The Big Questions of our Time and Anthroposophical Spiritual Knowledge

GA 336 — 4 April 1919, Dornach

7. The Key Points of the Social Question

Dearly beloved! The significant facts that have emerged in the social life of the entire civilized world today, and which are being spoken of loudly and clearly, have arisen out of the catastrophe of the World War, which has lasted almost five years. Those who look at the world today with an alert consciousness instead of being spiritually asleep, in order to perceive what is on the horizon, cannot help but come to the conclusion that only significant, far-reaching measures can meet the challenge that stands before humanity today as a requirement of world history.

The time when it was easy to talk about all kinds of understandings through which, in a certain way, the old could be maintained in a comfortable way, that time is well past. Today it can only be about a completely, completely different understanding, about man's understanding with the great world-historical forces that want to be realized sensually from the present into the near future.

But although one has heard enough from some people in the last four to five years to say that with the world war catastrophe, an event has befallen humanity such as has never occurred in the course of what is usually called history, on the other hand, one cannot experience many feelings for the fact that in a time in which things are happening that have not yet happened in history, thoughts and measures must also be conceived and taken that, in a certain way, have never been taken before in the history of humanity.

Can it be said, esteemed attendees, that in recent times much understanding has been shown for the world-historical situation and its demands, in which we have come to be? If one wants to answer this question, then it actually presents an almost hopeless picture for today. Because, if you will allow me a personal comment, in the spring of 1914 I tried to summarize the judgment that I had been able to form from an honest observation of the situation over the past decades regarding the European and world situation. In the spring of 1914, before the terrible events of that year occurred, I tried to express to a small circle – a larger one would probably have laughed at me with my views at the time – how I actually see this coming world situation. And I had to say: That which is observed by someone who really has an eye for observing the great destinies of men, must say: We live in a time in which social and great political life is unfolding as if there were a great social ulcer, a kind of cancer that must soon break out in a terrible way. And I added the words at the time: One would like to shout out such a realization, so that people understand what is actually at stake.

Of course, “statesmen” – I say that today with caution, because one would be wise to only mention statesmen in quotation marks today – (laughter), “statesmen” spoke differently in the spring and early summer of 1914. For example, in the German Reichstag. The foreign minister, who was responsible for the events, said something like this: Through the efforts of the European cabinets, one can say that there is hope that world peace will not be disturbed in the near future. This was said by a leading statesman in May 1914. One may well ask oneself: What do people actually see of what is being prepared?

Well, this peace, which was so secure, has, at least, brought about twelve million deaths and three times as many people maimed in Europe. One may ask: Were the responsible leaders at the time somehow prophetic? They certainly were not. And now, again, from the most authoritative quarters, we are hearing similar unfounded judgments about that which is now pulsating as the most important thing in human development. The most important thing in human development, which lives and which pushes towards events that are just as meaningful, much more meaningful than those that have taken place in such a terrible way, is the social question, that is the social movement.

Now, it cannot be said, my esteemed audience, that the people who belong to the leading circles to date, out of some kind of devilish malevolence – even today, when the water is running into their mouths, so to speak – out of some devilish malevolence, are showing themselves to be absolutely unintelligent towards what is to happen and what wants to be realized. But something quite different underlies it. And it is actually because of this quite different thing that I would like to speak from my point of view on this very question.

What is at the root of the matter can be seen if one takes a little time to study the origins of what is known as the social question, which today – as the loud facts testify – has become something completely different from what it actually was four or five years ago; but it is a question that has been around for more than half a century. Due to modern developments, people are separated from each other as if by a deep chasm, by an abyss. On the one hand, there are those who have never tired of praising the high civilization of humanity that modern times have brought about, tremendously and completely. What songs of praise have been sung about this modern civilization! One only needs to remember a few. How often have people, when it suited them, said: There we have modern achievements, modern means of transportation, through which one can travel long distances at speeds that would have seemed fabulous to ancient people. Thoughts flash across the seas with lightning speed. And what about the actual spiritual culture, how it has been showered with adulation. But one must ask oneself: on what foundation did all that live, which was literally inundated with this adulation? Without what has all this modern civilization not become possible? It did not come about without being built on the foundation created by the great mass of humanity who were not allowed to and could not participate, who were in an economic situation that prevented them from participating in all the things that were praised. (“Bravo!”) This civilization has grown up on this basis, the basis of the physical and mental hardship and misery of a large part of humanity, on this basis it has grown up, through which a large part of humanity has actually lost its human dignity. One only has to look – I would say – at the time when the social question first arose in its very first attempts.

The people who sang the praises of this modern civilization came together, well, in mirrored halls for all I care; they talked a lot about the divine order of the world, talked a lot about what makes people good; talked a lot about the fact that people have to love each other; talked a lot about brotherhood. They spoke about these things in well-lit rooms with well-heated stoves. Where did they get the coal for these speeches about brotherly love and loyal fraternity, speeches that were made with all kinds of justifications? Yes, until the middle of the nineteenth century, it was possible to determine the basis on which this modern civilization had developed, through an investigation that the English government had conducted at the time. This indulgence in all sorts of empty talk about brotherhood of man and so on arose only from the fact that in the coal mines people work from a very young age. Some children as young as nine, eleven, thirteen! So they were put down into the mine shafts and never saw the light of day except on Sundays, because they were led down into the shafts so early that the sun was not yet shining, and so late that the sun was no longer shining. Due to the nature of the mining work, it was inevitable that these workers in particular would lose all sense of shame; naked men with half-naked women had to work together down there, on the one hand doing the most terrible work, on the other hand constantly in mortal danger. Well, I don't need to describe this to you any further. These things have truly not improved through the merit of those who sang the praises of civilization, but through the organization of the oppressed, they have improved somewhat since then. But the abyss has remained. The gap is there. Not much understanding has been gained since then for what the proletarian social movement really is. (“Bravo!”)

Now, when you see something like this, you may well ask: what is it about the ruling circles that makes it seem almost hopeless that anything favorable will come from them in the near future? Above all, in an age when so much is said about spiritual progress and so on, above all it is – this must be said without reservation – thoughtlessness. (“Very true!”) This lack of thought has taken a terrible hold on people because, above all, they are far too lazy to look at the realities. And so it has come about that the most unfounded judgments can be heard today about what is pushing its way to the surface as a legitimate demand from the souls of the broad masses of the proletariat. Of course, one does not have to go as far as the former German Kaiser – admittedly a man who was as far removed from the demands of modern times as any human being can be – one does not have to go as far as he who once said: social-minded people are like animals (Pfuil) that gnaw away at the foundations of the German Reich and must be exterminated. One need not go as far as he did, but a greater understanding of what is necessary is certainly emerging from certain quarters that were previously in the lead.

What must be emphasized again and again is that what today appears to some as such a terrible fact, which above all arises out of the life of the proletariat, is a powerful world-historical critique of what the ruling classes have done over the centuries. Until now, it was mostly a criticism that came from the assemblies in a very significant way – you just have to know it – in which the proletarians, for decades, again and again, shouted in the face of those who were the leaders up to now: It can't go on like this! In those gatherings, which the proletarians struggled for after working all day, in those gatherings, in which - as those who have lived with the issues know - the most serious human questions were discussed in a meaningful way over decades, at the same time as people outside were sitting in some worthless theater or spent their time in an even more reprehensible way, or even played cards. During this time, tremendous intellectual demands have emerged from the depths of the proletariat, something quite different from a mere question of bread or wages, as many today would like to believe, conveniently. Not many on the part of those who were the leading circles until now have any idea of this.

If we now ask: what were the underlying reasons for the views of the proletarian world? – we come across three human areas, those areas that we encounter again and again in social life. Firstly, there is the area of spiritual life; secondly, the area of legal life; thirdly, the area of economic life. These three areas are also the basis for consideration, for true, realistic consideration of the social question, which is actually threefold: an economic, a legal and a spiritual question.

Allow me, esteemed attendees, to speak here in this Goetheanum, as elsewhere, but especially here, first of all about the proletarian question as a spiritual question. When speaking of the origin of the social question, namely the origin of the proletarian movement, much has been said, and it has always been pointed out again how, under the influence of modern technology, of modern industry, and under the influence of, above all, modern capitalism, that which is called the proletarian movement has developed. Of course, what has been said is all true, to a certain extent; but something else comes into consideration.

Above all, it is important to consider that with modern technology, with modern factory systems, with what must be described as the soul-destroying modern capitalism, a newer spiritual life befell humanity. This spiritual life was, however, initially developed in the bourgeois classes. The bourgeois classes have developed this newer intellectual life, which could be called scientifically oriented intellectual life, out of the old religious and other ideas. The proletarian world, which has been torn away from the circumstances in which it used to be, which has been led to the desolate machine, has been harnessed to the desolate capitalism, this proletarian world accepted this intellectual life of the bourgeois class with trust.

It is an important fact that in more recent times this proletariat has, so to speak, placed a last great world-historical trust in the bourgeoisie, and that this trust has been betrayed. («Very true! Bravo!») Let me speak first of this betrayal of world-historical trust.

I believe that I am not speaking out of some abstract theory, because I know how the intellectual life is lived within the proletariat, having worked at the Berlin Workers' Education School founded by the old Wilhelm Liebknecht. I myself taught the most diverse branches of this intellectual life. And from there I was able to gain access to the intellectual life of the various trade unions and cooperatives, as well as the political parties. There one saw how quite differently in the souls of the modern proletarians that which is called the modern, scientifically oriented enlightenment lives on. There you could learn not to think about the proletariat, as many believe today – that has no value – but to familiarize yourself so that you can think with the proletariat. That is what matters today. (“Very true!”) What matters most is to recognize that however enlightened we may be with regard to the newer natural science orientation, which has replaced the old religious orientation, it remains an enlightenment of the head. It remains an enlightenment alongside which all sorts of other things can persist in social life. One can be honestly convinced in one's mind by this newer scientific world view, just like the great naturalist Vogt or the popularizer of science Büchner, but if one belongs to the real leading circles, one is still part of a social order that is actually still made up of the old views. With their theoretical understanding, they accepted this scientific orientation; but they did not take it seriously for their whole being. This is what the modern proletariat had to do in its deepest soul.

Once, in Spandau, I stood on the podium at the same time as Rosa Luxemburg, who was recently tragically killed in Berlin. We were both talking about science and the workers. What Rosa Luxemburg said in her measured, thoroughly noble manner was, I would say, a perfect reflection of how the newer worldview affects the souls of proletarians. I will just hint at what Rosa Luxemburg said at the time. She said, for example, that the newer worldview had driven out of people the belief that they had all actually lived like angels at the beginning of the development of the earth; no, she said to the people, actually we were all quite indecent as humans at the beginning of the development of the earth and climbed around in the trees like climbing animals. That gives no reason to find justified the present class and rank differences. That gives a quite different idea of how people, in fact, should stand side by side in the world according to their physical origin. Yes, when this is said to the proletarian, who is compelled to make what used to be called a religious worldview out of these things, when it is spoken in such a way that it is received by the whole person, not just by the head, one can see what has struck the soul of the modern proletarian, how something completely different than a mere bread-and-butter question, which is certainly also the social question – we will talk about this in a moment – but something other than a mere bread-and-butter question, a question of human dignity, which is intimately connected with the other question that every human being must somehow ask, with the question: What am I actually in the world as a human being?

The medieval craftsman, who still said of his trade with a certain justification that it had a golden floor, could answer this question from his relationship to the craft. There was still a kind of professional honor for him from this relationship to the craft; there was also something that told him clearly: I have a certain value in human society. The dull machine, the soulless capitalism, they said nothing about that, absolutely nothing. They simply pointed out to the human being who had been put in front of one of these machines, who had been harnessed to capitalism, that this human being had to answer this question for himself in the modern scientific orientation: What am I actually as a human being? Above all, what is important from the world view, from science, is what has to do with human development, with human value and human dignity.

As I said, the proletarian placed his last great world-historical trust in what had been worked out – though it had been worked out by significant minds from within the bourgeois social order. He placed this last great trust because he believed that the question could be answered for him: What am I as a human being within human society?

Now, people said, based on their now enlightened worldview: human development is part of the divine order of the world. Or: it is the expression of the moral order of the world; or: historical ideas prevail. And what takes place in the human being is the result of historical ideas, of great world-historical thoughts.

The proletarian saw nothing when he was attached to his machine, harnessed to capitalism, by a divine world order, by a moral world order; he saw only modern economic life; he saw how all that what took place as intellectual life and what people called the divine world order, how it sprouts and emerges from what modern technology and modern capitalism have offered to the leading circles.

That then also became his view. His view was that basically everything that these leading circles have as intellectual life is basically a kind of luxury for them, in which those who are just as entitled to participate in what is produced as these leading circles are not allowed to participate. (“Very true! Bravo!”)

This was deeply ingrained in the souls of the proletariat. And in the scraps that fell from the table where what was concocted in bourgeois intellectual kitchens was offered to the people. They did not want to be fobbed off with that, but they placed above all the greatest value on understanding the spiritual life of humanity, understanding it differently than it has shaped itself out of the bourgeois development of modern times. What had developed there was, of course, seen as nothing other than a mirror image of what had developed in the state and economic life for the leading circles. It was rightly asserted that, in more recent times, this intellectual life was a mirror image of the economic life of those circles that had been favored by the newer economic life. This intellectual life was repeatedly called an ideology. The term “ideology” for this luxury intellectual life became that which, on the one hand, showed what the proletarian felt this intellectual life to be; on the other hand, it showed what he longed for: a real intellectual life that could penetrate his soul in such a way that this soul felt its connection with something that went beyond the most everyday interests in the machine and in capitalism.

Here, too, one need not always go as far as the late German emperor, who once called the proletarians not only enemies of the ruling circles, but enemies of the divine world order; (movement among the audience) but in a certain sense, one felt in the ruling circles in this area no different. What did the proletarian see of this whole intellectual life when he wanted to get a clear idea of it according to the truth? What did he see of it? Oh, what he saw of it – in one word it resounded again and again through decades and decades, since Karl Marx coined and processed this word in an understandable way for the proletariat, that is the word surplus value. Today, timid minds talk about this word surplus value in a very strange way. But the proletarian actually understood the following about surplus value: I have to produce this whole luxury intellectual life, this surplus value that feeds it. The proletarian felt nothing other than that he had to produce the surplus value for this intellectual life, and that this surplus value produces an intellectual life that erects a deep chasm between itself and the innermost needs of the soul. That is why Karl Marx and his followers found so much understanding in the souls of the proletarians, because from their deepest feelings – they did not even need to penetrate into everything theoretically – they experienced in their bodies what the added value actually means, which is subtracted from their labor and flows into channels that do not lead to their own habits of life. («Bravo!»)

Thus, in the realm of intellectual life, the first part of the modern social question arose, which is expressed in the concept of surplus value. The proletarian had to look into this surplus value; and what was produced from this surplus value escaped him, in that he could not participate in it as a human being. This is the first part of the social question, in so far as it took place in the realm of intellectual life. The proletarian could only see some kind of capitalism in this spiritual life, something that was entirely built on the basis of modern capitalism; certainly, on other foundations as well, but initially on this foundation of modern capitalism in the form of surplus value.

The second basis of life, from which the social demand arose, was the legal basis. What is justice? Dear attendees, talking about justice is actually just as difficult and just as easy as talking about the color blue to someone who is color-blind or blind, blind to what wells up in the healthy human mind, blind to what true justice is. A large part of humanity has indeed become blind under the influence of the modern economic system. That is why it is so difficult to talk to these people, just as it is difficult to talk about red or blue to a blind person. For if he wanted to stand on the legal ground and looked around him, what has the proletarian found on this legal ground in modern times? Rights? No, not rights, but privileges, especially for those who have come to these privileges through the modern economic order, or who have come to these privileges through old rights of conquest. What expressed itself on this legal ground was not the effect of the law; it was what the modern proletarian grasped with the word: class struggle. (“Bravo! Very true!”) The modern proletarian looked at the modern state by placing himself in relation to this modern state in such a way that he said to himself that this modern state did not represent what, as we shall hear shortly, every state should be: a living out of the law; but this state was the soil for the modern class struggle. And that is the second thing, in addition to surplus value: the modern class struggle, which confronted the modern proletarian; his class consciousness arose from this surplus value and the class struggle. His great longing is to overcome this class struggle. A social order in which there is no longer the terrible struggle of the rule of one class over another. That is the second form of the social question: the one against the rising class struggle.

The third form arises from economic life, if one has a healthy grasp of economic life. That which can actually be called economic life. What moves in this economic life? What should move in this economic life? Production of goods in the broadest sense, of course, that every human achievement that is required by human need is a commodity, production of goods, circulation of goods, consumption of goods.

But in more recent times, something else has been mixed into this economic cycle of production, circulation and consumption of goods, a remnant of an economic order of ancient times that had passed away, and which the modern capitalist people did not want to help overcome.

In ancient times, esteemed attendees, there were slaves; not only goods, not only what was produced by man or what was under man in nature, like the animal, was bought and sold on the goods market according to supply and demand, but man himself, who was a slave. Man was mixed among the goods. Man was pushed down into the economic order.

In the Middle Ages, serfdom existed for this purpose; less so, people were bought and sold. In more recent times, what remained was what Karl Marx again drew attention to. But in this area, one must be even more radical than Marx in view of the demands of modern times; he pointed out that within the modern commodity market, the human labor of the proletarian is still available as a commodity. This labor power is bought and sold on the market according to supply and demand, like any other commodity. (“Disgusting!”)

Basically, esteemed attendees, can the proletarian, as he has to live today, separate his humanity, his human dignity from his labor power? He must sell his labor power, sell in a certain sense his whole human being, when he sells his labor power [as a commodity]. (“Very true!”) That is the last remnant of the [medieval] world order in capitalism. That is the third great socialist demand, to divest human labor of the character of a commodity. Anyone who thinks sanely knows that human labor and human strength are something that cannot be compared to any commodity, that must not appear on the market like a commodity, that cannot be compared in price with any other commodity. Nevertheless, people are reluctant to remove from the economic cycle what human labor is.

People who are highly valued today because they played a certain, sometimes quite dubious role in the last period of the war, such as Rathenau, for example, he wrote in his latest book, “After the Flood” - by flood he means the last war catastrophe - he wrote: It would not really be appropriate to remove labor from the economic cycle. — That the actual proletarian demand for this is what such people sense; but in their anxious, thoughtless minds they do not find it advisable for the labor force to be stripped of the character of a commodity. Because – so Rathenau thinks – as a result, a great devaluation of money would flood over the entire modern economic order. — This is what is feared: the devaluation of money through the detachment of labor from the pure economic cycle. But it was precisely in this third demand, the detachment of labor from the mere pricing by the economic process, that the modern proletarian sensed that with which he summarized his question of human dignity and human value. Over the course of the last few centuries, and particularly in the nineteenth century, he had been drawn into the economic process in a new way.

This economic process, dear attendees, can be the subject of very interesting studies if we follow this modern economic process across the entire civilized world and see how it led to the terrible catastrophe of recent years. In essence, it was the economic process that grew out of capital that led to this terrible catastrophe, and we will not emerge from it merely as the people who want to conduct peace negotiations imagine. The fact that we will emerge in a completely different way is shown by the weather signs, for which, unlike in the case of world war, there are no hostile forces and neutral ones; it is shown by the social question, which will somehow stop at no territorial borders. This question, which will be an international question in the most eminent sense, and will bring international facts to the surface of human existence that the world has never seen before, shows this. This must be revealed at some point. Those who do not want to see it will be able to experience it first hand. (“Bravo, very true!”)

Now, esteemed attendees, in the economic process, the one who, although still in a cautious way, but in a very clear way, criticized the modern social order, as it was already possible in his time, found out, cautiously, but nevertheless very radically, pointed out to Goethe in the second part of “Faust” what it was actually due to. He lists the saints and the knights as actually originating from times gone by within the economic process, as he says. They stand every storm – so says the chancellor in the second part of Goethe's Faust: They stand every storm, the saint and the knight! – So says Goethe about the leading, guiding circles, the saints and the knights.

Now, in more recent times, dear attendees, these saints and these knights have changed somewhat. The saints have sometimes become quite unholy statesmen (laughter), and the knights have become modern militarism in its most diverse forms. (“Bravo, very true!”) They also stand and have stood their ground in every storm. But Goethe goes on to say something very true: they demand church and state as a reward, namely, everything that he understands by the spiritual life. And they also demand the state as a reward. (Laughter.) They have economic life for themselves anyway, they don't need to demand that first.

This is the part of Goethe's world view that still shines brightly in our time. And we need not stop at the old Goethe, but understand his applications in terms of the immediate present. («Hear, hear!»)

From all this we see that there is actually a threefold social question: the proletarian demands, as they arise as world-historical demands in this period, they show a threefold character, as I have stated. One is based on the spiritual, on the spiritual ground; the second is on the legal ground, the third is on the economic ground. Of the spiritual goods, the proletarian only recognizes that which he must provide as his basis, the added value. On the ground of the state, he sees himself only in the class struggle. And on the ground of economic life, he sees himself harnessed into the cycle of economic life, so that not only goods circulate in it, but also his own labor, that is, his flesh and blood.

Now I come to what I have had to form for myself from decades of observing European social conditions, from observing all that is being prepared and that will take shape in the coming decades. Of course, I can imagine that there are many here in this hall who will not entirely agree with the ideas that I can only sketch out here, as I present them. I can understand that. (Laughter.) But that is not the point. The point is that these ideas, as I intend to present them, are taken from reality. We can agree on this reality. If the agreement is built on an honest foundation, then an agreement will be found with those who are truly honest about the demands of modern times, which will be different from the one that people often talk about today.

During the war catastrophe itself, my dear attendees, I said to many a statesman – I emphasize once again, I say today “statesman” only in quotation marks – I said to many a “statesman”: said: What needs to be done is already clear today: You have the choice of either accepting reason today or letting what should and must happen befall you, facing revolutions and cataclysms. – One preached to deaf ears during the war catastrophe.

For example, not very far north of here during the war catastrophe, the world only had an ear for a personality who was considered to be quite practical at the time. What was not known about this personality – I am referring to Ludendorff – was that he was a visionary of the very first order , a person who was completely out of touch with reality, the likes of whom have not been seen since; anyone who had the opportunity to get to know this person, despite all the underlying reasons, knows that this person had not been fully compos mentis since August 5, 1914. Of course, you can make very clever strategic plans, but you can also be crazy. Every psychiatrist would have to admit that. (Laughter.)

The history of the war in recent years, ladies and gentlemen, will in many respects be a social psychiatry, a social doctrine of delusion. We will be able to learn a lot in this area; but we will have to have the courage to look into the truths. And this truth is, above all, that in recent years humanity has got itself so bogged down in false ideas that these false ideas have come to light in the horrors of this terrible war catastrophe.

When I ask myself: What is it that has actually caused everything that has developed in modern states over time to become the way it has become? I will start by giving you an example. The example is not taken from Switzerland. However, the social question is now an international question, and it must be studied where the examples are most clearly evident – the example is taken from Austria, which has now fallen to its fate. Austria would never have come to the disastrous Austro-Serbian conflict if social, legal and intellectual life in Austria had not developed in the way it did under the influence of completely wrong ideas, since the 1880s, when the development of a constitutional life, the constitutional life of the Austrian Reichsrat, began. What was that like? Members were elected by curia of the large landowners, the cities, markets and industrial centers, the curia of the chambers of commerce, the curia of the rural communities. The latter were only allowed to vote indirectly; the others were allowed to vote directly. (Laughter.) From these economic curia – for you will admit that they are purely economic curia – the members of the Austrian Imperial Council were elected. But this Austrian Reichsrat had to decide on the law. That is, one was guided from the outset by the view that legal life should develop only through the transformation of economic interests. Economic life was completely shifted into legal life. This has also been evident in other areas.

Of course, the German Reichsrat, for example, had universal suffrage. This had often been discussed, even direct suffrage – but it was precisely in more recent times that the new farmers' alliance was able to establish itself very firmly, that is to say, purely economic interests on the legal ground. I could now present you with countless examples of this kind, in which it is shown how precisely the blessings of modern times were sought, precisely the true progress of the times, by merging economic life with legal life. And today there are still people who cannot imagine that economic life should not actually be treated as one with the legal life. The propertied, leading classes, those who demand church and state as a reward, they initially found it convenient to include the telegraph, postal and transport systems in the sphere of the state. Then it went on and on. But especially for certain branches, they did not try to directly merge economic life and state life, but they tried to get the protection of the state for the dominant economic interests. And when one day one studies without prejudice why this war developed, then one will also find among the causes the unfortunate amalgamation of economic interests with legal and state interests in Central Europe. (“Bravo!”)

On the one hand, there is the attempt to fuse state life with economic life. On the other hand, intellectual life has been linked to state life. This intellectual life – after all, it was seen as a very special advance in modern times that this intellectual life did not develop independently, but was harnessed into state life. Indeed, most people today cannot even imagine that it is possible and necessary to retreat in this area, that one must work towards emancipating intellectual life again, detaching it from the state, and allowing economic life to develop on its own free foundation. People have developed and are still developing all kinds of short-sightedness in this area. This intellectual life, one can see, and I believe I have the right to say so, ladies and gentlemen, because I believe that this gives me the right, that throughout my whole life I have never stood on any ground other than that of the freely developing spiritual life, never in the spiritual life of any servant of one or the other state, nor was it the servant of any economic system, but always tried to develop the spiritual life from its own foundations. Therefore, I know what it means to have kept this intellectual life free. But has it been kept free in more recent times, when it has become more and more intertwined with state life? Well, much has been made of the fact that in the Middle Ages, certainly, the times, we would not wish them back, of course not, in the times of the Middle Ages, science was the drag-bearer of theology. Of course that was the case, and it must never return. But is it much different in more recent times in other areas? Of course, that which is formed as science within the state, the state institutions, is no longer as strongly in the background of theology as it was in the Middle Ages, but it is most certainly in the background of the state.

Not only are the scientific institutions and the schools administered by the state, but the state's influence has penetrated into the very content of intellectual life. Science has not become what it is in many constitutions of one country or another: free research, free teaching. No, science has become a servant of the state. There are already states in which modern science does not follow in the footsteps of theology, but, as the last few years have shown, this science is very strongly attached to the sword cord (laughter) and the garrison order is not completely out of touch with the garrison order, and that which has developed as the proletariat's view of this science is perhaps not so unimportant after all when it says: this science as an ideology is only a reflection of the prevailing economic and state order. Have similar conditions not prevailed in the fields of mathematics and physics in more recent times? It's not so clear-cut there, you can't just serve the state; but on the other hand, in areas that directly affect human life, you can serve the state quite strongly. In many cases, science, especially history – you can see it in that, but also in other branches of science – became a servant of the state. The respective rulers decided what was taught; the respective rulers appointed their theologians, lawyers, physicians, philologists, and so on, and science became a clear reflection of the state order, but science can only flourish if it is left to its own devices and develops on its own terrain.

Take history. Do you think that the history of the Hohenzollerns would be written in the future in the same way as it has been written by German professors in the past? (“No!”) That will not be the case. (Laughter.) This history of the Hohenzollerns was a perfect reflection of the intellectual life of the ruling powers. One need not go as far as the famous physiologist – he was otherwise a capable man, “honorable men they all are,” as Shakespeare says – who once spoke in a brilliant assembly and said: We German scientists are the scientific protection force of the Hohenzollerns. – Oh, it was a sincere word. (laughter)

You see, dear attendees, it was a sincere word, but not exactly the description of a desirable state. We need not go that far. But we can see how things will be quite different if the teacher at the lowest level of the school system no longer knows that he is treated according to the maxims of the mere political order, but that he is only administered by an administration that grows purely out of the soil of spiritual life itself. What happens when political life and spiritual life come together has been seen in the German Reichstag, but it can also be seen in other areas. In the German Reichstag we had the so-called Center Party, a party based purely on religion. It entered into coalitions with all kinds of other parties, and what was taken out of purely religious foundations flowed into the law of the Reich. These things, which could be multiplied a hundredfold as examples, testify that it is necessary that in the future that which has just been merged under the influence of modern capitalism - spiritual life, legal life or political life and economic life - that this in turn must be separated again, that a threefold social organism must come into being, that there must be a standing side by side, like sovereign states, an independent administration of spiritual life, an independent administration of political or state life, an independent administration of economic life. Only then will these three areas combine in a proper way to form a unity, when each of these three areas can develop out of its own strength.

Let us take the example of economic life. There we can see how this economic life is dependent on the one hand on the natural foundations, depending on the social territory in question, whether the soil is fertile or more or less infertile, depending on whether this or that thrives or does not thrive, the economic life of this or that is also. We can learn this from extreme examples. In a banana-producing country, where bananas are an important food, it turns out that the labor required to bring bananas from their place of origin to the consumer is a hundred times less than the labor required in our own, in our own Central European regions, to bring wheat from sowing to consumption. Of course, such extreme examples do not exist in the individual territories of our regions; but the individual economic branches of production differ so much from each other that different human labor is needed for them, and so on, and so on. Economic life depends on the natural foundation on the one hand. One can improve this natural foundation through all kinds of technical achievements; but a limit has been created on this side. On the other side, this limit must be met by another limit, which comes from the independent constitutional state. This other side will be created when we no longer see such peculiar things, which, while supposedly working with modern human rights, only cover up delusions.

Such institutions are, for example, the modern employment contract. As long as the worker has to conclude a contract, like a commodity, with the so-called entrepreneur, there can be no question of a legal relationship between entrepreneur and worker. Even if the entire employment relationship is removed from the economic process and placed in an independent legal organism, if real democracy prevails within the independent legal organism, where what applies equally to all people comes into consideration, if decisions are made on this legal basis regarding the duration and type of work, if a decision has already been made about the work before this work is even applied in the economic process, as is decided in the earth itself by the forces of nature about fertility and infertility before the economic process begins, only then is a real legal relationship possible between the so-called worker and employer, which must take on completely different forms in the future.

First of all, it must be determined how long one may work, how one works, and so on; then it must be determined what the relationship between the worker and the supervisor must be before the economic process can even be considered. But then the employment contract will only be able to extend to the appropriate distribution of what the worker and the supervisor produce together. Only then will justice be able to prevail in this area. (“Bravo!”)

Do not think, honored attendees, that by saying this I am somehow advocating a return to the old piecework wages. Only someone who fails to take into account what I am proposing here, in the context of a completely healthy social organism, would think that. The old piecework wages were also a wage. What I am proposing here is a contractual relationship, based on a self-evident legal relationship, between the person who performs the physical work and the person who, through his individual abilities, is to direct this work for the benefit of the social organism, not for his own capitalist, personal, selfish gain.

This is what I have to say about something quite different from, say, a renewal of the old piecework wage. The wage relationship ceases altogether. And what takes its place is a contractual relationship for the work produced. Then the worker will know where his surplus value goes; because then he will be in a position to stand freely in relation to the labor manager, because his relationship to the work is created on the basis of the law, then he will know how he can carry out the distribution in this free contract.

On the one hand, there is the employment relationship, but this can only be created if it is as independent as the relationship between the economic process and the rule of law in modern times.

Oh, I know, esteemed attendees, how many prejudices there are against this independent constitutional state on the one hand and the independent economic state on the other. But that is just what people have been deluding themselves about in recent times. The state as such has become a pure idol for the people, not to say a pure god. One can apply a saying of Goethe to this idol or god-state, although it is a saying that Faust speaks to the sixteen-year-old Gretchen in relation to religious questions: “The All-embracing, the All-sustaining, does not it grasp and sustain you, me, itself?” The modern capitalist, the modern employer, could say to the employee, much as Faust said to God: ‘The All-embracing, the All-sustaining, does it not embrace and sustain you, me, itself?’ And in private he might even think: but especially me. (Laughter.)

Dear attendees, the habit of thinking has become a strong one, and it will resist this autonomization of economic and state life. It will not be possible to achieve what must be achieved by way of mere cooperation, of cooperation encompassing the whole state. On the contrary, it will be necessary to separate legal life from economic life. Then, on the one hand, economic life will be able to develop merely as the circulation, production and consumption of goods, and what Social Democracy has always talked about will be realized, namely that it is no longer the case that production must be for production's sake, but that production is for consumption. (“Bravo!”)

But this cannot develop in any other way, my dear attendees, than if there is an independent legal basis that extends, on the one hand, to labor law, but on the other hand, mainly extends to so-called ownership, to so-called property, namely private property.

Anyone who wants to come to terms with private property, or more precisely, wants to come to terms with it, should, above all, be aware that for the social organism, for social life, the ownership relationship can only be a legal relationship. Initially, it is a privilege, a class relationship; but it is a legal relationship by nature. After all, what is ownership? Everything else is wishy-washy. What is important about property in social life is the right to dispose of some thing. That is a right, and it comes into consideration as a right, comes into consideration as a right, in that the right must be the object of the political state, in that this right is determined and regulated from person to person. In a purely democratic way, the economic state is that which arises out of human needs and out of necessary production. Thus, the constitutional state is that which arises out of that in which all people are equal, which concerns all people. We have an understanding from person to person, which must be established on democratic ground. The economic organism will develop out of what has been shown in the beginnings, but only in such beginnings, in the cooperative and trade union systems and so on, out of the various professional groups, out of the interests that develop between production and consumption, where associations are formed, and on the basis of these associations, which are managed purely appropriately, the economic state will be managed, for my part I say the economic state; I could also say the economic organism will be managed, the economic cycle, in which only goods will circulate. And in this economic organism, above all that which is still administered by the state laws today will prevail. Not the state will have to determine by laws what the currency is, which actually causes the strong price fluctuations, but in the economic organism that which is the administration of money can arise out of the mere administration of this economic organism. Money is what, after the natural economy, causes people living in a social organism to engage in a common economy. Money can be nothing other than the instruction that I have, on the basis of the fact that I myself have produced something, the instruction that I have, that at the right time, on the basis of what I have produced, I can get something else from someone else that they have produced. But this can only be achieved on the basis of the economic organism.

The actual state ground will only contain that which can be built on a democratic basis, on the legal basis, on the legal basis where all people are equal.

And spiritual life, which must be separated as the third element from the other two: today, spiritual life truly lives in very strange connections with state life, with political life. When I lectured on the same subject in Basel last Wednesday, a speaker in the discussion replied – I disagreed with much of what he said, but one point he made was something that really spoke of the mixing, the unnatural combination of spiritual life, or part of spiritual life, with economic life.

With regard to intellectual life, modern social democracy has only one link from which it says: religion must be a private matter, a religion separate from state life. Whatever the motive for this may be, the continuation of what this demand implies for intellectual life as a whole, the separation of intellectual life from state and economic life, is the key to the future. Otherwise, strange customs will continue to arise that point to the unhealthiness of our social life. As I said, this gentleman pointed out that, in this latest nuance, I don't know how to describe it without hurting its feelings, so let's just say that in this National Assembly of the German Reich there is once again a coalition between the Center Party and the Majority Socialists. (“Yuck!” and laughter) The Center Party and the Majority Socialists, they're going out together. The Center Party is made up of Catholic people, isn't it, very good Catholic people – yes, I don't know how Catholics can get together by working together in this way, even if it is with the majority socialists, but always with the social democrats, if you have seen the last pastoral letter from the Bishop of Chur, and read what it says! It says nothing less than that anyone who rebels as a soldier violates the divine world order, and that therefore no sins can be forgiven in confession by anyone who professes any social party. That is the latest pastoral letter, dated February 2, 1919. Yes, I wonder how that squares with the coalition of the Center Party and the Social Democrats in the German National Assembly? There the good Catholic people have allied themselves with others, of whom the Archbishop of Chur demands that no sins be remitted to them in confession, so they will have to go to hell laden with sins. So we see them walking hand in hand in the German National Assembly, these Catholics with those who cannot even be absolved of their sins in confession. I just want to know what is supposed to become of this coalition on its way to hell. Yes, the whole thing really does look quite ridiculous. But these absurdities, esteemed attendees, are realities in our present time. We can only escape from these realities and find our way back to a healthy state if we really commit ourselves to the threefold social order, striving ever more earnestly to ensure that the entire spiritual life, from the lowest school level up to the highest university level, is truly on its own ground. Anyone who is familiar with intellectual life knows that this intellectual life can only flourish from its own inner forces if it is independent of both the state and economic life. But if the person who is supposed to produce spiritually has to obey the instructions of a state, or even if he is a slave to this or that capitalist, this or that clique – some people are unaware of it, don't even know it, believe they are only following their genius by painting a picture, and in truth they are not following their genius at all, but they are following the capitalist economic order. (“Very true.”) People are just not sufficiently clear-minded to see the laws of modern social life in which they are immersed.

But this is the task above all: to look into it. Then one will also come to understand what this threefold social organism means. With the dawn of modern times, at the end of the eighteenth century, three significant words emerged from the French Revolution, and already at its beginning, like the motto of modern times: liberty, equality and fraternity. In the course of the nineteenth century, quite clever people, honorable men, have repeatedly emphasized how these three qualities contradict each other, how freedom is incompatible with equality; because if all people are equal, then the individual cannot develop freely. Now, in the book that will be published in the next few days about the social question, I will show that the progress in the development of what is called capital can only lead out of the damage of modern capitalism if everything that is capital is related in a certain way to the link of the social organism where individual spiritual abilities are administered. There it will be possible for that to occur – I can only hint at this here, you will find it more clearly explained in my book – which today, within certain limits, is only admitted for the most insignificant property that one can have in our present-day capitalist, materialistic time. What exactly is the most insignificant, most contemptible property for the leading people? The spiritual. At least, to be fair, it is still allowed to be transferred to the public domain, to become common property, 30 years after the death of the person who produced it. In the near future, things will have to be quite different with material goods. We will have to find the same way of transferring material goods to the public domain as we have only found for the most shameful matter, intellectual property. This spiritual property is rightly transferred. Because however it may be with the material abilities of a person and so on, you need talent and so on to produce something; but if something has been produced on the basis of the social community, then just as language is only found in the community, so all material goods can only have come about through the social community, and only have a relationship to this community in so far as one's abilities are linked to it. As long as a leader's abilities can be linked to a production company, he will continue to lead it in the future. Ways and means must be sought to ensure that material goods, like intellectual goods today, are included in the cycle of capital, of the means of production.

This is what must be considered, this is what must be incorporated into the future development of humanity. (“Bravo!”) There must, however, be freedom in the realm of intellectual life. But, as I said, people have always shown, very astutely, that this freedom would contradict equality. On the other hand, they had proved that equality would contradict fraternity. It would indeed contradict if it were understood according to the principle: And if you will not be my brother, I will smash your skull. Well, people talk like that, at least some people. But these three, they will be what flows into my heart, equality, freedom and fraternity.

What matters is that we do not merely examine them for superficial contradictions, but that we ask deeper questions, for example, about what lies behind them. And here it becomes clear to us that when these three meaningful social impulses were heard, people were still hypnotized by the unitary state, quite obviously hypnotized by the unitary state: the state that maintains you and yourself and me, but especially maintains me.

People were hypnotized by it. But these three impulses have their meaning precisely when the threefold social order is carried out. People still talk about it today; they use buzzwords: individualism, socialism, democracy. Certainly, dear attendees, just as liberty, equality and fraternity are three impulses, so too are individualism, democracy and socialism three impulses. They can only be understood if we know that individualism is that which is connected with the individual abilities and talents of the human being. This must be in the realm of spiritual life, democracy in the realm of the state, where the equality of all people comes into consideration, where what happens concerns all people, where labor law and property law - there will be no ownership - but management law will come into consideration. That which develops as socialism in the future will prevail in the field of economic life. And it will be the same with freedom, equality and fraternity. Freedom must be in the field of spiritual life. Therefore, the spiritual life must also be able to develop freely. Fearful minds, who say: But if the school is free, what will it turn into? Well, I think people know little about the modern labor movement. The modern worker has every interest in not falling back into the subservience of the ruling classes through some kind of ignorance. If you leave it up to him to send his children to school, then he will certainly do so. Others may stay away, however: those who belong to the class that already know what their little attempt at education has actually cost them and how often they skipped school while they were training. They didn't just skip school for days at a time, but sometimes skipped school to such an extent that their certificates are now of very little value.

Freedom in the field of intellectual life, equality in the field of political or state life, fraternity in the broadest sense in the field of economic life through associations and cooperatives, which will truly extend fraternity to the whole of economic life: Only then, my dear attendees, when it is realized that the social organization must be tripartite, will it be known how freedom in spiritual life, equality in democratic state life, and fraternity in economic life will develop alongside each other in the future. This will be the fulfillment of what has been resounding through humanity for more than a century.

So, looking at the interrelationships, at what is actually in the forces that already lie in the historical development of humanity today, will lead to the necessary recognition of these three elements, which I have only been able to sketch for you and which you will find further developed in my book.

But I believe, dear attendees, that however much people today, with all sorts of buzzwords, because it would be convenient for them to be able to remain in the old order, will struggle against such thoughts, it should be realized, however, in what way these thoughts are new. Many a person today says that he considers this or that to be good for the future. Oh, one can consider many things to be good! But I certainly do not imagine that I am any smarter than other people when it comes to the details of what should happen. That is why I am not proposing a utopia; on the contrary, what I have presented is the opposite of a utopia. What I have presented can be tackled anywhere, regardless of one's starting point. No matter how far the [revolution] has progressed in Eastern Europe or how far away it still is in other parts of Europe, it can be started anywhere by starting from a specific, real point and working, on the one hand, towards establishing free schooling and free spiritual life; on the other hand, establishing economic life that is independent of the state, which must develop in the future in the form of a cooperative, namely through the fraternization of production and consumption. This is the most real thing, the most practical thing that can be conceived at all in the present. For it is not based on some kind of program, it is based on the reality of the human being. It is said again and again: If you want to introduce a threefold social order, where is the unity? The unity will be the human being, esteemed attendees, because when it is objected: Do you want to restore the old class order, the lower class, the military class, the teaching class? Certainly, there is nothing particularly wrong with the lower class today, because people need it.

The military estate – well, so much has been said about it in recent years that I don't need to repeat the things! The teaching estate – well, that has become not unlike the teaching profession, the civil service. For it is not a matter of establishing new estates; it is a matter of the administration, the organization, which is completely separate from the human being, that is tripartite. The human being himself will be in all three organisms; insofar as he has individual abilities to develop, he will belong to the spiritual organism, will have relationships to it, will have to decide how he wants to integrate himself into the spiritual organism, and will, of course, belong to the state organism with regard to that which is the same for all people. The law applies to the economic organism that everyone must be included. The human being will be the unit. But in this way the human being will be able to be placed in terms of his true human dignity. That is what matters, that people are no longer divided, but rather that the social order itself is divided.

I believe, esteemed attendees, that those who are most likely to understand such a social order can arise from the proletariat. The proletarian truly has no reason to have much preference for the old orders that have been transferred to modern times, which some people today would still like to find so comfortable if only they were not challenged too much. (Laughter.) The proletarian has learned to rely on himself. He has learned to look for something other than what some people have received so far. He has perhaps also learned that new thoughts are necessary, that one must rethink, that one must not merely transform a few institutions with the old habits of thought, but that new thoughts are necessary, that rethinking is necessary. The fresh intellect of the modern proletarian is underestimated in many circles; it will find itself in such thinking. One should entertain such thoughts in a time when people so often say: The catastrophe of war has revealed something that has never been seen before in history. Those who absolutely do not want to believe that one needs these thoughts should consider that in such a time, when events have occurred that have not yet occurred, thoughts must also arise that are unfamiliar, unfamiliar to those people who only live in the old well-worn tracks. But I do believe that the proletariat, as it feels dissatisfied with the legacy of the old bourgeois order, will find its way into what is necessary as a new social order, especially for the healthy threefold social organism. Therefore, I believe that it is not in vain that it is spoken into the souls of the proletarians when this social order of the future is spoken of, which I believe wants to and must be realized because it lies within the innermost human impulse for the near future.

At the same time, this is what fills me with the hope that those who will come from the proletarian world will understand a reasonable, progressive movement in this sense, towards a healthy social organism. Then, precisely from the proletariat, would come that humanity which, through what it now strives for, out of need and misery, out of contempt for its human dignity on the part of the other classes, what it strives for , but for its class, it would develop out of what must become the development of the future, not for the benefit of one class, but for the benefit of all humanity, which must be striven for: the liberation of all humanity, the liberation of that in humanity that is worthy of liberation.

But this can only come about through social views that are not based on some kind of idea, but on observation of life. It is certainly true that enough words have been exchanged to date; but the only thing that can be done is to deepen our understanding of what can happen and what can be transformed into action. I wanted to talk to you about such views, which do not just repeat worn-out words and old views , but I wanted to speak to you of such thoughts that can be realized everywhere where there is goodwill. These are thoughts that should soon be transformed into deeds, because they must be transformed into deeds according to the demands of world history and are also required by people, more or less unconsciously, for the next stage of development. (Lively applause.)

We will now take a short break of about five minutes. Then there will be a free discussion. Those who wish to speak or have something to say on the subject should do so voluntarily and give me their name, or if someone wants to ask a question in writing, there will also be an opportunity to do so. Rudolf Steiner: Well, it seems that is not the case, dear attendees. I do not take this as a sign that you all agree with everything I have said, but nor do I take it as a sign that you all disagree with what I have said. But I do think that, yes, in fact, in terms of discussions, the matter is quite difficult today; because most discussions in this area are very often conducted in such a way that people bring their preconceived point of view with them; and those who take the questions at hand take the questions seriously, know how difficult it is to arrive at views that are grounded in reality, to arrive at reasoned views that can really lead to what we all long for. In our time, more than one would think, schoolmastering and the like is the order of the day.

And I myself, after having written the “Appeal” that has been signed by a whole series of people in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and which I presented at the Goetheanum, have recently had to learn, to my great satisfaction, that it was highly unusual for the doctor to come from Dornach, from the Goetheanum, when we know that book on the social question, which will be published soon. I myself have had to experience, for example, that someone told me it was highly remarkable that the doctor is coming from Dornach, from the Goetheanum, where we know that the spirit is constantly being talked about, and yet the whole appeal says nothing about the spirit. Well, it does say that spiritual life should be built on itself, and I have confidence that if it is built on itself alone, it will develop healthily. But I am not convinced by the declamations that one hears again and again today, that people will become healthy in their social lives if they turn away from matter and turn to the spirit – no, I am not convinced by these declamations.

Now you see, my dear audience, I am not looking for the spirit where people always talk about the spirit, but I believe that the real spirit is the one that has the strength to immerse itself in practical real life, that really has understanding for life. A spiritual worldview that only ever talks about spirit and ghosts, for my part, whatever it calls this spirit, that only ever has this lip service of the spirit, such a worldview seems to me, especially in the present time, not at all to point to something future, but rather it seems to me to be precisely the most terrible result of the order that is coming to an end.

This is what I would like to say in response to people telling me to speak more of the spirit: I do not seek the spirit in what is said, not in the what, but in the how, how life is understood, how one tries to understand life. And so, precisely because this view of the School of Spiritual Science that is to be established is taken as a starting point, I have been met with a number of objections, because people have expected something different. But the work that spiritual science, as it is meant here, actually wants to do is something that serves life. And in our time, dear honored attendees, those who devote themselves above all to those questions that today do not speak to us through mere words, but that speak through facts, serve life.

And do we not see it? Party views are walking around among us like mummies. Thoughts have been left behind by facts everywhere. Facts of greater force have emerged from the catastrophe of the world war; these facts must be dealt with. They will not be dealt with if we continue to dwell on the thoughts we have formed so far. We must learn to think differently today.

That is what I would like to have evoked as a kind of feeling. And in this feeling, in the feeling that a new era must come and that a new era is indeed heralded by the demands, however they may arise, that express themselves through the loudly speaking facts throughout Europe, however much some may resist them, in this feeling I would like to be understood by you above all. For when people find themselves more and more in common feeling, in common feeling, then that among them will be able to revive, which we are striving for through something that also wants this threefold social organism that I have established. I would like you to understand me in this sense. And so we can understand each other without having a discussion, which, as it seems, is not desired. But just because I would like to be understood in this way, I may also add to what I have already said today: It is a real source of great satisfaction for me to be able to welcome you here today, to these rooms, where I believe you will form an opinion that is different from those that have been formed here or there. I hope that you will be able to form the opinion that it is not just some kind of luxury ideas that are developed here in these rooms, but that serious and honest efforts are made to serve the highest interests of humanity. In this sense, these rooms aspire to be a university for spiritual science. And it gives me a very special inner and heartfelt joy to be able to welcome the ladies and gentlemen of the surroundings here in these rooms, especially when discussing such an important question. I hope it will truly not be the last time within these walls. (“Bravo!”)