First Discussion Evening — Money as Instruction: Economic Separation and Worker Freedom

GA 331 — 22 May 1919, Stuttgart

First Discussion Evening

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees,

You are all well aware of how long the call for socialization has been going around in a more emotional way. You all also know that this call for socialization has taken on a particularly urgent form today. They know that we cannot escape confusion and chaos if we do not take into account what is contained in the demand for socialization, if we do not seriously strive through action for what can really be called socialization.

On the other hand, we see that precisely since the beginning of the German Revolution, it has become clear in so many ways that although the call for socialization is there, at the same time there is a lack of ideas about what should actually be done, how what is demanded as socialization should actually be implemented. Right now, every day brings new evidence of how little people are clear about what needs to be done to bring about socialization. And so we see that the call for socialization is becoming clearer and clearer, more and more justified, but that the government is not doing anything significant, or even insignificant, to achieve true socialization. Yes, we can even say – perhaps you will want to elaborate on this question or provide more precise information later in the course of the disputation – that it can be clearly seen from what is happening that there is no concept of real socialization.

You may have read the draft law that is supposed to initiate – so they say in bureaucratic language – the institution of the so-called works councils. Of course, the first thing one thinks of is the places where they want to initiate such things today, making laws about what works councils should do, what their rights will be, and so on. But if you take the whole thing, what has now been launched as a draft, you will have to say to yourself: Yes, this does not bear the stamp of true socialization in the slightest. It is even called “socialization of the companies,” as if one could actually socialize the individual companies! What this draft contains for the constitution of the works councils is nothing more than, I would say, the introduction of a certain democratic principle of the parliamentarism with which we are all too familiar into the individual companies. In fact, the matter is already often referred to as the “democratization of the companies”. The parliamentary principle should extend certain offshoots, such gulfs, into the companies, where further parliamentarization should then take place. Yes, just as the previous parliamentarism, in that it was practiced in isolation in all kinds of “houses”, was unable to contribute anything to socialization, so this extension of the parliamentary gulfs will be unable to bring anything of socialization to the factories. You see it best from the fact that in this draft, everywhere the old language of “employer” and “employee” is used. Even if it is not openly stated, it is still the case that the old capitalism continues to lurk behind all of this. Everything is conceived in the old capitalist form. Basically, everything should remain the same, and the employees should be reassured by the fact that works councils can now somehow be elected that have all sorts of theoretical negotiations with the employers. But when it comes to the actual social structure, ultimately everything should remain the same. This can be clearly seen from such a draft by anyone who has a sense of reading something like this at all. Not even the slightest attempt has been made to really dismantle capitalism. And so we see that the very first demand for socialization, the dismantling of capitalism, is not tackled by what is now so often called socialization.

What is left for us to think about in the face of such a government? Truly, today we can no longer arrive at any other conclusion than that the only salvation lies in the fact that the great mass of workers are now truly informed about the damage that the social order has caused so far, and that they are informed about what can really bring about improvement. It is, above all, enlightenment that is needed. In this context, it is important that we should no longer listen to those who keep saying, “But enlightenment takes a long time.” It need not take long if we are willing to make a little effort to see things without masks and illusions, if we try to see things as they are and as they must happen. We no longer have the time to wait years for socialization. Something must happen immediately. But something can only happen if a united mass of people carry what is to be done. People keep asking: Yes, where is the practical instruction for what is written in my book, for example, 'The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life in the Present and Future'? The most practical thing is to have as many people as possible demanding what is in my book, so that it becomes quite impossible to continue to govern against these demands. The future power will consist in the fact that it will enforce what it is all about. Otherwise a power will never know how to use that power, what it should do. It really depends on knowing what to do. Therefore, proper education must take place in the broadest circles, and one must be able to form an idea of how something like the dismantling of private capital and the abolition of the wage system can take place.

Above all, one must be able to form a thorough idea of the following. You see, the actual economic question, where does it arise? You have to be able to see it in the right place. You must not let gray theories obscure the facts. You have to see the economic question where it is, and start from there. Where is it? Where is it as a fact? Well, it is there where I have to take my wallet out of my pocket and have the money in it for which I am to get something in a store to satisfy my needs. And there must be enough in my wallet for me to be able to get the things I need to live. That is the basic fact of all economic life. Today, everything else is basically only there to obscure this fact.

Why does the tripartite social organism demand a separation of economic life from legal and spiritual life? It demands this separation for the reason that economic life can be truly socialized in itself, so that it is finally presented in its true form, the true form that takes place between the goods in the shop and the contents of the wallet. Only when we extract from the whole remaining social process that which must take place between the purse and the shop, do we put ourselves in a position to think in a truly socialist way. But what does that mean? It means a great deal. But if one does not start from the right fact, then one cannot arrive at correct views with regard to all the other things.

I will educate myself from your disputation about what is to be said about the details. But before that, I would like to give some necessary guidelines, starting from the basic economic fact I have just described. You see, when I go into a shop and there is something in it that I need to satisfy my vital needs, and I come with my purse and spend the money for the goods from this purse, then you have to be clear about the fact that there is a process involved in this that somewhat obscures the true facts. I get goods, I spend money. Is money a commodity? Can money ever be a commodity? You really don't need to do any in-depth studies, but the in-depth studies prove exactly what I am going to say now.

You just need to have a real sense of what a piece of paper is, and you will say to yourself: a piece of paper can never be a commodity in the same way as, for example, a loaf of bread that you buy in a shop. I think that is something that the simplest mind can understand, and no science can claim anything else. What you take out of your wallet as money cannot be a commodity, but only an instruction to receive a commodity, nothing else. But that is why it must come from the commodity. A commodity must have been produced at some point, so something must have been provided. In this sense, services are also goods. This piece of paper must have been created by such a process that produces goods, and so the piece of paper only forms the bridge between the goods that you buy in the store and those goods that must be produced once so that you can receive the paper instruction for those goods. That, to put it simply, is the economic process. Any other element in the economic process is unhealthy. If it is to be healthy, nothing can be exchanged in the economic process except commodity for commodity.

Now, however, we ask: Is only commodity exchanged for commodity in the economic process today? No, and as soon as you think about it properly, you come to the point. Today, in the economic process, not only goods are exchanged for goods, but today, in the economic process, goods, even if perhaps represented by money, are exchanged for labor. In the economic process, labor power is paid just like goods. But this is how labor power is introduced into the economic process.

You see, there is a very simple consideration that can show you that labor does not belong in the economic process at all, because it can never be compared to any commodity in its nature. You just have to correct people's very convoluted ideas about such things today. You have to understand how people have learned to think about these things incorrectly.

You see, it is still associated with a certain amount of effort on the part of the human organism. Now, even if a person has no need to chop wood, for example, he may still feel the need to work. Then he does sports, for example. And the amount of labor that one devotes to sports could, under certain circumstances, wear out the body just as much as the work of someone chopping wood wears out the body – if he exerts himself particularly during sports. Labor has nothing to do with the economic process, but labor has something to do with the economic process only in that it is applied to something economically valuable. Sport is economically worthless, it exists only for human egoism. Chopping wood is valuable. Because labor is economically valuable, it becomes part of the economic process. But the essential thing about work is that I must be a free person with regard to the use of my labor, that I cannot be compelled by economic coercion to put my labor at the service of capitalism in any old way. When it comes to the use of labor, freedom and bondage and coercion intervene. Just as labor as such must be a matter of law and not of economics, so too, what must be made clear in the simplest possible way, is that in economics only what is produced, created by labor, has any significance.

In economic life, only that which is produced and created by labor has any significance; it must be paid for. But there must be an entrepreneur who pays a worker for his labor. How the labor manager and the worker relate to each other must be determined on a completely different basis, namely that of law. In the economic sphere, when true right exists, the laborer and the labor manager can only be partners who distribute the proceeds of the labor among themselves in a just manner. In the future, there must be no more payment for labor, that is to say, the wage relationship must be eliminated, and furthermore, the wage relationship must not exist.

A state must be brought about, and that is then a social state in which the labor manager and the worker jointly produce the goods and share with each other in a just way according to the contract of goods, not according to the contract of employment, what they produce together as free associates. Only when such a transformation of the production relations has been brought about can one speak of socialization. But then one also stops using all the old terms that are still based on capitalism in a socialization program. You have to rethink things very thoroughly. You really have to throw out the old ideas, not just because they are ideas, but because they are embedded in life.

But now something else must be considered. If the labor force is to be placed in a relationship of compulsion within the economic process, then something must be there. What is that? You see, I have to go back to the original fact of the economic process, to the purse and the shop. If the note that I have in my purse is really nothing more than an order for a commodity, then basically no compulsion to work can prevail, because then this note must always lead back in some way to something that has been put into the world as a service. And it is only a matter of this service then circulating in the appropriate way, circulating in such a way that consumption regulates production at all times. But that is not the case today. What I carry in my wallet has become something quite different from an instruction for the goods as a result of the economic process of recent times. It has become a commodity in its own right, something that has an independent value in the social order. But it has only become so because a type of commodity – which, basically, could be eliminated altogether if only the leading trading state, England, would also eliminate it, then it could be eliminated entirely from the economic process; it can always be eliminated from an internal economic process, it can always be eliminated; one would then only need to take another consideration into account with respect to foreign countries –– that this token, which I carry in my wallet, has a different meaning than being a mere order for goods. This is due to the fact that a commodity has been created by the state, which is not really a commodity, namely gold or silver. In reality, neither is a commodity, but they are represented by the note. This separates the monetary process from the economic process, withdraws it from the economic process, thereby turning money itself into a commodity, and thereby allowing money, which in reality should not be a commodity, to become completely independent in economic life. But this is the basis of capitalism.

[If you can trade money independently, what happens? Since money can never be created other than by producing goods, but goods can never be produced other than through labor in an economy based on the division of labor, power over labor arises through capital. Capital is nothing more than power over human labor. You get the opportunity to obtain human labor by detaching money as an independent commodity from the economic process, while money should actually be just a worthless bill in the sense of an order for what you exchange as a commodity through money. But through this detachment of money, labor has become the servant of the power of “capital.” As a result, something in the economic process, such as the formation of prices, is constantly distorted. For while I should only pay for the goods, I also have to pay for the labor. But because power dominates labor, labor is paid as cheaply as possible, because, of course, a power that dominates tends to buy as cheaply as possible. If labor power is included in the economic process itself, then capitalism cheapens it.

What is important now is that labor must be removed from the economic process. Only goods may be in the economic process. However, because the economic process is so distorted, other things can also be in it. You see, for many decades the socialists have repeatedly called for the socialization of the means of production. But today it is necessary to know how this socialization of the means of production must be effected. It is not enough to merely call for socialization in the abstract; instead, one must know how it can be carried out. Today we have reached the point where we can already realize such things if we really want to, if we really have the courage to.

Before we inform ourselves in detail about the peculiar position of the means of production in today's economic life – essentially, they are capital – it is good if we first look at something else.

Today, not only goods can be bought, that is, what is produced by human labor in the social organism through the division of labor, but one can also buy something quite different, which no human being produces, but which is there by nature, that is, land. But this buying of land or taking out a mortgage on land is only a process of falsifying the economic order. It is something quite different from what people actually imagine. You cannot really buy land, because land only has value when it is worked on. What you buy, that is, what you acquire through the so-called purchase, is the exclusive right to use the land. That is what it comes down to, this exclusive right to use the land.

So you are not buying a commodity when you buy land, but a right. And that is the cancer of today's social order, that within the economic process you can not only buy goods, but you can also buy labor and rights. By buying labor, you acquire the ability to draw that labor into the economic process, that is, to rape it. And by buying the right to use land, you acquire power.

It must be clear that this calamity cannot be overcome unless we tackle the matter radically. The finished means of production, or rather, the finished means of production that are used to produce further products, have exactly the same value in the economic process as land, or rather, the same importance. In reality, you can't buy these finished means of production either. But if you buy them, you are actually acquiring the right to use them exclusively. So, you buy a right again. And now you can see best of all from these means of production that when they are finished, they simply must not be for sale, that the means of production must cease to have a value on the economic market. When they are finished, they are just like land. Now the question arises that really contains a social demand: How do we manage that the means of production no longer have an economic value when they are finished? We can only manage this – as I said earlier – by allowing everything that does not belong in the economic process to be transformed into independent members of the social organism.

What is necessary for production? Is capital really necessary? No! It is nonsense that capital is necessary. In order for the means of production to be operated, it is necessary that intellectual work is there. Of course, every worker understands that intellectual leadership and intellectual work must be present. And he also understands that he would soon have to stop working if there were no intellectual leadership or intellectual work. But today it is not about spiritual leadership, but about private ownership of the means of production and about profitability, about the ability to reinvest the capital invested in the means of production. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the means of production from the economic process so that they can always reach the person with the appropriate abilities and in whom the workers have confidence, through the social order itself. Therefore, the threefold social organism requires an independent spiritual organism. It is simply nonsense to say that this would create new ownership structures... In this spiritual life, which is of course closely connected with the other branches of life, it is then ensured that the means of production make their way through the world differently than through purchase. And in what I call the constitutional state – it really has nothing to do with the old state – it will be ensured that labor can get its rights. In the economic life itself, only the production, distribution and consumption of goods then remain.

Then, when we have such an economic process before us, we will be able to demand that there must be a liquidation government. This government then says to itself: Well, I have to exist for a while because the old order must continue. But I must at most retain only something like a Ministry of Police, a Ministry of the Interior, and also a Ministry of Justice, which will establish the legal conditions through the corresponding democratic representation.

It is again a calumny when it is said that then only the legal scholars will prevail on the legal basis. No, the people will rule; there will be a real democracy that will expand. The government to the left and to the right must be a liquidation government that, on the one hand, transfers spiritual life to its own administration and, on the other hand, transfers economic life to its own administration. The liquidation government will have to take the initiative in such a way that it creates the free space for economic life, so that in the economic sphere, out of the forces that regulate the respective values of goods, that is, the prices necessary for the healthy maintenance of life, a real socialization can occur.

You see, I know, of course, that when I explain something like this, people always say from the most diverse points of view: Yes, he expresses himself so vaguely. — I would just like to know how someone should express themselves definitively about something that is an infinite area. One can only point out what actually underlies things. But I always have the hope that precisely those who, out of their life's struggles, have acquired a certain inner sense of the truth of this matter, would like to see that what is presented here is based on a really thorough insight into the entire process of production and consumption. And only from such an insight can one proceed to action. That alone is therefore the truly practical thing, while those who always make the laws or design institutions in such a way that one hole is closed and another is opened as a result are not practical people.

You can set up an economic enterprise quite nicely if you leave it capitalist, that is, leave the whole economy capitalist. Then it may be possible in the individual economic enterprises that even what is so beautifully called a full labor yield comes about for the worker, but that no more surplus value is generated. Walther Rathenau will come and say: the surplus value is there for nothing other than for the reserve, that is, for the continuous improvement of the means of production and the expansion of the business. Everything that is generated in surplus value goes back into the business. I would just like to know how those who do not work but receive royalties or the like live when everything goes back into the business. Well, you can let such people talk. But something else is much more important.

Let us assume that the entire surplus value is simply distributed among the workers. Do you think that if the old capitalist order remained and if the surplus value were distributed among the workers in a company, that there would be no need to work for surplus value? You can still make a profit if you do not socialize the economy. In that case, it is not subtracted from the workers' wages, but the consumer has to pay it. It is not important that no surplus value is generated, but that the producer does not pay for it... the consumer has to pay for it. But who is that? The worker again. So if you add the surplus value to your wages, you in turn have to pay for what you have earned as a consumer. You plug one hole, but open another.

You can never escape this unnatural economic cycle unless you eliminate the fifth wheel, which is only there to enable people who have not worked to make a profit. This fifth wheel is called capital. And you cannot get out of this cycle if you do not establish a direct relationship between the means of production and the intellectual worker on the one hand and the physical worker on the other. If you do not want this, if you do not throw out this fifth wheel on the wagon, which only serves those who do not work, then you will not achieve socialization.

As you will find, the main thing described in my book is that it really strives to eliminate what capital is from economic life and what is a forced relationship of work. This cannot be done otherwise than by creating a legal basis on which labor is regulated independently of economic life, and by creating a spiritual basis on which human individual abilities are regulated independently of economic life. Then they will flow into economic life in the right way.

Those who understand this will not be very impressed when people come and say: Yes, you want to destroy the unity of social life by dividing it into three parts. No, I want to establish precisely this unity, and those people who speak of dividing this unity, like the foolish writer of an article in yesterday's Süddeutsche Zeitung, believe that I want to cut up a horse. I don't want to cut up the horse, but they believe that if I don't put it on a single foot, I will cut it up. What matters to people is that the horse is only a unit when it stands on one leg. But the horse must stand on four legs. I do not want to cut up the social organism, but to place it on its three healthy legs. In doing so, I want to shape it straight into a whole. That is what matters.

Now I have again told you something about how things are to be understood, but from a different angle than I have usually said in lectures. I just wanted to introduce this evening, and I hope that now many of you will say something that can help us move forward this evening. We must move forward, especially with regard to a real dismantling of capitalism and a real dismantling of forced labor.

Discussion

Mr. Biel asks two questions: 1. Is democracy a necessity for the implementation of such a new form of economic life, or is it right, under certain circumstances, to use force if such a state of affairs cannot be brought about through democracy? Can violence in this case also be a right? — 2. Is this threefold division or socialization possible without taking into account international conditions, that is, without all culturally developed peoples coming onto the scene at the same time with the same ideas and demands?

Rudolf Steiner: Regarding the question of whether democracy is a necessity for the implementation of real socialization, I would like to say the following: In a sense, it is true that so far a majority of people have not been able to warm to new ideas, but, as the previous speaker has already said, only small groups have done so. But on this point in particular, we must realize that today we are not on the threshold of a small reckoning of world history, but of a great one. Many things must change, and they will only change if we are willing to strive for something different, especially with regard to the most important issues, from what has existed so far. Those who today not only look back at the practices of earlier times, but can see today what people want, will take into account the most diverse real factors.

For example, the previous speaker said that a small group of people drove humanity into the world war. Well, I will be publishing a small brochure in the next few days about the outbreak of the First World War, which will show how small the number of those was who, for example, were behind it on the German side. This small group worked in a way that was completely out of touch with the circumstances of the time. They simply carried the old conditions into the present. In terms of attitude, not with the technical means, it would not have been possible to govern in Berlin as it was done if, for example, the art of printing had not existed, through which education and the ability to judge were carried into the broadest masses. But did not this catastrophe of the world wars really bring about the downfall of that which had simply continued to be managed?

Today we are on a different footing, and today people are not so that they want to let small groups dictate to them what they have to do, and that they just want to exchange one small group for another. Today everyone wants to be involved. Today is the time to learn the difference between ruling and governing. It seems, however, that this difference has not yet been thoroughly enough recognized. The people must rule today; a government may only govern. That is what matters. And that is why democracy is necessary today in a healthy sense. That is why I have no hope that one can achieve anything with the most beautiful ideas if one wants to realize them through small groups and if one is not supported by the knowledge and insight of the real majority of the population. The most important task today is to win over the vast majority of the population for what has been recognized as a possibility for change. Thus, today we are faced with the necessity of having the majority of the population on our side in a democratic way for what will ultimately be truly achieved in terms of socialization.

Of course, there could be transitional periods in which a small group would implement something that is not recognized by the majority. But that would only be short-lived. On this point in particular, it must be made clear that even today the time has come when, through democratization, people are to be regarded as equals, and therefore we must create the conditions in which all people can be equal in their judgment, which we must detach from that in which people cannot be equal in their judgment. Just imagine if some child at school is particularly talented at learning arithmetic and you want to make a musician out of him, then by training the child wrongly you are depriving the social life of a very special strength. The healthy development of individuality must be nurtured precisely in the social organism. You cannot democratize there, you can only apply the insight into the real knowledge of human nature. Something completely new must be introduced into the field of education and teaching.

And in economic life, do you want to make democratic decisions? For example, how to make boots or valves? Here, based on factual knowledge, corporations must be formed in relation to production and consumption; here, objective interests must be decisive. The purely factual interests must be separated to the left and to the right, and then the ground of democracy remains in the middle, on which nothing else comes into consideration than what every mature, fully developed person has to demand from every mature, fully developed person as an equal, and from where law then radiates into the spiritual and economic life. Precisely because the call for democracy is so justified today, we must recognize how democracy can be carried out. That was not necessary in capitalist society. There, too, people called themselves democrats, but it was not yet necessary to approach the concept of democracy as thoroughly as it is today. Today we have reached the point where we have to ask ourselves: Because democracy must come, how can we realize it in practice? The answer must be: only by basing it on its own foundations, and what cannot be administered democratically, what cannot be judged by all people, that is separated factually to the left and right.

It is so easy to understand why this tripartite social organism is necessary that one must actually always be surprised that people have so much against it. If they ask who is open and honest about democracy, for example, it is precisely the tripartite social organism, because it seeks to find out how to realize democracy and does not want to mix and confuse everything, so that there can be no democracy in the unitary state. Of course, those who always shout “For throne and altar!” have not made democracy. But, my dear attendees, they will not make democracy either, who put the office in place of the throne and the cash register in place of the altar. Democracy will only be made by those who are sincere about human society and do not want to carry the democratic to where expertise can be the only thing that matters. Therefore, people will have to come to terms with the fact that, as reasonable socialists have always said, there must be factual administrations in the future and no sham administrations through elections and the like. Of course, there must be elections, but beyond the technique of voting, one will have to learn other things than one already knows today. I just want to point out: Democracy must come, but we must have a social organism of such a kind that it thoroughly makes democracy possible.

As for international relations, I will just say that, while this world war was raging, it was precisely because of the internationality of this threefold order that I established it, because I saw only in the threefold order a remedy for somehow emerging from the terrible devastation and devastation of this world war. For if you have been an attentive observer for decades, you clearly recognized that this modern catastrophe, the greatest in world history, which, by the way, is far from over, was bound to happen as a result of the mixing up of everything possible.

Let us illustrate the story with a single phenomenon, the Baghdad Railway question. You may know that the Baghdad Railway question played a major role in the events that led to the First World War. Anyone who studies the negotiations in connection with the Baghdad Railway question knows how intertwined the economic interests of capitalist imperialism or capitalisms and national, chauvinistic, state, and legal prejudices are. For example, a certain German financial consortium thought it had the matter in the bag because it had attracted certain people in England, also financial consortia, that is to say people steeped in capital-economic interests. Then the state dimension emerged and confused everything so much that the English dropped out again. Then the French dropped out for the same reasons. Then again it was against German national interests, and so it went through the whole negotiations. Those who know real life know that in modern life the three spheres of life, intellectual life, to which national life also belongs, economic life and state or legal life, have become increasingly intertwined.

You see, when I came to Vienna during this world war – people judged this world war and their fate in it from the most diverse points of view – some people told me: This whole war is a pig war. – Not condemning, but characterizing, they wanted to express that one of the most important causes was that Hungary refused to let the Serbian pigs be imported. Thus it was a purely economic matter that became entangled with national, that is, spiritual issues. Thus various cauldrons were formed in which what then became a world war was brewed: all kinds of legal, extra-legal, class-legal and similar issues. Therefore, anyone who looks at the international situation must point out that the only hope for the future is to separate the three areas of life so that a three-part social organism is formed. Then the individual areas will support each other, then one will point to the other.

Sometimes people are so stubborn that it is amazing. You see, I once spoke to a person who is a legal scholar and even a ministerial director, and I pointed out to him that if the social organism is tripartite, conflicts can no longer arise at the borders because one does not interfere with the other. I said that state conflicts do not arise so quickly from economic conflicts if everything is not mixed up. Good economic relations, for example, will help with state conflicts and the like. Yes, he said, but if you implement that, then you are going against something that has always been in history, namely that the most important wars in history are actually wars over raw materials. If you want to introduce that, you are eliminating the raw material conflicts from the world, and it is our experience that these raw material conflicts have always been there. I had to answer: Yes, if you had wanted to give me confirmation that I am right, then it would make sense to me. That you tell me it as a refutation, I cannot understand. That is how people are today. When they think straight and naturally, they cannot bring themselves to accept it, because people's ideas have already been distorted.

So, with regard to the international as such, it was precisely the threefold order that was thought of first. It is the basis for a real socialization of international life as well. But it has another special feature. It does no harm at all if one social organism becomes threefold and the others do not yet want to become threefold. If the others are not yet ready, those who have introduced the threefold structure can enjoy the benefits of the threefold organism. Outwardly, if it should hinder them, they can of course act as one. If there are three parliaments, they can join together in negotiations with foreign countries because the others will not yet allow it otherwise. But they will still be ahead of the others because they are realizing the threefold order in their own area. That is precisely the important thing: not to think that you want to revolutionize the whole world, but to start in a particular area. Then it will be - and I am quite sure of this - very contagious when truly salutary conditions arise in an area. That will have a very contagious effect. And that is precisely what will contribute to internationalization. We just have to think practically. The only thing that could happen now is that the Entente would prevent us from introducing these blessings so that we cannot set an example. But we must show courage and drive in what we are able to create. Perhaps it is precisely through something like this that we will be able to fight against the strong capitalist-imperialist powers.

Discussion participant Mittwich asks: 1. How will it be possible to tax people in the socialist economy in the future? - 2. How will we socialize?

Rudolf Steiner: By pointing out the importance of democratization in the transition period, I do not think that the two previous speakers have really presented anything different from what I have said. Of course, misunderstandings could arise in one circle or another, but nothing really different from what I have said has actually been presented.

You see, you have to see this as a basis for the whole impulse of threefolding, namely that it aims at reality everywhere, that it does not theorize at all. In fact, if I may express myself somewhat paradoxically, what is written in my book about the social question is not so important as what happens when one sets about realizing what is written there. There people will notice that all kinds of things come out that they had no idea of before, precisely the things that are unconsciously demanded today by the truly working and productive people. And in a special case this is the case with democracy. Of course, for the transition period a very important question will be this: If we now really get a sufficient majority, and I consider that the only healthy one, because nothing can be maintained in the long run with small groups, if we get a sufficient majority for something that can really be carried out practically, then of course the question arises from the actual circumstances in question, it can only come from them: How do you then, more or less clearly, compliment — you know what I mean by that — those whom you wish were no longer in power? This is, of course, a significant transitional question, and I believe that if there is a real relative majority – I would even say a sufficient majority, it just depends on there being a number of people who can tip the scales and carry the matter, who are there out of conviction, out of insight and not out of following, not out of authority – then there will also be a way in which the new can be achieved.

But, you see, the question, which Mr. Mittwich has discussed very nicely here, does not seem to me to have been dealt with in a completely practical way, especially when I imagine that things are supposed to happen in space and not in our heads, not in our thoughts. Mr. Mittwich was right to say: when it comes to the fateful questions of Germany, when it comes to the big, serious questions of the present, only those who are productive workers, who are in some way truly productively active, should have a say. I fully agree. But you see, human society would be in a bad way if the majority of people were not productive, if they were inactive. The majority are already productively active. And if we only had all those who were productively active, if they really formed a majority, then we would be fine. Then those who are productively inactive would be in a strong minority: the parasites of society.

Now the thing about the tripartite organism is that only the productive workers, that is, those who really produce something and mean something to society, will certainly appropriate what is in its impulses. When they appropriate it, we can rely on these people, and the minority who do not appropriate it do not come into consideration. By accepting what is really reasonable, we will in practice get a majority that can be relied on. So I think that if it is accepted, the matter itself will ensure that the majority of those who are productively active will assert themselves. But how you want to push something through without being able to rely on the majority of those who are productively active, I don't see that in practice yet. It is not enough to demand that only the productive workers should share in the fate of Germany. The question only becomes practical when one considers how the productive workers alone can form a majority. The parasites will be weeded out if we can adhere to the tripartite social organism. Because that will bring about a real socialization, and those who are unproductive social parasites – you can be quite sure of that – will not be able to find any taste in this socialization. They will have to fall back into inactivity – well, they are already in there – but also into inactivity in terms of their vote and so on.

It is true that, economically, capitalism can be used to exert pressure, as I have sufficiently explained. But this compulsion ceases to exist when we render it harmless by ensuring the dismantling of capitalism. That is why I actually cannot understand how people constantly mix up what is appropriate for the present and what is appropriate for the time to come, which must really be just around the corner, because we do not have much time. For the present, one can indeed speak of the fact that the capitalists can strangle us, but we want to prevent them from doing that. So we cannot imagine conditions that we want to eliminate. Therefore, it is not correct to object that the capitalists will have the power. They will not have it if we move forward as the three-part social organism indicates. It will be taken from them. And finally, for those who take a closer look today, the question arises like this: Is capital, as such, really so extraordinarily powerful today, mainly as economic power over wide areas?

You see, I'll try to make something clear to you with a comparison. I once knew a family that had a really big dog. And suddenly, after the woman of the family had looked at this dog very thoughtfully for a long time, she came up with a strange idea. She said that if this dog were suddenly to become aware of its strength and were to use it, then it could tear us all apart. But it is so tame, and we are only saved because it has become accustomed to tameness. — You see, a great deal of the power of old capitalism has already been undermined. People just don't think about how much has already been undermined, how much is only maintained in appearance today by the fact that the old conditions are being propagated. Yes, you see, if after the German Revolution – don't get me wrong, comparisons are always misleading, the comparison is only meant to express the balance of power – those who came up afterwards had produced within themselves the awareness of the power that lies in the bulldog, if they had not allowed themselves to be hypnotized by muddling through in old ways, then we would have come further today.

Now, it is not always easy to answer specific questions, especially when it comes to practical people. I will tell you why. The specific questions are to be answered differently depending on the circumstances. Things can be handled in very different ways, and it is not always necessary to do them in the same way. The programmatic person, the theorist, is usually so clever that he thinks up a socialist program down to the last detail. There have always been such people. But that is not the point, but rather to show how the ground must be shaped so that people can socialize themselves, so that they come together in socializing.

I must always emphasize: I do not feel smarter than others with regard to the details, but I am trying to give suggestions as to how each person can bring out what can contribute to socialization. Therefore, I want people to place themselves on three levels. After all, people will not be divided into classes, but they will all be within each area. And it is people who will form the unity. Therefore, I would like to join the community of ideas in such a way that socialization can really be brought about by the people. Then, under the new conditions, we will also find a fair system of taxation. We must not forget: we cannot find a just principle for taxation from today's wealth statistics, since we are working to place them on a completely different footing. All these things, such as income tax, consumption tax and so on, will be placed on a completely different footing in the future. Read my writing on the social question. There you will see that many things will indeed be quite different in the future. For example, the family man is in the social organism in a completely different way than the single person, and that is because, if the constitutional state really develops as I assume, then every child has the right to an education. Then the situation is not that the family man has to distribute his meager wages among a large family, while the single person can use it all for himself. The circumstances will be quite different. [Interjection: And the other consumer goods?] The right to consumer goods is a matter of course. This is ensured by the fact that the economic process is a real one. Everyone who produces something will, simply through the economic process, have the opportunity to procure the consumer goods, which is much more certain than an abstract right. The aim of the emancipation of economic life is to have enough. Needs are better met if you have a right to consumer goods and thus enough in your wallet. That is the aspect concerning the right to consumer goods. In reality, it is not really important if one is really thinking about realizing the threefold social organism. Then, in fact, what is produced is what really equates one person with another from a certain age onwards.

Isn't it true that, in a truly socialized community, income as such need not be the determining factor for what one can consume. For it is quite possible that a person, by performing some kind of, well, let's call it quality work, may appear to earn more than another in a socialist community; but that does not mean that he has more for his consumption than another; he must spend it in the appropriate way. It is not a matter of keeping this concept of income and consumption in mind in the future, but rather of ensuring that - because one person will be economically fair in relation to another - it will be possible in the future to even eliminate the state as a tax collector from the economic process.

You see, one concept will have to disappear completely in the future: the concept of legal personality, including economic-legal personality. What is to be paid in taxes will actually be paid by individual people, because in the state, in the democratic state, on the ground on which the law is to live, the individual human being faces the individual human being. Human beings can only be equal when one human being is face to face with another. In the sphere of economic life and in the sphere of intellectual life there must be corporations. In the sphere of the state there can only be law, which is the same for all human beings, and which every adult can understand. The corollary of this, however, is that every private person, every individual, is only the bearer of the tax. This can be proportioned so that injustice never occurs, but this proportionality will not be necessary if there is real equality among people. The tax issue will then be something completely different. Therefore, the things that are at stake and that can be asked about today apply more to the transitional stage. Often, things have to be done that are not permanent. Of course, the aim is to gradually create the conditions for taxing the individual, not for taxing complexes [...] Of course, a consumption tax must also be created, by which I do not mean indirect taxes, which are unfair. So, a consumption tax must be created, that is, those who consume a lot of money must, of course, be taxed more than those who do not consume much, because if someone puts the money in the straw bag, it has no significance for social life. It only acquires significance when it is spent.

These are, of course, very specific questions, which today, because they are very specific practical questions, can basically only be answered insufficiently, because the institutions in the transition stage cannot yet be good either. If we can find a way of thinking that makes it possible to distribute fairly what is due to the state, we will also find a way to tax those who today still have a large income more than those who have less. And what Mr. Mittwich said about the future can only be realized when everything that can be created through the threefold social order is in place.

A very real question is how to think about implementing socialization. Some say it can only be achieved by increasing production. Yes, but there are many other things to be considered. In this regard, there is still a lack of clarity in contemporary humanity. You see, I once said in a lecture – I think to Daimler workers – that the peculiar thing about the more recent development of humanity is that, due to machines, the number of workers on the whole earth does not correspond to the number of people given in the encyclopedia as the population of the earth. It says there are about 1500 million people, but in reality, if we count the working population, there are 2000 million, so 500 million more. That is a curious fact. Of course, I am not saying that ghosts are walking around, who would not work even if they were walking around, but that is so because we have machines and can compare what is produced economically using machines, for example, in contrast to the Orient, where there are not yet so many machines, where man does more by hand. This makes it possible to calculate that the increased output resulting from the use of machines throughout the world is equivalent to 500 million people. Imagine how much labor and productive power could be saved if this were actually utilized in a sensible way. But strangely enough, I was met with the following response: Yes, I had said quite correctly that through the machine there are 500 million imaginary people, so 500 million more than in reality, so that the work is done by 2,000 million people, but on the other hand, people's needs have increased during the machine age and the same is true as before. That is an objection that one hears very often, that simply when the productive power is increased, needs also increase. One hole is closed, another opens. But in reality it is different. It is the case that everything must be taken into account that can lead to rationalization, to the proper design of the production process. Those who only think that the production process must be increased will not get it right – and that is: a proper balance between consumption and production, not the greatest possible increase in production. That does not lead to what must be striven for, that is, to a pricing system that really creates decent living conditions for all people.

What is necessary, in particular, is that in production, the kind of mistakes that have been made, let's say, in Germany, are not made. One of them – and there have been many – is that in the years long before the outbreak of the World War, twice as much coal was used for German industry as would have been necessary. So many resources were wasted, which could have been used for something completely different. What matters most is that we have people in the economic process who are up to the current situation. But we don't have them. People may be able to think very advanced on a large scale, but we don't have any real economic leaders. The economic process is not really organized at all in the way it should be, because people have no idea how important it is not to squander productive forces unnecessarily.

I have often used a grotesque example in these lectures. It is not uncommon today for a young badger to have to write his doctoral thesis after graduating from university. I will give you a concrete example. A young person was given the task by his professor to write his doctoral thesis on the commas in Homer - which, by the way, do not exist. This is, of course, a thesis that does not contribute the slightest thing to the social process. People who are hypnotized by scientific thinking take offense when you say something like that. But this matter must be viewed in an economic light. From an economic point of view, it is taken into account that this young man needs a year and a half for the work. During this time, he must eat, drink and dress. The fact that he can do this means that so-and-so many people have to work to provide him with food and drink, but he squanders his productive power and does nothing for society. Through what people call “free independent science,” he becomes a parasite on social life. This is just one example. But there are many such things in our production process, in our whole social life, where one can be very hardworking but ultimately unproductive. This raises the question: how do we find this out? We cannot find out without placing the spiritual life on its own ground. Is it on its own ground today? Wherever it is attacked, you can feel the unhealthy ground. Where do the numerous people come from who are let loose on the working population and who are supposed to lead or govern those who work?

In my lectures, I have often used the example of a certain government councilor Kolb. This Mr. Kolb did not do as many others do, who retire after a certain time, but went to America and worked there among the workers, first in a bicycle factory, then in a brewery. Then he wrote a book: “As a Worker in America”. In this book you can read the following beautiful sentence: “Earlier, when I saw a person on the street who was not working, I thought: Why isn't this beggar working?” Today I see the matter quite differently. Today I know that the uncomfortable things in life look quite comfortable in the study. — Well, you see, this person has made it to the level of a senior government official. He has certainly studied in our present-day intellectual workshops, but he had no idea of life, no idea of work. And today, life is run by people like that! One has no idea how much our living conditions depend on such things! But must not these conditions be unhealthy? Yes, I only ask you to consider that man really depends on his thoughts. What is in the mind is not indifferent, it is contagious, it infects the whole person, especially when it comes to people during the developmental years. And now I want to tell you something: Do today's teaching institutions ensure that people are educated who then understand something about life, on the ground of which the work takes place? No, the circumstances are quite different. And in the minds of those who are released from our teaching institutions today, what kind of thoughts live in them? The thoughts that people absorb through the Greek language, for example, live in them. But a language is the clearest mirror of external life. Grammar, word formation, even intonation and everything else is taken from life. The Greek language, when I immerse myself in it, makes me able to find my way into Greek life. In those days, only those who pursued politics or art or science or perhaps managed agriculture could be free. All the rest were unfree. Everything is geared to this when one takes in Greek. People who come out of the teaching institutions today come out with thoughts that can only be applied to a social order in which only a few people are free and most are unfree. People do not notice what is happening unconsciously, what is flowing into them. That is why intellectual life must be freed, so that we do not have capitalists and their servants as intellectual leaders, but so that intellectual leadership is in line with economic life. Isn't it absurd – we are talking about the 'great reckoning' here – isn't it absurd that our intellectual leaders do not do things the way the Greeks did? The Greeks learned for their lives in their educational institutions. You can criticize that today as you like, but that was life back then. Today, life must not be that! But we do not learn what is necessary for our lives; instead, we let our youth learn what was for ancient Greece.

Yes, you see, people today still do not think about these basics for healthy socialization. But this is necessary, especially when we are talking about the proper organization of production, which is quite complicated today. So today we have to learn to understand, for example, how large a production plant can be. Because, you see, what Mr. Mittwich said applies to a production plant that is too small. Of course it cannot survive because it belongs to an old economic order. But we must not let the production plants become too large for purely economic reasons, and this is why: too small plants - I must express this as an economic law today - too small plants will lead in the future to those who work in them starving to death. Too large plants will cause those who are supposed to buy what is produced in these plants to starve. The production plant must have a very definite size, and this size will only be able to be determined when in the future, through the people who understand something, a right balance between consumption and production is created. The interests of consumption are always such that they want to expand. You will always see that consumption cooperatives have an interest in becoming large. Production cooperatives always want to become smaller. The right balance is created by what production and consumption achieve together. Then such enterprises will come into being that will have a size that is appropriate for the spiritually active person to work for the benefit of the physically working person, and from this will come a natural prosperity that will ensure a dignified existence for the broad masses.

So, as you can see, it is not that simple. It is necessary to realize that it is unhealthy for someone to say that if all production is done by machines – as the gentleman told me at the time – then needs will also increase. It is a question of whether it is a healthy state of affairs if needs are allowed to increase, or whether we should not consider the possibility of relieving people of work so that they can find some rest. This can also contribute to the proper regulation of prices. People often fail to see the simplest things. I would like to give you an example: I once had a friendly argument with someone about scribbling on postcards. I said: I don't like writing postcards, because most of the time they are just a whim and actually unnecessary. And I believe that I can spare all the postmen who have to run up and down stairs from having to run up and down stairs. I want to spare them this work. The other one said: That's not right, because first of all, I'm happy when I can make someone else happy with the card. – Well, that was still tolerable. But then he said: Secondly, the current number of postmen will soon no longer be sufficient, and more will have to be hired. So someone will have bread again because I write a lot of postcards. – To that I said: But think about what you are actually saying now. Do you really believe that you can increase the amount of bread by even a single gram by employing people to carry picture postcards around? Carrying the cards around will not increase the amount of consumer goods needed for the same number of people! You have to distinguish between productive power, which just needs to be transformed into labor, and completely unproductive forces. And this horrible phrase, which is often used, that work must be created so that people can be employed, makes no sense at all when it comes to creating something completely unproductive.

So, it is important that, through sensible socialization, production is not simply increased blindly, but that a proper balance is struck between consumption and production. You see, it is so very necessary that we develop the good will today to educate ourselves about these things. Because if we continue to think in these dreadful terms, with which one thinks out of the capitalist order, then we will not get anywhere. One must always ask oneself: Is something still being thought in a capitalist way, or is it a realistic germinal idea for the future? Therefore, one must say to oneself: Today one must turn around a thought twice to be sure that it is a thought for the new structure and not a thought learned from what is ripe for the dismantling. That is what I wanted to say about the questions.

The following question was asked: Under the present circumstances, we can hardly get a majority for the threefold social order because not even the proletarians are united among themselves. What can be done to bring about this unity?

Rudolf Steiner: Yes, that is one of those questions that always comes down to the fact that although one understands what is right, one imagines that for some reason it cannot be achieved. This question should not really be raised; it really gets you nowhere. The question must become a will question. I cannot express myself on this. You just have to do something. What we have recognized as being right must be carried from person to person. We must not ask ourselves: Will we win over the majority or not? but we must do everything to win that majority. Then we shall have done our duty, not only to ourselves but to all humanity. It must be a matter of will, not a mere theoretical question, such as: How can we get the majority? I say: We must have it! And therefore we must work to get it. It must be a matter of will. There is no other way.