# Current Social and Economic Issues

## GA 332b — 25 January 1919, Dornach

### Discussion on Questions of Threefolding I

> In the morning, Rudolf Steiner was visited by Emil Molt, Hans Kühn and Roman Boos in the “Gruppe” workroom.

Rudolf Steiner: It is quite terrible how little understanding there is in Germany of foreign policy. Even social policy must be treated as foreign policy today, because if the foreign policy is bad, all the fruits of a good social policy would only go to the Entente. - At all costs, further bloodshed should be avoided in Germany through rapid intervention. This will hardly be avoidable in Berlin anyway. For me, the most important task at the moment is to give the four lectures in Zurich. There is an international audience there. I will send these lectures to print immediately afterwards.

*January 25, 1919, in the afternoon, at Hansi's house*

> Roman Boos begins by reporting on the socio-political commission of the “Federation of Intellectual Workers” in Stuttgart and the draft of the “memorandum”, and Emil Molt on the previous socialization efforts in Württemberg and the fact that belonging to the Anthroposophical Society has been perceived as compromising.

Rudolf Steiner: The most important thing is foreign policy. Above all, things like what is happening in Paris should be prevented. Poincare's speech, for example, has gone unchallenged. It is absolutely necessary to give a presentation of the outbreak of war from a suitable place. (Rudolf Steiner asks about Professor Wilhelm von Blume, but suggests that he does not expect much from this approach.) It is an absurdity that Ebert, Scheidemann and Erzberger are making peace. They let everything happen. The necessity to speak about the actual causes of the war is of the utmost importance.

> Emil Molt asks: Would something be possible with Eisner?

Rudolf Steiner: Eisner has begun to address the question of guilt, but has not pursued it further. It would be possible to approach Eisner. He is a bit of a fantasist, but he is receptive. Graf Lerchenfeld would not be the right person; there are class prejudices. He also has a habit of playing hide and seek. He does not say anything about spiritual science being behind it, and then you notice it anyway.

> Emil Molt reports on Heydebrand's attempts in Berlin, also concerning] Prince Leopold.

Rudolf Steiner: Heydebrand is unsuitable because of his name. Prince Leopold was considered a great personality, but when I saw him, I thought he was a bit of a fool. As for Heise's book: Heise is not a writer. You would have to sift through the material. Heise also presents it one-sidedly. Regarding Mrs. Kautsky (with whom Heydebrand was): I knew her when she was still a young aunt, now she will be an old aunt. A publication of the war genesis by the Foreign Office would be done by Kautsky. But he can't do that. He writes in a style that only party members can understand. It would have to be discussed in a way that is understandable to an international audience, especially from the German side, about the causes of the whole catastrophe.

Without considering foreign policy, especially the question of guilt, we will get nowhere. It is disastrous that there is no interest in foreign policy in Germany. One must describe where it leads when nothing is done in this regard. One can calculate this in numbers, as Rathenau did in “Zukunft”. This appeal by Rathenau should be distributed in leaflets. One should tell people: This is what happens when you do not take up the spiritual impulses!

> Roman Boos notes that Carl Unger wants to publish a lecture. Rudolf Steiner does not address this. He points to the signature under “The Guiding Thoughts of the Federation of Spiritual Workers” and says:

Rudolf Steiner: “Federation of Spiritual Workers” is a Bolshevik method.

In response to a question from Emil Molt, he explicitly confirms that it is not right to distribute these ideas anonymously and not to keep the magazine in his own hands.

> Emil Molt suggests to Rudolf Steiner that they work out “something we can all sign”. He suggests founding a federation where Rudolf Steiner could appear.

Rudolf Steiner: There should already be a backing.

> Emil Molt: The Anthroposophical Society is not suitable for this; it is not supposed to deal with politics.

Rudolf Steiner: Why? Who says that?

> The three (in unison): The draft statutes.

Rudolf Steiner: But these are from 1911 and were long ago wiped out by the war. The Anthroposophical Society can certainly deal with politics. I always talk about politics too.

> The three of them: Dr. Unger as well. But not the Society as such.

Rudolf Steiner: Why not?

> The three of them: Otherwise a situation could develop like the one with the politicized Entente Freemasonry.

Rudolf Steiner: It would have been very good if German masonry had embarked on such great political plans.

> Hans Kühn: Could the Society act as a party?

Rudolf Steiner: It is not an association, only a society. The individual has complete freedom. One does not need to choose this name for a party. Non-Anthroposophists should also be accepted as members.

*Addendum*

Rudolf Steiner: What am I supposed to do in Berlin? There is no point in giving lectures. The threads will not be picked up after all. Mrs. Kinkel, for example, is a very nice lady. But when people come to inquire after a lecture and she takes them around the branch house and tells them something, it is of no use.

We have to wait until people see that they can't do anything. They will prove that they can't achieve anything, they will run themselves into the ground.

> When Roman Boos' draft of the memorandum was handed over:

Rudolf Steiner: “We will talk about it then.” Not so much about the content as about the way it is presented. It's easy to make a mistake with this.