# Work Councils and Socialization

## GA 331 — 2 July 1919, Stuttgart

### Sixth Discussion Evening

*The chairman, Mr. Roser, opens the meeting.*

*Introductory words*

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees! I will keep this short today as well and hope that you will make active use of the discussion, so that we might be able to discuss one or two details today. As events are increasingly pushing for a reorganization of the social order, it would not be good if the efforts that are intended to bring about such a reorganization, such as the establishment of works councils, were to be completely abandoned. Because, my dear attendees, there are people who would be quite happy if the works council movement were to die out. All the more reason for us to make an effort not to let it fall asleep. At the last meeting, I spoke about the threefold social order and its connection to the works council question. Today, I would like to say a few words about how an understanding of the works council system can be brought about with regard to the threefold social order.

You know that we initially want to create works councils simply from the individual companies. We want works councils to be elected from the individual companies that are simply there and then form a works council for an initially self-contained economic area, say Württemberg. In a general assembly of this council of works councils, everything would then be determined that concerns the tasks, competencies, etc. of the works councils. In this way, economic measures would arise for the first time independently of the other two institutions, i.e., intellectual life and state or legal life, from the personalities involved in economic life. These measures would first be decided upon in the general assembly of the council of works councils. Only then would the tasks arise. Then the individual works councils elected in the companies would return to their companies and take on their tasks there. At the same time, the demands that can only be made for general socialization would then also be on the table. If there were real unanimity - because power lies in that unanimity - any government, whatever it might be, would have to comply. I believe that some people already have a clear sense of what it would mean if these works councils were elected in all companies and formed a general assembly across a unified economic area, and if this general assembly in turn were to adopt resolutions that were then supported by the confidence of the entire workforce in this economic area. That would be real power, because no government, no legislative body, can in the long run contradict a power that is based on its own judgment and on unanimity and trust. In this way, one can think of a very concrete path. But at the same time, this would be the first step towards real socialization, a socialization that can only emerge from the provisions and measures of the people who are managing the economy themselves. Perhaps only when the decisions of such a works council are in place will we know what socialization actually means.

Now, however, it must also be clear that the election of the works councils must be handled very sensibly, because this works council will have to take completely new economic measures in many respects and set completely new impulses. I have often said, when speaking about these things in connection with the threefold social order, that what we need most of all at the present time is a real change of thinking. And I imagine that precisely at the moment when, for the first time within a closed economic area, the primary assembly, supported by the confidence of the entire working class, unanimously takes such an economic measure, a change of thinking, a re-learning, could come about. But we must realize how much of today's economic thinking needs to be revised. Therefore, in order for you to be able to orient yourselves regarding the difficult tasks of the works councils, I would like to describe an example of the old way of thinking.

You see, this old thinking is not just a collection of thoughts, but it is the expression of the economic order that has existed so far and that has come to an end as a result of the world war catastrophe. But what people thought still extends into more recent times, and that is what must be thoroughly removed from people's minds. I would now like to give a characteristic example of this. An essay has just been published by a very famous teacher of political economy of the old regime, that is, by a man whose ideas reflect much of what the old regime, what the so-called private capital regime that must be overcome, has produced. I would like to cite what is said by Professor Dr. Lujo Brentano as an example of what prevails in the old regime. These thoughts of Brentano's refer to the entrepreneur of the old regime, and he is making a sincere effort, as far as he is able, to form a concept of what the private entrepreneur actually is. You can see from Brentano's closing words that he does not at all regard this private entrepreneur as a superfluous element of the future economic order. He says:

> "Many today believe that private enterprise is coming to an end. They see the absorption of all private enterprise into a single, large-scale enterprise by the banks, which control so many large-scale enterprises, as the beginning of the absorption of all private enterprise into a single, large-scale enterprise, and in this the transition of all enterprises into state-owned enterprises. We are only at the beginning of a development that opens up private enterprise to hitherto untouched parts of the world, and experience to date has shown that the various nations emerge as winners in the competition for this development, the less they leave to the state and the more they leave to private initiative. The more the national economy of the individual nations becomes a world economy, the greater the scope for private enterprise, and the greater its future. It will not only solve its task all the more successfully, but also all the more consistently and thus all the more advantageously for itself, the more unreservedly it recognizes one of the fundamental principles of today's economic order, personal freedom, also in the shaping of the employment relationship and the more she seeks to earn money by working, not by increasing the value of the means of production at the expense of the needs of the products they are intended to serve, but by satisfying those needs as fully as possible while using the means of production as economically as possible. As long as she is guided by this principle, there is no end in sight to her success.

So you see, a true representative of the old economic order says here that private enterprise is not only not at an end, but that it is only now really beginning to flourish, because without it the economic order that is to develop in the future would not be possible at all. We are therefore dealing with an opinion that still dominates many circles today, namely that the abolition of private enterprise is out of the question because it has a future. Therefore, if one approaches the question of the replacement of the old entrepreneurial system by the works councils seriously and not merely in an agitative way, one must deal a little with the thoughts that are haunting people's minds. You have to be prepared, so to speak, you have to know what people are thinking and what they will say when it comes to arguments between the representatives of the past and the representatives of the future, that is, those who want to stand up for the works councils.

Now you see, the concept of the entrepreneur is what this economics teacher wants to clarify for himself and present to people. He asks himself the question: What is an entrepreneur? Yes, he now gives three characteristics of the right entrepreneur. First, “that he combines in his hand the right of disposal over the production elements necessary for the manufacture of a product.” But first of all, it must be made clear what this gentleman actually means by “production elements”. What he understands by this is made perfectly clear in one of his sentences. He does not even make this sentence up himself, but borrows it from Emil Kirdorff, one of the most successful men in practice to date. He says: “We directors of joint-stock companies are also employees of the company and have duties and responsibilities towards it.” And now Mr. Brentano has discovered that directors like Privy Councillor Emil Kirdorff are also among the “production elements,” that is, the entrepreneur must have the right of disposal over the “production elements,” which also includes directors. The entire workforce, right up to the directors, are all “production elements.” First, then, an entrepreneur is the one who has the right of disposal over the “production elements”; these also include the directors. And a man like Kirdorff sees quite well that he is actually not a human being, but a “production element” in economic life. You have to realize what kind of ideas are in people's heads. That is why I have repeatedly emphasized that it is necessary to rethink and relearn. So that was the first quality of a real entrepreneur.

The second is that “he gives these production elements the purpose of serving a specific production purpose and disposes of them accordingly.” Here one has to bear in mind that all people in production are meant; so he must give them a purpose. That is the second quality.

The third is that “he does this at his own risk and expense.” So now we have all three characteristics of a true entrepreneur in the sense of the old regime, that is, the entrepreneur who, in the sense of the old regime, must continue to exist in order to maintain the future economic order and who should have an even greater significance there than he has had so far.

You see, if you are not wearing professors' or entrepreneurs' or other blinkers, then you have to admit that people with these three qualities will not tolerate the facts that are now to be created in Europe because after all, we have come so far in our consciousness that the future cannot depend on a small number of entrepreneurs who determine the 'productive elements' of the far greater number of people, that is, the masses. But that is exactly what is required. Now, however, let us follow the train of thought of this representative of the old regime a little further. It is actually extremely interesting. You will probably think I am making a joke, but the following is really in this essay; I am not joking. After initially presenting the vast majority of workers as “production elements,” Brentano strangely includes the workers, the proletarians, among the entrepreneurs! He says: “If the worker is not the producer of a consumer-ready product, he is nonetheless the producer of an independent good that he brings to market at his own risk and expense. He too is an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur of labor services.”

So you see, my dear audience, we now have the concept of the entrepreneur before us, as presented by a contemporary economic luminary. This concept of the entrepreneur is so confused, indeed it is just that you are all entrepreneurs as you sit here, namely entrepreneurs of your labor, which you bring to market at your own risk and expense. Yes, and now there is something else. Brentano says that the evil of which people are always talking does not exist at all, since everyone is an entrepreneur. Therefore, he had to find out what it actually is that makes the great masses of people not satisfied with being entrepreneurs at their own risk and expense through their labor. He says: “Once upon a time, the worker was not that, a time when he was absorbed in the business in which he was employed. He was not yet an independent economic unit, but nothing but a cog in the economic enterprise of his master. That was the time of the worker's personal bondage. The master's interest in the progress of his own economy then led him to awaken an interest in his performance in the worker he employed. This brought about the gradual emancipation of the worker, and finally his complete declaration of freedom.” That's nice, except that the damage lies in the following. There is another nice sentence, which reads: “But the capitalist entrepreneur has not yet found his way into this transformation from a gentleman into a mere labor buyer.” So the only harm is that the entrepreneur has not yet found his way into this role, that is, no longer being a gentleman in the old sense, but a buyer of labor. With that, Brentano is actually saying the following: If the worker sells his labor to the entrepreneur for his own account and risk, then everything is in order. It is only necessary for the entrepreneur to learn to understand what it means to be a buyer of labor. It is only because he does not yet understand that there is still damage. So it is only necessary to hammer it into the entrepreneur: you just have to learn to understand how to buy labor on the labor market that the worker sells to you as an entrepreneur of his labor.

Yes, it is of course a strange testimony that the gentleman gives to the entrepreneurs. The proletariat is now at the point of saying that it is above all important that labor should no longer be a commodity. But this gentleman gives the entrepreneurs the testimony that they have not even risen to the realization that they are buyers of labor. So this star of political economy thinks that today's entrepreneurship is very backward.

But what does all this actually mean? You see, you just have to face the full gravity of this fact. Lujo Brentano is one of the most famous economists of the present day, and one of those who have perhaps put the most ideas into the heads of those who speak as intellectuals about economic life. Yes, we have to look at things clearly today. Today, we often indulge in a belief in authority that is much, much worse than the Catholics' belief in authority towards the princes of the church ever was. People just don't want to admit that. That is why we have to be clear about things, and we have to learn from such things what a great task this works council will have. Above all, it will have to show what economic life really is, because what has emerged from the circles of the intelligentsia as a result of reflecting on economic life was, after all, just cabbage. But what is this cabbage? Let us just look at it in terms of its reality. Why is this cabbage there? People haven't even thought it up. If they had thought it up, they would have come up with something even bigger. They did not even think it up, but simply studied the conditions as they are now, and these conditions are confused, they are a chaos. Very gradually, this thoughtlessness of supply and demand in all areas of economic life has led to chaos. The first act of real socialization must be to start to shape it from scratch. We need, I would say, this sense of the seriousness of what the works council is supposed to be. And I would like to speak of this seriousness again and again and again, because in some circles of the proletariat, too, there is so little of this seriousness and awareness of the magnitude of the task.

You see, when one speaks of the threefold social order today, what is one speaking of? We are speaking of what must be done to satisfy the demands of the proletariat, which have been around for decades. But what do we get in return? Yes, there is another article in the Tribüne. It is entitled “Dr. Steiner and the Proletariat”. It says, for example, that the threefold social order is only concerned with ideas and that there are already enough ideas floating around in the air at present. That is what I would call a careless assertion. Then this gentleman should just point out the ideas that are now swarming through the air in such masses. He should just prove the existence of one fruitful idea! It is precisely the lack of ideas that plagues the present day. That is the case, and here it is carelessly asserted that ideas are just swarming around in the air. And then they say: “What helps the worker - I am speaking only of the physically laboring - to improve his life is not sophistry, but an energetic realization of socialism.” But what is the realization of socialism? You see, if you just keep saying socialism, socialism, then you have a phrase, a word! But you have to show the way! When someone says: What helps the worker to improve his life is socialism —– then it seems to me as if someone were to say: I want to go to Tübingen —– and I say to him: Well, you can take the train, there are trains at such and such times. — I tell him exactly how to get to Tübingen, just as the path to the threefold social organism indicates exactly how to achieve socialization. He says: It is sophistry that you give me the minutes of the trains; I say to you, if I want to come to Tübingen, then I only come by moving over to Tübingen. — So roughly one can say: I do not want a certain, concrete, individually characterized way, but I want socialism. — I want to come to Tübingen by moving over.

Now, the article continues: “Every individual who is concerned about public life will very often have to deal with political and economic issues together in one sentence.” Yes, but this happens because everything has been mixed up. But it must be separated. Then it says: “Therefore, no ‘threefold social order’, but the realization of socialism!” So again: I want to come to Tübingen by moving across.

Yes, we must face the fact that there are obstacles to such a real marking out of the way, as we are trying to do in relation to the now often discussed question of works councils, based on the ideas of the threefold social organism. What really hinders us from marking out the way is that people are always willing to be deceived. But you will achieve nothing by being deceived, however beautifully it may be spun, unless you take definite action, as in the case I mentioned at the beginning of my talk. Let us elect members to the factory councils who are there as human beings and not as ideas whizzing through the air! These people can then decide, on the basis of their economic experience, what is necessary for the recovery of our economic life. Today it is necessary for us to go beyond mere talk and gain insights into economic life and to penetrate from these insights to further development. That we cannot rely on the luminaries, on the authorities, I have shown you today. I have presented one of the most famous to you on the basis of his latest statements. I presented him in such a way that you could see the value of what the followers of tradition say: Yes, the famous Mr. So-and-so said that, you can't counter that with anything else. Of course, if you always point out what this or that person has said about current events, you still don't know what the facts are, even if this or that person is famous. But if you look at things where concepts are in confusion, where concepts are falling apart, then it becomes clear that we have to rethink and relearn in the present. And so I would like to say again and again: if not through something else, then surely the necessity will bring about this rethinking and relearning. Even those who still resist today will have to change their minds, because many things will still happen in this poor Central Europe in the coming years and decades, and many things will have to happen if, for example, one third of the population of Central Europe can no longer be fed, if the old conditions persist in the form they still have as a result of this terrible Treaty of Versailles, the so-called peace. A third of the population of Central Europe would have to die out or be killed if the old conditions were to be maintained.

The reason for the reorganization today is, of course, that the old conditions cannot continue at all. But the fact that the imminent prospect is the death or extermination of one-third of the population of Central Europe should convince people today that they can no longer remain in their old, complacent position and say: We are practical people, such ideas are just ideas, you can't get involved in them! — No, people are just too lazy to get involved in something really practical. Today, this practicality must be comprehensive, must not be limited to just one or two areas, but must embrace the whole economic sphere. And if we do not want to abandon this complacency of thought in the face of circumstances, we will not make any progress. Now, with these words I wanted to point out to you how we must move forward, and now we can enter into the discussion.

*Discussion*

> Mr. Roser: From Dr. Steiner's comments on Brentano's article, one can clearly see where the course is headed. It is now up to us to show that the proletariat does not remain at the point of view, as the luminaries of the economy imagine, but that it takes its fate into its own hands. Our first duty is to promote socialization by setting up workers' councils in line with the threefold social order, otherwise we are heading for chaos on a scale that we cannot even imagine. We must make the economic sphere independent by its own efforts. This does not mean that it must be done by force; that is not necessary. Especially Dr. Steiner's proposals, especially the idea of making economic life independent in the sense of threefold social order, must be the way for us to work in practice in the first place. There can be no doubt about it: If the works councils are properly elected by popular vote, with perhaps a thousand members in Württemberg, do you think that the government would have the means or the courage to break up these works councils? — I find that hard to believe, because the workers who elected these works councils to do practical work will also provide the necessary support for the works council to be able to function. We must uphold the idea of setting up works councils at all costs, because that is the only way out of chaos that can lead us to the establishment of the works councils and the works councilors, and then actually to a legislative body riding together to carry out the socialization in the sense of the tripartite division. Only in this way can we be saved from destruction. The idea of threefolding is so great, so powerful, that every single person should grasp it, out of their own interest, because as a proletarian they must say to themselves: my future is at stake, I have a duty to do everything I can to push this idea through. With this in mind, I ask you to join the discussion. Speak up.
> Emil Leinhas: Dr. Steiner has presented you with an article by a luminary of political economy today. As it happens, I also have something with me in which a luminary of practice expresses his views on socialization. It is the Privy Councillor Deutsch, the chairman of the board of directors of the General Electricity Company. The fact that this statement by this great practitioner on the socialization is considered desirable for the broader public is evidenced by the fact that the venerable Berlin Chamber of Commerce is publishing this memorandum, with the following introduction. The Chamber of Commerce writes:
> “In connection with the investigations we are conducting into the probable effects of socialization under the law of March 23, 1919, we have received from our member, Privy Councillor Deutsch, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the General Electricity Company, and explanations of the ratio of the share of labor and capital in the profits of a larger number of industrial enterprises, which we hereby submit to the public as a contribution to the assessment of these issues."
> The Chamber of Commerce is providing additional copies of the memorandum to those who wish to help by distributing it. And what does this luminary of practice say about socialization? I will read you a few passages; they speak for themselves:
> "Why is it that the word ‘socialization’ has taken root in millions of brains with an ineradicable tenacity and why do workers in particular see it as a panacea that would put an end to all their ailments and dissatisfaction with their economic situation in one fell swoop? This dissatisfaction and the hostility of the workers towards the capitalist system of production are constantly fueled by the provocative idea that a small number of capitalists take up by far the largest share of the profits from industrial labor, while the working class has to be content with a small share. This idea is as false as it is provocative, and as long as we do not succeed in convincing the workers of this, a beneficial and peaceful collaboration between the two factors of economic production is impossible in the long run.
> [E. Leinhas then continues to speak about Deutsch's remarks. Since he himself announced that more details would soon be published in print, his further remarks were no longer written down.] Mr. Stecher reports on the Haushahn company: We have often discussed the question of threefolding among our colleagues at work. I was able to ascertain that on this question the entire workforce, with the exception of those who only do propaganda for party purposes, are sympathetic to the matter. This morning, at the invitation of the “Bund”, I contacted our company regarding the works councils as chairman of the workers' committee with the employees' committee. The chairman of the employees' committee explained to me that he also sympathized with the matter, but then he said: “The good should come from the government after all.” A few days ago, Dr. Steiner gave a lecture in Weil that made a tremendous, deep and unforgettable impression. People flocked there from far and wide. I call upon the workers' and employees' committees present to join together and discuss the matter of threefolding everywhere they have influence. They can request speakers from the Federation for Threefolding to promote the cause. The speakers will find willing ears and willing hearts among the workers. Business circles are also taking an interest. A manager in our company told me that he is also looking into the matter, because it is known that if things continue as they are, we will face bankruptcy. Something new must come. Unfortunately, the employees are not yet interested in the burning issues. But if we do not gather and work together, we will not make any progress.
> Mr. Conradt: The Federation for Threefolding is often accused of wanting to break up the parties, similar to the syndicalists. That cannot be the intention of the federation. I have heard the accusation dozens of times. Particularly when one professes the idea of threefolding, one can easily see what is fruitful in the parties and that something is alive in the parties that only intervenes in our national life in a supportive way when the impulses living in the parties are not carried out one-sidedly. There are, of course, currents in the parties that belong to an ascending culture and currents that belong to a descending culture. The good must be brought to life in the right way.
> [The stenographer did not transcribe Mr. Conradt's further remarks word for word. A brief summary is given below: “Mr. Conradt then goes on to say that in the threefold social order, social measures can only be taken in the economic sphere, that democracy belongs only in the life of the state or of the law, but that in the sphere of spiritual and cultural life one can speak of anarchism if one divests the word of its evil meaning."
> It is also reported that a new works council has been formed in the Faber company and that the following motion has been put forward by the workers' committee of the Julius Faber company:]
> "Today's meeting of the employee and worker committees requests the previously elected works councils to form a works council in the near future, and instructs this provisional works council to take all preparatory measures it deems necessary to propagate the idea of a works council everywhere and to give the works councils the influence they deserve. Signed Glatz, Chairman of the Works Council and Chairman of the Workers' Committee at Julius Faber.
> Mr. Glatz: The motion put forward by our workers' committee and which has just been presented to you speaks for itself. We have now been together in a number of meetings without actually achieving any practical result. As things stand now, we have every reason to work as quickly and intensively as possible to achieve what we are all striving for in practical terms for the working class and for humanity as a whole. We must not allow interest to wane instead of increasing. First and foremost, it will of course be necessary to encourage the establishment of works councils in companies where they do not yet exist. Furthermore, the agitation must also be taken to the countryside.
> The principal of our company has himself drawn our attention to the lectures by Dr. Steiner. The gentleman has very liberal views and plays a role in business circles. After we had concerned ourselves with the matter of the threefold order and were striving for the works council election, he then took the opposite point of view and said: The employers had decided to wait with the works councils until the matter was regulated by law. He could not recognize us as a works council. Nevertheless, we went ahead with the election. The decision was unanimous; the employees also joined. The election was held with great enthusiasm in the factory itself. It is gratifying to note that almost all employees and workers exercised their right to vote, despite the company's resistance. Even if the company does not recognize the works councils, they have still been elected. And since the works councils also belong to the workers' committee for the most part, they must still be heard.
> I would therefore ask you to support the motion so that the matter can be properly addressed.
> Mr. Roser: I would like to announce that twelve works councils have been elected so far. I would also like to express the wish that the works council be formed during the course of this week or at the beginning of next week. Of course, we don't just need works councils in Stuttgart, but the idea must be spread throughout Württemberg. I would therefore like to make a special appeal to those present to show even more interest in the idea of works councils than they have done so far. Furthermore, I can report that new works councils are in the process of being formed. We will notify the individual works councils next week when they are to meet. Then they can make the necessary decisions among themselves.
> Mr. Jansen: I would like to present you with a document that deserves to be made public. I won't mention the company's name; that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I just want to characterize the overall train of thought:
> “The undersigned officials have not officially declared, either in writing or orally, that they have been elected by the staff as works council members. As has already been said, our position on this matter is as follows: firstly, the election by the workers has been challenged and this challenge has been upheld by the management through a corresponding announcement. Accordingly, the validity of the election is in doubt. Secondly, according to a paper by Dr. Steiner, only those persons can be considered as works council members who are in a completely independent position, dependent neither on the boss nor on the business. Since this is not the case with us and we civil servants are in a distinctly dependent position, our election is also questionable. Thirdly, according to a gentleman, socialization at the... has already taken place, in that all surpluses after payment of the guaranteed interest of five percent are transferred in full to the municipality and thus to the general public. From this point of view, the supervisory board has rejected a works council. Efforts are being made to ensure that a joint meeting of all committees is held to discuss the works council issue. Fourthly, we take the view that works councils should be elected if the law requires it. We know that Dr. Steiner plans to socialize companies in such a way that the employer, the management and the supervisory boards and all shareholders are to be eliminated and that the so-called works council or all employees are to take their place. Since this amounts to an overthrow of the existing order and the existing laws, we hereby declare that we do not support such efforts and therefore cannot accept election as works council members.
> This is truly a document of world-historical significance! Here are people who, thanks to the revolution, have finally escaped from dependency after half a year, and they declare: We are not allowed to participate because we don't want to get rid of capitalism, because we are, after all, in the service of capitalism. They have an interest in keeping the sacred capitalism alive and in being the employees who want to help support this idol so that the golden calf does not fall over. The logic in this document is a sign that there is still a huge amount of work to be done to hammer out the stupidity. To do this, the iron fist of the proletariat will be needed to carry out this work. However, I will seek a connection with these instances and try to find out to what extent the document corresponds to the facts and to what extent the gentlemen are revolting against any economic reconstruction.

Rudolf Steiner: Regarding this document, which is very interesting, I would like to make the comment that there are, after all, employees at present who are able to develop the following idea: the law on works councils is not yet a law, but only a draft. So there is no law on works councils yet. But, according to the four sentences, the gentlemen take the view that it is not just a matter of an overthrow – that could be discussed, but we do not need that – of the existing order and laws if one finds some existing law bad , but the gentlemen take the view that it is already an unlawful subversion if one violates any law that is not yet there, that they do not yet know, or a law that could come out, today. So, the gentlemen undertake to assure all laws that may be imposed on them of their obedience from the outset.

> Mr. Nagel, Dresden: Anyone who has followed Dr. Steiner's comments on Brentano's essay no longer finds it incomprehensible that the government can approach us with a bill like the one on works councils. We cannot be concerned with getting works councils like that; instead, we have to get our hands on economic power. Unfortunately, the movement is still very small here in Dresden, but it is well known that Dresden has been fifty years behind the times. However, I hope that after studying the conditions here, I will be able to give enough impetus in my report back home to enable fruitful work to be done there as well. It was very encouraging for me to see that so many workers in Stuttgart already support the threefold social order.
> Mr. Dorfner: As much as we have heard that is encouraging, I do miss one thing: I am often asked about this and that regarding the threefold social order and works councils. I always say: come to the discussion evenings, where you can ask questions that Dr. Steiner himself will answer. But hardly any questions are asked here. Those who do not like to do so orally can of course do so in writing. - I have also been asked the question: Won't the works councils make the workers' committees superfluous? - I would like to ask Dr. Steiner to answer this question.

Rudolf Steiner: The workers' committees have their tasks primarily in the individual companies. But the point of setting up works councils is to tackle real socialization. If the works councils are elected now and then come together as a works council, then this original assembly of the works council can take the first steps towards real socialization. Then the workers' committees, if they are to continue to exist, will presumably be able to receive a task for the individual companies, or, which is much more likely, the workers' committees will no longer be needed as such, but the works council will take their place. However, the works council may have to co-opt personalities from the current workers' committees for its further work, since it will not have enough people available to carry out the tasks currently performed by the workers' committees if it only has seven or eight members.

These specific questions will only be fully answered when we have a complete works council. The workers' committees were originally set up differently from the works councils. The works councils are intended to be the real leaders of the companies. A real works council would either have the current entrepreneur, if he agrees, as a works councilor, as well as people from the ranks of the employees, the intellectual workers, and the physical workers, or the entrepreneur would have to withdraw. It must be made perfectly clear that the works council is intended to be the real director of the factory, so that all entrepreneurship in the modern sense disappears alongside this works council. The workers' committee, however, is still intended to reflect the old form of entrepreneurship. I ask you to consider this difference carefully, that is, the difference between something that still exists from the old order, such as the workers' committee, and what should now form the first step towards a real reorganization. You must consider this difference, otherwise you will not be able to think about the tasks of the works councils in a truly comprehensive way.

Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the question of the continued existence or reorganization of the workers' committees can only be answered when we have the founding assembly of the works council.

Then there is the question of how things should be organized with regard to the works council in a state-owned enterprise. In this regard, I must say – and this has already been mentioned – that there should be no difference in the election of works councils between a private or state-owned company. In a state-owned company, too, an attempt should be made to overcome all prejudices and to elect works councils, so that these works councils will then also have their place in the works council when the so-called statute of the works council is being drafted. Then it will follow that the state's usual absorption of such enterprises will naturally not continue. These enterprises will have to be transformed into independent economic organisms. But this demand will first have to be formulated.

You see, the things that underlie the impulse for threefolding are indeed intended as practical demands, but they must first be formulated. They have to be put forward by an individual in his book, and also by a “union” advocating them; but that is not enough. On the economic plane, these demands must be put forward by the economic actors themselves, and they must have the confidence of the entire working population behind them.

Furthermore, the question has been raised as to how the socialization of the state railways and the postal and telegraph systems can be carried out from the point of view of threefolding. Of course, people today still have great prejudices in this regard, and it can be readily admitted that the upheaval would be very great indeed if these economic enterprises were also to be transferred from the present state to the administration of an independent economic body. But this must be done, because postal and telegraph services, like the railways, are an integral part of economic life and can only develop properly in economic life if that economic life is independent of state or legal life.

The fact that it is difficult to imagine these things today is due to the following. We have become accustomed to thinking of things as they have always been. We say, “These are facts.” But, my dear audience, facts are things that have been created, created by people, and they can just as easily be re-created, changed. That is what we must bear in mind. It is absolutely essential that everything that belongs to economic life is also really placed on its own free economic ground. The reason why these things are so difficult to imagine today is that today money, which in any case is no longer really money in a large number of European states, is actually based on a very false foundation. Naturally the transition will be difficult because through money humanity is dependent on England as the leading commercial state and because we cannot simply dissuade the English and Americans from the gold standard overnight. In foreign trade with these states, we must of course have the gold standard until, under the pressure of circumstances, the gold standard will also cease. But for the threefold social organism, the aim must be that the state no longer lends value to money, but that money acquires its value within the economic organism. But then money is no longer a commodity, as it is today. Even if it is hidden, today money is in fact a commodity, and only because the state attributes its value to it. But in the threefold social organism, money will only be present as a means of circulation in the sense that it is, so to speak, a flying bookkeeping. You know from what I said eight days ago: everything in the coming economic life will be based on real performance and counter-performance. For the performance, one gets, so to speak, the note, which means nothing other than: on the general credit side, what corresponds to my performance is available to me and I can exchange it for what corresponds to my needs. If I give the note, it means the same as if I were to enter in a small business today what is on the left side to balance what is on the right side. So monetary transactions will be the flying bookkeeping for the economic organism. Such things are actually already in existence today in their beginnings. You know that there is already a kind of credit entry, that is, credit balances that can be transferred without having monetary transactions in certain areas. In fact, most of what the threefold social organism demands is already there in germinal form and present here and there. Those people who today speak of the impracticality of the threefold social organism should see how, here and there – albeit on a small scale, so that it is sometimes not useful but harmful – how, here and there, what exists in combination and stylized on a large scale will give the threefold social organism. Today, the state railways are almost conceived as a state piece of furniture, and one thinks of the upheaval as something terrible. But one must only consider that what matters in the future, namely the administration of economic life by works councils, by transport and economic councils – they are added on top of that – that these changes are entirely related to a real socialization and that all the fears are superfluous. It is therefore important, for example, that the railways are managed in a sensible way and not in such a way that the bureaucratic state is behind them.

If you look at things in detail, you will see that practical solutions can be found everywhere. If people keep coming to me and saying that they do not understand what is in my book, then I must say that I understand that today, because I would have to be very surprised if, for example, Professor Brentano, whom I have told you about, and his students, who are very numerous, would understand the “Key Points of the Social Question”. Because I do not think they can understand the book. But it is precisely these people, whose thoughts have not been corrupted by this education, that I believe can understand what is in the “Key Points” if they just overcome their habitual ways of thinking a little.

> Mr. Roser: The individual points that came up this evening were mainly related to the economic field. It is understandable that this economic field is of the greatest importance in our discussion evenings. But in all this, we must not forget that economic life is only one part of that great problem, that great idea of the threefold social order. We must not lose sight of the fact that economic life alone is not viable and cannot function if we do not also look at the legal and spiritual life in an appropriate way. The reason for this is that our present circumstances are so chaotic because the three areas have been mixed up. This must always be our guiding star, that above all we strive to finally separate these three areas. These must then work together again in harmony, but not in the way it is now or has been the case, for example, that the constitutional state claims and abuses economic life or that economic life exploits intellectual life. Only when intellectual life also comes to full bloom, only then can a healthy economic life, indeed a healthy national life, come into being. Only through the threefold order can the whole life of the nation be seen in its true light.
> Mr. Lange: He says that the doctor today is degraded to the level of a craftsman because he cannot prescribe medicines and the like freely, but must follow the instructions of the health insurance companies. Here, too, there is an all-round restriction through state laws and state authority. Furthermore, the mistake is made today that one always wants to press the new into the old. But in this way one does not move forward.
> Mr. Kühn: The fact that the meeting today is not well attended is not due to a certain lack of interest, but to the fact that a large meeting is taking place at the same time in the Dinkelacker Hall. A lot of detailed work has to be done to establish the works councils. It's a long road. At the individual meetings in the factories, it becomes clear how difficult it is to convince individuals. It should not really depend so much on individuals, but more on the understanding of the masses. Then individual companies will simply be carried along. We have various speakers or lecturers who are constantly available to speak at meetings. From my experience in individual companies, it must be said that factual objections to the threefold social order are almost never heard. The workers almost all agree, only the employees are usually a little more hesitant, as can be seen from the interesting letter that was read out earlier. In many cases, people do not have the right feeling for the matter.
> It would be desirable if the works councils elected to date could meet more often, including those from outside. Here, during these discussion evenings, would be such an opportunity to meet, but unfortunately not even all the works councils are here, apart from the fact that those from Esslingen and Heilbronn cannot travel here every time. The various sectors should be represented; an agreement should be reached on this, and I will now read out which sectors and industries are represented: a leather factory, several machine factories, trams, a cigarette factory, a cardboard box factory, a shoe factory, a measuring instrument factory, a state agency, a typesetting machine factory, and an optical instruments factory. I should also mention that the works council in the state-owned company is the only one that was set up with the approval of the superior. As you can see, we have a whole range of different industries. A works council is still being formed in a shoe factory in Kornwestheim, and in four or five engineering works; these are the most prevalent. But there are still some sectors missing, such as the textile, paper and printing industries, which is a shame. The food industry is not represented either. The current works councils are not yet sufficient to do real work. I would therefore like to make the suggestion that the works councils attend these meetings as often as possible or even regularly, and that the workers' and employees' committees, which come here anyway, are all converted into works councils. If you all go to the polls and not just listen to what is being said, you will all soon be works councils, so that we can soon fill this hall with works councils, although I do not mean, of course, that the workers' committees should disappear; they will probably often be part of the works council. If these question and discussion evenings are to be organized in such a way that the details are discussed, for example how this or that business can be transformed, then this is already a certain preparatory work for the later work of the works council. And so these evenings would be interesting.

Rudolf Steiner: There is not much more to say in today's closing remarks either. I will first answer a question that has been asked. This question is: The great mass of the proletariat, still thinking in materialistic terms, expects the activities of the works council to improve its material needs. What measures would have to be taken to quickly and fairly balance needs and wages during the transition period? You see, there are things that cannot be easily achieved from cloud-cuckoo-land. If it were not the case that works councils are absolutely necessary and are finally beginning to do real social work, the proposal to set them up would not be made at all. Therefore, such a view of improving the situation before the works councils start working cannot really be considered very significant. Today, there are many people who come up with strange questions when it comes to asserting the really practical points of view that will now lead humanity to more salutary conditions than we have today. In the last few weeks I have repeatedly experienced people asking: Yes, but now it should be socialized. What will happen to a small shopkeeper on the street after socialization? Or another question: How will the university custodian be socialized if threefolding is to be introduced?

Well, if you listen to these questions, they all actually boil down to one, namely, how do we actually bring about the great upheaval in such a way that not everything remains the same? That is what one type of person asks. The other type of people would like to see a great upheaval, but they do not want to do it that way; they do not want to intervene, they want easier measures. And this tendency underlies our question to some extent. One can only answer: With this other, easier form, even for the transition period, nothing can be achieved. Therefore, it is important that those who want improvement are prepared to take the measures that can bring about that improvement. You cannot ask: How do we bring about improvement in the run-up to the establishment of works councils? — But you have to say: In order to bring about improvement, we want to have works councils as soon as possible. I am even afraid that a miracle would not help here either. So don't rely on miracle cures, but take the practical route; the sooner the better.

Look, this “Tribune” has just come out, and it contains the essay about me and the proletariat that I mentioned earlier. In the same issue, there is another essay by a university professor who refutes the entire threefold social order point by point. It cannot even be said that what he presents this time is not true, but it is true for a very strange reason. You see, the man does not understand anything about the threefold social order. He is not at all in a position to really understand any of the ideas in my book about the key points of the social question. Because he does not understand this, but is still a university professor, he must understand everything. Because he does not understand, he makes up his own threefolding. That is a terrible mess. If you put together everything he describes as a threefolding, it makes a terrible mess, an unworkable, ridiculous, dreadful mess. And that is what he is now refuting. It is terribly easy to refute what he has concocted. But that is what the essay consists of. It contains nothing of what it is actually about. So the man cannot imagine why this independent economic entity should actually exist. I told you the other day: the independent economic entity must exist in the threefold social organism because everything in the field of economic life must arise out of expertise, out of being involved in economic life, out of the experiences of economic life, and because one cannot decide on economic life in the field of general law, where every mature person has to decide on what makes him equal to every other person. It can only be a blessing for economic life if it is decided by experts. Professor Heck cannot imagine this. He cannot imagine anything different from what he has already seen and experienced and in which his habits of thought are rooted. When it comes to such things, I always think of something I heard recently. Someone — I think it was a professor — said to me: I know the aspirations of the threefold social organism. — I asked him: Does any of it make sense to you? — Not so far, he said. You see, that “not so far” was all he could think of. What has not been so far does not seem to be open to discussion; he could not say anything more about it. You just experience things like that. You encounter objections that are not really objections. Not so long ago, someone even raised the objection: Yes, the idea of the threefold social order is, so to speak, based on a moral point of view, and taking a moral point of view is a big mistake. Yes, this objection has also been raised. The objections are all very strange. One of the most common is: Yes, it would be all very well with this threefold social order, but other people are needed for it. You cannot introduce the threefold social order with the present generation of people. Well, the person who says this does not understand that much of what is expressed in the present generation of people is precisely a consequence of our social conditions and that it will be different the moment our social conditions improve.

Well, people never look at things from a truly objective point of view. I will give you a drastic example, which I may have already given here. Was there not a terrible bureaucracy, especially within the civil service in Germany, before this world war? Now, the necessity of not only letting civil servants manage the economy, but also increasingly appointing merchants and industrialists to public offices, so that they could apply their practical wisdom to increasing the war economy, was recognized by the war economy. Then the strange fact arose, which is very interesting. The merchants and industrialists became much more bureaucratic than the bureaucracy had ever been before! So, they have adapted wonderfully to bureaucracy. Anyone who has observed this also knows what it would mean if people were no longer surrounded by unhealthy, i.e. bureaucratic, conditions, but by the kind of conditions that the impulse of the threefold social organism speaks of. In this way, just as industrialists and merchants have been transformed into dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats within the existing bureaucracy, people would adapt to healthy conditions, and it would no longer be possible to say that one must first have better people in order to establish a better social order. It must be made clear that it is precisely by improving social conditions that people will be given the opportunity to become better people. But if you demand that people must first be better people, then we do not need to improve social conditions at all. If people had not become what they are at present because of social conditions, then social conditions must be good, then they must be all right. You can see from this the necessity of rethinking and relearning. This is what is fundamentally necessary above all else. And if people could only place themselves a little in reality and think from that basis, then we would already be one step further.

You see, a very well-meaning young man writes — one would like to help him so much — he writes: Yes, he cannot help but say that perhaps the threefold social order would be a solution if people were different from what they are now. And now I ask you: Don't you think that this man carries in the depths of his soul the view that the others are not better people, but he, who realizes this, is, at least in terms of his nature, this better person? — If you go to the next person who says the same thing, then he in turn sees himself as the better person and a third probably as well. So everyone should say to themselves: if everyone thought like him – and actually, you have to take into account what other people are like – so if everyone thought like him, then the better people would already be there! You see, it is not a matter of thinking in an abstract, logical way, but of being rooted in reality with one's thinking, so that one does not say something that, as a thought, is constantly doing somersaults. But this is precisely what has such a terrible effect in the present and strikes us, that people continually stumble over their own thoughts, which are actually non-thoughts. Therefore, it must be emphasized again and again that not only is a change in our economic life necessary, but also a change in the spiritual structure of our social life. We have been driven by what has happened so far into a crisis of intellectual life in particular.

If we look at the world today, what strikes us most? Yes, in the last four to five years, what strikes us most is that basically the truth has not been told about any world affairs, but all world affairs have been distorted, presented in a false light, from reports of battles to the goals of nations. From the motives for war to those for peace, everything has been presented in a distorted way. Everywhere, phrases prevail that do not correspond to the facts in the world. But this lives in everything that has developed from the previous cultural and social conditions. This lives on into the individual activities and institutions of human life. Therefore, we must say that all those who view the social question one-sidedly do not have humanity at heart. One is only honest about humanity when one says to oneself: economic life has led people into crisis, so it must be placed on a different footing. The legal sphere has shown that class privileges and class disadvantages prevail in the individual jurisdictions, so it must be placed on the basis of universal human rights. It has become clear that we call something law that which can only be supported by force, and this has continued to this day. And it has become clear that in the spiritual life, people's thoughts are warped. In the three fundamental spheres of life – economic, legal and spiritual – we see humanity in crisis. Those who are sincere about progress must realize that in each of these three areas, progress must be made independently, because the crises result precisely from the intermingling of these three areas. Therefore, I can only say: If you take decisive measures in any particular area, as you are now doing in connection with the works councils, in the sense of a comprehensive social reorganization, that is, in the sense of the threefold social order, then you are acting in the direction of progress for humanity towards a real social order. Consider this connection between an individual measure and the measures based on an overall view. Only then are you doing your duty today towards humanity and towards yourself. Individual measures have no significance today, only what is conceived in the great social context. The smallest must be thought together with the greatest. Be aware of this: if you succeed in really bringing about the works council, then you will have done something of historical significance for all of humanity that follows, because this is connected with the greatest problems that are posed to humanity today. Therefore, do not ask about small steps, but stand on such ground that really forms the basis for moving forward to action, because action is what matters. And if we add deed to deed to what we understand from the threefold social organism, then we will be able to create what gives us hope of emerging from the terrible situation into which the previous spiritual life, the previous so-called legal life and the previous economic life have led us.