The Reorganization of the Social Organism

GA 330 — 28 April 1919, Stuttgart

IV. The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life In the Present and the Future

Today, too, it will be my responsibility to speak in connection with the appeal that most of the honored audience may have seen, “To the German People and to the Cultural World,” which essentially seeks a way out of the serious turmoil into which we have fallen, a way out of the world-historical chaos through a special way of understanding social life and the social movement. Furthermore, what I have to say will tie in with my recently published book, “The Crux of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life”. Compared to everything that needs to be said in these difficult times, however, even this book, precisely because of the nature of its point of view, contains only the first, very first guidelines. And today, in particular, I must ask you to bear in mind that in the short time available in a lecture I cannot give more than the very first indications of the social point of view that is to be discussed. Perhaps some specific points can be added in a subsequent discussion. In any case, a further lecture is planned, which will then elaborate on some of the points that can only be hinted at today.

The reason for speaking today, as I would like to speak here, is that the social facts are truly loud enough and clear enough to be seen over a large part of the civilized world. And anyone who is able to appreciate them in their true form can see that we are only at the beginning with regard to the movement they are initiating. But it will be well to face the full seriousness of the matter right at the outset. Above all, those who have followed what we now call the social movement, which in this form is more than half a century old, will have noticed that now, when we are facing the facts that have emerged from the terrible world war catastrophe, , long-held thoughts, party opinions, and views seem, one might almost say, like mummies of judgment, walking among us and proving dead to what social facts demand of us today. If we want to arrive at a fruitful opinion, then it is necessary to at least briefly point out the reasons why long-held party opinions of all shades prove so inadequate in the face of facts. Not so long ago, I attended the conference in Bern that was tasked with commenting on the founding of the so-called League of Nations. Today, when it is necessary to speak openly and honestly about all things in order to make any progress at all, it is safe to say that, while the men and women at the League of Nations conference in Bern may have said many important things and expressed many fine ideas seems to be more or less the same as what the statesmen of the European states said to the nations, to the representatives of the nations, in the spring of 1914. I do not intend to go into the details of the matter today, but I would like to point out to this assembly the significant fact that the responsible Foreign Minister of the German Reich dared to say at a crucial meeting in the spring of 1914 that the general political relaxation - please bear in mind, the general relaxation, by which was meant the way to secure world peace for years - had made gratifying progress. Well, it made such progress that it was followed by that catastrophe, as a result of which, to put it mildly, ten to twelve million people in the civilized world were shot dead and three times as many were maimed. This and many other things must be remembered when those who, let it not be denied, talk quite cleverly about world affairs, are, as it were, blind to what is really hidden in the facts as the germ of future events. And with that, I would like to say from the outset, we come to one of the main points we will have to discuss today.

If we look back over the past decades, anyone who has had a heart and mind for the proletarian social movement that has emerged will say: over the course of more than half a century, many things have emerged that point to what the broad masses of the proletariat feel in their innermost being as their demands. If you have followed events, you could see how, I would say, from decade to decade, the proletarian demands have been expressed in an ever-changing way. If you had an understanding of the movements of humanity in world history, you had to say to yourself: basically, all of this, what is consciously spoken, what is formulated as a theory, what is set up as a program, is not in fact what it is about. What it is about would be – if I apply the word often used in modern times here as well – more or less instinctive, unconscious impulses that lived in a large part of humanity. These unconscious impulses expressed themselves, for example, in many preludes to current events. I will mention only a few stages.

In the Eisenach Social Program of 1869, we see emerging from the very dark, dull spiritual depths of the proletariat the demand for, as it was put, “a fairer wage for manual labor within the social society.” But then, after a relatively short time, as early as 1875 in the so-called Gotha Program, these demands took on a completely different, I might say actually communist form. At least in so far as they were openly expressed, they no longer dealt with the fair remuneration of labor, but with the equitable distribution and equalization of goods according to human needs. Then we saw how, nevertheless, the basic tenor of a political program remained alive in the proletarian movement. Until the beginning of the 1890s, the proletarian demands more or less clearly expressed the aspiration to a balancing out of social inequalities and, above all, to overcoming the principle of wages. Then we see how this political color of the program, I might say, strangely recedes, and how a purely economic program, the socialization of the means of production, the wholly cooperative nature of the work, becomes the theme. And one could go further. I am only hinting at the fundamentals. But anyone who really engages with this development of the modern social movement must also look at the other side. They must ask themselves: What has not been done to the detriment of humanity in the face of what has emerged! What could have been done? What I am about to say is not meant as a criticism of historical developments, for I know as well as anyone, of course, in what sense historical developments are necessary, and how nonsensical it is to send a moral or other condemning criticism into the past. But it is another matter to learn from the present for the future. What should have happened cannot be said otherwise: We have had guiding, leading personalities within the upper stratum of the human social order – these guiding, leading strata, have they shown themselves inclined to understand more deeply, from what they have brought forth as social experience, as social science on the basis of their class preference in more recent times, what the proletariat wants, than this proletariat itself?

Of course, the following is a hypothesis, but one that may shed light on the situation.

Do you see how different everything would have become, where we would stand today, if personalities had emerged within the leading strata of humanity who had absorbed the proletarian demands, imbued them with social experience, with social knowledge, with such social experience, such social knowledge that could have been put into practice – and if from there the starting point could have been won for a transformation of social life, perhaps decades ago! For a healthy self-reflection, one must not spare oneself the task of recognizing what has been terribly neglected in this direction. This has been neglected because, in a sense, it was bound to be neglected, because the intellectual life of modern humanity was such that it simply did not suffice to provide such an understanding. And here we are faced with the first key point of the social question in the necessities of life in the present and the future.

I am well aware that what I have to say in the first third of my remarks today will be somewhat uncomfortable, perhaps even incomprehensible, even boring, for some people. But anyone who does not recognize the seriousness of the first link in the social question, the spiritual social question, will not be able to contribute anything to the emergence from the chaos and confusion of the present. We must unreservedly admit that the intellectual life that has been brought up by the upper classes of human society, that this intellectual life, as it was formed, was not up to the facts. Even today, the legacy of this intellectual life is still far from being equal to the facts. Let us take a look at what has actually happened. It has often been emphasized, and rightly so, that the newer proletarian movement has emerged in the course of human development through newer technology and through the capitalist economic order. Of course, nothing should be said against this emphasis on true facts. But as true and correct as these facts are, there is another fact that people would rather deny. It is just as true, just as correct, and, above all, it is actually more important than anything else for what has to happen today: Perhaps three or four hundred years ago, with the advent of modern technology and soul-destroying capitalism, the process of what could be called the modern, more scientifically oriented worldview began.

About twenty years ago, I met with fierce opposition from proletarians and non-proletarians, from workers and middle-class people, when I expressed what I believed I had clearly recognized: that the modern labor movement, in the most eminent sense – it sounds paradoxical, but it is so – has the character of a movement of thought. However strange it may sound, it is true. It starts from thoughts. It starts from thoughts that, drawing ever wider and wider circles, sank into the souls of the proletarian population in the hours of the evening, when the proletarian population wrested itself from the fatigue of the day, and in which a truly more more real conception of social facts than was given by the political economists of the universities and teaching institutions, who essentially gave what the bourgeois class had to say about economic life and the other aspects of modern life. What has become part of the thoughts and especially the thought habits of the modern proletariat is, in essence, more important and significant than anything else for the movements that are taking place in the civilized world today. For what is actually at issue here? Well, as I said, with the advent of modern technology, with the advent of the capitalist economic system, the newer, more scientifically oriented worldview also emerged from the old worldviews, which had more of a general human or even a religious character. This scientifically oriented worldview, how did it confront the bourgeoisie, how did it confront the proletariat?

We can only come to an understanding of this fact if we have not merely learned to think about the proletariat from above, as so many do today, but if our fate has led us to think with the proletariat! You see, what one has learned to think and feel in the age of technology, in the age of capitalism, has certainly led many members of the leading, guiding circles of humanity to become free-thinking, free-religious. In this respect, unfortunately, unfortunately, modern humanity lived in a terrible illusion that must be seen through today. Yes, one could be a naturalist like Carl Vogt, one could be a popularizer of natural science like Büchner, one could be completely devoted to natural thought with one's head, but the whole person can still be part of a social order that makes it impossible for him to feel committed to the newer ways of thinking with more than just his head. It was different for the proletariat. I would like to mention a scene that could be multiplied not a hundredfold, but a thousandfold. A scene of the kind that has taken place with momentous consequences and that the leading classes have so far failed to recognize in all its world-historical significance. You see, I remember it vividly because I was standing next to it twenty years ago when Rosa Luxemburg spoke in Spandau near Berlin at a proletarian assembly in her peculiar, measured, deliberate manner. She spoke about science and the workers, one of those speeches whose fruits are now ripening all over the world. I will only use a few words to hint at the most important points of this speech. Rosa Luxemburg spoke to the workers, who had gathered on Sunday afternoon with their wives and even with their children, with complete awareness of modern scientific orientation, to hear something about the question: How does a person, as a worker, achieve a dignified existence? or: How should he think about his existence as a human being? At the time, she said: For a long, long time, humanity has lived in illusions about the ancient times. Now, at last, through its science, humanity has come to realize that all people are descended from the same animals. In the beginning, as she said, almost in her own words, man behaved most indecently as a tree-climber. Then she added: “Can anyone still believe that with such an equal origin for all people, there is any justification for the social inequalities that exist today?”

You see, a word had been spoken that the modern proletarian understood in a completely different way than the member of the previously leading strata of humanity was able to understand it. The member of the hitherto leading classes of humanity might have been convinced by such a word with his head, but he was completely caught in a social order that was a relic of world views of earlier times, in all sorts of ways, even if he did not admit it to himself, in all sorts of religious, artistic and other sentiments. He was not obliged to place his whole being in the light of such a philosophy. The proletarian, however, was compelled to see his whole being in the light of such a philosophy. Why? Not because the machine had come into being, not because capitalism had emerged, was the essential thing. The essential thing was that the proletarian was called away from his earlier living conditions, which, through his craft or the like, gave him something to answer the question: What are you worth as a human being among other human beings? Now he stood at the machine; that gives him no connection between himself and other people. Now he was standing in the midst of the bare economic system of capitalism. Now he was forced to answer the question from a completely different angle: What are you actually as a human being? — So he turned to this modern world view as he did to his new religion, which for others was a head-on conviction, but for him something that filled his entire being. Now, what had the proletarian taken over and what had ultimately filled everything that spread as a social outlook among the working class? It came, even if it was not always understood, from the development of the leading, namely the bourgeois, strata of human society. What the proletarian had adopted in the way of wisdom, of science, of materialistic views about man, had not grown in the proletarian's intellect; it was the heritage of what bourgeois thinking had developed in modern times. The proletarian, while living quite differently, only brought bourgeois thinking to its ultimate consequence, to its utmost development. And what did it become in his soul? Oh, he was convinced that this last legacy from the bourgeoisie must, after all, give him something soul-bearing. It was, so to speak, unconsciously the last great trust that the proletariat placed in the bourgeoisie, and that consisted in its taking over the newer materialistic world-view from the bourgeoisie. This last great trust has been betrayed. At least that is the unconscious feeling of the proletarian. And that is what underlies today's social facts, despite all the excesses, in their innermost essence.

When we look at this fact, then we must really take a good look at precisely what was unconscious in the proletarian's soul as a result of what has been mentioned. The bourgeois – take hold of your heart, try to recognize it through true self-reflection, if you are a bourgeois or your ancestors were bourgeois – the bourgeois has very different feelings as a legacy of earlier times. The modern proletarian, after his way of life, after he was called to the desolate machine, to desolate capitalism, rejected these old traditions. His soul was supposed to fill this newer worldview, but it could not. And no matter how enthusiastically the proletarian professed what this worldview said, he felt desolate in his soul, he felt a longing for a different spiritual life. For this intellectual life, the fruit of newer spirituality, has no power to answer the great soul-questions of mankind. This intellectual life says nothing about the connection of man with what every man feels in his heart as his higher humanity. That had a desolating effect. It had such an effect on the soul of the proletarian that he longed for something indefinite. This is what then masked itself in all kinds of demands and came to light in all kinds of forms. We will not understand this masking, these forms, if we cannot decide to look at the matter in its full depth from the point of view of a real world-view question. This newer spiritual life had no momentum for matters of world view, no momentum for the universally human. When the leading strata of newer humanity sought such momentum, sought something in spiritual life that would support the soul, they turned to the old religious ideas, to the old artistic, aesthetic, ethical or other views. But what they had to offer the proletarian, and what only the proletarian could understand, was not soul-nurturing, and to this day it is not soul-nurturing. We must ask: where does it come from? We must not ask the theorists, we must truly build no gray theories. We must immerse ourselves in a real life practice if we want to see clearly. Of course, I can only sketch the world-bearing facts today, but they can be fully proven. With the advent of modern times, with their technology and their capitalism, something was left over from an earlier development that, to the connoisseur, only remotely resembles what we call the state today, insofar as this state is truly worshipped and revered by enough people, one might say, almost like an idol. The classes of people who were the leading ones at the beginning of the modern era, when technology and capitalism emerged, used the framework of the state to bring into this framework everything that they felt comfortable bringing in. And we see it as justified, at least understandable from the point of view of that time, when one had to fight against the church and many other powers, as since the dawn of modern intellectual life, of historical life in general, intellectual life has been more and more incorporated into the sphere of the state. The school and other branches of spiritual life were increasingly drawn into the sphere of the state. This was seen as a great step forward in modern times. That is why it is so difficult today to fight against the general prejudice in this area and to say that it is precisely in this area that a retreat must be made, certainly not into a dark Middle Ages, but into the liberation of spiritual life in all areas from the state. . That is what one will have to realize today, that it is necessary if one wants to participate, even to a small extent, in the process of emerging from the terrible situation into which humanity has brought itself. It was considered a step forward to gradually place everything that belonged to intellectual life under the supervision of the state. Only a few artistic fields, some things that were considered unimportant for life, were still left free in the intellectual field.

Indeed, anyone who is familiar with the situation in this field knows what it means that people have become so arrogant in recent times with regard to the judgment that one can hear time and again that in the Middle Ages, philosophy, and by that we mean all science, all human intellectual life, trailed theology. Now, of course, the majority of those who are really intellectually active at the present time do not follow theology, but something else takes place. I would like to characterize it by quoting a word that could be multiplied a hundredfold, no, a thousandfold. A very famous, and rightly famous, important natural scientist of modern times once spoke as Secretary General of the Berlin Academy of Sciences about his colleagues, about the entire body of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and said that these scholars were the scientific protection force of the Hohenzollern. Well, think about it, that testifies to the dependency in which intellectual life has fallen, after it has freed itself from the clutches of theology. It no longer trails behind theology. But what it is inclined to do vis-à-vis the state, oh, the last four and a half years prove it. Read what German historians have written. And it is true, unfortunately most true – not only the administration, the staffing of the sciences depends on the state, no, those who really know the facts know that this science, which has become dependent on the state, has also become dependent on the state in terms of its content, its existence, became dependent on the state, and above all in so far as it was made by people who had killed the original spiritual life in themselves and became more or less only mediators for the assertion of that which the state actually asserts in them. It will be difficult to openly and courageously confess what has just been said, but it must be confessed. For it must be realized that spiritual life is only possible in its real essence, that it sustains people, that it sustains souls above all, that spiritual life is only possible when it is based on itself, on its own freedom, when everyone from the teacher of the lowest school knows: You are not subject to any command of the state, but only to the administration of those who have grown out of the spiritual life and serve it. With this spiritual life, which is completely independent of the state, something will be created that is a healthy soil for the development of the spirit in general.

What have we experienced in the spiritual development of recent times? Oh, how fundamentally alien to real life is everything that is cultivated within the walls of the scientific establishment. And what do we therefore lack in the field of economic life everywhere? Today, knowledgeable experts in this economic life admit that we lack the most important thing in economic life, that we lack, for example, a real science of industry. Economic life could not lag behind; it had to keep pace with the course of more recent development. It was impossible for the German iron industry, for example, to continue producing only 799,000 tons of pig iron, as it did in the early 1860s. No, by the end of the 1880s, it was necessary to produce not 799,000 tons of pig iron, but 4,500,000 tons. What is remarkable about this production of pig iron? That these 7,990,000 tons of pig iron were produced at the beginning of the 1860s by just over 20,000 workers, and, curiously, that the 45,000,000 tons in the 1880s were produced by just over 20,000 workers as well. What does that mean? It means that technical progress has advanced so far and economic life has progressed so much that the same number of workers were able to extract 45,000,000 tons of pig iron at the end of the 1980s, whereas only 7,990,000 tons were extracted at the beginning of the 1960s. But then one wonders: Has this perfection of technology been followed by perfection in other social fields? No. And today, insightful experts readily admit that we lack a science that is suitable, for example, to help production in the sense of increased consumption according to the demands of the present, so that the factories are built in the right place everywhere, that the factories are properly accompanied by other, supporting factories in the neighborhood. Whoever today observes the economic chaos that has emerged due to the lack of an industrial science in this regard can see the real reasons, the truly practical reasons for today's social movement. For a healthy spiritual life, a spiritual life that must not be dependent in a comfortable way, must not be supported by the state and its auxiliaries, but must prove its ability and strength for the social order anew every day, such a spiritual life, that is a healthy soil for all spirituality. And just as you say to yourself when you see a bad piece of wheat sprouting, there is imperfect soil underneath —, so you should say to yourself today: the fact that we have no industrial science, that we do not have what we need like bread itself for the recovery of our economic life is due to the fact that the soil in which the practical sciences should flourish is unhealthy, that the spiritual life does not produce those people who are the right leaders of capitalist administration, those people who can really find trust in the broad masses of those who have to work.

You see, these are the connections. Either you see the connections in this way, then you will find a way out of the chaos - but it is necessary to look into this deeper connection - or you do not see this connection, then you will go further into chaos, further into overexploitation, into degradation, no matter what you do in the sense of the old thinking about the economy. For only by starting with the socialization of spiritual life itself can we move beyond this overexploitation and this depletion. But socializing spiritual life means emancipating it from state life, leaving this spiritual life to its own devices from the lowest school level up to the university and completely freeing humanity's relationship to this spiritual life.

Believe me, I am familiar with all the objections that can be raised against what I have just said. I know that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will tell me: Well, when schools become free again, illiteracy will flourish once more, and similar things. You see, I would like to mention one thing in particular in response to the objections that may be raised by the Socialist side regarding what I have just said. The Socialists attach great importance to the so-called unified school. They say that in the future there must no longer be a class school; the children of all people must be taught in a unified school at least until the age of fourteen or fifteen. Very well, but do you believe that a school other than a unified school will exist when, for objective reasons, the independent intellectual organization, the intellectual organization independent of the state, sets up this school? I have written a little booklet: The Education of the Child from the Point of View of Spiritual Science. You may take whatever position you like on this point of view. I can fully understand any opposing position to this point of view; but if you disregard this point of view, if you disregard what can be said purely from the point of view of school philosophy about such a view, you will see that, when the education of the child is discussed, purely consideration is given to that which develops in the human being up to the age of maturity. When one speaks about the constitution of a school for objective reasons of spiritual life, one does not come to the idea of developing anything other than a unified school. It will be a need of spiritual life emancipated from the state that this spiritual life will have to prove itself effective every day anew in its representatives, that it will make its true essence and strength available to social life only when it is based on itself. Such a spiritual life will not live in abstract heights, it will not preach. Such a spiritual life will not cultivate unworldly science behind walls; it will educate people who, when they carry the thoughts of this spirituality within them, will become true leaders of economic life, our so complicated, so demanding economic life.

Spiritual life is not practical for the state; it has become impractical, it has become abstract. For decades I have repeatedly said to those to whom I was privileged to speak: You know teachings, you know theories that, for example, culminate in ethics, in morality, so that people are preached “love your neighbor as yourself,” or preached of brotherhood, of general compassion and the like. These sermons seem to me like speaking to the stove in the room: “You stove, that's what you look like; your essence invites you to warm the room, that is your duty as a stove, your categorical imperative, so warm the room!” Preaching is as useless for a stove as it is for a person. Therefore, we do not preach to the stove at all, but we do put wood or coal in it and light them. Likewise, in our present social order, those spiritual enterprises that remain at an abstract level are no longer appropriate; only those that really find access to what lives in the human being are appropriate. Do you think that if, for example, a truly living spiritual life had existed since the middle of the nineteenth century - but that is, of course, a hypothesis - people would have been just as uncomprehending about the Eisenach, Gotha and Erfurt programs as they were about them? No, never! On the basis of a healthy spiritual life, a healthy industrial science and a healthy social science would have developed. In the social sciences in particular, we have always put the cart before the horse. Instead of those who were called upon to speak about the social order, about the economic order, somehow finding something that had to happen, that could have met the demands of the proletariat, instead of that, these gentlemen recorded what was already there. That is what has brought us so low in this area. And the proletarian had no other choice than to experience the consequences of what was done with the economic system in which he was harnessed, based on the facts I have presented. From his point of view at the machine, from his involvement in soul-destroying capitalism, he saw the intellectual life of the leading, guiding classes. Well, of course, these leading, guiding classes could not help but shape life more and more democratically; they called on the broad masses of humanity to embrace democracy. Little by little, they also came to give the proletariat a share of what they cultivated as intellectual life; adult education centers were founded, art houses where the people were shown what art the other classes produced, and so on. What was developed there – no one should, of course, be reproached, because the people believed they were doing the right thing, which was in the spirit of progress in democracy – but what was actually staged was nothing more than a great lie. They just did not understand this lie. When the broad masses of the proletariat were called upon to look at the pictures of the bourgeoisie, to listen to the school courses of the bourgeoisie, and when they were then persuaded that they understood something about it, then that was not true. For one cannot experience anything in the field of intellectual life unless what is produced is produced within the same community. Because a deep gulf had opened up between the social experiences of the proletariat and those of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat's alleged understanding of bourgeois intellectual production was nothing more than a lie.

Thus the proletariat could not help but feel that it was part of the bare economic life. After all, everything was organized so that only a few could really enjoy the fruits of this intellectual life. But what did the proletariat experience? In the economic sphere, it experienced capital, the effectiveness of its own labor, and the circulation of goods, the production and consumption of goods. That was all that the proletariat really experienced. But when it looked at the state, which was used in this way by the ruling and leading classes of modern times, as I have just described, the proletarian felt something that every human being can feel who is mentally healthy. One can reflect a great deal on what the important concept of right actually means within humanity, or rather, within humanity. In the end, we will say to ourselves: the sense of justice is as fundamental to human nature as the perception of the colors blue and red is to the healthy eye. You can always talk about the red or blue color to someone with a healthy eye, but you cannot evoke any abstract idea of it. In the same way, you can talk about the individual rights to any healthy person. The broad masses of the proletariat also felt this in the periods when the democratic principle had led them to reflect on themselves at the machine and within capitalism. But then this proletariat looked to the state. From its point of view, what did it think it would find within this state? Truly not the realization of the right, but the class struggle with its class privileges and class disadvantages. Here we have another example of where bourgeois thinking has proved itself to be powerless. On the one hand, it was compelled to allow democracy to prevail; on the other hand, it did nothing to draw the consequences of this democracy and did not really dare to exclude from the state that which must be excluded, and to include in the sphere of the state that which must be included in the sphere of the state.

Today, due to the advanced hour, I will only point out one thing, but an important one: the second key point of the social movement of modern times. I will point out how it has taken hold – as I said, the one whom his fate has destined to think with the proletariat has seen it again and again – in the minds of the proletarians, the word of Karl Marx, that the modern proletariat must suffer from the fact that its labor power is bought and sold on the labor market like a commodity, that in economic life not only commodities circulate, but human labor power also circulates. Wages are nothing other than the purchase of human labor power as a commodity. Of course, the proletarian was not so educated by the heritage of bourgeois science, which he had inherited, that he could clearly understand in his mind what actually existed. And the proletarian leaders had only just inherited bourgeois science, so they certainly could not. But the proletarian felt the following in his heart in response to the above quote from Karl Marx. He looked back to ancient times and said to himself: There were once slaves, and the capitalist could buy the whole person like a cow or an object. Then came the time of serfdom, when one could buy less of the person, but still enough. Then came the more recent time, the time when people were made to believe that they were free beings. But the proletarian could not enjoy his freedom, because he still had to sell something of himself, namely his labor. You cannot sell your labor like something you have produced. You can take a wagon wheel or a horse to the market and sell it, and then go back. With your labor, you have to go along. There is a remnant of slavery in real life, no matter how much is said and taught scientifically about so-called freedom. This was what was fixed in the feelings of the proletarian, and what should also have been felt by a real spiritual life in the leading and guiding circles. But although they rightly evoked democracy, which fostered this feeling towards human labor, they were short-sighted enough not to accommodate this feeling through any institution. Now, finally, the facts speak in such a way that it is absolutely necessary to raise the second core question of the social movement: How to strip human labor of the character of the commodity? This is only possible if, on the one hand, we separate intellectual life from the actual political or legal state for the reasons given, and, on the other hand, we separate economic life from this political or legal state, if we thus place three independent social organisms side by side, which can only become a true unity if they are independent. Then they will help each other organically from within, whereas the current unity of economic life, state or legal life and intellectual life has led us into chaos. Now, on the one hand, economic life borders on natural conditions. How foolish it would be if some corporation were to sit down and determine today what natural conditions are needed for the year 1920, for example, how many days a year it must rain and how many days there must be sunshine. That would be folly, of course. In this area, where economic life borders on the natural foundations, one understands this folly, but on the other side, where economic life borders on the free state, which is not allowed to engage in economic activity, one does not yet understand a similar thing. Even Walther Rathenau emphasized in his latest pamphlet, 'After the Flood', that the detachment of the worker from the economic cycle would bring about a tremendous fall in the value of money. He cannot even imagine what will be possible as a result of the liberation of economic life from state life – the withdrawal of labor from economic life, so that economic life is left with nothing but that which is objective and independent of man. In the State the worker will have to stand on such ground where every man is equal to every other man. The future of the State, freed from economic and intellectual life, will be such that everything that lives in humanity, and which can be precisely defined, will develop within the State. In relation to this everything will stand completely equal before all men.

Not equal are men in regard to their individual abilities and talents. All these individual abilities and talents must be developed in a free intellectual life, in an intellectual life independent of the State. Democracy can achieve nothing here. Democracy has as its content everything in which all men are equal and to which no experience of life belongs. But experience of life is the element of economic life. The State must not concern itself with economic affairs. Its function is to lay down and regulate all those matters in which one human being is absolutely equal to another, and in which true democracy can prevail. These include, besides property rights, which you will find more fully explained in my book, above all labor law. In the future, the time, extent and type of work will have to be regulated by the state, which is independent of economic life, so that the worker, who is himself involved in this regulation, comes with a legally limited amount of work, with a working hours limited above all by labor law, when he enters the factory or workshop, before he concludes any kind of contract with a supervisor. Just as economic life, on the one hand, borders on the natural foundations of life and can only get by with a few technical measures, but is ultimately dependent on them, so economic life will, in the future, have to border on the other side of the firmly established labor law. It will no longer be possible to determine wages according to the utility value of goods, as is still essentially the case in our economic system today. All prosperity, all production within economic life will only be able to be shaped as a consequence of what is determined by the state as labor law, just as economic life can only be developed as dependent on natural resources. You can read more about this in my book “The Key Aspects of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life Today and in the Future”. We are now coming to the second of the key aspects of the social question, the regulation of labor law by separating economic life from state life.

The third of the core issues of the social question is the economic question itself. This finds its regulation when this economic life, realistically wedged between the two boundaries just described, is regulated within these boundaries by purely economic forces, the forces of the professional classes, by the forces of production and consumption through cooperatives and the like, in a completely independent manner from the legal and intellectual life. There is no more time today to go into detail - that can be done in the next lecture - about how the emancipated economic life can then bring about what prosperity will depend on labor law, and also on property law, but in a healthy dependence on it and, above all, in a morally necessary dependence, as it is on the other side in a natural dependence. In detail, however, it will be necessary for the other two areas of the social organism, the spiritual and the legal-state, to supply their strengths to economic life. But they will supply them precisely when they develop in the right way on their own ground.

When I was speaking on this subject recently in a Swiss town, a very clever person said to me during the discussion – of course I recognize all clever objections, I am aware of how much can be objected to what I am proposing here; but it is based on reality, and therefore there is as much to object to as there can be objected to as a rule; the reason why what is proposed is practical is that so much can be objected to it and because the objections must be countered in a practical way, not with judgments. He said: Yes, you now want to define the state with its law and its justice, but justice must prevail in both intellectual and economic life! I replied with an image: I imagine a rural family, the man, the woman, the children, servants, maids and three cows. The cows give milk. The whole family needs milk. Is it therefore necessary, or even possible, that the whole family should also give milk? No, if the three cows give milk properly, the whole family will be supplied with milk, and it is not at all necessary for the others to give milk as well. So it is with the three members of the social organism. Each of the members supplies for the other members that which can be supplied to them precisely because in its emancipation it is placed on its healthy, essential foundation. This is what one has to consider above all in the face of these truly practical social proposals, drawn from reality.

For more than a century, humanity has been guided by a threefold motto: liberty, equality, fraternity. Who could close their mind to the powerful impulsiveness of these three ideals? Nevertheless, very clever people of the nineteenth century, they have rightly, I say expressly rightly, pointed out the contradictions between these three great human ideals and said: If one is to develop the freedom of individuality, if the individualities are really to come into their own alongside each other, how is equality to prevail? Or again: How is fraternity to come into its own alongside equality, alongside the expansion of pure right? Well, you see, there is a capital, fundamental contradiction here. Why? Because these three great ideals of humanity, liberty, equality and fraternity, were still being formulated at a time when people were hypnotized by the idea of the unitary state, that unitary state which has actually led us into today's catastrophe. But something right, something lofty, something powerful was felt in these three impulses, and this can only be realized when it is known that each of these three ideals is suitable for the member of the three-part social organism placed on its own ground. In the future, the free spiritual organism must develop out of the impulses of freedom, the state and political organism out of the impulses of equality, and the economic organism out of the principle of fraternity on a large scale, from experience gained from person to person, from organizations, associations, cooperatives, and so on.

This is what prompted the person speaking to you today, when we were in the midst of that terrible catastrophe that brought us here in Germany to our present situation, to turn to many places so that the tone of the Germany. One could already see that at the time. The sound of the guns that thundered in vain should have been accompanied by a spiritual voice that would have filled the world, so that Central and Eastern Europe would have heard that in the future they should not work with guns but with the spirit. The way should have been sought to prevent what has now come to pass. My friends have put a great deal of effort into bringing to the relevant authorities, who were still appointed at the time and have now sunk into the abyss, what has been brought forth from the necessary conditions for the development of humanity in the present and near future. And I said to some at the time: What is expressed in this draft - at that time it was mainly formulated for foreign policy - is what has been deduced from the conditions in Central and Eastern Europe and the civilized world in general through decades of dedicated work, and what is to be realized in the next ten, fifteen, twenty years. And it has been said: You now have a choice. Either you accept reason and tell humanity that you want to realize this, or you face cataclysms and revolutions. Because what you do not want to realize through reason is what leads to revolution. This may be said today by someone who, before this war catastrophe, spoke of a social ulceration, of a social cancer. At the time, I was considered a fantasist, and those who spoke of a general relaxation shortly before the slaughter began were considered practical people.

Let us hope that in those who already understand the necessity of a change in thinking - not just a change in institutions, but a change in thinking, a change in learning in people's minds - let us hope that the impulse for the social movement that is heralded by such loud facts will shine in them. Let us hope that it will dawn on people before it is too late. Because what speaks through facts must be caught up with by thoughts. Today we do not need easy talk about this or that that should be changed. We need new thoughts in people's minds. Many people have said: A catastrophe like this war has not been seen since the beginning of human history. But few have said since: Therefore, we also need thoughts that may seem to some as if they have not yet been thought, but we need them, these thoughts, if we want to escape from this terrible catastrophe that still exists, and escape from confusion and chaos. Let us turn to self-reflection! Let us try to combine insight with courageous social will, then it will not yet be too late, even if the situation is already difficult today. Let us try to prevent the moment when we would then have to say to ourselves in terrible human tragedy, mourning: Too late!

Closing remarks after the discussion

I do not want to keep you very long today. First of all, it will be my task to thank you warmly for your trust. Believe me, it is truly not because of any personal desire to be consulted in these serious times. Rather, if I regard your trust as something extraordinarily meaningful, it is only because I have to face up to the seriousness of the times. And if I did not believe that we should not wait long in these times, but must quickly take action, I myself would perhaps recommend to you: Consider one or the other. But today it is really a matter of finding the way to rapid action out of the confusion of the present. I have been here in Stuttgart for eight days now, and I must confess that after having discussed the same ideas in Switzerland for a long time, the impressions of the last week here have been a very decisive experience in terms of my expectations and hopes, and from a very special point of view.

You see, today it depends on the people of the masses wanting what is reasonable. From my speech, you yourself will have gathered how, for years, attempts have been made to find the right thing to do with minorities, with those to whom, in a certain respect, the leadership of humanity had been entrusted. They preached to deaf ears. Today, a great deal depends on the masses, a great deal depends on whether one finds the possibility of cultivating reason in the broad masses. It was a great experience for me to be able to speak about these ideas to broad masses of the population, as has been mentioned to you, and to experience no contradiction. Today I consider this to be extraordinarily important, because it shows me that if one seeks the way, one finds it, and if it has not been found so far, then I believe it has not been sought in an appropriate way. The last few days have proved this to me, and that is why they were an important experience for me.

There is a lot to be said about the individual points of the debate, but given the late hour, it would be too much. However, I would like to defend myself against some of it, picking up on the last words, which actually showed great goodwill towards me. I would just like to recommend to you: Read page 140 of my writing 'The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life': 'The individual institutions of life presented will have shown that the underlying way of thinking is not, as some might think — and as was actually believed when I presented what I had written here and there orally — about a renewal of the three estates, the estates of nourishment, defense and teaching. The opposite of this division of the estates is aimed at.” The previous speaker said that the idea of threefold social order can also be found in Plato. No, what I presented to you today is the opposite of the division of the estates. It is not that human beings are newly structured in the state, not that the old estates are re-established, not that the Platonic idea is realized, but that what is independent of man, the social organism, is structured in three, and man attains his full, unified human dignity by not being divided into classes. It is by becoming a threefold social organism that class differences are overcome. There is a gulf between us and Plato. We must also rethink Plato. I must make this point, even in the face of such kind words. It is very important that we do not try to equate today's events with some old idea of Plato's.

Then today, in a way that I find very gratifying, the name Karl Christian Planck has been mentioned repeatedly. I believe there are also people here today who visited the Bürgermuseum years ago, where I emphasized the legal and political ideas of K. C. Planck in the context of my speech at the time. Yes, K. C. Planck is also one of those whom I would most like to cite as evidence of the aberrations of intellectual life in modern times. After all, K. C. Planck felt compelled to say that he would not even want his bones buried in his ungrateful homeland. So little attention was paid to what he had to say for that time. But I know that if Planck were to live again today, he would move with the times. If he were to ask himself, “How would my professional legal state be implemented in reality?” — he would automatically come up with the threefold order. That is what I believe to be viable in Planck's work, and I believe it will be a good preparation for what needs to be said today, though so many decades after Planck. It would be a good preparation if a good many people wanted to read The Testament of a German and also other books by K. C. Planck.

A great deal has been said: negotiations should be held, and the like. But aren't the negotiations that have now begun, when so many people, of whom you have been told, have to a certain extent embraced the ideas, negotiations that have already begun? That is also the opinion of our committee, that further progress should be made along these lines. But now I would like to say a word, a word that the great Gladstone once said. He once said that the North American Constitution was the most exemplary constitution he knew. Another, perhaps more witty English statesman, said that in his opinion the constitution did not need to be as good as Gladstone said, because the North Americans knew how to do the right thing for themselves with a bad constitution. It depends on what the people actually make of a constitution.

Now, instead of going into the details of the debate, I would like to point out the fundamental differences between what I believe and what many people see as the solution. You see, what is at issue here is not to set up some abstract program in which a great many people see salvation, but rather to bring people into such a context in social life that they can find what is right from within the social community. My appeal and my book are addressed to people. I have said repeatedly over the past few years: I do not imagine that I am smarter than others who also have experience, but it seems to me that my proposals are close to reality, to practical life. At any moment, the things we are talking about here can be realized from any starting point, here and there. It is only a matter of having the courage to do so. I have often said that perhaps no stone will be left unturned by my individual proposals, but that people will find the right way to live together if they are given the opportunity to do so. And people will find the right way if they are grounded in the threefold social organism. My appeal is to people themselves. If people want to establish the institution in question, they will enter into relationships with each other in which they can really organize their social life in such a way that the conditions of a healthy social organism are fulfilled. It is a practical matter, a practical grouping of people according to the threefold organism. Then, in the spiritual, legal and economic spheres, people will find what is right when they are in these three spheres. It is about people, and basically, to understand this call, nothing more is needed than real faith in people. I have often been told that the call is difficult to understand. I must confess that I was surprised that people who have understood so much that I have not understood in the last four to five years said that. There was so much that people understood or thought they understood when it came from the Great Headquarters or from some other source. Then everyone understood and even framed the sayings in golden frames. But now it is important that people understand something of their own accord, out of their own free decision. Man must rely on himself; that is the first requirement. This is the keynote of this appeal and of everything that is wanted here. You will be able to deduce the actual keynote of the appeal from what I have just said, and I hope that what is wanted will be understood better and better.