The Big Questions of our Time and Anthroposophical Spiritual Knowledge

GA 336 — 14 February 1919, Basel

4. Realistic Attempts to Solve the Social Questions on the Basis of a Spiritual-Scientific View of Life

Dear attendees! Yesterday I tried to present the real nature of the social question as it arises from the consideration of what has gradually developed over the last few centuries, especially in the last century, in the minds of people, especially in the souls of the proletariat.

Today I would like to attempt to speak of possible solutions to this social question, of such possible solutions, dear attendees, that do not arise from some program, from some party demand, from human emotions; rather, I would like to speak of such possible solutions that arise from the developmental conditions and developmental forces of contemporary humanity.

However, if one wants to speak from such a point of view, then completely different things come into consideration than are considered by those who today are often preparing to comment on what has emerged as a proletarian social movement in the life of humanity.

If one has an eye for the developmental forces of humanity in the present, just as the natural scientist is supposed to have an eye for the developmental forces that a single person has at a certain age, say at the age of sexual maturity, then one must finally, I believe, come to realize that much of what that is currently emerging in an understandable way, in a completely understandable way, here or there, as a theoretical or practical or somehow-conceived attempt to solve social issues, that we are dealing with the revival of what is rightly regarded by many in another field as medieval superstition. It is as if certain superstitious ideas have already been exhausted in the more rapidly developing field of natural science, and as if, unnoticed by human thought because they only masquerade there, because they have taken on a different disguised form, they have been preserved to this day in the field of social life and its problems and its riddles.

To make it easier to understand what I actually mean, I recall the passage in the second part of Goethe's “Faust” where Wagner creates the homunculus, an artificial human being, in a retort. Goethe points to the medieval superstitious alchemy, which believed that a human being could be created in a chemical laboratory by artificially processing certain substances and forces in a thinking way, as an indication of what he wants to represent at this point in his “Faust”. The broadest circles consider such alchemical endeavors to artificially create an organism, a human body, to be a superstition based on the principles of current scientific thought. In the field of social thinking, as I said, this alchemical superstition continues to prevail to this day, without people noticing it because the matter is veiled. For much of what is thought and done to bring about the social structure, the social organization of human society today, resembles the efforts of that Goethean Wagner who wants to artificially create the homunculus in the laboratory. Today, people think they can concoct the social organism from some social materials and forces in an artificial way.

And if we examine more closely, esteemed attendees, what is emerging here and there as a so-called solution to the social question, we find that no attention is paid to the conditions for the solution of the social organism. Even in the experiments that are already being carried out on a large scale, no attention is paid to this. Instead, it is assumed that something artificial can be created in some way.

The spiritual scientific thinking, from which this consideration started and which also takes the method for the social question, this spiritual scientific thinking is based on reality and must therefore proceed in a completely different way than many socialist experiments of today. The question for the method represented here is not: How do you shape the social organism? but rather, how can we create the conditions of life through which the social organism can shape itself as a living being, through which it can come into existence? Just as in nature one does not artificially create an organism by some kind of thinking, but one has to create the conditions under which the natural organism has to form itself, and through which it can then develop out of its own life impulse, so it must also be done for a realistic view of life with regard to the social organism.

However, this, esteemed attendees, requires a radical change in the way many people think today, and that is a very uncomfortable thing for the widest circles today. People may still be willing to accept a change in some institutions, a change in some circumstances, if they are not too sleepy. But people are less willing to accept a different way of thinking, a transformation of their whole view of reality. However, such a reorientation, such a change of thinking, is necessary for the deep social problem that not only cuts into individual areas of life, but into the whole of contemporary life. What is at stake here is that one must, as it were, change one's path from social superstitious alchemy to real social insight, to real insight into the social organism.

Just as one can study and get to know the individual human natural organism by applying the scientific method impartially enough, so too can one, with vigorous thinking and research, see through the social organism in its living conditions. That is what it is about.

I have already taken the liberty of speaking about the individual human organism, the natural organism, here in Basel in previous lectures. Today I would just like to point out that it seems to me that no one will be able to understand the natural organism of the human being, the natural life body of the human being, despite all the progress in physiology and biology in the present day, without studying the three interacting but relatively independent parts of this organism. When I spoke from the same place here in Basel about these three links of the natural human organism, I took the liberty of pointing out that I was giving something - I have outlined it in my book 'Von Soul Mysteries», - something on which I have actually been working for thirty years, trying to justify what has emerged from spiritual scientific documents by all the means that modern natural science can provide in this regard today. So that I can say: anyone who wants to, anyone who does not want to dabble but will approach the subject scientifically, need not shy away from what I will only briefly mention here and what may still surprise some people who believe they have a deep insight into scientific matters.

This single human organism is not centralized in a simple way, but is actually decentralized into three relatively independent parts: one can say, into the nervous sensory system, which is centralized towards the head; one could also say, the head system. Then into the rhythmic system, which encompasses the lungs and the heart life, which has a certain inner independence from the head life. And then again the system of metabolism.

However strange it may seem, these three systems comprise everything that takes place in the human organism. But this is not a centralized administration, so to speak, that takes place in the human body, but rather there are three independent members, each with its own center, so to speak. They work independently. And precisely because they work independently alongside each other, they build on the overall process in this individual natural human organism. Each of these links, these three links of the natural human organism, in turn relates to the outside world: the head system through the senses, the heart-lung system through the lungs, through the respiratory organs, and the metabolic system through the digestive organs, which open to the outside.

And it is precisely on this independence that the harmonious interaction, the possible and purposeful interaction of the individual human organism is based. Anyone who thinks that they can present the human organism as a sum of processes regulated from a single center completely misunderstands the essence of the human organism. The essence of the individual human organism lies in this interaction, not in subordination.

What now comes to light in a healthy observation of this human life body must be transferred to the observation, indeed not just to the observation, but to the living in it, in relation to the social organism, the social life body. And there the matter becomes far more serious.

What is a mere theoretical, scientific matter of knowledge in relation to the human organism becomes a practical matter in relation to the social organism. In relation to the social organism, it becomes a practical matter that concerns every single person. This is not a matter of scientific knowledge, but of certain intuitions, a certain feeling for how to place oneself in human life in this threefold social organism. Just as one learns the multiplication table from childhood on, how to add, subtract and so on, in order to be able to calculate, so one will have to acquire from childhood on a feeling for being part of a human , which, if it is to be healthy, if it is not to resemble a homunculus, an artificially created human being, but rather a homo, a real human being who shapes himself out of his life impulses.

But lest I be misunderstood – nowadays one is almost always misunderstood when one expresses things that are, after all, quite obvious – lest I be misunderstood, I want to point out right away that what I am expounding here has nothing, not the slightest, with any kind of, as one can call it, playing with similes or analogies, which aims to study the human organism and then transfers what it believes it has found in the human organism to the social organism, to the social life body. Such things, as the economist happened to try in his social organism, the economist Schäffle, or as [Meray] has now tried in the so-called, in the so-titled “Weltmutation”, these things are mere playing around before a serious conception of reality. The point is not to carry on such gimmicks, to somehow transfer something from one to the other, but rather that just as healthy as the consideration of which I have spoken here must be for the natural human organism, just as healthy must be - and now not a scientific consideration, but a social feeling, a social understanding of all people for the three-part social organism. If one were to play a mere game of analogy, one might do the following: One would say: Well, the human being has a head; that is the organ for his spiritual. In the outer social organism, there is also something like a spiritual culture. So one compares the opposites that relate to the organ of the part, to the head, with what is found in the social organism as spiritual culture. Because political life, law, and public life have a regulating effect on human activities, one might compare the regulating pulmonary respiratory system with the police system, the political system, and the state system. And because, as people have always imagined, the metabolic system is the coarsest, the most material, it is compared to the materialistic culture of man, to the external economic life.

This would be obvious if one wanted to play a mere game of analogy. If one goes into reality, then one is dealing with the opposite. An analogy places the social organism alongside the individual natural human organism in such a way that both are standing on their own two feet. As paradoxical as it may sound, reality presents itself to us in such a way that, in relation to the individual natural human organism, the social organism is indeed standing on its head, according to human prejudice.

For the lawfulness that must be sought precisely for the so-called noblest system of the human natural organism, for the head system, this lawfulness corresponds to economic life in the social organism. This is found in economic life. The lung-respiratory system as a regulating system is found, however, as we shall see shortly, in the legal sphere, in the political state in the narrower sense. But what spiritual culture is in the social organism is subject, strangely enough, to the same laws or to laws that can only be compared to the laws of human metabolism in the natural organism. So, as you can see, dear attendees, a realistic observation turns everything upside down. This is to be understood in the following way.

In fact, for anyone who wants to examine the living conditions under which the social life body can develop, the healthy social life body is actually divided into three parts, and without life trying to work out these three parts in relative independence, so that they do not live centralized in some centralized state or the like, but each lives independently for itself, so that they have precisely this harmonizing effect on the whole, just as the three members of the human organism, as I have described, without this a healthy solution to the social problem, to the social puzzle, will never be found.

A structure must be created, and not by some abstract theory, even if this abstract theory were a party program, but by life itself, by the real factors of life in the social organism, the social body, in three independent structures: the economic structure, which has its own laws and can only live truly healthy through its own laws alone; a second structure, alongside this, or but developing in relative independence, a link that could be described as the actual political state link, as everything that a system of rights, a system of connections between human and human, has to establish; and a third relatively independent link, which needs its independence, its being based on its very own laws, that is everything that belongs to spiritual life.

Let us consider the economic sphere as the first limb of the healthy social organism. I said that if one wants to compare – but such a comparison must serve the purpose of understanding, not be some kind of arbitrary analogy – if one wants to compare, one can say that in economic life there is something for every limited social organism that develops in any territory, in any country, in any geographic area, there is something for such a social organism that could be compared to the original gifts, talents of the individual human organism.

Just as education – which is not life through mere learning, through mere imparting or any other artificial method – must neither ignore what is inherent in the nervous-sensory organism as an original gift, nor can it, so the economic life, which is the basis of the healthy social organism, is based on everything that constitutes the natural conditions of this economic life: the fertility of the soil, the raw materials available, everything that has to do with how these things can be processed, everything that connects man with the source from which he produces everything that is produced in trade and industry. This is the basis of economic life as a limited area, just as the gifts and talents of the individual human life are the basis of the talents of the social organism.

And indeed, this is where the great differentiations occur. This is where the social organism, as it were, receives something as a dowry. Just as a person receives his or her individual talents as a dowry, let us say a few examples, which I would say have a somewhat radical effect, to show what is actually meant.

Yesterday I spoke of the integration of human labor into the social organism. We will come back to this shortly. It is essential for the social problem of the present that human labor be stripped of the character of a commodity. But just as the rhythms of breathing and blood circulation are stripped bare of the mere metabolic life, so everything that relates to human labor power must be stripped bare in a healthy social organism, of all that springs from the laws that are peculiar to economic life.

But nevertheless, the life of breathing and the life of the heart are related to the life of metabolism. Human labor power is related to economic life in such a way that one can say: Depending on the preconditions of this economic life, human labor power is utilized in very different ways by it. Let us now look at the matter radically; but if it is not too strongly differentiated, the things are there after all; they are then only there to a lesser extent, but they still have an effect in the economic process. But let us look at something radical in order to visualize it. Let us say, for example, that we want to point to a country in which bananas could be a staple food, and want to compare such a territory of the earth, in which people can mainly feed themselves with bananas, with a country in which wheat yields an average harvest, such as in Germany. One can calculate the ratio of human labor required in one territory to that required in the other. The banana is so easy to transport from its point of origin to the point of consumption, and so easy to convert into what is then consumed. So little labor is required to make the banana into a consumer product in the economic process, compared to the labor required to make wheat into a consumer product in a country with an average wheat yield that the labor required for banana cultivation is 1:100 of the labor required for wheat cultivation, that is, one hundred times more human labor is required to make wheat consumable as a raw product for humans than for bananas.

But that also varies from territory to territory within the same article. If we look at the matter from a global perspective, there are major differences. But even on a more limited territory, such differences then arise. In Germany, if you look at the matter with a healthy average yield, wheat yields seven to eight times the yield compared to sowing, in Chile twelve times, in northern Mexico seventeen times, in Peru twenty times. There are regions where it yields twenty-five to thirty-five times as much. This requires a great difference in the human labor expended to bring a product, such as the conditions of the gifts and talents of human beings, that is given to the economic process to the point where it can be consumed, compared to the point of origin for such a product. Production of goods, circulation of goods, consumption of goods: these are the things that live in economic life, but which only economic life can embrace. Man has the need, precisely for such reasons – many similar ones could be added, such as the necessity in the multitude of human labor – man has the need to be connected, to be united with that which concerns the natural foundation, which concerns the other starting points of economic life.

This interconnectedness of human beings in the social organism with the economic conditions is what gives rise to the shaping of the laws that are peculiar to economic life. This economic life can only be based on the interpretation of those laws that arise from what has just been said. What is the basic aim of this economic life? Well, it can be said, esteemed attendees: that which must be active, must absolutely be active in this economic life, without which economic life cannot flourish, that is the human need, that is the need in general. There are also intermediate needs of these human needs: that is what can be called human interest. And certain thinkers in the field of social organization have rightly pointed out that only in the free activity of human interest, of direct human desire and of the interplay of desires and satisfactions in economic life, can the proper development of that economic life lie.

What is the aim of everything that now takes place in the interplay between need and the satisfaction of need in the production, circulation and consumption of goods? It is necessarily all aimed at the purpose of the commodity, at the consumption of the commodity, one could also say, at the most appropriate consumption of the commodity. Look around you wherever you want – if time allowed, I would expand on the concept of the commodity, but everyone feels that – if you want to look around you wherever you can in economic life, you will see that ultimately what matters in economic life is to consume what is produced in the most expedient way – in the most expedient way, I say, to consume.

What does that mean for the human labor force, esteemed attendees? If it has become clear in modern human life, precisely because of the flooding of this modern life with economic life in technology and capitalism, if it has become clear that the proletarian without property, whose own labor is brought to the labor market and is treated, precisely because it is on the labor market, as if it were a commodity, in terms of supply and demand, this is contrary to human dignity. For, in contrast to anything that may be a commodity, a person does not bring their own essence to market. But in the case of his labor power, he markets himself.

It is the abolition of this that the modern proletariat, out of a sense of human dignity, absolutely seeks. Perhaps here and there one will be found who, in full consciousness, can give the correct reasons for this demand; but in the subconscious, in the depths of human souls, in the depths of the proletarian souls, there lives what it is about. There lives a feeling in it: everything that comes onto the market of commodities is ultimately consumed in the most expedient way. But man must resist, absolutely resist, the mere consumption of his labor-power in the most expedient way in the labor-market of commodities. He feels that he has a value in himself, that he has something to preserve in himself, that he carries something in himself, which also lies in his labor-power, which must not be brought to the market of commodities, which must not be treated in the social organism as a commodity. Because in the tripartite social organism everything ultimately boils down to being consumed in the most expedient way, the modern proletariat cries out to the world: I do not want my labor power to become mere consumption for others.

This unconsciously underlies what I tried to work out yesterday as the one main aspect of the social question. And if you look at how it actually came about that, in the course of the development of modern technology and modern capitalism, labor was driven into the economic process, then, to understand this, you have to ask yourself: How did the economic conditions, the satisfaction of economic interests, the whirling up of the economy for the previously leading circles, for the previously leading classes, develop?

This is an essential and important question. They have not developed out of economic life, but precisely because in modern times there has been a fusion of state life with economic life that is no longer appropriate for these modern times; what has developed alongside the economy of humanity as the modern constitutional state, as the modern authoritarian state, is not what the proletariat was initially interested in, but what the so-called leading circles and leading classes were interested in. Within the development of modern technology and modern capitalism, these had an interest in regulating the economic underpinnings from the rights, as they were conceived, within the state adapted to the bourgeois and other ruling classes.

The oppressive aspect of economic life, the aspect that has created an unbearable situation for the proletariat in economic life, my dear attendees, does not come from economic life itself. It is a complete fallacy to believe that. And just as no defect in the metabolism or in the lungs can arise directly from a self-regulating metabolism, but only indirectly, so whatever in economic life has become oppressive for the proletarian world comes from – one need only study history, and one sees this if one is not blinded by prejudice, it stems from the history of conquests, from the history of the power relations and the legal relations that establish the power relations and the laws that oppress the proletariat. As I already mentioned yesterday, property relations are also based on laws. The oppressive nature of the proletariat's situation and the real pulse of the proletarian movement arise from such legal relationships.

Just as legal issues of the old state have worked their way down into economic life, the proletarian labor force, which has been pushed down into economic life by modern technical and capitalist development, must be taken up into legal life, which must now develop as an independent member in the healthy social organism alongside the economic member.

In this context, it really does not matter what they are called. If people prefer, they can call the economic organism the state and the other thing something else – the names are not important; what is important is that these two systems, these two links in the social organism, do not have a single centralization, but that each is centralized within itself, so that they can work side by side and harmonize precisely through their coexistence. That is what matters!

What can be state in the narrower sense can only encompass the regulatory system, that which takes place in the relationship between people. Just as the economic organism has interest in consumption, need and the satisfaction of needs, so the legal organism, the actual state organism, which must not be an economist, which must not engage in any economic activity at all, has the will to right at its core, in the healthy human [social] organism, which has the will to right at its core.

Rights can only exist in a state context. Economic interests can only exist in the economic body. And they must go side by side and together independently. That is it, if you look more closely, however little most people still believe it today, that is it, which has brought about such misfortune in modern life, which encompasses a representative body, an administration, economic life, and the state-regulating legal life. An independent system of representation is necessary for the purely political state. For the legal life, an independent representation, independent administration, for example in the Reichstag or in any ministry, is necessary. An independent administration, an independent ministry, but, to put it bluntly, for economic life, which is inherent in itself in terms of its administration and its perpetual further development, this will arise by itself. While the legal life of the state is concerned with the relationship between people, in that we must all be equal before the law, and while the legal life, if it is properly understood, can only result in a complete democracy, the economic life must be based on independent associations, on such associations that arise from the way people grow together, like the natural conditions previously characterized, in their economic life. Entire systems of associations will develop that, in a corresponding way, interpret the economic organism from the self-regulation of forces in such a way that it must and can be viable for everyone. These things are basically beginnings, yes; but beginnings in which many misunderstandings prevail. We have cooperatives – fine; we have trade unions, we have various other associations; certainly, such things have arisen out of the urge to serve the developmental forces of modern times. But partly from the form that such things have taken, partly from the fact that it is thought that economic life can be handed over to the state, to the community – in all these things it can be seen that in these new structures one does not want to include only what arises from the laws proper to economic life, but what must develop alongside economic life as an independent link in the social organism, namely, the political and legal life of the state, as described in the narrower sense. In contrast to all the concepts of labor and the position of labor in the social organism, as they haunt today, there will be, when these two elements of the healthy organism are juxtaposed, there will be, above all, as there is ownership in the old social organism, such a very different labor law in the new, healthy social organism, which will correspond to the present and the future.

As a result, dear attendees, one thing will happen: the fact that natural conditions are decisive to a certain extent for the formation of economic value in the circulation of goods is already ensured by these natural conditions themselves. But something else must become equally decisive. When what I have described occurs, when the relative independence of the legal sphere occurs, which in itself will comprehend the law of labor, then the value of the goods circulating in the economy will be limited in the same way as the natural conditions. Likewise, this value will be limited and determined by the labor that can be contributed to the economic process according to general human values and humane labor law. No true labor law can ever arise from the mere economic process itself, but only from the separate, relatively independent legal link of the healthy social organism.

This has been abandoned even in the heyday of capitalism, when the state, which is supposed to be merely a constitutional state, stretched its claws over the larger transport companies, especially railways and so on. And while what emerged as a social disease from the delusion of nationalization should be cured, a certain form of modern socialism seeks to continue the disease. That is what matters. For people do not see the following. They do not see what results in this area from a real understanding of the social organism.

Among the various schools that have emerged in modern times, one was already in the eighteenth century for economics. It is called the physiocratic school. This physiocratic school had, but in a terribly one-sided way, we would say today, according to the bourgeois method - it had the principle of the free circulation of economic forces and economic essence. The followers of this physiocratic system, who did not want the constitutional state to interfere in economic life, said the following. They said: Either the constitutional state issues laws that coincide with the laws that economic life already has of its own accord, in which case these laws are superfluous, or it issues laws that contradict the inherent laws of economic life – in which case these laws destroy the rightful existence of economic life; in that case they certainly should not be issued. – So said the physiocrats.

This seems extremely plausible – for what seems more plausible to the superficial person than such an either-or! But when it comes to the reality of life, such an either-or is nonsense, a folly. How so? In the following way: Economic life also develops when man does not want it to, when he interferes with it through all kinds of state laws; it develops independently through its own power, and it always has a certain tendency, always a certain directional force. After all, it tends to bring human coexistence into such a balance that it in turn has to be straightened out.

That is the great error of a certain radical socialism, that one believes that economic life could make people contented and happy if it followed its own laws. No, if it follows its own laws, then it will always end up in crisis-like conditions, which must be helped, and another system must intervene, just as the respiratory-pulmonary system must always intervene in the metabolic or head system to regulate it. Therefore, it is necessary to face reality: the laws of the constitutional state cannot run in the direction of economic laws. But because economic life requires constant correction, because otherwise it would consume people, it is precisely necessary that the laws of the constitutional state constantly limit, regulate, and correct mere economic life, just as metabolism is corrected by breathing. That is what matters.

Today, when we believe we are so practical, we have more and more abstract theories in our heads, not reality. We believe that something makes itself, and laws are there when we just think about what makes itself. Laws, institutions, and forces must often be applied in precisely the opposite sense of what is given from one side, so that a prosperous, healthy development can take place. That is what matters.

Therefore, the healthy spiritual-scientific method, which is based on reality, must not establish any abstract principles - and these are also party programs today - but must point to life. It must point out not how to think up that the labor power of the commodity character is stripped, but it must show what is to be created so that in the emerging social organism human labor power is really perpetually withdrawn from the commodity character. That is what is at stake here: the living shaping of reality. This is what is striven for by the much-maligned spiritual science, and what is most important in the present, what is truly urgently needed in the present: what is important is the living interaction. One cannot push the life of the social organism either economically or in mere rigid conservative legal codes.

Gladstone, one of the most superstitious bourgeois of modern liberalism, once said: “The Americans have such a perfect constitution that it could hardly be more perfect, that it has truly proven itself in all the individual circumstances of the American people.

Another Englishman, who, it seems to me, was cleverer, if perhaps not as great a statesman as Gladstone, said: it is no proof at all that the American administration is a perfect one, that it proves itself, Because if it were less than perfect, it would also prove itself, because the Americans are still such a healthy people – in the opinion of the person concerned – that they would do all this even with a less healthy constitution. And the latter is certainly more right than what Gladstone said, because it points to the living reality, because it really does not matter which laws prevail in a living context, but that people work together in such a way that the necessary damage that arises on one side is constantly corrected by the living forces on the other.

Imagine a homunculus in which the waste products of digestion are not produced inside, which in turn have to be removed by other forces – then you have thought up something that has no breath of life. Spintize, and even if it is in the sense of the most radical people of modern times, about a social organism that does not cause harm to people, that does not consume people, that does not need to have another link of the social organism besides itself other than the constitutional state, as the actual state, then you have thought up an unhealthy social organism. That is it, that one is always pushed again, by the practically minded, but in the most eminent sense impractical way of thinking of modern times, that one again penetrates to a conception of reality, to such thoughts that can submerge into true reality, that can speak of what conditions itself, not what wants to have conditionality out of human prejudices.

And as a third link, alongside the two links that I have mentioned – alongside the economic link and the strictly political or legal link – there must be development of that which encompasses spiritual life in the broadest sense, the spiritual life that exists in education, in all schooling, from the most elementary school up to the university; that which exists in the artistic life, and finally in the religious life, which must also include - this will again seem paradoxical to some today, although it arises from real factual considerations - that must also include [not] public law, the law that is conditioned by the relationship between human beings; it belongs to the second link.

But this third part must include everything that aims at private law and criminal law. There the individual human being is confronted with the individual human being in such an abnormal relationship that the public life of the constitutional state, although it is up to the one who - if I may express myself trivially - has to carry something out; but to pass judgment is the responsibility of a relationship between individual human beings. The execution of the judgment may in turn belong to the constitutional state.

Everything, dear attendees, belongs in this area, in this spiritual area, everything that must be based on the ground of the individual human soul and body, which can only arise from the individual, from the freedom of the human being, how it must be placed on the economic interest of the economic body, the independent one, and how it must be placed on the legal life of the political body, so must it be placed on freedom the body that encompasses the actual spiritual life. Modern social democracy has included a single area in an impulse that goes in the direction described here, but not out of an appreciation of this area, but precisely out of an underestimation of it: religion should be a private matter.

Of course it should be. And anyone who does not underestimate religion, but understands its full value, will demand this all the more! But in the face of the legal and economic state, all of intellectual life must be a private matter. And now that the social question of the present day is coming to a conclusion – for that is what it consists of, the merging of economic life with legal life, of the state with the economic organism – it is precisely through the emergence of the capitalist and technical world order in modern times that the merging has also occurred, which was not there at all before the point in time marked yesterday, before the fifteenth century. The amalgamation of intellectual life with state life. The interests of the emerging bourgeoisie, which were connected with the development of the modern state, also tended to have intellectual life absorbed into the organism of the state. Judges were needed, doctors were needed, theologians were also needed, teachers were needed, and so on and so forth. The state extended its omnipotence over the spiritual life as a result of this impulse.

This spiritual life must be redeemed again, and placed on its own ground, on the free individuality of the human being. Then, and only then, will it develop in a healthy relationship to the other two limbs of the social organism.

Sometimes things are very hidden and masked there. Perhaps only someone who, like the one speaking to you, has spent his whole life has avoided in any way bringing what he has striven for spiritually into any relationship with any state; who can therefore know how this spiritual life must develop when it is freely left to its own devices. And it must be left to its own devices if it is to develop.

The dependence of the spiritual life on the life of the state has not contributed in the slightest to the weakening of the impact of the spiritual life to the point of the dead ideology that the modern social question creates. For it is not only that the personalities who drive intellectual life come to depend on state life and have to serve the institutions of state life. Anyone who can look at these things in depth knows something else entirely: , he knows that the inner form, the content of spiritual life itself becomes dependent on its relationship to the other organisms, which can only be a healthy one if the spiritual life develops in complete independence. Otherwise, dependencies also conceal and mask themselves. If it occurs independently, if it occurs in complete freedom, if it is completely left to its own devices, then a healthy relationship with the legal and economic body will arise naturally in life. How we adjust our own impulses; otherwise, due to certain prejudices, we do not notice things. Let us take a case that could seem radical, but which is quite characteristic. Let us assume that some young student wants to take his doctorate in the field of philology. He is advised to write, say, about feeling words in some old Roman writer or about the [parenthesis] in Homer. Such a task even had to be done by a young friend of mine. For such a work, a young person needs a year of extensive work.

Those who are so asleep in today's scientific life will say: Well, scientific interests. Science demands such an investigation into the feeling words of an ancient Roman writer, or into the [parenthesis] in Homer. In this way, science is served. But there is something else to consider. The healthy relationship of such a work to the whole of human life must be considered. This must become transparent in the entire human [social] organism. The student who works for a year to determine the hidden [parenthesis] in Homer eats, drinks and dresses for a year. That is to say, a number of people have to work for this work, to work for a year to feed him, to clothe him, so that he can do in time that which certainly does not fit into the healthy human [social] organism in a proper interest! Because a spiritual achievement only fits into the healthy human organism with a proper interest if it is desired, if there is a need for it. That is what matters.

And something else is important. It depends on the healthy development of the spiritual part of the social organism that the spiritual part of human culture also has the corresponding momentum, that it really produces what is relevant to reality. From this spiritual life, for example, technical ideas also arise, that which, as a spiritual idea, constantly intervenes in economic life in a productive and creative way. This can only be born in a healthy way in a real spiritual life, not in a spiritual life that has been deadened to the point of abstraction, which can be described by the term ideology.

The important thing is not to fight against the leaders of the modern proletariat labeling spiritual life as ideology, but to recognize that spiritual life, which has emerged from the unfortunate amalgamation of spiritual culture with the other two links of the social organism, has reduced spiritual life to ideology. It is easy to describe modern intellectual life as ideology; but a productive, self-effective intellectual life must in turn occur in a healthy social organism. This will also have a healthy effect on economic and legal life. This in turn must be relatively independent.

That this life in spiritual culture, in the third link of the healthy social organism, must be built on itself, I believe I showed as early as the beginning of the nineties of the last century in my “Philosophy of Freedom” , which, I believe, is now being republished at the right time, and which shows that real freedom can only exist and is only justified where a true spiritual life can flourish.

Now there is far too little time to elaborate here on what I would like to say about the free spiritual life. But I would at least like to hint at it. I will hint at it by saying that a healthy consideration of the threefold human organism shows that what is produced out of the spiritual sphere will then intervene healthily in the other two organisms when the spiritual life is completely self-contained. For then, he who can have a leading position in economic life according to his own conditions will not only need the proletarian who toils and labors, and who will then no longer be there as such at all, but he will need the one who, as a spiritual worker, can be the consumer. But through labor legislation, he can preserve that part of his labor power, that is, of his life force, which must not be consumed in the labor market, but must be regulated by the second link of the healthy social organism. Today, at least within the capitalist economic system, the one who is in a leading - that is, today essentially capitalist - position has only an interest in the consumption of human labor in the proletarian. The healthy three-part social organism will not only have an interest in the working laborer, but also in the resting laborer, in the laborer who can consume what will strive for consumption. This will certainly not be what the young badger will do, spending a year writing about the sensory words of some old writer and doing a doctoral thesis, but it will be what is demanded, what is needed by spiritual life. A full unison, a living unison will arise between spiritual production and general human, spiritual consumption. No one will be excluded from what the spiritual life offers. And precisely because of the interconnection of the three parts of the social organism, which should be independent, so many people are actually excluded from what other people do.

Everything that is produced as the lifeblood of society in a healthy human organism must also flow in a healthy way into the other parts of the social organism. It will not be possible to say, esteemed attendees, that in the future, for example, in a constitutional state that will have a democratically oriented representation, the individual circles will also sit, that they can also form a party, an agricultural party and so on. This will not be the case for the reason that the interests that today develop in opposite directions will then develop in the same direction. Even the antagonism between the Conservative and Liberal parties will not exist in the future if the social organism is allowed to develop healthily, because in a constitutional state, the conditions that always arise concretely will not be oriented objectively towards conservatives, liberals and so on, according to the slogan, I say slogans.

So today I could only sketch for you, dear attendees, what is at stake, in that not only a transformation of circumstances, but a transformation of the whole life for the social organism must occur.

On February 28, I will give another lecture here. There I will give individual evidence and details, and also show that for everything I have hinted at today, only a sketch could be given, that for all this there is a proving, a reasoning science. So that is to take place here in this hall on February 28.

Today, I would just like to point out that this terrible catastrophe that has befallen humanity for four and a half years, as I already mentioned yesterday, has highlighted the social question as a major question of world history, on which every person must take a practical stand based on life.

It is necessary for each individual to take a position on what has happened. One will soon be convinced how the life of each individual depends on the position he will take on the social problem, on the social riddle in the future. That is why it happened that way, because I always these things - allow me here, a personal but in reality not personal, but quite objective remark - because I did not invent these things to make something up, but because I won them from the observation of the present human that I wanted to put them into practice more and more when this terrible catastrophe of war reached a certain point, where one could see that it would develop out of the absurdity of previous forces, that it would develop into the essential social problem of humanity. During that war catastrophe, I tried, for example, to present to individuals, sensed and adapted to the circumstances, that the time demands something like the social impulse, which I have also explained here in yesterday's and today's lecture.

In a sense, I wanted to show personalities who were still active at the time, but have now been swept away, what they need if they are to contribute to changing that which proves to be diseased in the social organism. And so I had to speak to many people, to those who still mattered at the time, about what I am saying here. It is not a program that has been thought out, not something that has been thought out, but reality, in that the forces that are at work within the development of humanity will bring about what will happen in ten or twenty years over a large part of Europe. And to many I said, I believed that their hearts and souls could be stirred by it, to many I said: You now have the choice, if you still want to join in, either to follow that which will happen because it must happen, out of reason, or you wait until social cataclysms and social revolutions come.

People were drawn into what they were drawn into more quickly than could be hinted at in those days. In those days, the word “could” meant “was allowed to”. That was the way one had to speak in those days. But people did not want to listen. We have also experienced similar things in other areas! We have experienced that statesmen, leading statesmen, as late as May 1914, announced to parliaments in the most prominent positions: We are in such a European context that peace is secured for a long time. — This can be proved to them. People are that far-sighted!

However, anyone who is serious about what is really going on would have had to speak differently to people at the time. Before this military disaster, I repeatedly had to hint at what I, in turn before this military disaster, said like the others, like the statesmen: Peace is assured, we now live in one of the best of worlds. I was told in Vienna: This tendency - namely the tendency that lies in the present social life - will become ever greater and greater until it destroys itself. He who has a spiritual grasp of social life sees everywhere the terrible growth of social ulcers. That is the great cultural question that arises for him who sees through existence; that is the terrible thing that has such a depressing effect and that, even if one could suppress all enthusiasm for spiritual science, if one could suppress what would otherwise open one's mouth for spiritual science, which could then lead one to cry out to the world, as it were, for the remedy for what is already so strongly on the rise and will become stronger and stronger if the social organism continues to develop as it has done so far. This is how cultural damage occurs, which can be seen for this, for the social organism, just as cancerous growths can be seen for the natural human organism.

Faced with the social question, we are faced with the possibility that people will continue to sleep through events, that they will not listen to what must necessarily be said to the social organism, just as it can be said to the natural organism when someone has a cancerous ulcer inside.

Not only did people refuse to see the full implications of what I mean in the course of the war catastrophe so far – they took what they understood of it, usually in such a way that it can only be seen as an expression of the internal politics of this or that state. I did not then and do not now mean it only as the domestic policy of this or that state territory, but I do mean it in such a way that I find it rooted in the developmental forces towards which humanity is heading. And I mean it first and foremost as the foreign policy of the various states.

That is what I have emphasized above all: that certain states, to whom it concerns, have to hold these things up to the world as their foreign policy. If we consider that one state is not so closely connected with another as they would have been, for example, these European states in 1914, that the unnatural mixing of the political and state problem to the southeast of Austria, the Austro-Serbian problem, of ill-starred memory, - the states would not have linked their economic and political interests in such a way, the social organisms would not have linked their interests in such a way as they were linked in Europe, and therefore alliances arose that necessarily developed to such an extent after a certain point that ultimately decisions were made from the most one-sided strategic-military points of view.

Let us assume that the states are in a relationship in which the threads are drawn, the legal ones, which will essentially be the same for all states - the actual political relationships will be the same for all states, especially in the case of a healthy organism - then the economic and intellectual threads will intertwine. More and more, the one will be corrected by the other. And precisely where today, at the borders, the contradictions have arisen as a result of the interconnection of the three areas, these contradictions will be corrected when, regardless of the political relationship, the system of economic efficiency extends across the borders.

I can only hint at this here. But it should mean, it should point out, that the various territories of the world, through what is characterized here as a healthy social organism, come into such a system that, in contrast, the League of Nations, as it is conceived today, will be an abstraction, into such a system that is based on reality, so that one reality increasingly excludes the damage of the others. That is what matters today.

Now, esteemed attendees, what I have presented is perhaps more uncomfortable for many than what these same many imagine as the solution to the social question today. Because you can very easily see from what I have presented – as I said, more on February 28 – but you can already see from what I have presented today that one cannot imagine: The social question has arisen, clever people will solve it, and then socialism will be here. But it is not like that. It is contrary to all development.

Of course, the social question is here because human development has entered a new stage of existence, because new forces have emerged. But since it has been here, this social question will not disappear for all time in the future development of humanity. Economic life will continue to be more and more a social question. It will not be possible to invent a socialism that will solve the social question at a stroke. But it will be possible to create a healthy social organism in which the social question will be solved in a living context through the active engagement of people, day by day, year by year, epoch by epoch, in an ongoing process. No solution of the social question that can be thought of today must be allowed to take place. I am not pointing out institutions to you that will eliminate the social question. It is there, it is there as a life force of future humanity. The life of this future humanity will consist in the fact that this future humanity will have to create something through which the solution of the social question will be experienced perpetually. The existence of the social question, the existence of social development, will be enriched, not impoverished; a new element of life will enter into the social organism. That is what matters: the self-regulation of social life through the three relatively independent social links, that is what matters.

When I consider this, and when I consider that the general prejudice that once prevailed against spiritual science is also applied when this spiritual science speaks about the social question, on the one hand it strikes me that a very well-known gentleman had it said to him when a certain goal was explained to him, which I am practically striving for in terms of rebuilding the ailing conditions of the civilized world – in a brief appeal, the person in question was able to read, in a few sentences, what I have explained to you yesterday and today – he replied: he would have thought that I would not point to such economic things for the recovery of the current human situation, but to the spirit.

Now, dear ones, this shows how the minds, how those who have worked with us for a long time, brought about the disaster, and even today do not want to see what is important. It is not enough to just preach: spirit, spirit and spirit. It is not enough to call out to people today: but rather that we use this spirit to immerse ourselves in the actual conditions and to control the actual conditions as they must develop in accordance with reality. It depends on how the spirit is applied in life. It does not depend on repeatedly pointing out in the abstract: Spirit, spirit, spirit must be placed back into humanity, then all will be well.

That is one thing that occurs to me. The other thing that occurs to me in response to what the clever people are saying: what does the spiritual scientist want in the social question? I would like to reply: he wants to adjust human thinking and feeling and willing to true reality, just as he does in everything else. This reminds me of the poor boy who once sat as a servant at a Newcomen steam engine. He had to take out and push in the two cocks alternately, which let in the condensate on one side and the steam on the other. And then this boy noticed that the balancer was jumping up and down. It occurred to him, because he was not forming theories, but was standing at the machine itself, it occurred to him: What would happen if I took two cords, pulled one at a time, and the other at the other? And behold, the balancer went up and down, and all by itself, one tap opened at the right time and came down again, and the other from the other side. And the boy could watch! You see, someone of the ilk of those people who observe everything that is observed from reality poorly and say, “You good-for-nothing boy, what are you doing! Get rid of the cords. – World history has done it differently. World history has allowed the self-control of the steam engine, one of the most important modern inventions, one of the inventions that has most comprehensively intervened in modern technical life, to emerge from this initially poor boy who tied the cockerel to the balance arm.

Not out of immodesty, and not to characterize something for the one who is already established in the teaching represented here, but to characterize those who would like to come, to speak in relation to the social aperçu that I have presented, to speak, so to speak, from the standpoint of their cleverness, as one would have said: “Stupid boy, quickly get rid of what you are doing, what nonsense are you up to?” Leave it alone! I would only like to say to them what occurs to me with regard to the little working boy, as I have told you. For people will soon have to realize, those who cannot do it with their minds will have to realize it with their lives and with their feelings - they will have to realize that they have to approach the reality of the social question in a realistic way. It is there; it has been knocking at the door of human life for long decades and has come in through the door. It will not allow itself to be thrown out again by anyone. The desire to throw it out will be the worst policy. But it will also be bad if people do not listen at the right time to what needs to be said about the social question. Because then it could be that communication from person to person, across class lines, is no longer possible because the instincts have been unleashed too strongly. We need only look at the fire signs that are rising on the world horizon today to realize that we have to deal with the issues at hand, otherwise it could well be too late due to the unleashing of human instincts that can no longer be calmed – perhaps not for decades!