given much consideration. On July 26, the Chief of Staff of the German Army returned to Berlin from an extended stay at a spa in Carlsbad. This must be borne in mind, because it provides a basis for judging the situation when the person who, due to the circumstances, was solely responsible for the outbreak of war – because that is how the matter stands for Germany's involvement in the war – is simply caught off guard until four days before the decision; and the fact that this personality was taken completely by surprise by the events is one of those things that can one day be proven historically. One would hope that the time for the historical proof of this fact comes quite soon. For me, it is to a great extent a basis for judgment when I know that the personality who then decided solely and exclusively on the basis of the circumstances: Do we have to attack now or not? – is in a position four days before not to be able to care about the whole situation in Europe, but to be in the bath, carefree and unconcerned about the circumstances outside the state. He was also outside the state at that point in time, July 5, 1914, which is considered to be a particularly decisive one, when a conference is said to have taken place in Potsdam and at which the German military leadership is said to have issued an ultimatum, as it were, regarding the war. Yes, he was already absent at that point in time, was not in Berlin. With regard to this July 5, I have tried very hard to find out what it is all about. I have only ever been able to find people who were said to have been present at this conference. I do not deny that something took place on July 5th; but I absolutely deny that something took place that was an inauguration of the war, that had the prospect of success if it had not been for the constellation that I characterized yesterday. For many threads run side by side. The thread that led to the involvement of Central Europe, let us say Germany, in the war does not tie in with any earlier day than July 28 at the earliest. Other threads go back further. However, what has happened does not lie in the continuation of these threads, although it is very easy to be tempted to look for what should have happened in their continuation.

I will then show such a thread as an example, but I want to say beforehand: people have been named who are supposed to have taken part in this conference on July 5. - All one could find were alibis for these people! One was somewhere in the Black Forest on July 5, the other was at the North Sea, and so on; although I am not denying that others, whose alibis were not sought, were present. But I just want to point out the wrong track that the judgment very often moves along. Look, I will give you an example of how easy it is to go astray if you are not objective and want to go down the wrong path with such things. It is the following: In Berlin, as indeed all over the world, there was of course a warmongering party. This warmongering party worked through its organs. On a certain day, close to the outbreak of war, a special edition of a newspaper appeared in Berlin that was published by a warmongering party and that contained information to the effect that war had been decided upon by the Crown Council. That was an extra edition that was distributed. This extra edition was quickly telegraphed to St. Petersburg at the moment it was distributed, so that a certain mood was created in St. Petersburg by the publication of the content of this paper. It is now peculiar that as soon as it became known in government circles, in these absolutely inactive government circles, in these incompetent government circles: This paper has been published – it was immediately confiscated everywhere. It was immediately corrected that no such decision had been made, that there could be no question of such a Crown Council, that in fact no decision had even been made on mobilization for the time being. This telegram, which contained the denial of the telegram that had been sent to create a mood, was held up at the Berlin main post office for six hours, and only sent to St. Petersburg after six hours.

So you see that there were indeed all sorts of people at work who also had good connections and who could also ensure that what they wanted to create as sentiment in St. Petersburg, but which had no basis at all in the relevant place, had time to create sentiment. And yet the whole clique involved was incapable of spinning a thread that could have led to war if it had been continued. For in the end, the only thing that really moved Germany to proceed with mobilization was the news – one only has to put together the bare facts, without embellishing them with the kind of things one likes to embellish the facts with – that Russia was mobilizing its entire army. It has become known through its connection with the telephone exchanges at the borders. I say: it has become so well known that three such messages were received. It was only after three messages had been received, all stating the same thing: Russia is mobilizing, that the following occurred, which must be presented as a very dry, sober fact if one really intends to get to know the facts. The fact took place that some kind of aide to the Chief of Staff was called upon to draw up a memorandum for the Emperor, in which the necessity of mobilization in the face of the Russian mobilization was to be discussed. In the room where this happened, there is a desk set into the corner of a niche so that one can stand behind it. The Chief of Staff stood in the niche with his hands clasped, saying, “If we are now forced to strike, then we must be clear about the fact that the nations of Europe will tear each other apart for years.”

This is a simple scene. You can, of course, trace it back to ways of thinking within military circles or the like. But that is really not what is important when weighing the facts. What is important is to be able to look at the facts calmly and objectively. When I am in a position to present the facts to the world step by step – it can be done hour by hour – purely and simply, without any judgment, only then will it be possible to consider a judgment on this tragic matter for humanity in general. For this, however, it is necessary that one relate the facts from hour to hour, especially on the fateful Saturday before the outbreak of war in Berlin in the period between half past three in the afternoon and half past ten at night. There one can follow every step, there one can follow all the details. And the simple narrative is the only thing that is suitable to make judgment possible for the world. Perhaps I may say today that, among the various efforts I myself have made and which I have outlined, the first point was to decide to present these facts to the world in Central Europe, without saying anything other than: This and this has happened. In addition to everything that went with it, this has been presented to various people – I will have to prove this in a documentary way – presented to various people in all its details. People capable of judgment have said something to me with reference to this first point, which of course I had to judge differently than those “people capable of judgment” who said it. But today there is absolutely no reason to keep quiet about such judgments that have been made, the judgments that have been made about it, when I have said again and again: Just think how the whole situation would have to change for the world if what was being prevented were to happen, including in Central Europe. People in positions of responsibility answered me that all this could perhaps come to pass, that tremendous disaster would be averted, but if one did what I actually wanted, then something else would have to happen. And that which they described as being bound to happen has now occurred after a long time – namely only yesterday!

For the person who is dealing with reality, if things are approached at the right end, they contain that which then takes place of its own accord through the logic of the facts. Things are more complicated in this area than the careless judges, who have often spoken or still speak about these things, are in any way aware. And anyone who would like to go into these things in the sense of an appropriate, realistic judgment must unflinchingly go into what was and what is, and not into what one or the other sympathy or one or the other emotion gives.

Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the entire decision that was then brought about had already been taken after the Battle of Marne on September 9, 1914. I am not afraid from calmly admitting that I did not immediately see that it was like that, that I did not see right after the Battle of the Marne that what had been brought about was really meant to bring about what has now been brought about. I only realized this at a later point in time, at the point in time when I then tried to do this or that in order to give events this or that direction. I must say that I do not shrink from admitting that it only became clear to me later. For it was not at all easy, historically and truthfully, and at the same time in such a way that the matter in question was properly done at the relevant time within this catastrophic period, to behave. When I published my 'Thoughts During the Time of War', I compiled what could be written without taking into account underlying occult knowledge, what could be deduced from a simple modern historical perspective. You will probably notice that I had stopped writing – although at the time I still believed that I would be able to continue writing at a later point in time – when I came to Italy in the presentation. But I want to suggest that it is not so easy for someone who takes things seriously and realistically to come to a judgment as it is for many other people. I have only outlined what was possible to judge. And I would like to say: It simply did not succeed in penetrating with the judgment into what the position of Italy resulted. I wrote this little book, 'Reflections on the War', mainly for the people of Central Europe, not to achieve anything in the world, but for the people of Central Europe, and soon after I had written this little book, the situation became clear to me as a result of the Marne defeat. And I resisted with all my might, ever to let a further edition of this booklet appear, although it was not only suggested to me, but the incentive was also very present. But anyone who seriously reflects on such matters knows that in such a world situation as it is, in which we were and still are, it is not only a matter of saying what is right, but also of doing this or that at the right time or refraining from doing it at the right time. It is not just a matter of having the urge to speak one's mind, but rather of saying not only what one means, but also paying attention to whether what one means should be said or not.

With this, I would also like to point out to you how necessary it is to limit and restrict yourself when it comes to gaining the right judgment about this terrible catastrophe for humanity or to bringing it in the right direction. We must not forget that this war – as I already mentioned yesterday in a sentence – has different phases, that actually since 1916 this war is no longer the same as it was at the beginning, at its starting point. It has become something quite different. And I have often suffered from the fact that during these four years people have ultimately held the same views as they did at the beginning, even though world events have changed completely in many respects. This so-called war has gradually been steered in a completely different direction. We must not forget: If you want to follow the paths into which this war has been steered, then you must not forget another eventuality, which the Viennese war party in particular had in mind. Didn't I tell you yesterday: those people who stood behind the completely incompetent government and the decrepit emperor, those people who were actually responsible for what happened in Austria, those people who are purely financial circles, they reckoned that the dynastic circumstances in Russia would lead to nothing more than a mobilization in Russia. They thought they could do their little deals in the Balkans, and Russia would not seriously mobilize after all. And if it did mobilize, they thought, it would only — well, you know, there is a terrible expression that is used over and over again in politics — it would only be intended as a “bluff”. They would say “bluffing”. It is the most frivolous thing one can imagine, but the expression “bluff” is something that is quite common in diplomacy, for example. Only there, in this area, was there a certain difference between Austria and Germany. As you know, Austria did not declare war on Russia until August 7, almost a week after Germany declared war on Russia. All this points to machinations, which I cannot go into here for lack of time, but which will all come to light one day. It does, however, indicate that Austria was reckoning with a completely different kind of behavior than Germany. In Germany, they were counting on nothing other than: if Russia mobilizes, we must mobilize as well. But given the nature of the German military administration, mobilization today means starting a war tomorrow. There was no other way to look at it. Anyone familiar with the circumstances knows that Germany should either not have mobilized at all as a kind of response to the Russian mobilization, or it should have proceeded with a declaration of war the following day.

From a military point of view, which unfortunately was the only one considered, this was simply a matter of course. But that was only the case at the beginning. In the course of time, a different eventuality presented itself, especially for those in Austria who were pursuing a warlike policy. They were counting on being able to come to an agreement with the Entente and to stop the matter at the right moment. And the various negotiations that have taken place, especially between Austria and the Entente, if fully described, could fill books. These negotiations began relatively early. As you may have gathered from the newspapers, these negotiations have not yet reached their conclusion, because the Habsburg dynasty hopes to be reinstated in some form or other with the help of the Entente. The only question will be whether the Entente finds it in its interest to support the Habsburg dynasty in any way, because all the questions that will be decided will be decided on the basis of power. find a term for something that is not there, to reinstate the Habsburg Dynasty in some way for some reason in this context of nations that were formerly united under Austria. If that should be in the interest of the Entente, then it will naturally also happen in some form. One must not forget that. But that started very early on, and that means a substantially different phase of the war when something like that happens. Anyone who considers how this war ended for Austria will not be surprised when they are told that it was already clear in 1916 that Austria needed peace under all circumstances. There could be no doubt about that, under all circumstances and under all conditions, that it is simply nonsense to continue the war in any way, even if the conditions are the harshest. That is shown by the course of events, I don't mean so much what has happened, but I simply mean the state in which the Austrian army returned. All these facts, taken together, naturally made it clear even to well-meaning people in Austria that they could expect a great deal if a rapprochement with the Entente could be achieved to save Austria from a great disaster. One person sees what well-meaning people let go, the other sees what ill-meaning people let go and forms their judgment depending on the direction of their emotions at the time.

Another fact comes into consideration for this alone. It comes into consideration that such things essentially influenced the whole direction, the whole movement of the military catastrophe, that naturally factions also arose within Austria. Some wanted to relate to Germany in one way, others in another, mutual resentment, to name only a few factors, which of course there is not enough time to enumerate today. The result was that from the moment just characterized, one had to deal with a completely different phase of the war catastrophe than before. One could not simply continue with the convenient judgment: Well, the Central Powers are just allies, and the circumstances under which they were involved in the war as allies in 1914 must be adhered to even after the continuation of the war. — That was simply not true. The tragedy for Central Europe lies in many things. For example, it lies in the unfortunate alliance that then emerged with Turkey. The dissolution of this alliance, both with Turkey and with Bulgaria, has taken place slowly and gradually. Anyone who was aware of the events knows that the Turks could just as easily have disengaged earlier, and the same goes for the Bulgarians. The time came when the Turks withdrew, even after they had been given 40 million in gold, because 40 million in gold was given to the Turks by Germany before they withdrew. Before retreating, Bulgaria was supplied with 250,000 uniforms. All these things were done just like that. They show how little people really understood the situation, because it seems to me unlikely that they would have given the Turks 40 million in gold if they had known what they could have known with a little reflection: that the Turks would soon retreat.

I am only hinting at this – because I would have to multiply what I am saying a hundredfold – that this whole military catastrophe has gradually entered a channel that is quite different from the starting point; which made it necessary to completely reverse and transform the judgment if one wanted to be guided by the facts. And soon it became clear that in the course of this military catastrophe all, all the drowsiness and misdeeds of the bourgeoisie, which had been dormant for decades, came to light. And that is an important thing. Trotsky talked a lot of nonsense and did even more harm in the world, but he uttered one sentence with regard to this military catastrophe that began to come true relatively soon. That is the sentence: “The leading circles” – by which he meant those who, throughout the world, of course, not just in Central Europe, were involved in this outbreak of war – “have only the choice between permanent war or revolution; there is no third way.” It is true that world events have been so shaped and directed – and this is where the responsibility of the masses of the civilized world begins – that we have finally been driven into a dead end, where there is only one choice: either hold on tightly or face revolution. Well, you have seen how tenaciously they held on to the war, because as long as it lasts, the revolution is not there. The moment it is over, the revolution will show itself here or there.

You may remember that I have often said something along these lines here over the past few years. I told you, for example, a very, very long time ago, at the very time when it was appropriate: in contrast to what people are now saying, it is much more important to emphasize what happened in Russia, for example, within Russia. — What happened within Russia immediately after the overthrow of the tsarist regime was much more important than what happened on the so-called scene of the world war. And so it became more important again to look at what stood out from the Czechoslovaks who asserted themselves in Russia, as I emphasized in another place where it was appropriate, than to look at all the other things that one looked at in a convenient way, even though, of course, this convenient way was of course challenged by many a tragedy or in other ways.

And this brings me to a question that I have been asked again and again recently, and from a wide variety of quarters: about the possible course of action that could be taken now that things have come to this pass. I do not believe that what I say today will fall on more fertile ground than what I have said over the years; but still, everyone has their task. My task is to say things, and I will not fail to take the opportunity to say what I not only consider to be right, but also appropriate to say, to you and also to the world, when it is appropriate.

You see, what is approaching – we can speak quite freely about this matter here, where we are among ourselves, so to speak – is undoubtedly a conflict between the proletariat, which, as I myself mentioned in my recent public lecture in Basel, has grown out of modern industrialism in the last few centuries, and the old classes of humanity. Well, I have already expressed myself to some extent when I said, in connection with my Philosophy of Freedom, what I would have considered most necessary in recent years and still consider today. But I would like to say the following: The point at issue is to recognize that a current is emerging as if with a certain elementary necessity. By this current I mean the social movement, or the sum of social demands that arise from the proletariat. It is not a matter of passing judgment on this current, but rather of really delving into what is drawing it, what is simply drawing it as a fact. That is what it is about. Criticizing it is something one can do if one wants to, but it is not much more valuable than a perhaps very justified but still only private opinion. What really matters is that a way be found for the masses of the non-proletarian population of the entire civilized world to gain a perspective on what is looming. Many questions that have been put to me have been along these lines. And that is what must now lie before the souls of men: to gain a position. Now, I can only say: with regard to the social movement, as it has developed out of this catastrophic war, we have only developed out of it in its present form, entered a stage where it can truly no longer be a matter of making abstract programs, putting together so and so many points, saying one should do this or that. That might have been a possibility three, two, or even one year ago. Today, it is no longer an option. Today, I can only answer someone who asks me about this by saying that today it can only be a matter of finding out what needs to be done at each individual place where one is employed, especially if one is a humanities scholar, by looking at the situation realistically, and that one also finds the means and ways to do what needs to be done.

In this situation, it is of course a good thing to consider objectively and carefully what has been neglected, especially by the bourgeois circles. It is easy to understand the abstract sentence: the bourgeois circles must find a way to align themselves with the proletariat if there is to be no terrible catastrophe. But the sentence is quite abstract, it does not say anything specific. What it is about is something completely different. This maneuvering, which is necessary and must happen, will not be easy. For the bourgeois classes, in particular, have, over the years, neglected to do tremendous things, which has led to their now lacking much in order to directly maneuver with the proletariat. The bourgeois classes, in their majority, have no idea of the mental state of the proletariat. What draws them together are mass instincts. But these mass instincts must be truly understood; they must be truly considered as they are by nature. And in the face of this situation, one must not have the belief that understanding of these mass instincts, which are coming to the fore today, will come by itself. With a patriarchal way of thinking, with what bourgeois circles today call understanding of such things, not even the slightest thing is being done. Bourgeois circles understand little more about social issues, even after they have dealt with them in one direction or another, than that people are hungry and cry out for bread because that is what they do when they are hungry. That is what they have in common with the proletariat today. They have done nothing at all in recent decades to truly strive for spiritual community with the proletariat, to initiate spiritual community. I may consider myself an expert in this matter because I do not just say what I say out of study; for anyone who, like myself, has emerged from the proletariat knows how the proletariat lives and thinks, I might say in all possible fields; and anyone who has then occupied himself with as much as a human being can occupy himself with the thoughts that have formed the proletariat over decades, and with the feelings that emanate from this proletariat, may speak about this matter.

It must be borne in mind and well taken into account that in the course of the last decades, the proletarian circles have used every free moment from their work to acquire ideas, concepts, and then also feelings and impulses about capital and the capitalist economy, about wages and surplus value, about materialistic historical development, about entrepreneurship and working-class identity. And one must not forget, if one wants to steer one's own perceptions in the right direction, that in the last decades, in the time when workers, insofar as they come into consideration, sat evening after evening acquiring economic concepts for something they call a revolution, but which could also have been a reform - in the time, what did bourgeois circles do? During that time, the bourgeois circles played cards or listened to so-called entertaining plays or read newspapers, well, or had similar useful pastimes. As a result, the bourgeois population has finally reached the state that exists today in terms of human understanding: the state of complete inability to understand the proletarian.

This situation could be maintained as long as elementary mass instincts were not unleashed. It cannot be maintained if elementary mass instincts are unleashed. For the whole course of the movement is such that one cannot think of a shunting without being inside the soul of the proletarian. He who has really been able to follow the development of the proletariat knows that all the various patriarchal machinations that have emanated from the economic leaders have been most intensely rejected by the soul of the proletarians. What people in bourgeois circles thought they were doing for the benefit of the workers has been firmly rejected in the depths of the proletarian soul and even perceived as a kind of insult if it has a patriarchal character. But in the field of economic interrelations, the proletarian has acquired knowledge that he has today, has acquired a judgment with which he walks around as a content of his soul, and of which the member of the bourgeois class has not the slightest idea, not the slightest inkling. For it has come about that today the proletarian laborer knows more about the functions of capital, about entrepreneurship and wage relations, about materialistic historical development than a university professor of economics, whose profession it is to know something about these things.

This is the situation that must be properly understood before anything else. For only if we look at it correctly will we understand what is meant when I say that anyone who wants to come to terms with what is emerging now needs to speak a completely new language. Everything that has been thought in bourgeois circles so far must be transformed into a completely different language; because what must be established must be trust. They must be able to speak from the soul of the people, and in every single place they must be able to speak from the soul of the people and, above all, act. They cannot do this with abstract program points, but only if they place themselves in the context of what is happening today, or are placed in it, if that is the right thing to do. But for the time being everything that is right is rejected, no preparations are being made on any point to undertake anything in this direction. Because today it is not about demanding abstract programs, but today it can only be about developing the most personal work out of an understanding of the situation in the specific individual case. That is the only thing that can be done.

What can be said in general is as follows. You see, because everything that bourgeois circles have overslept has been done in proletarian circles, and was neither the subject of school education nor of salon conversations or the like, most people today do not know much about the things that one must be able to think about. Now only two things are possible today: either you reflect on certain social values from the point of view of the proletariat of today, or you reflect on them from the point of view of spiritual science. If you have been involved in the spiritual science movement for years and have applied your time correctly in it, then you are simply thinking correctly about what can confront you today in a concrete case, and only then are you in a position to establish a relationship of trust, which is of primary importance. Because with what the commoner can say today, he must be rejected everywhere, because the proletarian speaks a much more advanced language. The bourgeois must learn to speak an even more advanced language. But first he must want to do so.

You see, what is necessary is to focus on the three types of economic values, which are the three main types and around which the real issues revolve. What must be dealt with today through thought and action are these three types of economic values. But you can only communicate with each other, and only act in accordance with what emerges as an elementary current, if you have the will to engage with the language that the proletariat speaks and if you can consider and apply your truly more appropriate and realistic judgment. The three types are the so-called entrepreneurial profit, capital gain, rent and wages. There are no other types of economic values. All economic values fall properly into one of these three categories: either entrepreneurial profit, rent or wages. The proletariat is opposed to these three types of economic values to a certain extent. It wants to eliminate the harmful aspects – in its opinion harmful aspects – that these three types of economic values have, by bringing about the socialization of the means of production and land, and by transferring control to the actual proletariat, control in the various social spheres, because the proletariat has lost confidence in the other classes. Yes, today one cannot speak about this merely theoretically, one can only speak about it realistically. One can only speak in such a way that one considers: How far have the conditions developed? – And by conditions I mean in particular: How far have the thoughts and feelings of the proletarian masses developed? One can, if one has gone through this or that economic theory, consider one or the other to be correct, but that says nothing at all about reality, about what is to be done. For what has to be done today, only the fact that is in the minds of the proletarian masses says something unique. And that is very uniform, it has developed very uniformly over decades, and above all, it must be reckoned with.

Above all, it must be clear that certain things must be pursued sympathetically if the bourgeoisie is to come to terms with the proletariat at all. Entrepreneurial profit – the tendency of the working class is to shape entrepreneurial profit in such a way that nothing flows from it into private gain. But this is one thing on which it would be entirely possible to reach an understanding with the proletariat. If you were to follow all the channels, all the rivulets into which that which is capital pours in the economic body, and then, when capital takes the form of entrepreneurial profit, if you follow all that, and if you say to yourself at the same time: This has has caused the most bitter mistrust of the proletariat towards the bourgeoisie, namely towards the big bourgeoisie, that the entrepreneur's profit has been included in the private acquisition to the greatest extent possible - there will be no arguing about that in the future - then you are on the right track. But then, if we show understanding for what the proletariat wants on this point, we will also find ways and means to prevent the serious social damage that will inevitably follow if the proletariat's radical demands for a reduction in entrepreneurial profit are met. Unfortunately, the situation is such that, based on the knowledge that the bourgeoisie has of these things, it is usually not possible to discuss with the proletariat, because this knowledge is not available, because the bourgeoisie today knows nothing about the channels and functions through which something like entrepreneurial profit – the profit of the entrepreneur from a factory, or the profit of the entrepreneur from something else – is poured out. Since the proletarian necessarily lacks the foresight into which one or the other social arrangement leads, he only fights the damage that has gradually been caused by the behavior of the bourgeoisie in relation to entrepreneurial profit, but he certainly only causes destruction and ruin. It would be the task of the bourgeoisie to come to an agreement on these points. If they could agree on these details, then those who, because of their previous position in the economic system, held leading positions in the economic system and therefore alone had the knowledge to continue the continuity of economic life, would automatically be placed in leading positions by the will of the proletariat; whether through workers' and soldiers' councils or other councils, they would automatically get there. But there must be the possibility of really negotiating with the people. If there is the possibility of negotiating, so that the people know: Aha, he himself knows what we actually want, but he knows even more - then comes what must come: trust, which cannot exist today. Because the situation can never arise that, when the proletarians simply have to believe: Well, now they have the upper hand, and the bourgeois, who have behaved in such and such a way so far, now want to sit down at the table too — that they will immediately let them sit down out of good nature; that will not happen, but it must be supported by trust. And the difficulty is that in the broadest circles there is actually no possibility of speaking a common language. One can have the most diverse views, but one must be able to speak a common language.

Then, however, it must be clear that not only the entrepreneur's profit, but also the rent will be substantially contested. Now it is precisely the rent that has led to the worst excesses, and out of the instincts of the masses, not only the entrepreneur's profit will be fought, but of course the rent will also be fought. Now it is quite clear that only someone who has an overview of the functions of rent can see into these things again. And the point is that today it is easy, if you speak the language of the proletariat, to at least get it to the point of discussion – understanding will develop only slowly and gradually, mutual understanding – and to get it to a certain kind of trust.

Isn't it the case with entrepreneurial profit that one realizes that one really does not consider the entrepreneurial profit as a basis for private gain, but that everything that is entrepreneurial profit is only related to one relationship that one has to manage the matter, that one has to economize with the matter, and that the entrepreneurial profit must not in the future be allowed to enter into private acquisition, into all that which is private acquisition. The point of the pension is that the world cannot live without it, because the whole of spiritual life, education, teaching and everything must be maintained from the pension in the broadest sense, and in addition, people who are unable to work and the sick, the elderly and the like must actually be maintained from the pension. If we talk about these things in an appropriate way, it would of course be important to at least get into a fruitful discussion, but we must also be clear about the fact that it is impossible to get into a fruitful discussion if we do not know that the only real justification for a pension is that it is directed in the ways I have just mentioned.

The third is wages, which the proletariat wants to regulate in such a way that no surplus value arises that flows into anything other than the entrepreneur's profit, which cannot be converted into private income, and the justified rent. Of course, it is a horror for the bourgeois population, who are completely ignorant in this area, to gain insight into the fact that no one really has anything to fear, even in the slightest, if the following really exists in principle: that everyone receives the proceeds of their labor, that the economic structure is actually such that every worker transforms labor into the proceeds of their labor. It is not an ideal, as you can see from my essay 'Geisteswissenschaft and the Social Question'; but today it is not a question of an ideal, but of what alone can be achieved in the immediate future. And there it is a matter of actually awakening an understanding of what the minimum of added value is, and withholding only the minimum of added value from the wage, which will then no longer be a wage, but simply compensation for labor.

In the most just way, one might even say, in the most equitable way, the social structure would be formed, of course, little by little, if one wanted nothing else but to maneuver with real understanding in these three directions. For one would then, first of all, bring about what is most necessary: one would bring about the possibility of a continuity of economic life. And that is above all necessary. That is the one thing that was not possible in the field of Bolshevism in Russia and that will never be possible unless there is a change in the sense indicated. It is not possible otherwise than in the sense indicated.

In these three directions, it is important, above all, to create such an understanding that a movement according to the rule occurs in these three directions. Only in this way is it possible for the capable leaders of economic life – and this is urgently necessary if immense disaster is to be averted; the capable, not the incapable, must of course be excluded – to really remain in this economic life. It is impossible to win over the proletariat for the continuity of economic life under any other circumstances than when one is able to speak to them in a language they understand. The continuity of economic life must be maintained. And then an understanding must be created for what the inner connections are.

You see, one connection that must play a particularly important role in the near future, if we are to avoid immeasurable misfortune that can and may be prevented despite the course of the world, is this: Everything that is proletariat today is nourished in its thinking by the perverse scientific and other arguments of the bourgeoisie in the last few centuries – and especially in the last century. The proletariat has inherited everything that the bourgeoisie has produced in terms of thinking and imagination. The proletariat is only in the world in a different way and draws different conclusions from it. The origin of what the Bolsheviks do lies in today's university education, in the form that the education system has taken, precisely because of the bourgeois classes. For the proletarians have learned nothing other than what the bourgeois classes have produced. They are simply drawing the consequences from it in their own way. Therefore it is necessary, above all, to create an understanding for this in the proletariat itself, how they actually live on the fallen chunks of useless bourgeois thinking and now want to create a movement that can only be impotent because it arises from the barren bourgeois thinking. This understanding must be awakened, but it cannot be awakened in any other way than by realizing that a complete reversal must now take place in the bourgeoisie itself, precisely with regard to this point, with regard to the intellectual life, with regard to the educational system. The whole way in which the educational system is organized is simply unsuitable for the new era, and it is imperative that the continuity of economic life be maintained until everything that interferes with our economy in an unhealthy way has been overcome by the unhealthy bourgeois hustle and bustle of life.

You have to take into account the fact that people need to understand the issues in an understandable way. You have to realize that money as such is nothing at all. True values are only labor. Money is never anything other than a labor voucher. But the final consequences of these things are not drawn. I will take an example from the education of today itself. You see, there are the young foxes, the students, I mean, who have to – well, I will pick out one example – write dissertations. It is really the case that dissertations have to be written, for my sake about the dot over the i in the documents of Innocent IV. I know a man who has had a certain reputation all his life for having written a dissertation on the swear words in Properz, or on the parentheses of the Greek playwrights, and so on. I could give you countless examples. But these are only examples that could be multiplied a million times over, not only increased a hundred or a thousand times over in the most diverse fields. Yes, these things must no longer be treated as belletristic, but must be placed in an economic perspective in accordance with the demands of our time. The young fox sits for a whole year over his dissertation, which, parenthetically, is about Homer, for my sake. Isn't it? He sits over it for a whole year. It can be a so-called diligent, clean piece of work. But what does that mean? It means that the student spends a year working on it, eating and drinking and dressing. What he eats and drinks and with what he clothes himself, that must be worked by so and so many people. The social structure must be there for real work to be transformed in such a way that this young student, who is busy with oxen, can eat and drink and clothe himself for a year in order to write about the swear words in Properz or about the parenthesis in Homer. If someone could give you even a rough idea of how real human labor is transformed in this way into absolutely useless stuff, worthless in every respect, then you would be doing a tremendously charitable deed. But these are the things that need to be understood, that what one does not even think about, except to treat it with a smile, that this must be put into an economic perspective. Because we have arrived at the time when all things must be put into an economic perspective. The commoner who does not understand what it means to abuse human labor in order to make it possible for a young person to eat and drink and clothe himself for a whole year over the act of putting Properz's swear words into a system, the person who does not grasp this also does not find the way to effect the shunting I spoke of.

But this also testifies to the other thing that is necessary: on the one hand, to arrange things so that there is real continuity in economic life, and on the other hand, to create understanding, especially among the proletariat, that one wants to cultivate such a spiritual life together with the proletariat, which does not find economic expression in an unhealthy way, but in a healthy way. Once this basis has been established, when, for example, the proletarian knows: You agree with me, I can use you, because you know how to do this or that because you have learned what I have not yet learned – otherwise people people need you, they won't let you sit with them. Once the proletarian realizes that the bourgeois understands such things, then he will bring about the possibility of establishing the continuity of economic life, simply for such reasons. There is no other way, no other way to do it. But then he will be amenable if he agrees that entrepreneurial profit should not be allowed to become private gain in an unhealthy way, because it is only because entrepreneurial profit can become private gain that it is possible for foxes at the universities, by converting entrepreneurial profit into their food and drink – entrepreneurial profit, which is surplus value of labor – the swear words in Properz or the parenthesis in Homer can be brought into a system. But that is only said comparatively, because it could be multiplied a thousandfold or a millionfold.

But only by doing so will one evoke understanding, understanding then in a roundabout way, for that which is particularly necessary on a spiritual path and which is in danger of being completely destroyed if one does not take action – because the opposite of what is necessary on the spiritual path will follow from the proletariat – and that is: the freedom of individuality. It is being crushed out of the proletariat. The freedom of individuality, which makes it possible for abilities to be used, for talents to be realized, for man to be a free human being in relation to everything he produces or participates in spiritually, all this cannot be realized from the premises of today's proletarian views. But it could be made comprehensible if one were to decide to really speak the new language that is necessary. This is what should be clarified today, I would even say, is urgently necessary, and insight should be gained into it. And if you gain insight, you will see what has been neglected, creating a deep divide between the proletarian, who used his time as I have indicated to you, and the bourgeoisie, who basically remained ignorant of these things.

This shows you, however, that you can't do anything with abstract programs and so-called ideals, no matter how beautiful they sound, today, that today you simply have to get to know what people want. But you don't get to know that by negotiating with them, because they are, of course, far from revealing anything about themselves when you negotiate with them. One must not only negotiate with them, not only live with them, one must learn to think with them, one must learn to feel with them. And then one must have a sense of obligation and duty to actually use what one has been given by karma in the right way. The extent to which the terrible storms that are now upon us can become good will depend entirely on whether or not people begin to understand things like the ones I have inaugurated with my Philosophy of Freedom or the like. Isn't that right, everyone does what they can, what lies within their karma, within their direction. Of the things I have done myself, I would like to emphasize the production of thoughts that can give structure to social life, and which I hoped at the beginning of the nineties, a quarter of a century ago, would resonance, and today, after a quarter of a century, I hope again that they might find a resonance, now that the second edition has been published, and perhaps find a resonance not only despite, but because of the difficult times that are now beginning.

The other thing I do not want to leave unmentioned is that I was only able to gain insights in the field of which I have been speaking to you today, as indeed in the field of spiritual science in general, because I never in my life sought any position that was connected with the failing state enterprise. I have never been associated with any external employment in a state, nor with any social position based on the monopolization of education. Because the monopolies on education must all be seen as fundamentally contributing to today's catastrophe, the monopoly of doctors and so on, and whatever else is associated with it. Because freedom in relation to the spiritual is only not harmful if the spiritual remains in the spiritual. As soon as, which is happening today and has been happening for a long time, the spiritual, that is, the acquisition of abilities, is somehow conflated with the possibility of making private profit from entrepreneurial profit, so that private profit drawn from entrepreneurship can somehow play a role in the utilization of the spiritual – all that happens in this way is something that can only cause the deepest damage to what is necessary in the future. All these things that I am touching on are in turn connected with fundamental things that play into all of life. The most intimate connection has been established between intellectual abilities and entrepreneurial profit in the field of journalism, which, it must be said with respect, dominates the world today and on which so much else depends.

I would have to continue speaking for a long time if I wanted to tell you more. But I have already taken up a great deal of your time today and hopefully we will be able to talk further about this in the next few days, although one cannot know now whether some necessity will arise overnight to leave here, or something like that. Today, when days mean decades, one can only say: the moment must be seized and the necessary must be done in the moment. — So that must also be reckoned with within our innermost circle. But I hope that we will be able to continue the discussion on Friday at the latest. If anything should happen, I will make sure that we can at least discuss some other things that we would like to say in this area here. Otherwise, we will continue our deliberations on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and then achieve what I was unable to achieve today: to examine the fates of nations today and the social question on an even deeper, spiritual-scientific-anthroposophical basis.