# The Big Questions of our Time and Anthroposophical Spiritual Knowledge

## GA 336 — 10 April 1919, Münchenstein

### 8. Social Aspiration and Proletarian Demands

Dear attendees, first of all, before answering the discussion, some questions have been received, and I would like to answer these questions first. Some of these questions are also related to what was said during the discussion, and so I may summarize some of them in my concluding remarks, which will not take long.

First of all, there is the question: “Isn't it a big mistake for social democracy to deny the spiritual and the soul and to recognize only the body [and the corporeal]?”

Now, it is not so easy to deal with this comprehensive question in just a few words, for the simple reason that what is often described and represented in the vaunted scientific circles as spiritual and soul life is actually not something that is in the process of ascent for the discerning person, but something that is basically undergoing its last phase of development, its full descent. When speaking of the spiritual, one should not speak in general terms of the spiritual, but one should always be clear about the fact that the spiritual is undergoing descending developments, ascending developments. And those who today reject the current, conventional spiritual life, which I also characterized in the lecture, which is a result of the leading class in the last centuries, when this spiritual life, which has become great through the state and economic development, especially of the last centuries, particularly of the nineteenth century, is rejected, then one can understand that this must be rejected. The important thing is to find a real spiritual life, a spiritual life that retains its own reality.

And then I must say that, above all, it is necessary today that the one thing I dared to say in my lecture be fulfilled: that people really learn from events. And then I must say; above all, it is necessary today that the one thing I dared to say in my lecture be fulfilled; that people really learn from events. You see, with reference to some of the things that the various speakers have said, I would like to say the following: One gentleman spoke very beautifully about an eternal word, which he described as a Christian word, and which of course could not be more beautiful in its meaning: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Yes, but esteemed attendees, is it really about simply pronouncing such a word today? (“Very true!”) Is it not also a truth that this word, if we want to acknowledge it as a Christ-word, has been spoken by those who thought they were called for almost 2000 years, and yet we have come into today's circumstances? Do these circumstances prove that the power has been found to really bring this word to life in people? I would like to ask you whether it should not depend on something other than just living in the emphasis of a word, in the hearing of such a word in sermons and the like?

You see, I have often tried to make myself understood in discussions and meetings by pointing out the worthlessness of merely emphasizing a word in the abstract, saying, for example, “Let us suppose there is a stove is here; it is its duty as a stove to warm the room, and I say to it, speaking as the sentence dealing with neighborly love was spoken: Dear stove, it is your real duty as a stove to warm the room! I speak to it warmly, I might say with the most heartfelt tone of preaching – it will never warm the room unless you put wood in it! (Laughter.) But when I heat it up, the room gets warm even if I don't talk to it, but just put wood in it; the room will then get warm. (Lively applause.) I don't want to say anything against the truth of such a word; but the point is to actually put such a word into practice in life, to make it known.

That is precisely the peculiar thing, my dear audience, that within the much-praised civilization, people have found each other who have spoken of love for one's neighbor, of love for God, of brotherhood – spoken, now, from the age of so-called humanity. They spoke very cleverly, very reasonably, often in rooms with mirrored windows, in heated rooms; but the heating was coal-fired, and as inquiries have shown, particularly in the rise of the social movement of recent times, children aged nine to eleven, twelve, thirteen worked in the mining of these coals! Coal that had been mined in mines where naked men stood among half-naked women, where there was truly no reason not to notice even the sense of shame, let alone to stop to consider any other Christian ideas. You really have to bear in mind that it is not just a matter of blurting out such a word. Due to the correctness and importance of the emotional content, one will naturally always make an impression with it. But the point is to find, in a particular age, those things that are as practical as the wood that I have to put in the stove so that it can warm the room, and that may, under certain circumstances, spare us from repeatedly saying the words, “Lord, Lord”! Incidentally, this is also a Christian saying: “You shall not say, ‘Lord, Lord,’ for that end; but to do the will of God, who has sent us heavenward.” You should not always say, “Lord, Lord,” but try somehow to absorb into your mind, into your whole being, what is the inner essence of Christianity.

One has very peculiar experiences in this. I don't think there is anyone in this hall who can surpass me in representing what the true inner essence of Christianity is. But, dear ladies and gentlemen, I have also had my experiences with it. I once gave a lecture on the nature of Christianity, and there were two clergymen present, both Catholic. Since I always speak from the heart, the gentlemen had no real objection to what I said. They approached me after the lecture, and it was even the case that they had to say: There is not much to object to; but – they said – the big difference is this: We, we talk so that all people can understand; you only talk to a few educated people. – So I said to the man who objected to me: Yes, you see, pastor, I will ask you something else: I believe that you believe you speak to all people; every person ultimately imagines that, otherwise he would probably be able to stop talking; but one can also gain experience in this area. It does not matter that you or I imagine that we speak to all people, but we let the experiences speak for themselves, we let the facts speak. And I ask you: Do the facts speak in such a way that they prove you right? Do all people still go to church with you? Yes, you see, you won't be able to tell me that you speak for everyone! And, you see, I speak to those who stay away. - That was when I spoke truly about Christ and Christianity.

Dear attendees, it is not a matter of us repeatedly and repeatedly warming up the old in the field of Christianity, but rather that we can actually hear the signs of the times. And we know that time marches on, and it is not possible to just keep repeating the same thing over and over again; otherwise you end up - I recently heard a Christian speaker in Bern who said something extraordinarily effective; he spoke very humanely; he spoke about the divinity of Christ. But after the words that had earned him the loud applause, I couldn't help thinking: 45 years ago, I read exactly the same words – they had been taken verbatim, in fact – in a Christian Catholic report that the pastor, who is a university professor, I believe, proclaimed to his audience in Bern! I just said to myself: How is it possible not to learn anything from contemporary history in the 45 years since I read those words as a child? And today we have the clearly written, blood-written words of the world war! And people believe that you can only repeat the same thing over and over again!

So, dear attendees, it is better to accept being less understood at first and to present what can serve the new era than to have to repeat the old over and over again. The question must be raised for all those who say: Keep your old religiosity, keep the old belief in God and the like. For all of them, it must be said: Well, you have had almost 2000 years of time after all, and have spent 2000 years trying to achieve something. How much have you actually achieved by opposing that which wants to serve the times? Remember that you would have had enough time! You have been given 2,000 years; now it is necessary that you recognize that something new must break through to mankind, which has been tried and tested and is suffering.

This must be said by someone who stands entirely on the point of view that he alone may cherish the hope, because he stands on the ground of true social thinking, that a new spiritual life will be established through this, a spiritual life that will truly bring people together again with a spiritually alive, not dead, to which the old traditions and the like have already become.

Of course, one can reproach socialism if one wants, for having so far taken little account of intellectual life. But let us wait and see. The intellectual life that can be heard today even from our universities cannot find any particular favor with those people who want something human: the intellectual life that will again give people - all people - the awareness that their [physical] human being is connected with inner necessity to the human being's soul and spirit. Let us wait and see whether it is not precisely the socialist-minded people who will be the next to turn to the actual spiritual life and no longer oppose it without understanding! And if one raises the question: One cannot say that one finds particular favor in today's bourgeois circles when one tries to bring them this school of thought - well, dear attendees, it is extremely difficult to talk about this question, for the reason that it seems necessary to the factually thinking person, and above all to me, to know: Whoever does it, it is essential that the right thing can be done! And when asked how some of the things that could develop out of this world war could be averted, I had to tell some people: It is not at all important to me to think that I am smarter than other people; rather, it is important to me to provide a stimulus for reality!

Do you, dear attendees, notice how what I have said differs from what many others say? People come and want to have programs. They have all kinds of desires, beautiful goals for the future, and the like, and they see these expressed in this or that word. Programs are as cheap as blackberries these days! Societies are founded, programs are written, and so on and so forth. But that is not the point. The important thing is to grasp reality.

I am convinced that if we can say: we must organize ourselves in a healthy social organism – and I see something healthy in the threefold social organism – then people will find what is good for them. I would even say that if they can only find the form, the structure of the social organism in which people can appropriately realize what must come for humanity. That is what I must always say to people. Perhaps no stone of what I have to say today will remain standing; that does not matter; what matters is that if things are approached in the way I mean, then something quite different may come of it, but is a matter of the suggestion to seriously do something in the realm of reality, something that has been thought out of the threefold social organism, out of life experience, not out of some dull theory or out of some selfish prejudice. That is what is important.

That is why my program is the one that calls on people, above all, to have the opportunity to realize this in a certain sense. What I have just expressed differs significantly from the usual programs. And that is why I believe that time will take its course, of course. And basically, what is being said so often today is not so very new. One of those who have inspired the most, Karl Marx, the socialist confessor, spoke the following words in the first half of the nineteenth century, when he was still young: Should all enlightenment and persuasion rebound off the stubbornness of the propertied class, then it is the most sacred duty of the proletariat, the fighters for the highest goods of humanity, to storm the bulwark of capitalism, justified before the court – [gap in the transcript]. So, you see, that is how people spoke in the first half of the 19th century. Marx appealed to the most influential circles for understanding and enlightenment for the propertied classes!

It cannot be said, dear attendees, that much of this has been fulfilled so far. But that is not the issue now. Rather, the issue is that at least the most necessary things must be done for the future. And so I think it is necessary, above all, to spread enlightenment to the widest circles; for it is out of enlightenment, out of social understanding, that something will come about that can never come about through force, whether it comes from above or from below. Through force, you can destroy a lot; but through that which can be brought into the world in a fruitful way, you can build. Therefore, I see something successful only if, within the proletariat in the broadest sense, efforts are made so that the individual, as far as possible, increasingly strives for social understanding. And then he can want to penetrate to the highest philosophical problems of life, strive to climb as many rungs of social conduct as possible: he will then be able to work fruitfully. First and foremost, we must imbue ourselves with social understanding! For it is the lack of social understanding that has brought about the present terrible situation. Therefore, I expect the proletariat, in particular, not to commit the mistake of lack of understanding, not to want to avoid enlightenment in social matters! Even if this or that particular measure should still be necessary, the best and most effective way forward is to continue along the path of enlightenment.

And in answer to the question, “Is it really so easy to put the threefold social order into practice when the hand is offered to do so?” the following should be said:

Dear attendees, I certainly said: You can start at any point – but I don't know what it means to “offer a hand”. Who should offer a hand? I think it is more important that, above all, minds are offered; the mind of each individual. And it is reckoned that now more and more people will be found who will thoroughly immerse themselves in all the consequences, in that which can improve the social structure of the social organism.

Then here is the remark: “The capitalist soul has no feeling for the proletarian soul,” an experience that, well, one can already have plenty of in the present day. Now, various necessary points have been raised today. Above all, because the time is already too far advanced, it is not possible to go into each one individually, and so I would just like to make a few comments on some of the points of view that have been put forward. Above all, it has been said that what I have said contradicts the Social Democratic program.

Ladies and gentlemen, whether or not such contradictions exist is not for me to decide, I believe, on the basis of what I have to say today; that will be decided only by the future.

(“Very true!”) I believe that today, under the present circumstances, it is necessary for people to express, entirely out of their unbiased conviction, what they believe they have overheard in life that is necessary for the further development of humanity. Basically, enough programs have been set up. What must come must come through people and their insight. That is why I consider it most gratifying – and this has also been admitted from time to time, it has been recognized – I consider it most gratifying that, although I have much to say that does not agree with any program, with any party of the present day, that nevertheless people can be found who listen to these things and who pay attention to these things. And I believe that we will make progress precisely by simply listening, by not blasting each other. Sometimes you don't blast with words; you can also blast someone who is inconvenient to you by not saying it at all in words, but by keeping silent about what you don't want to say with your mouth. This has also become a popular method in our present time.

Thus, I have touched on some of the points that seemed particularly important to me from this discussion.

However, it was also said that “we still lack intelligent people”. I think about the relationship between intelligence and true progress today in the following way. Allow me this historical comparison: Christianity, which has indeed had a great and significant influence on the development of humanity in the form in which it emerged almost 2,000 years ago, spread from Asia through the highly developed Greek world and the highly educated Roman world. There was the peak of intelligence, but it did not take root there! It took root among the people who came down from the north as a result of the mass migration, who were regarded by the Romans as barbarians and by the Greeks as unintelligent people. They had the fresh intelligence; they had the new, then young intelligence. The others had the old, faded, fruitless intelligence.

This is what we recognize again today as the basis of the main movement of contemporary history: we are living, so to speak, in a new mass migration. Those people who are considered intelligent today sometimes say something highly unintelligent. They talk about something that is not at all capable of moving the times forward. We are living in a mass migration of peoples, which is not moving horizontally, but from bottom to top - even if the expressions are meant symbolically, they can still be used for it. It is precisely those people who, with fresh intelligence, emerge from the circles from which the previous civilized outlook has arisen, that they break into. And even if it still has to be said many times today: In these souls there is an underlying understanding of what the future must bring. I believe in this fresh intelligence because it is healthy, not decadent. It is not in a downward spiral like the intelligence of the circles that often lead today.

I see a mass migration in the modern proletarian movement, a mass migration that is only moving in the opposite direction. And it will bring something into the world that will carry humanity upwards again for a long time.

This is what allows one to look into the future, what provides some clues. Even if today there is still inadequacy and unhealthiness everywhere, even in the most hopeful movements, we need not be pessimistic. Rather, it is something that makes one believe that, after all, on the part of those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from those who can feel what the old culture has done, that something will finally be brought from And you may have gathered from my remarks that I have no intention of further dividing people into estates or classes. In older times, a distinction was made between the teaching estate, the nourishing estate, and the military estate. That is not the issue. Precisely that which is separated from the human being in the institutions that we have, I would say, in the threefold social organism: Man is that which unites all three. And he will have his representation in a democratic state, or even stand in it, and he will have to stand in economic life and in spiritual life, and thus stand in the whole threefold social organism – standing out of this threefold nature. Man is that which unites the three separate areas. That is what I meant when I said: to make the human being free. And he will become free when we no longer swear by the abstract unified state.

> Interjection: Yes, but there must be laws and courts for all three areas, for example?

Rudolf Steiner: Of course, dear attendees, it must be, but the point is that if anything is to live properly in all three areas, it must be generated in one area. Just as the human head is a part of the whole organism and also needs air, it cannot breathe the air itself; the lungs must breathe the air. And the air is then conveyed to the whole organism.

(Regarding the question of milk for the whole family): The whole family needs milk; but it is not necessary that, if the whole is a unit, that is, that everyone gives milk, but rather the whole family will be properly provided with milk if the three members function properly. What matters is that, if all three areas are to be properly lived in, then the law is created in this one area and is fairly administered. What matters is that the right judgment is to be made. What matters is that economic life is structured in the right way, that legal life and spiritual life are also structured in the right way, in the way I have said.

It is precisely this that consistent, penetrating thinking, in harmony with nature, should finally take hold among people; only then will we be in a position to change anything.

Our old habits of thinking have basically brought us into today's situation. These old habits of thinking have basically brought about what we today perceive as pressure and oppression. What we need is to replace these habits of thinking, to replace the old thoughts with new ones! And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that people will be found, even if today many are still quite hostile, as we have seen; they will recognize this threefold social organism as practical. And the great lesson will have to be learned from the misery of recent years, that those who thought they were practical were in fact the most impractical of all – that from a completely different direction, practice, true life practice, will have to come. And so I am pleased that I have been able to speak to you, to speak to younger people who have their hearts in the right place. It is something very gratifying when a person not only has a faith but also a certain strength in his heart. For it is from these strengths that unspent intelligence will be able to arise.

I would like to call out to everyone who thinks like many of you: Very well, even if some things may remain incomprehensible to some today – if your hearts are in the right place, the time will most certainly come when you will be able to understand what still had to remain somewhat incomprehensible to you today!

Dear attendees, I will soon be entering my sixth decade, have grown old in the meantime and have seen the social movement come of age for the most part. I know how much still needs to be overcome. But that is also why I have the opportunity to rejoice in what is happening today, especially among young people. And if young people hold fast to what can be expressed in words as “having one's heart in the right place,” then the time will come that must come, because otherwise all of humanity will end up in a terrible situation!

Let us believe in this time; because we must believe in it, because we cannot do otherwise if we really want to live properly, my dear attendees.

And today we can have a certain hope that things will come to pass that have not yet come to pass, simply because so much disaster has been wrought in recent years. Humanity must, if only as atonement, want this, must want to do something to ensure that things that could not be realized before are gradually resolved in a possible way. That is what I wanted to say in conclusion.