# The Liberation of the Human Being as the Basis for a Social Reorganization

## GA 329 — 9 April 1919, Basel

### V. The Social Will and Proletarian Demands

A powerful movement is developing out of the catastrophe of the world war, a movement borne by proletarian demands, and which speaks to people today through significant facts, through facts that have already seized a large part of Europe, through facts that undoubtedly have to be overcome by certain new social institutions of humanity. The question may arise, especially when one considers the initial course of these loudly speaking facts: Is there already a reasonably sufficient social will emerging somewhere, a social will that arises from a deeper understanding of our current historical world situation? For it seems that it depends on such social will.

Therefore, it filled me with great satisfaction that today, at the invitation of local students, I was able to express the relationship between the proletarian demands and the necessary social will from a certain point of view, which I, wanting to serve the present, have explained in my soon-to-be-published work: “The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life

That we are dealing with a profound world-historical phenomenon in the movement mentioned, seems to follow from the fact that what is happening today shows something like a realization of that program that went around the world seventy years ago and is known as the Marxist Communist Manifesto. Whether one understands what is expressed by these two milestones of our more recent historical development, by the statements of the Communist Manifesto of 1848 and by what is now sweeping across Europe, whether one understands it in one way or another, according to one's circumstances, one's views on life, that is of little importance today. What is important is that we are faced with loud facts, facts that must be taken into account. And we will have to take a stand on what may arise in the coming years, in the coming decades, precisely from that transformation of scientific and ideological thinking that will become necessary, like many other things, under the influence of this loudly spoken fact of the present.

That is why I am particularly keen to address this question to students who want to be supporters of what can develop out of our current scientific and ideological thinking into thinking, into recognizing the future.

Just as what is usually referred to as the social question appears today, so it can be said that it initially arises in two significant demands. Both demands, as they arise, actually point to phenomena in our economic life. One can say: the first demand culminates in the rejection of the management of the economic life of the civilized world, which has emerged in the course of modern times through private capital. And secondly, it can be said that a new attitude to human labor in social life is demanded by the proletariat.

Now, even if it is initially these two significant economic phenomena in which the social movement is playing out today, it is not yet said that only economic impulses can provide what is necessary to overcome the social question today and in the near future. However, the way in which the life of civilized humanity has developed in recent times shows how human energies and all human endeavor have been primarily absorbed by what has resulted from economic development. And so it is not surprising that the most significant thinker of the proletarian world – for that is what it still is today – Karl Marx, directed his attention above all to economic life.

We may devote a few minutes of our attention to him, Karl Marx, not because I believe that the modern proletarian demands have arisen from what the proletariat has learned from Karl Marx, but because that which has slowly emerged in the innermost feelings, in the basic impulses of the soul life of the modern proletariat over the course of the more recent centuries, then quickly over the course of the 19th century, because that has found the most intense expression to date in the views of Karl Marx, because he is the interpreter of that which, more or more or less consciously lives in millions of people today.

Now, precisely because in the last seventy years those impulses that Karl Marx prophetically expressed in the first half of the 19th century and then later have matured more and more in the souls of these millions of people, precisely for this reason his view seems so plausible to the leading personalities of the proletarian masses. It appeared to him, Karl Marx, that what must happen in modern times is emerging – this is well known in the broadest circles from the development that economic life has taken in recent centuries, through the development of modern technology and industry, and through the management of these industrial and technical operations, activities by private capital. To him, the whole process of human development appeared to be such that, in the course of historical epochs, economic forms always replace each other. The economic form that has developed on the basis of capitalist ideas in modern times thinks itself, as Karl Marx sees it, pressing towards its own dissolution; so that this economic order, which has more and more need to proletarianize large masses of humanity, will call this proletariat against itself, because the forms of economic life that have emerged must find their resolution through the productive forces that are formed within these economic forms. The productive forces are constantly changing. The economic forms strive to remain conservative. Eventually the point is reached when the productive forces are no longer able to fit into the old economic forms.

Marx believes he sees such a point in time approaching, having recognized how the proletariat will tear apart the economic order in which this proletariat itself has been harnessed, with its productive forces.

What is characteristic here is that Karl Marx sees in economic development itself, so to speak, the driving forces that will bring the proletariat forward to those points which will then bring about a new economic order, but for him this means a new world order.

Now, of course, the transformation of everything that makes up the scope of state life and the transformation of everything that makes up intellectual life is also connected with what Karl Marx imagines the transformation of modern economic life to be. Karl Marx thinks about the development of humanity entirely in the sense of modern scientific thinking. He has completely abandoned the view of older socialist thinkers, who at the time believed that the most important thing is the human will, which intervenes in the structure of human social life. Karl Marx believes that people basically have to want what is determined for them by the necessity of the economic order. And from the economic order itself, from the way in which people produce, from the way in which people manage their economic affairs, the state orders are formed, as are the law, morality and so on. And today, knowing what goes on in the minds of proletarian people, we can say that this view is widespread. Man is harnessed to economic life, and economic life, the way he feeds himself, how he can lead the rest of his life, determines how he is satisfied with the legal order, which legal order can form at all. Economic life also determines how he thinks, how he feels, what he produces in art and what he produces in science.

This is how it has become for broad circles; in the broadest leading circles of the proletariat, in particular, what is considered intellectual life is regarded as an ideology. This word ideology is heard again and again and again when the proletarian wants to describe precisely what he regards as intellectual life. On the one hand.

On the other hand, the proletarian turns his attention to state life. But in this state life he finds what he calls – again according to the approach of Karl Marx – the all-dominant class struggles. And finally he turns his attention to economic life, which is closest to him because he is directly involved in it. And because he finds his whole life completely absorbed by this economic life, he develops what he calls the “Marxist conception of history”. He develops this out of his conviction that basically the whole historical development of mankind consists of economic struggles, is shaped by forms of economic life, and that everything else depends on this material life. And this, in turn, is connected with his perception of the culture of the leading and guiding circles, into which he cannot penetrate with his soul, and which often seems to him to be a kind of luxury culture, even in its scientific rigor, and which he perceives as an ideology.

Today we stand at a turning point in European culture, where we must ask deeper questions than have been asked in socialist and non-socialist circles for the last seventy years. We must ask deeper questions such as: What is actually the basis of this view of the proletariat, this view that all intellectual life is an ideology, that all state life is a class struggle, that all real history is only a result of material development? It was precisely the thinking of modern humanity that was led into materialism in its most diverse forms, into which Karl Marx was also led with his ideas, with all his impulses.

Now one can ask: Why is it precisely the direction of ideas of these important, these incisive thinkers that has been steered in the direction of looking solely at economic life as the decisive factor for all human development? How then has the thinking of the modern proletarian himself been pushed onto the same path?

Anyone who studies the development of modern times not according to conventional history, but according to what a deeper historical view can already provide today, will indeed find a very, very strange phenomenon that can bring him close to the solution of the question just raised.

One could say that economic life in modern times has taken a course that can be understood if one tries to understand it in the same way as one understands scientific facts. It cannot be said of this economic life that it has not been subject to a certain scientific necessity, as it has developed; one cannot even say, when one examines things properly, that this economic life as such could be different. But then, if one wanted to stop at that, one would come to an extraordinarily pessimistic view of life.

But other questions arise. I would say that people's gaze and energies were restricted, as if hypnotized, to economic life.

Other areas of life have developed in a way that must be viewed very differently today from mere economic development. It was part of the whole way of looking at things in modern times to regard the economy, so to speak, as the source of the other two main branches of human life: political and intellectual life.

One might say that, influenced by natural science prejudices, it became clear to Karl Marx and his followers that economic life contains the causes. Out of these causes, the shaping of state or legal life develops, as does intellectual life. But is that so? This is the big question. Today we have already reached the turning point where it is necessary to recognize that this whole fundamental view is radically wrong, that it is impossible to understand the other two branches of human life as arising from economic life, just as it is impossible to understand state or legal life as arising from economic life, and it is impossible to understand intellectual life as arising from economic life.  


This is precisely the peculiarity of modern times, that in its world and life view, this newer time has had nothing that would have made it possible for it to go beyond this prejudice that economic life underlies all other human life.

Three sides of a deeper, more fundamentally human nature present themselves as spiritual life, legal life and economic life. They stand side by side. This is what we must begin to understand. We must do away with the error, resulting only from natural science and from natural-scientific prejudices, that the economic order is the basis for the other two spheres of life, for the sphere of law and for the sphere of the spirit.

Anyone who wants to understand this must, above all, focus on one thing. Look at the way in which modern thinking, the modern way of looking at the world, has developed. This thinking, this way of looking at the world, is more connected with scientific knowledge than one might think. If I were of the opinion that practical life, the outer practice of life, were somehow dependent on theories, on views, on concepts and ideas, as can be imagined from a one-sided philosophy, then I would not make the remark I just made. But that is not how I view the historical process. What is expressed in the whole sphere of life, shaping this life, impelling this life, seems to me to be expressed more or less only symptomatically in the way of thinking of a time; so that I would never want to deduce practical life from the way of thinking, but I would like to assert that the way of thinking , the way of looking at things, is a clear symptomatic expression of what is going on in the depths of the human soul and ultimately shapes the outer, including the practical and economic, life.

What could be called scientific thinking has been incorporated into this way of thinking in all walks of life. But what is the sole focus of scientific thinking? There are still many prejudices regarding this question today, and I believe that those who live in this way of thinking today will be very surprised at the changes in today's way of thinking that they will grow into. What is today considered to be axiomatic, absolutely valid, will most certainly be challenged; it will most certainly undergo significant, powerful metamorphoses. What do rationally thinking natural scientists think today in a broad area? How do they think in a particular area? They think: We do not really understand life or the soul today; basically, we only understand everything that is inanimate in the order of time, well, let us say, what is dead. But it is seen as an ideal that something like the understanding of the living will also develop from the ever-increasing understanding of the dead.

But one must realize that the whole way of looking at things, as we have developed it in the last three to four centuries, as it is the nerve of scientific thinking, that this whole way of looking at things is only suitable for understanding the dead. The reason why natural science has become so great is precisely because this way of thinking is suitable for grasping the dead, all the dead that is embedded in plants, animals, humans, in all living things. Through natural science we understand only the dead that is present in everything.

This way of thinking, which has made natural science so great, ruins and corrupts everything that is social thinking and must be the basis of the social will, for the simple reason that the social will must be directed towards the viable social organism. But if we do not even understand the living forces in nature, how can this thinking be suitable for bringing about the viability of the social organism in any way? It is connected with the innermost structure of modern thinking that man must admit his helplessness, his awkwardness, in relation to social life. Above all, a metamorphosis of the innermost human outlook, of the innermost human thinking, must take place so that man no longer faces things so helplessly and awkwardly.

Those who today look without prejudice at all that that is asserting itself here or there as something socially new, actually has the feeling that in another area what Goethe so dramatically embodied as medieval superstition in the second part of “Faust” in his homunculus scene is coming to life. In the Middle Ages, people believed that the human organism itself could be created by combining dead substances and dead forces according to a human intellect, which itself actually only rules over the dead.

We have moved away from this as a superstition; but it is as if a human superstition wanted to be transplanted from one area to another. And what is often asserted today as a social view seems to us to be a homunculus theory, as if one had no concepts of what should take shape as a living social organism, as if one only wanted to put this social organism together in the way that the medieval alchemist wanted to put the homunculus together from what one had penetrated with the scientific way of thinking, which only deals with the dead. Above all, this is what must be overcome.

Alongside the economic development of humanity, there is the development of the state, which, among other things, consists primarily in the development of the law, and there is the spiritual life. As I said, economic development can be understood in scientific terms. But can the other two branches of human life also be understood in scientific terms? Can it be the legal life? Can it be the spiritual life? This question can be answered by taking a brief look at the development of these two branches of life in modern times. When, three to four centuries ago, at the same time as the technical and capitalist development, the newer world view also emerged, the whole thinking of the circles that were the leaders was such that it pushed to include more and more of the spiritual life in the life of the state, on the one hand, and the economic life, on the other.

The spiritual life has, in fact, already been incorporated into the life of the state to a high degree. One can see the actual progress of the newer development of humanity in the fact that the branches of spiritual life, which used to be more or less independent, have been harnessed into the state legal order. How proud one is of this, to mention just one example, that one has managed to squeeze the entire school system into the state legal system.

It did not happen so quickly with economic life; but it was still seen as a significant step forward that the major transport institutions, the post office, the telegraph and railways; and in accordance with the interests of the ruling and leading circles, they have increasingly forced more and more of economic life into state life.

Because the gaze has been hypnotized on this economic life in modern times, and because the proletariat is primarily involved in this economic life , the ideal arose for the proletariat to take over the state for itself in the same way as the leading circles took over the state in their interest in the past, and to use the state, as it has developed out of all possible old forms, as a framework to squeeze the entire economic life like a huge cooperative into this modern state.

One can show how more and more of the modern proletarian question has also developed under this economic hypnotism. One only has to look back to the 1880s, to the 1870s of the 19th century! What was the situation in the classes of social democracy in Germany, what was the ideal of this social democracy?

Well, the two main points of this social-democratic ideal were, until well into the 1890s, firstly: the abolition of all social and political inequality; secondly: the abolition of the actual wage relationship, of wage labor. These were two demands that emerged, I would say, from a general consciousness of humanity. These two demands are not yet fully imbued with the nuance that is oriented only towards economic life. In the 1890s, these two ideals, which I have just mentioned, are replaced by two essentially different ones: firstly, the transformation of all private ownership of the means of production into common ownership; secondly, the transformation of commodity production into socialist production, guided and led by and for society. The social-democratic demands have been completely reduced to a purely economic program.

Thus, I would say, in its present economic program, social democracy shows itself to be the ultimate executor of what the bourgeois world view has developed over the last few centuries.

Only those who realize that the demands of the proletariat are nothing more than the logical consequence of the bourgeois world order and the bourgeois economic order that has been developed to date can see what is at stake in the right way.

But it went even further.

What I just characterized as the newer world view, which is completely permeated by the impulses of science, is also what

But it went even further.

What I have just characterized to you as the newer world view, which is completely permeated by the impulses of science, is also what has repeatedly formed within bourgeois circles over the last few centuries as the underlying world and life view. Where did the leading spirits of the proletarians get what they think today, what they have brought into everything that is their social will? They have it from the heritage of the bourgeois scientific way of thinking.

It may well be said that up to now the acceptance of the bourgeois scientific orientation was the last great trust that proletarian circles placed in this bourgeoisie, basically up to today. For they have adopted the bourgeois world outlook. And with this bourgeois world outlook they were put to the machines, were harnessed into the desolate life, into the life of capitalism that was becoming desolate for them, were torn away from all those occupations that answer the question: What am I actually in the world? Next to the machine, with its soullessness, and within the capitalist order, in which one is a wheel, the question is not answered: What am I actually as a human being within human development?

Above all, the proletarian demanded to receive the answer to this question from science, from a scientific orientation. The images of the newer world view became quite different for the proletarian than for the bourgeoisie. The member of the bourgeoisie still stands within an economic and social order that basically contains tradition and the teachings of the past everywhere. No matter how convinced he may be of what has emerged under the sole influence of the scientific way of thinking in modern times, it does not conquer the whole person in him; he has religious, spiritual, artistic or other impulses from somewhere else that stand alongside this modern scientific orientation. For the proletarian, this modern scientific orientation is the one that should answer the question: What am I as a human being?

Oh, if one has looked into the souls of numerous proletarians, into those souls that have retained their human feeling and their longing for human dignity, then one knows how they long to have the question answered from the modern scientific orientation side: What do I mean in the world as a human being? - Then what is already present in the expression 'ideology' presents itself to these souls: a spiritual life that does not guarantee man his connection with the spiritual world, a spiritual life that is supposed to consist only of unreal ideas, only of an ideology; it cannot sustain the souls. The individual may not know this, but the effect of it is in the soul! What desolates the souls is that the proletariat has adopted a way of thinking and a world view from the bourgeoisie and the ruling circles that cannot fulfill man, that the proletarian, who has been torn away from the old orders of life, cannot believe, cannot be connected with the old traditions to which the others still cling, and that this scientific way of thinking, which is only what the dead can grasp, cannot give him any answers to the question of the highest things, for which he nevertheless feels more or less unconsciously yearning, for the life of his own soul within the world order. This is basically in every proletarian soul; no matter how badly what comes from it may express itself, it rests at the bottom of the proletarian soul. And even what is visible in the excesses of today's social movement is only visible because that spiritual poverty exists, which has come about under the influence of what has just been described.

Let us take a look at how the ways of life have developed in recent times, ways of life to which man also owes something alongside the scientific order that brought the proletarian the aforementioned, how have these developed? Certainly, the belief in the state, as it has emerged in the course of modern times, is firmly anchored in the minds of many people who are absolutely unwilling to change their minds. This is the belief in the state, which would best take everything under its wing, including the economy and intellectual life! Because this belief is so deeply rooted, so little is learned from the facts. Do not the last four and a half years speak all too clearly of what the states and their missions have achieved over a large part of the world? The time will come when it will be seen that what has been experienced as the most terrible world catastrophe is a consequence of the structure of the entire organization of modern states. And if we examine how it came about that the states, through their own actions, were driven into this world catastrophe, we must ask: How have the states tried to and been able to cope with this combination of the three spheres of life: the spiritual, the state or legal life and the economic life? As states, they were driven into the world war! And anyone who observes the starting points of this world war in particular will see strong arguments against the existence, the composition and the inner structure of the states that have emerged in the last three to four centuries of human development.

But another thing that emerges is how spiritual life actually developed during the very period in which it was most claimed by all that belongs to the state, in the time when one was so proud of extending the power of the state over everything spiritual more and more.

This is basically a chapter of modern historical development that can only be drawn with strong pessimistic strokes! Let us take a look at this intellectual life of the last three to four centuries: many songs of praise have been sung to it. But the characteristic features have basically been little emphasized. The voices of our time will be obliged to say something different about this intellectual life of the last three to four centuries than was said in the songs of praise that were sung to it. Let me emphasize a characteristic feature of this intellectual life.

If we really want to see with an open mind, do we not see how great and significant people have emerged over the last three to four centuries? Even if they have not worked in the field that was directly necessary for the life that one was leading, have the most outstanding minds had some kind of impact? We should have no illusions about this.

Let us turn our attention to a very, very important personality of modern times: to Goethe. Do people really know Goethe? On the contrary! We basically know nothing about this Goethe! Has that which lives as a gigantic, great, powerful spiritual life in this Goethe somehow entered into the souls of men? No, nowhere! In Germany itself, after Goethe had been more or less a favorite of distinguished circles, a “Goethe Society” was founded in the 1880s. Is this “Goethe Society” a matter for the nation, as Goethe's intellectual heritage should make it necessary? No, esteemed attendees! Someone who himself worked within this “Goethe Society” for a long time, but was always in opposition, especially with the leading circles of this Goethe Society, is allowed to tell you: This “Goethe Society” is a pedantic, scholarly elaboration of that which has something to do with this Goethe on the outside, but not on the inside! The spiritual life of modern times, not only in Goethe but in all the other greats, has not been absorbed into general human life. It is a spiritual life that, to a certain extent, modern humanity has been unable to accept. When it has accepted it, it has done so only by absorbing this or that sensation, by informing itself about this or that, by making this or that acceptable, so to speak. For example, when the Goethe Society experimented with its leadership for a long time, they finally ended up making a former Prussian finance minister, who never had any kind of inner relationship to Goethe, the chairman of the Goethe Society! This is only one of the characteristic phenomena; it could be multiplied not only tenfold, but a hundredfold, a thousandfold, a millionfold, if one were to enter into this modern spiritual life. This spiritual life is characterized precisely by the fact that the broadest circles of humanity have not been able to absorb the significant achievements, that these significant achievements have had to live in the most tragic way, as parasites on the development of humanity. In a deeper sense than is usually believed, this is part of the development of social consciousness and of social life in general in modern times. And if we do not want to see in such phenomena of spiritual life something significant for modern social development, we will never find the transition to real, meaningful social will.

In a sense, this newer spiritual life has become a sterile theory. Why? Those who know what the conditions of a real spiritual life are know that if it is to flourish, the spiritual life must never be harnessed to the power of any external force. Natural science, which is directed only towards the dead, and all those branches of the spirit that have approached natural science under the compulsion of newer conditions, they could be harnessed into the structures of the states. But those branches of spiritual life that are based on the most individual abilities of human beings, that were to develop the momentum in the human being to the soul's will, were driven out of these state structures. That is why our newer spiritual life lacks the momentum that the old religious ideas had, because in the broadest circles people are not in a position, are unable, to take in that which runs counter to the development of humanity, and which unfortunately, in a tragic way, must live like parasites.

An explanation will be found for these phenomena. It lies in the fact that in recent times a particular progress has been seen in the intermingling of spiritual life with state life. Until it is realized that a radical change is needed in this respect, social recovery cannot come from this quarter. Intellectual life, school life, and all the other branches of spiritual life must form a special, independent link in the healthy social organism; they must be detached from the structure of the state, which should only really be responsible for the legal life, for the actual political life.

One could point to many phenomena if one wanted to discuss how not only the administration of science, the administration of intellectual life, has become dependent on state power and constraints, but also how the content of science itself has become dependent, how the inner workings of science have become dependent. Hence it appears how unsuitable the natural scientist is when it comes to social thinking and social will. A characteristic example of this is the following: Oscar Hertwig, an important naturalist in the biological field, could recently be cited as an unprejudiced mind who, in his excellent book 'The Development of Organisms - a Refutation of Darwin's Theory of Chance', has achieved something unspeakably important for the development of modern scientific thought. The same Oscar Hertwig made the unfortunate attempt to express his scientific way of thinking in a small booklet for social and legal and state life. One cannot imagine a more nonsensical, unhealthy concoction than this childish little book about social, legal and other similar questions, questions of science in modern times, alongside Oscar Hertwig's great work in the field of natural science! This is a perfect example of how, under the nationalization of intellectual life, a way of thinking has developed that simply cannot penetrate into what lies within social demands.

In general, this intellectual activity has become strangely dependent on something else; so that, after all, scholars like the historian Heinrich Friedjung are really no rarity at all. I am not speaking out of animosity towards Heinrich Friedjung; he was a dear friend of mine in my youth, but today the times are so serious that only objective interests come into consideration. That Heinrich Friedjung, the historian, who, as they say, has written an epoch-making work about modern Austria, he has applied the historical document method, the method of examining historical documents; he has put himself at the disposal of the Austrian Foreign Minister, Baron Ährenthal, with his story; he proved, or so he believes, according to the true historical method, that certain anti-Austrian machinations must have originated with seven conspirators. It came to a court case. Heinrich Friedjung was able to point out that he is not an historian to be taken lightly, that the University of Heidelberg gave him an honorary doctorate. In spite of the fact that Friedjung had proved, using strict historical methods, that the documents with which Baron Ährenthal wanted to condemn the Serbs were genuine, the court had to acknowledge that they were crude forgeries.

At that time, the historical method itself was condemned. Unfortunately, we live in a time when such things are not taken seriously enough, and above all, not deeply enough. Despite the seriousness with which it is pursued, intellectual life in general runs parallel to the rest of life as a secondary current. For me, the way in which the deepest intellectual life can be taken today has always been characterized by what I would like to call the count with the two trouser pockets. I experienced this count with the two trouser pockets, a witty man, I experienced him during one of my visits to the Nietzsche Archive. He was a familiar figure at the Nietzsche Archive. He had two trouser pockets, from one of which he pulled out a Bible for me at the time when we were just leaving the Nietzsche Archive; a complete Bible in pearl print; he was able to put it in his trouser pocket. He said: “You see, I always carry this with me.” But I have another one; and he took out the “Zarathustra”, also published in pearl print, from the other trouser pocket for me to see. So the count had carried with him, or at least wanted to carry with him, the two most important books for him! I would like to say that this is a purely symbolic expression of some of the modern man's affairs, to stand by spiritual things at all. The count with the two trouser pockets was quite symbolic: one pocket was filled with the Bible, the other with Nietzsche's “Zarathustra”. So we see how the newer spiritual life has become sterile and barren, despite all the praise.

Thus we see that political life, as it has developed in modern times until today, has, as it were, reduced itself to absurdity through the world catastrophe. Should we not ask ourselves whether it is not precisely in the interweaving of the three most important branches of life, the life of the legal, spiritual and economic order, that we find the cause of our being driven into the world catastrophe, and which prevents us from coming to terms with the social facts of today?

Anyone who studies the way in which these three branches of human life have gradually been absorbed into the life of the state, cannot but recognize that the recovery of the social organism lies in the re-dissolution, in the re-separation with regard to the three limbs mentioned. We shall not arrive at a living, vital social organism, in the sense of a real human organism, merely by considering the conditions of the spirit life, on the one hand, and the conditions of the legal or political life in the State, on the other. But then one will also realize that these three branches of life have completely different foundations, that they develop best when each of these branches of life is strictly left to its own devices.

In more recent times, this could not be understood only because people's gaze was hypnotized and directed only towards economic life. And so, above all, the human being was seen as harnessed with his labor, if he was a proletarian, into economic life. In this economic life, in the economic cycle, only that which is a commodity or a service similar to a commodity should actually move. The modern proletarian also feels this. This is expressed in his demands, even if he formulates it differently in what he literally says. He feels that it contradicts his human dignity that he is harnessed into the economic process like the commodity itself. Just as commodities have their mutually determinable price, so within this pricing, there is also a price for human labor. On the one hand, the most striking thing about Karl Marx's teaching was that he expressed the deepest feelings of the proletariat with regard to labor, drawing people's attention to the fact that Just as goods are bought and sold on the commodities market according to supply and demand, so your labor power is bought and sold on the labor market. In this respect, we must become even more radical than Karl Marx himself if the social organism is to be cured. We must be clear about the fact that human labor power is something that cannot be compared with any other commodity, and therefore cannot have a price like any other commodity. This is felt by the person who has to take his labor to the market. He feels that we have now arrived at the point in human development where the third must follow, in addition to the two other things that have fallen away in the course of human development. The old slavery has fallen away within human life, where the whole person could be bought and sold; property has fallen away, where less of the person could be bought and sold; the third, which the capitalist economic order has still preserved, must also fall away, the fact that human labor can be bought and sold on the labor market. For when a person sells his labor, he must go along with his labor. By having to go along himself, he still sells himself, so to speak. That is what is felt: we have arrived at the point in human development where nothing more may be bought and sold by man, where only that which, separate from man, can have an objective value for itself, may remain in economic life. That is to say, in the future, economic life and the economic cycle must be limited to the production, circulation and consumption of commodities.

What was human in economic life, and what is still partly human in it today, namely human labor, must be excluded. It cannot be released from economic life in any other way than by being administered independently in a healthy social organism, when labor becomes a legal rather than an economic matter, that is, when the legal state, the political state, develops alongside the economic organism. In economic life, fraternity will prevail, that fraternity which is, as it were, fraternity on a large scale, where an associative life arises from professional communities, from the regulation of production according to consumption, and so on. In the political state, which in turn will develop quite independently, like a sovereign state alongside another state, alongside economic life, democratic equality of all people will prevail. All institutions will have to be such that what makes all people equal among themselves, what concerns all people, is given full expression. Above all, it will be necessary to determine what relates to labor law, among many other things. But labor law is the first issue for the social movement in the present. Quite apart from the economic sphere, equality will prevail among people in the independent state under the rule of law, whether they work spiritually or physically; labor law will be regulated there.

What will happen as a result? The result will be that economic life, as a self-contained area, borders on the natural order on the one hand and on the legal system on the other. Economic life is dependent on the natural order. Whether the fields are fertile in any given year or not, what forces are actually present underground, much in economic life depends on this. One can bring about a different natural condition through technical means, or one can preserve the natural condition through different economic conditions, but a limit is set with regard to what is present through these natural conditions. This is expressed in the formation of prices in the economy and in all economic institutions. It would never occur to anyone to somehow make nature dependent on economic institutions. Just as independent as nature itself, just as independent as the germs of the grain fruits come from below, which are independent of economic life, the labor laws regulated within the legal system must be just as independent. The worker enters the economic cycle with rights that are formed outside of this economic cycle, just as the forces of nature lie outside of the economic cycle. All pricing, everything that develops in economic life, develops on the basis of labor law that has arisen outside of economic life. Labor law sets prices, but the price of human labor is not determined by the economic cycle.

That can only be determined by the healthy relationship between the physical worker and the spiritual leader. Then the laborer will no longer need to conclude today's illusory contract for his labor; then he will be able to conclude the only possible contract that refers to the corresponding division of what is produced jointly by the physical laborer and the spiritual leader. Nothing can be achieved in this area except through the strict separation of state and economic life.

On the other hand, however, an independent and free spiritual life is just as necessary. That which can develop in the state is only healthy if the state regulates only that which applies equally to all people. The spiritual life is simply stifled if it is to be formed on the same basis as the rights and political life. The spiritual life must develop out of the self-sufficient provision and administration of the individual abilities of human beings. This will then be a spiritual life that is emancipated from the life of the state, which in turn the human soul will be able to sustain. This will not be an ideology, this will not be a spiritual life that only provides abstract concepts; this will be a spiritual life that will fully prove its own reality, that will sustain man with his soul, that will place man back into a spiritual order. This is what the modern proletarian still rejects. In the depths of his soul he longs for such a spiritual life, because he feels that otherwise the soul is desolate.

This call for a free organization of spiritual life is a terribly serious matter. The reason it is so serious is that all human instincts, everything that has developed according to the current views of modern times, according to habits of thought, runs counter to this recovery of the social organism. That is why we should like to speak about this demand for a free spiritual life, a free spiritual life that is independent, to those who represent the youth of today. If science and worldview, spiritual life in general, are to be sustainable in the future, then we need a spiritual life that is something other than that which can be placed on the basis of the state. They should feel that it will be different when the teacher at the lowest level knows that what he has to do is administered by those who only administer within a self-contained spiritual organism, when a teacher knows that he is not dependent on any state regulations. When the state no longer has an educational role to a large extent, when those who want to become theologians, lawyers, doctors and so on are no longer dependent on the state, and when it is felt that what is needed, the needs of the spiritual life itself will develop, that it will be needed precisely for what the spirit needs for humanity, then a spiritual life will develop that can have an effect on the other branches of human life.

If we have just discussed what form the proletarian demands for the abolition of the wage relationship must actually take, we can now point out what the true form of the capital question is.

Many people today talk about the spirit, about that spirit that has become a shadow, an ideology, under the development of the last few centuries. From this spirit nothing can be drawn that will sustain the soul. This spirit, this intellectual life, has largely become something that has no impact on, and cannot be realized in, practical life. That is why Karl Marx found nothing in the economic life that still guaranteed him any realities. He said: “In practice, man must experience that his thinking really has a meaning, that the truth of his thinking can really develop.” But this practice was found only in economic life. The spiritual life must be able to give itself the practice of life from foundations that are realities. That is what makes these matters so tremendously serious. But then this spiritual life will not have those abstractions which are our great social, inwardly social evil today; then this spiritual life will take shape as something very concrete.

Oh, let us look at this spiritual life again from a certain point of view. We see how, within this spiritual life, ethical demands have been constructed. We see how, within this spiritual life, ethics of feeling, ethics of neighbourly love, ethics of the divine or moral world order have been founded on certain philosophical bases. What do these ethics speak of? They speak a great deal about the necessary love of one's neighbour, about human goodwill, about brotherhood. But their concepts and ideas remain at an abstract, shadowy level and do not penetrate down into the immediate reality of everyday life. Our intellectual life has become philistine – that is the word, even if it expresses something that does not appear so radical to man. It has become untrue. It moves on abstract heights and cannot descend into the immediate practical reality of everyday life. But it must immerse itself in it. It must become anti-philistine. When it immerses itself in the most mundane needs of everyday life, when the spirit proves itself by being able to intervene in the most immediate, I would say most mundane, actions of man, only then will the power of the spirit be able to show itself in social life. But then it will become clear that the question of capitalism will be resolved at the same time as the question of spiritual life. Certainly, in abstract terms, there is much to be said for the idea that private capital has delivered modern human life to decay and economic war and that a change must occur. At first, one knows nothing else but to say: So private property must end. One can be as honest as anyone can be with this demand, but one can still have the view, precisely from a deeper knowledge of social impulses, that nothing special will be achieved by converting private property into common property. On the contrary, the desolate capitalism would be replaced by the no less desolate bureaucracy. The throne and altar would be replaced by the factory and office. Now, whether the conditions would be better is still open to doubt.

The real issue is that what is actually meant, what actually lives in the subconscious of the proletarians, should actually come about: that capital, which is present in the administration of capital through the connection with individual human abilities, should in a certain way intervene in the economic process. It is precisely not the egoism of the individual, but the general public that is to be served. For it is in this area that the proletarian perceives an enormously significant economic principle, which has perhaps never been emphasized by modern economists precisely because it is so truly borrowed from life, because it is so truly significant. In the ethical and moral spheres, altruism and egoism are regarded as opposites; altruism is beautiful, egoism is extremely ugly. People do not consider the following: as soon as one looks into ordinary economic life, into that social organism in which, in the modern sense, the old primitive economy has been replaced by an economy based on the division of labor, the fact is that the more the division of labor has progressed, the less the individual can work for himself, at least in economic terms.

I am stating an economic principle that I have been trying to make popular since 1904; but humanity does not want to understand this economic principle. Whether one likes it or not, in a social organism in which there is a division of labor - and this is the case with every social organism in the modern civilized world - one cannot work and act selfishly in economic terms. Everything that the individual works must benefit the whole. And everything that belongs to the individual comes to him from social capital. After the replacement of the natural economy by money, and the further division of labor that came about through money, it has become a fundamental economic principle that in a social organism in which there is a division of labor, man cannot work for himself, but only for others.

In fact, in a social organism you cannot work for yourself any more than you can eat yourself. You will say: If someone is a tailor and he makes a suit for himself, then he is working for himself. It is not true if this happens in a social organism in which there is a division of labor; because the relationship that he thereby establishes between the skirt and himself by making this skirt for himself in a social organism with a division of labor is quite different from that in a primitive economy. It is certainly not possible in these brief discussions to present you with full and valid evidence today, but such evidence can be provided, and I will refer to these things in my book on “The Crucial Points of the Social Question”. It can be shown that when a tailor sews a coat today, he sews it for the purpose of serving his fellow man, so that he can work for other people. The tailor no longer has to make the coat just for himself; it is no longer made for selfish purposes, it is a means of production. This change in character has come about simply because the tailor lives in a social organism based on the principle of the division of labor.

This economic altruism is the active force behind everything that happens. If you sin against it, that is, if you place that superstructure over this self-realizing substructure, through which you selfishly acquire the fruits that actually flow to the general public in the true social process, then you place what I would call a real lie into the world. The egoism of today's economic system is nothing more than a sum of real lies, of sins against what actually happens beneath the surface, and what is beneath the law of social, economic altruism.

And it is the reaction of the human proletarian soul, which feels that in the modern social organism, which is based on the division of labor, economically, it is the reaction to the unhealthy, hypocritical egoism that lives itself out in the fight against capitalism.

What is today simply social ignorance in the broadest circles of the leading classes of humanity must give way to social understanding. Then social understanding will also advocate that what happens through capital must become a cycle, that care must be taken to ensure that the steward of capital is always the one who justifies this stewardship through his individual abilities. The moment he no longer justifies this administration through his individual abilities, ways and means must be found to ensure that the capital flows to someone else who, through his individual abilities, can in turn manage this capital profitably for the human community.

This is what will be found through the free cultivation of individual human abilities in the spiritual organism: that the circulation of capital will work. Today, something exists that is similar to what I mean here, but only for the most shabby property that the modern economy has, for the very shabbiest, namely for intellectual property. Intellectual property is said to come from the social order; even if it is based on individual abilities, a spiritual achievement cannot come from mere individuality of the human being. We always owe it to social impulses. We are obliged to give it back to the social impulses. It is therefore fair that what someone produces intellectually should become common intellectual property after his death. In a similar way, although the time periods must be different, material property is only justified for the individual person as long as he can claim the right of disposal over it through his individual ability. That which may remain with an individual as long as his individual abilities are active must find the means and ways, through the indirect administration of the spiritual organization, to reach other personalities who are again placed in the service of the general public. A cycle in the ownership of the means of production will take the place of today's private ownership. That will be the great solution of the capital question. We are only getting started in this area, as can be seen from the fact that people are now talking about the socialization of the means of production. This socialization of the means of production would only lead to a bureaucratic order, which in turn would give rise to the same tyranny from the ranks of those making demands today, never to one that can truly represent the healthy social organism. This healthy social organism must be established by circulating capital among the spiritually capable. The circulation of capital means that over time that which must be managed capitalistically can actually be managed for the common good.

I can only hint at this. It will be further developed in my book “The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life”.

But you can see from this that not only intellectual life itself is sought in its more intellectual branches when it is placed on its own, but also that what is dependent in economic life on the spiritual capacities, the spiritual abilities of people, that this would take the right path for the recovery of the future by making the spiritual organism independent. Above all, it is this that will not only produce shadowy thinking, shadowy spiritual life, luxury spiritual life, but a spiritual life that becomes aware of the spirit in that this spirit can penetrate everywhere into material life.

This is something that comes to mind when one looks into the very foundation of humanity basis of humanity, as it is developed by man today, at the present time; the old catchwords regarding whether spirit or matter is justified should be pointed out today.

I am speaking to you from the point of view of a spiritual science, but a spiritual science for which the old dispute between spirit and matter has become nonsense. For it is a third thing that is at issue, of which spirit and matter are the outer expressions. When we enter into this third realm, where neither spirit nor matter is seen, but the primal living spirituality of the world itself, then we arrive at that which no longer presents one link of the whole of human life as the cause, but expresses all three links: economic life, legal or political life and spiritual life as the three revelations of a primal depth. Then we shall overcome the great error that has become a practical error in life today, namely, that we want to base everything on economic life. Then that will come about which is not an abstract unity incorporated in the organism of the State, but then economic life, legal or state life, spiritual life will develop out of their own vitality. And as they develop, they will grow together into one unity.

I am not thinking of some kind of revival of the old estates: the estate of teachers, the estate of farmers, the estate of the armed. All class-like thinking is overcome by the fact that the social organism itself is divided into its three limbs. But man stands in these three limbs as the unifying element. Man is placed in any occupation, in any grouping, for my sake. He stands in a living relationship with the other members. Out of free trust, he sends his children to the schools of the spiritual organization. In economic life, everyone is involved in it anyway; in the life of the state and of the law, the fact that this state life has to administer, above all, that before which all people are equal.

Weak souls and thinkers, they tend to imagine, based on what I have just said, that basically the unity of state life would be endangered by it. Indeed, what has most endangered the unity of state life in the last few centuries? Precisely the fact that an abstract unity has been sought, precisely that these three members of the social organism, which should develop independently, have been chaotically mixed up and fused. I have shown you how intellectual life would flourish under this unity. But economic life, despite the existence of the state, has developed in such a way that today it is fiercely opposed in numerous areas of the civilized world to what state life is.

A recovery will only occur when one works one's way up from the usual way of thinking in this area to the lively view of the healthy social organism. And this can only consist of the following: the economic organism, the legal or political organism and the spiritual organism, structured alongside one another, like sovereign states that only attend to their common affairs through their delegates. Many still dispute this today. But he who, like the one speaking to you, will soon have reached his sixth decade of life and throughout his entire conscious life has always kept an eye on the development of the proletarian movement, but not in such a way that he only thought about the proletariat, but rather that he always learned to think with the proletariat through the vicissitudes of his life, knows how many prejudices are still piling up today against what the times demand, against what basically lies in the subconscious of the proletarian soul: the threefold social order. I am not one of those who, even though I have seen how decade after decade prejudices pile up against this, in my opinion, unique contribution to the health of the social organism, I am not one of those who I am not one of those who stand frightened when events take on a frightening form for some, even today. I am not one of those who, at the twilight of their days, would say: how much, how much has been gone through in vain! No, I am one of those, and I would like to mention this only as a personal comment at the end, so that you also understand the whole tenor of my talk this evening, I am one of those who would not say when they look back on their lives: if you could be young again, would you want to live through life again? - I would never say: no - but I would always say: yes!

Because of this positive outlook on life, I feel distant from some of those who have lived through this life with me up to my age and who, as unfortunately has to be said for the present time, have not been able to come to terms with what the loud facts of the present are able to cope with; but I have the faith that those to whom I feel close, feel close, even when I am three times their age, that those who are young today and to whom I am mainly addressing my speech today, that they will be the ones who will grow into a time in which there will be a lot of suffering, a lot of pain, a lot of tragedy to go through, but in which there will also be the opportunity to rethink and relearn very intensely. Therefore, I am not afraid that there will be many in this circle who will call what I have discussed today a utopia.

Something quite different could be called a utopia today, and it was also recently Basel as utopian by Kurt Eisner, who only recently met a tragic end, who said in his lecture: the world with its economic management and other social order in which we live, the most daring utopian two thousand years ago could not have imagined. Reality today is the strongest utopia. No wonder that when one speaks of a reality that is demanded by the human soul, that is demanded by human reason, when one speaks of such a reality, it seems like a utopia.

But those who are young today will grow out of today's real utopia into real realities. Strong power, strong courage and a certain good will for spirituality, the three will compose the true social will. And from this synthesis of true social life with proletarian demands, what must come about for the recovery of our conditions will develop.

That today's youth may find that path of the spirit to knowledge, which today from the social horizon, is what I presuppose, and it is what has filled me with great satisfaction and great love in response to the request that came to me from students in particular. If we find vitality, courage to face life and strong spirituality in those who look ahead to an afterlife, and a social will that is composed of these, then, despite all that is pressing and devastating today, the development of humanity will continue. Then we can hope for this again.

But today we can already hope for something that will prove that human life is always worth living if it is based on freedom of spirit, on the equality of all people before that which can truly establish human dignity can truly be established, and on an economic life that is equal in its brotherhood, in its brotherly work, to the freedom of spiritual life, to the equality of the democratic order of state life.

Discussion

Rudolf Steiner: I will take the liberty of responding to individual respond to the remarks of the honorable speakers.

First of all, I would like to point out that I understand that the things I said about the social order, the social organism, cannot, I would like to say, lead to conviction in the twinkling of an eye. In this lecture, which has been long enough as it is, I only wanted to provide some suggestions that can be pursued in some way.

I know how extraordinarily well established what the first esteemed speaker said in reference to private property, in reference to the demand for socialization of the means of production, has become. I would like to draw your attention to just one thing: it is not true that people today have usually accepted the idea, or are usually of the opinion, that external facts are extremely solid; but much more solid within us are our habits of thought. And what we have long become accustomed to in our thinking, above all as a human society, not only over decades but even over centuries, cannot leave us indifferent. Therefore, it will not be easily noticed that in all that is taking the form of the transition from private property to common property today, there is actually something in it that is quite justified as a demand, but which cannot so directly become the object of social will, because something ultimate is not overcome in the process, which is overcome when you really, in the deepest seriousness, go into what I have presented today. What all socialists today have not overcome in their thinking habits, and thus also not in the impulses of their will, is the concept of property. One would like to abolish private property; but because one has become so accustomed to the concept of property, one cannot get beyond the concept of property. Property must be; so, since it cannot be private property, one demands common property, social property, nationalization, and so on.

If you just think about what I have said today, the old concept of property disappears altogether. The objects that are owned today – capital, the means of production – will circulate. That is, there is a living organism there. The person who has the most ability to manage certain means of production will always be the one to do so. That this is not utopian, some may be convinced of when they read what I have put forward in my book on the social question, which will be published in a few days and which is not yet exhaustive. But it is precisely a matter of breaking out of certain habits of thought that are all too much alive in everything that people do today. This is what I meant when I pointed out that the means of production can only be found in connection with a human being for as long as that human being's ability justifies it. You see, today, under the influence of the scientific way of thinking, all the social and historical sciences, among other fields of study, are also influenced by the natural sciences; we even have a national economy within such sciences. One thing in particular is not noticed. And in this circle, perhaps, this one in particular may be discussed. People today suffer all too much from an illness that Marx very correctly called “mors immortalis”, the undying death. In life, everything is in motion; only the abstractions that man makes in his mind are actually something fixed. That is what remains. And so, in the period in which the capacity for comprehension has developed in relation to the earlier capacity for intuition, especially since the mid-15th century, in this newer age, which is fundamentally different from all earlier ones, people have often become the victims of concepts. If we look at our most elementary sciences, we see real errors in the methodological, in the theoretical [. . .]. It does not lead to any useful, living social impulses, but rather develops into a hopeless way of thinking in the social sphere. That is why it is difficult to understand the vitalization of concepts that is being sought in my presentations today. One would like to hold on to something that upholds the old concept of ownership. One must go beyond the concept of ownership altogether! And the first speaker in the discussion, if he thinks through what I have stated today to its conclusion, will see that in the demand for nationalization or socialization and so on of the means of production, there lies nothing else than the demand to bring that which is produced by the means of production to the benefit of the community. But perhaps – the current experiments show this precisely where they are conducted, but I do not want to discuss these current experiments at all – perhaps to a certain extent this will be achieved through such experiments. It will be achieved when the means of production really do circulate, when not the totality, which is only an abstraction and can only execute something based on some majority decision, when not the totality owns the means of production, but when the means of production can circulate freely, as, for example, intellectual property intellectual property thirty years after a person's death is something that is freely circulating, but something that is of course then administered by the intellectual organism.

What is to be achieved by demanding the socialization of the means of production will still be able to encroach upon the freedom of the individual without any fallow laying of human individual abilities. This will be achieved precisely in the way I have spoken of today.

My aim – now truly, I may say, after thirty-five years in the field of the social question – is to think things through to the end everywhere, not to seek theories everywhere but to seek out what is possible in life, based on direct experience.

If you think through what I have presented today, you will see that at every point in today's social order, we can simply continue in the direction I have indicated. Therefore, what I have stated is the opposite of any utopia: it is something immediately practical. Whether you start in Russia, where things have progressed to the point of certain destruction, or here in Switzerland, where the old order still stands, and continues to some extent today, you can achieve what I am calling for from a wide range of very specific institutions: the separation of spiritual, economic and legal life. One has only to turn back the machine, which has been running in the wrong direction in recent times, and in the last decades. What should be the result if the relationship of the individual to the individual is regulated in the one link of the social organism, in the constitutional state? A monopoly cannot arise, because, as I will also show in my book, what a person draws as a director can be determined from the outset, while what arises from the social situation must either be put into the business or, to balance it out, must go to the general public, that is, to someone else, who then administers it if he has the ability to do so. All the harm that results from the present position of private property will thus be eliminated. This is what should be noted about my arguments: that what is really achieved is what others want to achieve, but want to achieve with inadequate means. This is what I would like to say in particular with reference to the first honored speaker.

Of course, he did make a very valid point. You see, he described people who today talk about the individual state as an organism in the sense that an organism is in science. In doing so, he refers to a false way of thinking. The truth is that if one wants to make comparisons, one must make them correctly; then the individual state can at most be a cell, the entire organism can be the earth as an economic entity. This is what, I would say, detracts from this truth when people think of what is spatially limited as a whole. This way of thinking would immediately cease if one were to see that this organization, which we call the state, if it cannot be the case with real organisms [.. .], can certainly be the case with cells that come together. So, without going into this gimmick in great detail, I would just like to say something that is true: that the whole earth has already become a kind of unified work today. But this is based on a different sense than the one I have discussed. And as I said, I have not dealt with the relevant issues theoretically, but from the perspective of direct experience.

Of course, the second speaker must be agreed when he says that love for one's fellow human beings must become the fundamental idea of humanity. I would just like to draw attention to one thing in such matters. I will put myself in the position of this second speaker. I always find it more fruitful to talk to someone than to go directly to the points that can be put forward as opposing arguments. You see, as the honorable speaker said, people have been talking about love for two thousand years. Nevertheless, despite all this talk of love for one's neighbor, I ask you to consider the last four to five years! So perhaps it is not just a matter of talking about love for one's neighbor, but rather of how one talks about this love for one's neighbor, whether one talks about it in the abstract or whether one looks in concrete terms at how this love for one's neighbor can be put into practice. And here I would like to take the position of the honorable speaker. You see, one of the most significant and beautiful sayings of the Gospels, of Christ Jesus, is: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” That is more or less how it would be translated correctly. It is time to recognize that in the truest Christian sense, this is a true saying. We do not have to look for Christ only in the Gospels, we do not have to look only for the Christ who was, as it were, buried in the Gospels, we have to look for the Christ who is alive, who walks among us. We have to listen to what the Christ proclaims anew every day. I believe that one hears the Christ correctly when one is able, in each new era, to hear what the Christ says for each era in a new way from the place where the signs of the time appear. And I believe that today he speaks to us through the ages in such a way that we must not stand still, not even with the words, as was preached in the past, such as charity, but that we must progress to new forms, also in our outlook on life, as we clearly progress to new forms of life itself. That is what I would like to consider.

Not long ago, I heard a speaker in Bern, a Catholic priest, who spoke very effectively. The man spoke very similarly to our second speaker. He also said that love for one's neighbor must prevail; above all, Jesus Christ must lead the modern social movement. - I would like to say: nothing could be more self-evident than this. But then this gentleman made further statements - in Bern, I think - yes, he said what he said very effectively, but I myself remembered that I had read these statements in my schoolbook as long as forty-five years ago - they remain words. The gentleman used the same words. I had to think: Nevertheless, between the writing in my schoolbook and what the Lord said today lies the terrible catastrophe of the world war! So it will be necessary today, after all, to rethink, to approach things differently than they were approached before. Are we not to learn anything? Should we continue in the same old rut, always repeating, as our ancestors said, “love for one's fellow creatures,” when in spite of their preaching love for one's fellow creatures these terrible days have come about? It is not a matter of preaching love for one's fellow creatures! I have often said in the most diverse circles: If there is a stove in the room and I speak, as is now customary in the bourgeois world view, of all kinds of ethical demands, of which love of neighbor is one, then I would have to say: The stove has the duty to warm the room. But even if I try to say, Dear stove, it is your duty as a stove to warm the room, it is your sacred duty – and I repeat this over and over again, the room will just stay cold! But I can save myself the speech if I put wood in and light it. Then I am doing something concrete, and it will get warm in the room. Sometimes people talk about the way in which associations should form in economic life, how, as I said, fraternity should prevail on a large scale and come about in concrete life; when they talk about how the social organism should be structured, then they are talking about something concrete. That already includes everything, including what charity wants to be! But mere talk of love of neighbor is not enough either, at least not in our complicated circumstances. And when it is said, “Jesus Christ should be our leader,” then of course He should be our leader. But it is not talk that counts, but what one does. That is what matters, not merely saying, “Lord, Lord,” for He is Lord anyway! but on actually following him.

When it is said here that the great spheres of life must form a unity, and it is difficult to imagine how these three spheres of life can be separated, then I would like to point out that it is necessary to take this step forward in the field of social thinking, which unfortunately science for its part has not

In my penultimate book, “Riddles of the Soul”, I pointed out how, by using everything that modern science could already use, I was able to find out in the course of thirty years of spiritual research how the human organism is a threefold being , how the human organism really breaks down into the nerve-sense organism, which is centered in itself, and which also naturally stands in a relationship with the outside world through the sense organs; how, as the second, stands beside it the so-called rhythmic organism, the respiratory-heart organism, and as the third, the metabolic organism. All the activities of the human organism are contained in these three members, which are centered in themselves, and work together to form the most powerful unity precisely because each member has its center in itself, and it is precisely through being centered that the living unity comes about. One should not think in a scientific way in this field; I do not want to play with analogies like Schäffle or Meray, that is far from my mind; but I would like to point out that healthy thinking with reference to the social organism has difficulty in making this threefold division. With regard to the social organism, we must not only make this threefold division in theory, but also implement it in reality. I cannot understand why it should be difficult to imagine that a spiritual organization administers itself, to a certain extent sovereignly within itself; the constitutional state, in turn, sovereignly within itself; and the economic state, sovereignly within itself. The higher unity comes about only through living interaction; whereas if one imposes unity from the outset, whether it be unity directed towards economic life, or unity in legal life, as in this old constitutional state, or spiritual life, as in the old theocratic institutions, these three elements interfere with each other; whereas they not disturb each other when they work together in the living unity, when one is truly centered in oneself; only must the centering be done in the right way.

Recently, a listener in Basel replied to me that he could not imagine what it was like either, there must be justice in all three links, for example. Yes, of course, right and justice must be present in all three members, just as air, in its materiality, must be present in all three members of the human organism; but that is why it must be processed by the respiratory and cardiac systems, and specially prepared in one member. In this way it is particularly effective for the other members. The fact that one limb produces and develops in the right way that which is necessary for the others brings about just the right unity. The living organization is based on this. This is what man will have to go into; for that is what matters.

This is what I have to say in response to the objections that have been raised regarding these divisions. What matters is that what can be achieved through this organization is precisely what lies unconsciously in the proletarian demands, but what can only be realized through conscious social will. And of these different possibilities I wanted to speak to you today, as far as possible in this short time.