# Freedom of Thought and Social Forces

## GA 333 — 26 May 1919, Ulm

### 1. The Triple Nature of the Social Question

As in other places in Württemberg and Switzerland, I will take the liberty of speaking here about the most important and most pressing question of the present, the social question, and I will do so by referring to what has appeared in the appeal that went through the German lands some time ago, “To the German People and to the Cultural World”. The appeal, which advocates the threefold social order, may have come before most of you. The further explanations of what could only be briefly hinted at in such an appeal are given in my book 'The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life'. Allow me to outline some of the things that need to be said about this appeal this evening.

The social question – this is clear to every human soul that is alert to current events – is that which has emerged in a completely new form from the tremendous, harrowing events of the world war catastrophe. The so-called social question or social movement, as we speak of it today, is at least more than half a century old. But anyone who considers what is announced today as a mighty historical wave and compares these things with each other may nevertheless say: this social question has taken on a completely new form in our present time, a form that no one should pass by.

How often have we heard the words in the last four to five years: This terrible world war catastrophe is something that people have not experienced since the beginning of what we call history. But still little, truly very little, is said today, when this world war catastrophe has entered into a crisis, about the necessity that completely new impulses are now also needed to restore life; that a complete rethinking and relearning is necessary - although actually the necessity for this rethinking and relearning is already outwardly apparent. For the old thoughts have led us straight into that terrible human catastrophe. New thoughts and new impulses must lead us out again. And where these impulses are to be found can be seen from a truly penetrating observation of the social demands that are emerging from more and more people's minds, and which can only be ignored by those who sleep through the times and wait for events to unfold until the old structure, as it were, collapses without substance.

Today, social issues are often seen as something highly obvious, sometimes as something highly simple. Anyone who judges not from gray theories, nor from individual personal demands, but from a truly broadened experience of the necessities of life in the present and the future, must see in this social question something into which many forces flow that have developed in the course of human development and, one can already say, have in a certain way been led towards their own destruction. To anyone who has an overview of these living conditions, the social question appears in three forms. It appears to him as a question of spiritual life, secondly as a question of legal life, and thirdly as a question of economic life. Now the last few centuries, and in particular the 19th century, and also the past two decades of the 20th century, have led to the belief that almost everything that belongs to the social question has to be sought in the economic sphere. The reasons why people see so little clearly are precisely because they think that they only have to find their way in the economic sphere and then all the others will follow by themselves. It will be necessary for the first parts of my reflection today to be devoted to an area of life that people do not want to talk about as a socially important area, even now, from either the left or the right, namely the area of spiritual life.

The demands that are called social come from the broad masses of the proletariat, who have undergone the threefold ordeal to the conditions of the present, which we will discuss later. And this proletariat has been almost entirely pushed into the mere economic life by the emergence of new technology and soul-destroying capitalism, as well as by the other cultural conditions. The demands of the proletariat arose out of economic life. Therefore, the social question of the present takes on an economic form because it arises first of all from the proletariat. But it is not just an economic question. The mere observation that traditional ideas are inadequate in the face of today's loud facts can teach us that within the social movement we are dealing not only with an economic and legal question, but above all with a question of the mind.

We are faced with a loud social fact across a large part of the civilized world. We have had party opinions and party programs, we have produced them. All thoughts, all party opinions now prove inadequate when faced with the facts. Today it is not a matter of continuing old party opinions, but of facing the facts directly and with complete seriousness and a sense of reality.

Let us first see how human life has developed in recent times, and then ran into disaster. Above all, we have to look at the deep, seemingly unbridgeable gulf that exists between the proletariat and the non-proletariat. If we look at the cultural life of this non-proletariat, what do we encounter? Certainly, this cultural life has been abundantly praised as a tremendous advance in the course of modern times. Again and again we have heard how, in this modern age, means of transport have brought people together across vast areas of the earth, which in older times, if prophetically described, would have been decried as utopian. Thought, it was always preached and praised, flies like lightning across distant lands and seas and so on. No one has grown tired of praising progress over and over again. But today it is necessary to add a different consideration to all of this. Today it is necessary to ask: Under what conditions did this progress come about? It could only come about by building on a foundation of the broad masses of humanity who could not participate in all that this culture has been so praised for, built on the foundation of broad masses of people who had to do their work for this culture of a few, which, in the form in which it was “created”, could only exist because these masses had no part in it. Now these broad masses have grown up, have come into their own, and are rightly demanding their share. Their demands are at the same time the great historical demands of the present for everyone who really understands the times. And when today the call for socialization of economic life is heard, he who understands the times recognizes in this call not merely the demands of one class of people, but at the same time an historical demand of human life in the present.

One peculiarity of the leading classes, who were the participants in the much-praised culture, is that in recent times they have missed almost every opportunity to somehow bridge the gap between them and the masses of the proletariat, who are increasingly coming forward with their legitimate demands. What was needed to bridge this gap was ideas that should have been incorporated into human, social life. It is a peculiarity of this newer intellectual life, which has been so widely praised, that it has become increasingly alien to real, true life. Individuals pursue only that life that directly encompasses them. For the broad masses of the people, no comprehensive ideas from our intellectual life, from our school education, could be found. Here is an example that, from the most diverse points of view, could be multiplied not tenfold but a hundredfold or more.

At the beginning of the century, a certain government councilor by the name of Kolb took a remarkable turn in his destiny. I am happy to mention this government councilor Kolb because the way he took his destiny into his own hands is worthy of honor, and because I have no need to say anything detrimental about it, which I do not do willingly. At one point in his life, Kolb did something that not many other government officials do. Most of them retire when they no longer want to do their duty; but he left his office, went to America, and got a job as an ordinary worker, first in a brewery and then in a bicycle factory. Based on the experiences that this government official had, he then wrote a book: “Als Arbeiter in Amerika” (As a Worker in America).

The book contains a remarkable sentence. It reads, for example: “When I used to meet someone on the street who wasn't working, I would say, ‘Why isn't the beggar working?’ Now I knew differently: And now I know something else about many things as well; now I know that even the most terrible affairs of life still look quite good in the study.” That is a confession that deeply characterizes the social conditions of the time. A man who has emerged from our intellectual life, who has been entrusted with human destiny for many years — for as many years as are necessary to bring it to the government act — knows nothing of human labor, that is, he knows nothing of human life. He must first create a destiny for himself in order to know something of the life he is to govern, in which he is to be active from the leading classes. He must first, in order to know something of this life, get himself hired as a laborer and then come to completely different views of life.

Does this example, which could truly be multiplied, not indicate how our intellectual life, from which the leading people emerge, has become alien to the lives of the broad masses? The broad masses have seen, in the necessities of their bodies and souls, how the leading classes conduct economic life. They have seen that something is wrong, that these leading classes do not have the necessary spirit to guide economic life. Today the question arises: what needs to be different?

And in many other respects, one can still see how alien the leading class has become over the last few centuries from what should have been done to avoid drifting into a catastrophe. In the most serious and dignified manner, the leading circles discussed all kinds of beautiful things, such as charity, brotherhood among men, the way man must be good in general, and the like. But they had no connection with real life. At most, they would bring up the subject for discussion. Such an enquiry from the mid-19th century is not so insignificant today. It was initiated by the English government at the time among mine managers. The people who talked about human existence in their well-heated rooms should have experienced the coal they were talking about. They should have realized that the coal they were discussing their advanced morality and advanced intellectual life with had been brought up through mine shafts into which children of nine, eleven, thirteen years of age were sent underground before day, before the rising of the sun, and only came up again at night, so that the poor children almost never saw the light of day. It was easy to talk about human goodness and neighborly love in the context of the coals that were mined in this way. And many similar stories could be told. And the question must be asked: Did such events inspire the leading circles of humanity to really intervene in social life? Some people will reply today: Yes, but many things have improved. But to that I would say: What has improved has improved not because of the initiative of the ruling class, but because of the hard struggle of those who have suffered under these conditions.

These are the things that need to be brought to our attention today. We need to focus on what the worker, who works from morning till evening, can see at most from the outside when he passes our universities, our secondary schools. He is only familiar with what goes on in primary schools, and even there only what he can experience. He does not know how the objectives of primary education are determined from above, he only sees that those who cannot lead today's economic life emerge from these institutions.

This is the first aspect of the social question. Despite all the praise of our intellectual life, we have no intellectual life that is up to the great tasks of the time.

Let us look at economic life. When the social movement arose, we often heard the leading circles dismiss this social movement with the words: They want to divide. But what comes out of the division? Then everyone gets very little. — Then this objection fell silent; because on the one hand it is very true, but on the other hand it is very stupid. Recently, however, it has been cropping up again and again. But these things are not the point. Anyone who looks into the particular structure of our economic life today knows that the physical and mental misery of the broad masses of the proletariat has arisen from completely different causes. He knows that the inadequate development of intellectual life has not been understood in terms of bringing an ever-increasing technical activity in economic life into such a form that every person can have a dignified existence in it.

Of course, it has often been rightly pointed out that the modern social movement has emerged through modern technology, through machines, through soul-destroying capitalism. But it has been forgotten that all that has emerged could not be mastered by the spiritual life as it developed.

Why is that so? With the advent of the machine, industrialism and capitalism, a certain tendency took hold of humanity, which expressed itself in the fact that it was considered progress to have the state absorb the spiritual life as far as possible. Nationalization of the spiritual life was seen as great progress. And today you still meet with the sharpest prejudices if you object to this nationalization of the spiritual life. Those who have their sympathies in today's intellectual life point out with a certain pride how much further one has come with the spirit than in the old, dark Middle Ages. Well, we certainly do not want the Middle Ages back. Not back, but forward we want to go. But another question must be raised. It is said that in the Middle Ages intellectual life, especially science, followed in the train of theology or the Church. Today we have to ask: Whose train does present-day intellectual life follow – or perhaps something else? Here is another example, which could be multiplied not only a hundredfold but a thousandfold. Again, I may speak of a person whom I hold in high esteem because I am convinced that he was an important naturalist. At the same time, he was the Secretary General of a learned society that is at the forefront of German intellectual life. In one of his well-delivered speeches, he wanted to express what these German scholars, who have the great honor of being members of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, consider their highest honor. When something like this is described, one would naturally like to point out an historical fact that is not insignificant. This Berlin Academy was always something that could, in a sense, intellectually express the impulses of the Hohenzollerns. A Hohenzollern of the 18th century was once faced with the necessity of appointing a president to his Academy of Sciences – I am not telling you a fairy tale, but an historical fact – and he believed he was honouring this Academy of Sciences most by giving it his court jester as president. But the great scholar of the late 19th century says that the learned gentlemen of the Berlin Academy consider it a great honor to be the scientific protection force of the Hohenzollerns.

We must look at such things as symptoms of the times. We must look at what intellectual life has become in its dependence on state power and the capitalist power associated with it. For if one can grasp inner impulses not out of some prejudice but out of the necessities of life, out of reality, then one will say, contrary to all the prejudices of the time, that intellectual life can only regain its strength if it is detached from state life, if it is left to its own devices. Everything that lives in spiritual life, especially the school system, must be handed over to its self-administration, from the highest level of the administration of spiritual life to the teacher of the lowest school level. In the administration of spiritual life, nothing but the forces of this spiritual life itself can be decisive. Those who are active in this spiritual life and experience it inwardly must form the body that administers this spiritual life and puts it completely on its own feet.

This is the first point of what is here called the threefold social organism. Such a spiritual life will be able to relate to life in a completely different way than the antisocial spiritual life in which we have gradually found ourselves, and from which it seems we have no desire to escape.

Someone who really has experience in this field is well placed to speak about it from that experience. For many years I taught at the Workers' Educational School in Berlin, founded by Liebknecht. So I know how to find the sources of a spiritual life that is not the preserve of a privileged class and represents a luxury spiritual life, but from which one can speak to all people who have the urge to achieve a dignified existence for soul and body. And I know something else from this practice of my life. I know how the workers understood me, always understood me better when I spoke to them from a free spiritual life that is there for all people, not for a privileged class. Because the workers believed that they had to go along with this or that, there were also times when I was led to guide the workers through museums or similar institutions, through sites where the evidence of a culture could be seen that existed only for a few, that did not represent a folk culture, a folk spiritual life. There I saw how the gulf also existed in the spiritual and mental life and how people basically could not really take in inwardly what had been created on the soil of a culture for a few. This is a misconception that many people still subscribe to today. They believe that they are promoting the education of the people when they throw chunks of what has been created at universities, secondary schools and other educational institutions from our culture, which is only born out of the social sentiments of a few. What has been done to promote such popular education! Public libraries, adult education colleges, public theaters, and so on. But we shall never get rid of the error which consists in believing that what is intellectually demanded by the emotional life of a secluding minority can be transplanted into the broad masses of the people. No, the time demands a spiritual life which embraces everybody in a social way. But this can only come into being when those who are to take part in it, with all their feelings, with all their social foundations, form a unity with those who create this spiritual life; when they are not thrown scraps, but when the whole mass of the people works uniformly in a spiritual way. But for this to happen, the spiritual life must be freed from state and capitalist constraints. Naturally, in a short lecture I cannot present all the arguments – not even all that is contained in my book on these key points of the social question – that could be adduced in favor of the necessity of detaching intellectual life, especially the school system, from the state and economic life and placing it on its own feet. But this is the first requirement for the threefold social order: a spiritual life that develops out of itself.

There is no need to fear such a spiritual life. There is no need to fear even if one has a low opinion of people, perhaps to the effect that they will fall back into the old illiterate state, or the like, if parents are free to send their children to school or leave them out without state coercion. No, the proletariat in particular will become more and more aware of what it owes to school education. And it will not leave its children out of school, even if it is not forced to send its children to school, but has to send them there of its own free will. And in particular, the advocate of the comprehensive school need not fear that a free spiritual life will be disturbed by the school. Nothing else can arise than the unified school if the free spiritual life is promoted.

That is what needs to be said first about the separation of spiritual life from state and economic life.

The second area of life that needs to be considered when studying today's social question is the legal life. People have developed the most diverse views about this legal life. But anyone who is able to observe and feel this legal life from reality says to himself: to give definitions or scholarly explanations of the law is just as absurd as trying to give scholarly instructions about what blue and red colors are. One can talk about blue and red colors with anyone who has a healthy eye. But about the sense of right, about the right that every human being has because he is a human being, one can talk to every awakened human soul. And with awakened human souls, with ever more awakened human souls, one is dealing with the modern proletariat.

With regard to this legal basis of life, however, modern humanity, insofar as it belongs to the ruling circles, has had a strange experience. These ruling circles could not help but spread a certain democracy over life. They needed a skillful proletariat to stage their capitalist interests, a proletariat that received certain soul forces. The old patriarchal life was of no use in the modern capitalist economy. But now something extremely unpleasant turned up for such a one-sided, capitalist democracy. You see, the human soul has the peculiarity that when you develop individual abilities and powers in it, then others will automatically come to the fore. Thus, the leading mankind wanted to develop only those soul powers that make workers able to work in factories. But it turned out that the souls awoke from the old patriarchal conditions, and that in them especially the awareness of human rights awoke. And then they looked into the modern state, which was supposed to embody the law. They asked themselves: Is this the soil in which the law really flourishes? And what did they find? Instead of human rights, class privileges and class disadvantages. And from this arose what is called the modern class struggle of the proletariat, which is nothing more or less than the great, justified demand for a dignified existence for all people.

This is the second aspect of the social question, the legal question. Its true significance cannot be recognized without also considering the third aspect, the economic question. Two things have seeped into economic life that simply do not belong there. These are capital and human labor, whereas economic life should only include what takes place on the goods market. I think that recent years, and especially the present, could teach people very clearly that the most important thing in the proletarian social movement is the proletarian himself. But today, as things are, the proletarian man cannot be judged by someone who, because the times suggest it, deigns to talk about the proletariat based on a variety of ideas. No, only someone whose destiny has led him to think with the proletariat and feel with the proletariat can judge these things. You have to have seen for yourself how, over decades, the proletarian world came together in the hours that could be wrested from the evening after hard work to educate itself about the economic movement of the new era, about the meaning of labor, of capital, about the meaning of commodity consumption and production; you have to have seen what an enormous need for education developed in the proletarian people, while, on the other side of the divide, within the higher classes, people visited their theaters and devoted themselves to many other activities, and at most managed to look down from the stage at the proletarian misery. Then the proletarian developed; he developed out of his spiritual life. And anyone who says today that the proletarian question is merely a question of bread and stomach must be given the answer: It is a shame that it has come to this, that the proletarian question has become a bread-and-butter question, that people did not look at something else earlier, namely, that the proletarian's entire striving has given rise to the demand for a dignified existence, for an existence in which he does not have to allow his body and soul to wither. For all proletarian demands have ultimately emerged from this, not from a mere bread-and-stomach issue. But while the proletarian was trying to come to his senses, while he was dealing with the economic systems of modern times, he developed an awareness of his own position as a human being in this human life. From his point of view, he was able to look at the way of life of the leading circles. He was told that history was a divine world order, or a moral world order, or the world order of the idea. He saw only that the ruling circles, within their world order, lived as the surplus value that he had to produce allowed them to live. That is why the words of the Communist Manifesto struck so deeply into the minds of the proletarians and made them aware of their situation. Despite all the progress of modern times, despite all the so-called newer freedoms, the proletarian is condemned to sell his labor power like a commodity on the labor market and to have it bought. This gave rise to the demand: The days are over when a person can sell or buy a part of himself. His feelings, which he perhaps could not always express clearly, led the proletarian back to ancient times, to the times of serfdom. And he saw how the purchase of his labor power has remained from those ancient times. For nothing else but this lies in the wage relationship. He said to himself: Goods belong on the market. You take the goods to the market, sell them and go back with the proceeds. I must sell my labor power to the employer, but I cannot go to him and say, “There is my labor power for so and so much money, and then I will go away.” I must deliver myself! — You see, as a human being, you must go with your labor power. That is what the proletarian perceives as an existence unworthy of a human being.

The big question arises: What has to happen so that labor can no longer be a commodity? People today, insofar as they belong to the leading and guiding circles, basically give little thought to labor. These people open their wallets and pay with banknotes of a certain denomination. Whether they ever stop to consider that in the bills they give, or perhaps cut up into coupons, there is a decision to appropriate so many laborers from the proletariat, that is the big question. In any case, they do not give in to thoughts strong enough to intervene in social life.

The point is that human labor cannot be compared in price to any other commodity; that human labor is something quite different from a commodity. Human labor must be removed from the economic process. And it cannot be removed unless economic life is regarded as a part of the social organism, separate from the actual legal or state organism, from the political organism. Then what I would like to make clear to you by means of a comparison can occur. Economic life borders on the natural foundation on the one hand. You cannot manage a closed economic area in any way you like. You can use the soil by technical means or the like. But within certain limits you have to submit to the natural foundation. Imagine a number of large landowners, i.e. capitalists in their own right, who would say: If we are to achieve this balance, or even a better one, we need a hundred rainy days in summer, with sunny days in between, and so on. This is a complete plate, of course, but it does draw our attention to the fact that, on the one hand, we cannot change the natural foundations; we cannot demand, through our economic life, that the forces of nature in the ground prepare the wheat grain in a particular way. We must submit to the forces of nature; they stand beside economic life. On the other hand, economic life must be limited by the life of the law, that is to say, just as little as the forces of nature depend on the economic situation on the goods market, so little must human labor depend on the economic situation on the goods market. Human labor must be taken out of economic life like a force of nature and placed on the ground of the law. When it is placed on the legal ground, then everything in which one person is equal to another, in which only real human rights develop, in which labor law can also develop, can develop on this legal ground. The measure, type and time of work will be determined before the worker enters the economic process. Then he will face the one who, as we shall see in a moment, will not be the capitalist but the labor manager, the spiritual co-worker, as a free human being.

No matter how good the words may be about the so-called employment contract, as long as it is a wage contract, it can only lead to the dissatisfaction of the worker. Only when contracts can no longer be concluded for labor, but only for the joint production of the labor manager and the manual laborer, when a contract can only be concluded for the joint product, will a dignified existence for all parties arise from it. Then the worker will stand vis-à-vis the labor manager as a free partner. That is what the worker is basically striving for, even if he still cannot form a clear idea of it today. This is the real economic issue for the proletariat, the real economic demand: the liberation of labor power from the economic cycle, the establishment of the right of labor power within the second link of the three-part social organism, the legal basis.

And on this legal basis, another thing must be given a new form. This is precisely the thing that, when it comes to its reorganization, still makes today's people look very, very puzzled, namely the reorganization of capital. With regard to private property, people today think socially at least to a certain extent, and in fact in the area that seems to them to be the least difficult, in the spiritual area. For in the intellectual field, at least in principle, something social applies in relation to ownership. No matter how clever or talented a person is, he certainly brings his abilities with him through birth, but what we achieve that is socially valuable, intellectually as well, we achieve it by being within society, through society. In the intellectual field this is recognized by the fact that, at least in principle, nothing of what one produces intellectually, and from which one also receives the benefit, belongs to the heirs for thirty years after death. The time could be shorter, but at least it is recognized in principle that what is intellectual property must become the property of the general public at the moment when the individual with his individual abilities is no longer there to administer it. Intellectual property must not be transferred in an arbitrary manner to those who then have nothing more to do with its creation.

Now you say today that it is an historical requirement that it must become similar to material capital in the future! Tell that today to people who are within the capitalist education, then you will see what kind of perplexed faces they make! Nevertheless, one of the most important demands of the present is that capital should no longer be placed in the social process in the same way as it is today. The point is that in the future, everyone must be able to manage the means of production in a particular field based on their individual abilities. And the capital is actually the means of production. It is in the worker's own interest to have a good spiritual leader as a manager; because this is the best way to apply one's work. The capitalist is then just a fifth wheel on the car, he is not necessary at all. That is what must be realized. It is therefore necessary that in the future the means of production in a particular economic sector or for a cultural purpose are raised; but since the individual abilities of the person or group of people who have raised the means of production no longer justify personal ownership, these means of production , as I have shown in my book The Essential Points of the Social Question, must now pass to quite different people, not to the heirs, but to quite different people who now have the greatest ability to manage these means of production only in the service of the general public.

Just as blood circulates in the human body, so in the future the means of production, that is, capital, will circulate in the community of the social organism. Just as blood must not accumulate in a healthy organism, but must flow through the entire body, fertilizing everything, so in the future capital must not accumulate in any one place as private property. Rather, when it has served its purpose in one place, it must pass to whoever can manage it best. In this way, capital is divested of the function that has led to the greatest social damage today.

But the very clever people who speak from a capitalist point of view rightly say: All economic activity consists in giving up existing goods so that goods can be obtained in the future. That is quite right; but if we are to manage in this way – that is, by means of the past, the seeds are laid for the economy of the future, so that the economy does not die – then capital must participate in what the properties of goods are. Again, today there are extremely puzzled faces when one speaks of these demands of the future. Real goods, however, have the peculiarity that they are consumed. In consumption, they gradually follow the path of all living things. Our present economic order has brought capital to the point where it does not follow the path of living things. All one needs to do is to have capital, and then this capital is torn out of the fate of everything else that is involved in the economic process. Aristotle already said that capital should not have any young, but not only does it have young, but the young grow up until they are large; one can state the number of years until the capital doubles if it is only left to itself. Other goods, for which capital is only a representative example, have the peculiarity that they either wear out or can no longer be used if they are not put to use at the right time. Capital must be forced to share the fate of all other goods, insofar as it is monetary capital. While our current economic life aims to double capital in a certain period of time, a healthy economic life would make mere monetary capital disappear in the same period of time, so that it would no longer be there. Today it is still considered terrible to tell people that after a reasonable period of time, rather than doubling in fifteen years, monetary capital should no longer exist, because what is contained in this capital must participate in the process of wear and tear. Of course, some of what is involved in saving or the like can be taken into account.

So today we are not faced with small accounts, but with large accounts. And we must have the courage to admit to these large accounts. Otherwise the social order, or rather the social disorder, the social chaos, will descend on us. People today are little concerned about the fact that they are basically dancing on a volcano. It is more in their interest to continue with the old as lightly as possible, while time demands of us not only to change some institutions, but to rethink and relearn right down to our very habits of thought.

When labor and capital are removed from the economic process, with capital flowing to the community and labor being returned to the right of the free human being, then the economic process consists only of the consumption, circulation, and production of goods. Then the economic process has only to do with the value of goods. And then, within this economic process, which as a member of the healthy social organism is now left to its own devices, something may come into being of which one can then say: production is not merely for the sake of production, but for the sake of consumption. Then those cooperatives and associations will arise that are formed from the professional guilds, but that are formed in particular from the consumers, together with the producers. Out of these corporations will arise what is today entrusted to the chance of the goods market. Today, something decides on the goods market that is completely removed from human thought and judgment: supply and demand. In the future, the corporation must decide what conditions the formation of prices and the value of goods from the goods market. In this way alone will a person produce so much that what is produced has the value of all the goods he needs for his needs until he has produced an equal amount of goods again. That will be a just economic life. That will be an economic life in which the price of one type of goods does not disproportionately outweigh the prices of the other types of goods. Today, when wages are still included in the economic process and the worker is not the free partner of the spiritual leader, today the situation still exists that within the economic process the worker, on the one hand, must repeatedly fight for an increase in his wages; on the other hand, the fact that a hole is closed opens another: wages increase, food becomes more expensive, and so on. This only happens in an economic process that is polluted by capital and wage relationships. In an economic process in which corporations, cooperatives, determine the value of goods, and not according to supply and demand, which are subject to chance, but rather based on reason. In such an economic process alone can every human being find a dignified existence. The masses of proletarians basically long for such an economic process; that is their true demand in economic life.

In some areas, this demand is already being more clearly recognized. Take, for example, the question of works councils, which has now been so distorted by legislation. If the works councils are to become what the proletarian really demands, they must not be allowed to trail behind the state in every direction, just as intellectual life used to, but must be able to develop a truly beneficial social activity within economic life. For this, however, economic life must be placed on its own ground; for this, something other than these works councils must come into being; for this, transport councils and other councils must come into being; these must arise out of economic life, and they will create constitutions out of economic experience.

I know that many people today say: Education does not yet prevail in economic life to achieve what we want to achieve. Such are the words of people who always speak of ideals so that they do not have to implement what is possible in reality. That is the talk of people for whom ideals are something that should not be aspired to, so that they do not need to strive for what is most immediate. He who knows that the knowledge that comes from experience, from practice, is infinitely more valuable than anything that can be carried down from above, also knows that such a works council should not be set up only for individual companies, but must be inter-company. The works councils must connect the individual companies with the very different companies, mediate the connection, they must develop into a works council, a transport council and an economic council. If this grows out of the economic life, then one will come to the fact that these councils are not there for mere decoration, but that they become the human factor, the figures of economic life itself. But that is what is needed.

What I call the threefold social order did not arise out of some clever idea, out of a grey theory, but out of a real observation of the necessities of life in the present and the future. And it is truly a pity that today there are so few people who are able to turn their eyes to this vital necessity, to reality itself, out of the spiritual life that has developed up to now. People today slander what is most practical by saying: it is ideology, it is utopia. What is actually at the root of this? Some say: the socialization of the means of production is necessary. I agree. But I also say: it is necessary to know the way to get there. Today I have only sketched out what I mean. We need not only goals today, but also the paths and the courage to take them. Many people tell me that what I say is difficult to understand. Well, to understand what I am saying, more is needed than what people are usually willing to expend for understanding. It is necessary to look into real life, not to judge life from some subjective demands. It is necessary to also rise up, to summon the inner courage to think radically in certain things, as our time demands of every alert human being.

However, in the last four to five years, I have seen that people have understood things that I have not understood. They have even put things that they claimed to understand, when they came from certain places, into beautiful frames so that they could always look at them. Things that came from the great headquarters and the like, but understanding had to be commanded first. No one can be ordered to understand what should be understood out of an inner courage to live. Now the time has come when people should no longer allow themselves to be ordered to understand, but must be able to gain a real judgment from their life experiences, from their unprejudiced observation of life, about what is necessary before it is too late.

But today, strange things are happening. I do not like to talk about personal matters, but today it is these personal matters that dominate life. In April 1914, I was obliged to express my judgment on the social situation in a small gathering in Vienna (and intentionally in Vienna; as you know, the catastrophe of the world war originated in Austria). At that time, it was not only the social situation of the proletariat, but the social question of the whole of Europe. I pointed out that the social situation in Europe was tending towards a malignant growth, and indeed the world war then arose from it. — I was obliged to summarize my judgment about this in the words — in April 1914, note the date: anyone who looks into our social conditions, how they have gradually developed can only come to a great cultural concern, because he sees how a carcinoma is developing in social life, a kind of cancer disease that must break out in the most terrible way in the near future.

So at that time I had to point out what world capitalism was driving people into in the near future. Anyone who said this at the time was, of course, denounced as an impractical idealist, a utopian, an ideologue, because the practitioners spoke quite differently at the time. What did the practitioners say about the general world situation? They did not speak of a cancer disease. They spoke much as the German Foreign Minister did to the enlightened gentlemen of the German Reichstag in the spring of 1914 – they must have been enlightened, because they had been appointed, after all: We are heading for peaceful times, because the general relaxation is making gratifying progress. We have the best relationship with Russia; the St. Petersburg cabinet is not listening to the press pack. Promising negotiations have been initiated with England, which will probably be concluded in the near future in favor of world peace. The two governments are in such a state that relations will become ever closer and more intimate. – Thus spoke the practitioner, who was not scolded for being an idealist. And the general relaxation of tensions progressed to such an extent that what followed was something we have all experienced so painfully. It can be quite a shock to hear something like what was said recently at the League of Nations conference, where people talked about all sorts of things out of old habits of thinking. The only thing they did not talk about in a way that was somehow appropriate was the greatest movement of the present, the social movement, which is the only one capable of founding a real league of nations.

Then, sometimes, out of old habits of thinking, very clever people give very particular answers. Recently in Bern, a very clever gentleman answered me - I never want to underestimate people's cleverness -: I cannot imagine that something special comes out of a threefold structure, everything must be a unity. Law cannot arise only on the political plane, and so on. What is necessary is that the law develops on the basis of the law, then economic life also has the law, then spiritual life has the law. And if you say that the unity of the social organism is being cut, then I say: that is not the issue for me! The issue is not to cut the horse in two, but to put the horse on its four legs. The point is not to cut up the social organism, but to put it on its three healthy legs, on a healthy legal life, a healthy economic life and a healthy spiritual life. Then this unity, which is worshipped today as an idol as a unified state, but which must be abandoned if socialism is wanted.

For more than a century, people have repeatedly spoken of humanity's great social ideal, of the greatest social impulses: equality, freedom, fraternity. Of course, very clever people of the 19th century have repeatedly proved that these ideals cannot be realized because they were only seen under the hypnosis of the unitary state; hence the contradiction. But today is the time when these ideals must be realized, when these three impulses of social life must be grasped. And they can only be realized in the threefold social organism. In the spiritual life, which should stand on its own ground, individual abilities must be developed as they do on the ground of freedom. In the field of law, that which makes every human being equal to every other human being must prevail, and by means of this law every adult person can, through himself or through his representative, regulate his relationship with other people, including his working relationship. And in the field of economic life, that true brotherhood must prevail which can only flourish in cooperatives, whether they be consumer or producer cooperatives.

In the tripartite social organism, freedom, equality and fraternity will prevail because it has three parts: freedom in the realm of spiritual life, equality in the democratic realm of legal life, and fraternity in the realm of economic life.

Today I have only been able to hint to you from individual points of view what needs to be considered in today's very serious times; what is most necessary to consider if one seriously wants to help to get out of confusion and chaos, so as not to get deeper into confusion and chaos. What is necessary today is not to think only of small changes, but to have the courage to admit to ourselves that today great reckonings are due. Anyone who can truly look with an alert soul at what is only just beginning today must say to himself: We will not have long to deliberate. Therefore, we had better take a path that can be embarked upon every day. And what is given by the threefold social organism can be taken up every day. Only those who want to delve deeper into the practice that brought us the world catastrophe will want to call what is truly practical an impractical idealism.

If healing is to occur in social life, it will be necessary to thoroughly abandon the superstitious idolization of practice, which is nothing more than brutal human egoism. We must commit ourselves to an idealism that is not a one-sided idealism, but a true practice of life. Those who are sincere about our time will ask themselves today: how do I get on the path to a remedy for what we face as social damage? And it would be desirable for more and more people to come to this path before it is too late. And it could be too late very soon.

*Closing words*

*After a discussion in which mainly party and trade union officials had spoken, Rudolf Steiner took the floor again:*

I would have preferred it if the speakers had addressed the issues I had raised. Then we could have made the discussion fruitful. But that did not happen. So I will just point out a few things and draw attention to them.

Some speakers have said that nothing new has been presented in my considerations. Well, I know very well the development of the social movement. And anyone who claims that the essentials of what has been presented today from the experiences of the whole reorganization of the social situation through the world catastrophe is not something new should realize that they are saying something absolutely untrue. In reality, the situation is quite different: The speakers have not heard the new thing. They have limited themselves to hearing the few things that were taken for granted because they were correct when they were put forward as a critique of the usual social order. They have been accustomed for many years to hearing this and that as a slogan: that is what they heard. But what was said in between, about the threefold social order, about what can be achieved in every respect through this threefold social order, about that the speakers have heard absolutely nothing. And that is probably why they remained silent in their discussions about what they had not heard. I understand that. But I also understand that a fruitful discussion cannot actually come out of such a thing.

For example, we heard a speaker who, as if he had not experienced the last five to six years, talked at length about the old theories that have been discussed so many times before this catastrophe. He dutifully repeated all the theories about surplus value and so on, which are certainly correct but have been advanced countless times. He just forgot that we live in a completely, completely different time today. He forgot that, for example, only a few months before the German surrender, highly respected socialist leaders were still saying: When this world catastrophe is over, the German government will have to take a completely different position towards the proletariat than before. The German rulers will have to take the proletariat into account in all government actions and in all legislation in a completely different way than before. But the Socialists also said: the Socialist parties will have to be taken into account.

Well, things turned out differently. Those in power were plunged into the abyss, and the parties were there. Today they face a completely different world situation. In the face of this new world situation, however, one should not simply ignore new ideas and only listen to the parties that are naturally heard because they have always been considered as long as there has been a social movement. Instead, one should acquire the ability to respond to what is most urgently needed in the present day. Otherwise we face the great danger that basically has always existed in the old, customary world order: when something came along that looked at facts, that was taken from reality, it was declared to be ideology; it was declared to be philosophy, that it had nothing to do with reality, and that it paved the way for reaction. It would be the worst if the Socialist Party were to fall into a kind of reactionary paralysis, if it were unable to move forward with the facts speaking so loudly.

That is what matters today. Marx coined a nice phrase after he got to know the Marxists – it happens to many people who strive to bring something truly new into the world: As for me, I am not a Marxist. And Marx always showed – I am just reminding you of the events of 70/71 – how he learned from these events. He always showed that he was able to keep pace with the times. Today, when the time is ripe, he would certainly find the possibility of recognizing the real solution to the social question in the threefold social order. There is constant talk of new paths, and when a new path is shown, which admittedly takes real courage, it is said: No path is shown, only a goal is shown. One would like to ask: Has anyone already thought of this way, which makes it necessary for a kind of liquidation government to come into being? That is what is in fact very unusual for people, given their habits of thinking. The old governments, including the Socialist government, think of nothing but that they will be the beautiful, brave continuation of what the government used to be. What we need is for this government to keep only the initiative in the center, the supervision of the security service, hygiene and the like, and for it to become a liquidation government on the left and right: namely, by leaving intellectual life free, so that it passes into independent administration, and by putting economic life on its own feet.

This is not a theory, not a philosophy, this is a pointer to something that must be done. And for this to be done, it is first necessary to understand its necessity. This means gradually abandoning the old habit of only wanting to listen to what one likes and not wanting to listen to what is unknown.

When speakers appear who get tangled up in strange practical contradictions and don't even realize it, they show how actually impossible it is to find a practical way. One speaker managed to say today: Real political power still rests on economic foundations today. And then, after adding something – it is no longer so noticeable – he said: The first thing is that we gain political power in order to conquer economic power. So on the one hand, he declaimed: He who has economic power also has political power. And immediately afterwards, after a few sentences, they say: We must first have political power, then we will also get economic power. With such speakers, however, it will not be possible to take practical action. You can only take a practical path if you are able to think straight and not confuse the paths of thought.

You will not get anywhere by rigidly adhering to any objections, such as: The tendency towards laziness makes it necessary to force people into a unified school. All those who were in power in the past have put forward similar arguments. We have seen people in government who were truly no smarter than those they governed. But they still managed to put it this way: if we don't force people to do this or that, they won't do it voluntarily.

It is a strange phenomenon that such things are now also coming to light on socialist soil. What is really needed is the very thing that is at issue here: the opportunity to develop an understanding of what is necessary, not to stick to long-established theories and the like. That is what is always called for. When people say: the power must be seized!, they mean a gray 'theory'. Because once you have seized power, you also have to know what to do with that power. You can't get ahead any other way. Seize power – if you are in power and you don't know what to do, then all that power is for nothing. The point is that just before you come to power, you know clearly and distinctly what you are going to do with that power.

If, on the one hand, it has been said that the revolution of November 9 was a success, then it might just as well have been a failure. And if, on the other hand, it is said that foreign countries view the revolution as a fraud, this is precisely because power has been seized and those in power do not know what to do with it. But now it must finally be known what is to be done with power. But if everyone sticks to the old party opinions, then they may call for unity. There is one method of calling for unity, and that is to really see where the damage is. In this way, the threefolding impulse seeks to bring about unity. It is simply objectively defamatory to say that a new party or a new sect should be founded. It is nonsense. And if the resolution has been adopted by numerous assemblies, I am completely reassured that this resolution will never be complied with. If it were complied with, the result would be that the current rulers would very soon be shown the door. There is no need to fear that some kind of unity might be disturbed. But there is another way to destroy unity: to insist on one's principles and then to say: if you don't follow me, then we are not united. That is also a way of preaching unity when you actually mean: we can only be united if you follow me. Quite a few people actually think that today.

As I said, I am sorry that I cannot go into details, because actually not a single speaker in the discussion really touched on the issues that were raised in my lecture. It was even said at the end that I had philosophized. With such philosophizing, as this speaker did, one can indeed call everything a fruitless philosophy. But whether one can really arrive at something that can help with such philosophizing, as developed by the last speaker, is very much in question.

What is given in this threefold social organism was first given as an impulse during the terrible catastrophe of the war, when I believed that the right time had come. At that time, when we were still far from the monster of the Brest-Litovsk Peace, it seemed to me to be just the right thing to do, in contrast to what actually happened, to seek a balance in the East, starting from this impulse of threefolding. Nobody understood this. That is why what was subsequently triggered by the Brest-Litovsk Peace happened. Today it is really important that people are found who do not do it the way all those to whom this threefold social order was spoken about during the war, at that time of course with reference to foreign policy.

In the next few days, a brochure will be published about the guilt for the war. The world will learn what actually happened in Germany in the last days of July and the first days of August 1914. It will then be seen how the great misfortune befell us because we did not think for ourselves, because we let the authorities think for us, because we were satisfied to let the authorities do the thinking for us. That is what led to the fact that on July 26, instead of leading to a reasonable policy, politics had reached the zero point of its development. The world must learn about these things one day. It will learn about them in the next few days through the memoirs of the most important person who was active in those days, in July/August 1914. Then we will see what has been missed because only some people in authority thought in their own way, and that the others basically had their convictions dictated to them.

Now, we have heard the matter many times. The war profiteers were followed by the revolution profiteers. But there was also another consequence. The war talkers were followed by the revolution talkers. And the ratio of revolution talkers to war talkers is roughly the same as that of revolution profiteers to war profiteers.

We have to get beyond the chatter. And we have to get beyond the fact that we cannot be guided politically by any authority, whether they are socialist or other personalities. We have to become discerning people. We cannot become discerning people if we sweep aside everything that can really be based on the demands of the day.

I do not go into such things that have been brought up and that are nothing more than absolute distortions of what has permeated my considerations. The fact that I want to bridge the contradictions with goodwill is an objective slander. I certainly did not speak of bridging the contradictions with goodwill. I spoke of the institutions that are to be brought about. What does the independence of intellectual life, economic life, and legal life have to do with goodwill? It has to do with the objective description of what is to come.

I agree with anyone who says that first of all people want power, but I am also quite clear about the fact that whoever has the power must know how to use it. And if we just want to rush forward and leave the unenlightened masses behind, then we will not only end up in the same conditions, but in much worse conditions than those that already existed.

You can find something else philosophically and feel tremendously practical when you say: The French are exhausted, they can't give us bread, England is also emaciated by the war and can't give us bread, America is too expensive for us. But we can get bread from Russia! —- Well, for the time being the English have much more bread than the Russians themselves, despite all the false reports. The claim that we can expect bread from Russia is one that is not based on fact.

What is important is that we now truly understand the situation as it is. That we say to ourselves: we were unable to socialize with the old intellectual life, we need a new intellectual life. But that can only be the intellectual life detached from the constitutional state. We need a foundation on which labor is withdrawn from the struggles. That can only be the independent state under the rule of law. And we need a balancing of the value of goods, and that can only happen on the basis of an independent economic life. These are things that one can really want. These are things that are not just revolutionary phrases. These are things that, if one has the courage to bring them about, truly want to bring about a very different state of the world than it is now.

I believe that if you think about it long enough, you will come to understand what is contained in the threefold social order. And it can be introduced in a relatively short time. Now, when this healthy threefold organism is in place, our circumstances will be very much revolutionized. When the world moves towards the introduction of the threefold social organism, then we shall have no need to 'thunder' about world revolution, for it will then take place in an objective way. Thunder is not what it is about. What it is about is finding germinal thoughts that can develop into real social fruits.

Today, however, we do not need a lot of talk, but we do need to agree on what needs to be done. We are not dealing with ideologies, utopias or philosophies in the threefold social organism, but with something that can be done, that is a plan for real action, not a description of a future state, but a plan for work. We need a plan for every house, we need it for social reorganization. Those who are always cutting back, be they socialists or other people, will not lead to this, but only those who are inclined to really move forward. I fear that those who have heard “nothing new, only old” today will not lead us out of chaos, but into it.

We want to take a serious approach today to the acceptance of that which is so unusual, so new, that it is not even heard when it is said, but rather find its own phrases. Today, new habits of thought are necessary, a change in thinking is necessary. Humanity must appeal to new habits of thought, to new ways of thinking, before it is too late. And I say it again: if humanity does not have this inner courage, it could very easily soon be too late.