The Big Questions of our Time and Anthroposophical Spiritual Knowledge

GA 336 — 28 July 1919, Mannheim

11. Freedom for the Mind, Equality for the Law, Fraternity for Economic Life

Dear attendees,

In my lecture the day before yesterday, I tried to show the path into the supersensible world that can be taken by modern humanity and which, from our present-day consciousness and stage of human development, we ourselves demand as a requirement, even if we have so far only sensed this inner soul fact rather than consciously followed it. A challenge to go into the supersensible world by other paths than those we have been accustomed to understand until now.

Not so much because I believe that the direct experience of the content, especially in the form of the supersensible world view that I spoke of the day before yesterday, must also underlie the thoughts and impulses of the reorganization of our external public, namely social life, but because I am convinced that in order to penetrate the supersensible from the point of view of today's man, such a transformation of the entire soul life is necessary, as it must take place, in order to solve the great problems, [in order] to solve the social problems of the present, because, simply, as I believe, thinking, feeling must be trained in such thoughts and ideas about the supersensible, as they have been mentioned, I preceded the lecture here last Saturday with today's lecture. Because, my dear attendees, I do believe that a way out of the confusion and chaos of the present social structure is only possible if we look with full awareness and without fear at the radical transformation that we are currently undergoing with regard to our public life. I do not believe that anyone who sees the World War catastrophe as a mere event that interrupts the course of human development, so to speak, and that can subsequently continue in the same way, I do not believe that anyone who views this war catastrophe in this way is inclined to muster the thoughts and feelings that are necessary today for someone who wants to participate in what is necessary to build. It seems to me that only those who, in this world-catastrophe, can truly recognize the collapse of an old spiritual and world view, and who at the same time can recognize the new demands that have not yet taken on a definite form from which one can expect the necessary for the future, but which already announce at least parts of what we have to strive for. But those who are still steeped in the old way of thinking, who have become accustomed to the old social spirit in their thoughts, who are rooted in the old institutions with their habits of life, still cannot bring themselves to really accept that a fundamental transformation is necessary. And still those who come forward with their new demands, honestly and sincerely, cannot bring themselves to look at the reality of life as thoroughly as is necessary to strip these demands of the character of the factions, of the character of abstract programs, and to think them out, to feel them out of the immediate reality of life. Only when humanity has come to see the terrible abyss that has opened up between two sections of the population today will it be on a par with intellectual life and its demands. In fact, we are living in such a transitional period today that we must bring all the details, all the individual characteristics of a downfall before our soul; that on the other hand we must carefully examine everything that asserts itself in a more or less vague way as new demands.

And so, my dear audience, our gaze is not initially turned to what I spoke about last Saturday when we look at the phenomena of the time. Rather, our gaze is directed to that link in life that is, so to speak, opposed to the actual spiritual current of humanity, but from which all the new demands of the present time arise, and where the collapse of all habits of thought and life becomes apparent; our gaze is turned, if we want to understand the actual character of the time, to economic life. And within this economic life, I think it is quite clear that two views of humanity, two ways of feeling humanity, are asserting themselves, between which there is an abyss, and which today can understand each other less than such currents of humanity have ever understood each other within the development of humanity. There is no inclination to look everywhere for what is really characteristic. Above all, there is no inclination to look at the economic life of the present in such a way as to recognize in it forces other than the purely economic ones, which assert themselves both in the collapse and in the new ascent that is to be hoped for. But a comprehensive view must not shy away from drawing attention to these other forces. Therefore, today I will need to speak not only about economic life, but also about everything else that is part of economic life and which must undergo the same renewal and transformation as economic life itself. I will therefore have to speak to you today about the fundamental challenge of our time as a threefold one. I will have to speak of the social question as a spiritual or cultural question, I will have to speak of the social question as a legal or state question; I will have to speak of the social question as an economic question.

But has not this economic life developed in recent times in such a way that we can say: it basically floods everything, and we have become completely dependent with regard to external public life, also with regard to intellectual life and with regard to legal life, completely dependent on the shaping of our economic life.

Let us first look at what we can call the spiritual culture of the present day. This spiritual culture of the present day has received much praise. Time and again, and rightly so from a certain point of view, it has been emphasized how far humanity has come in terms of the development of spiritual life and spiritual culture. Again and again, people have pointed out how magical our intellectual culture must appear to someone who lived a millennium ago and surveys the human intellectual life of that time. Again and again, people have emphasized how, with the help of human resources, thought can now travel at lightning speed across the whole earth. And again and again, the way in which the boundaries that used to be drawn between the individual cultural areas have been overcome in modern times has been emphasized – and much more of the same.

But little consideration has been given to something that is connected, intimately connected, with the basic character of our newer intellectual life. It is connected with this fundamental character of our newer spiritual life that only a small minority of people can participate in this actual spiritual culture. This spiritual culture is such that only this small minority can find their way into what emerges in the most diverse fields of newer spiritual life when it is about the actual spiritual development of this culture, through their thinking habits and their entire way of feeling. We have a rich literary life, a rich artistic life. We have the most diverse world views. We have a developed ethic and so on, and so on. But all this encompasses human impulses, human ideas, human feelings that arise from the particular soul-orientation of a few. And these few must conquer this spiritual life in that the great mass of people simply cannot participate in it. Anyone who takes a broad view of what is actually happening in our culture today knows full well that, on many sides, there is a good will to use all kinds of folk art events, adult education centers and the like to communicate to the great majority what is spiritually conquered by a minority. However good the intentions in this area may be, they do not lead to the goal that they should actually achieve; basically, they only lead to a cultural lie. For, ladies and gentlemen, the nature of intellectual life is such that one can only participate in any form of it if this intellectual life flows from the most original human perceptions and experiences of life. But now our humanity is divided into a small minority, whose habits of life give rise to today's intellectual life, and the great mass, which is devoted only to manual labor, to the external economic life, and within this external economic life develops habits of life, the inner soul condition, and can find no real inner access to what the soul of a minority calls its spiritual life. Today, however much goodwill we may have, we communicate what we produce in the way of science and art through popular events for the masses. We are under a great illusion if we believe that this mass of people can truly absorb into their souls that which a minority is able to regard as its spiritual property. My dear audience, one must actually speak from life experience about this. And so, with reference to what I have just mentioned, please allow me to make a seemingly personal remark, but one that is meant to be symptomatic of what I am discussing here. For many years I was a teacher at a workers' education school. My students were all members of the proletariat. During that time, I tried to present within this workers' educational school what I could directly present from person to person, what I could express in the fields of history and natural science, so that what I expressed was always different from what was presented only last Saturday here in other fields as generally human. And I was actually always well understood, in that I reshaped history in a general human sense, in that I reshaped knowledge of nature in a general human sense. But, as a result of a certain contemporary fashion among the students and the school management, there was also a need for me to lead the students through galleries and the like, for example. And there it turned out that I actually felt like someone who was speaking to people about something, as if I were a complete stranger to them. If I expressed what I took directly from the soul of the people in the school lesson, we understood each other. If I spoke to the people about what the minority had produced as their culture, as their intellectual life, then the message was actually a lie, because people did not find access to what came from completely different psychological backgrounds through their habits of thought, through their feelings. In the ruling circles, people's thoughts were not directed towards such facts and phenomena. Hence the gulf, the abyss between the spiritual culture of the minority and the soul life, the life of the proletarian, who was completely caught up in the economic cycle. What did those who belonged to the minority know, basically, in the last three to four centuries, but especially in the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century, of what was going on in the souls of the broad masses of the proletariat? He directed these broad masses to work, to work that was created entirely in the direction of the minority culture. But he did not seek access to people, he did not seek access to hearts and souls. This was especially noticeable when he was sought, as happened in the case cited by me.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is approximately what can be said from the spiritual side with regard to the characteristics of one stage of human development. And if you then take a closer look at this spiritual life, this cultural life of the minority, then you have to say that this cultural life, because it is the life of a minority, is alien to the whole of contemporary human life. Despite all our arrogance, we live in an abstract culture; a culture that does not penetrate into the reality of human life. Therefore, it is not surprising that this culture produces a thought life that is actually unrealistic. A thought life that is out of touch with the whole person has the peculiarity that it can also submerge into reality. And if you will allow me to make another personal comment, again only meant as a symptom, it is the following:

In January 1914, I was obliged to summarize, deliberately at the time in Vienna before a small gathering, because a larger one would probably have laughed at me at the time, I was obliged to summarize what had formed in me as an idea, which I was telling, about the whole [course] of this modern cultural life and its way of thinking, what I had to form as an idea about the direction in which this cultural life is heading. And I had to summarize these insights, I believe I may call them that, at that time – that is, in the early spring of 1914 – about what is brought into the world of men through the contradictions in this intellectual life. I had to summarize it by saying: Our social conditions, right up to the highest levels, give the impression of a social disease, a social cancer, to anyone who observes them impartially, and this must express itself in a terrible way throughout the civilized world in the near future.

That was the opinion of an “impractical idealist” back then, as they say today; the opinion of someone who wants to decide something about reality from their own point of view. Today, we can be reminded of such a view of reality when we consider how, on the other hand, those who had emerged from the intellectual culture of the minority with its unrealistic sense of reality thought at the time about what was to come. Let us recall that in January 1914, a directing statesman summarized his views, despite the responsibility that weighed on him, in the words he said at the time to a parliamentary body: “We live in a general relaxation of political conditions,” he said, “which gives us hope of maintaining peace in Europe in the near future.” And he added: We are on the most friendly terms with the Russian government, which, thanks to the efforts of the cabinets, is not getting involved in the lies of the press pack. And we certainly think – the statesman in question spoke as a statesman of Central Europe – we certainly think to continue our friendly relations with Poland. And he adds, so at that time: negotiations are in progress with England that promise the very best for European peace. They have not yet been concluded, but they will bring about desirable conditions.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the train of thought of a person who is well-informed about the present and who lived at the time of the terrible world catastrophe that followed, which killed thousands and thousands of people in Europe and left three times as many maimed. The lesson to be learned from this global catastrophe is that, to the very depths of the soul, the culture of the minority has lost its sense of, its instinct for realities. These things are to be taken more seriously than ever. And they will only be taken seriously if we do not want to ignore the fact that the ideas that emerged from this unrealistic basis were simply not suited to bringing fruitful ideas into our economic life. People still do not want to admit this today. But this is the most important fact of economic life in modern times: the ruling circles have lost the comprehensive ideas of this economic life, and therefore, for a long period of time, this economic life has run its course throughout the entire civilized world as if it were running mechanically by itself. And the catastrophe of the world wars is nothing more than the result of allowing the economy to be driven into its own contradictions and destruction. This was due to the fact that within modern spiritual culture these thoughts were not taken from reality and therefore could not master and control this reality. Thus the leading and ruling circles pursued an economic policy which, by maintaining old institutions, actually destroyed life. But they never took the trouble to organize this economic life on a human basis. But within this economic life there arose something from the hearts and souls of those who, through their work, were merely harnessed to this economic life. And by looking at this, we come to the other side of the abyss; to the side where those stand who could not participate in the indicated way in the spiritual culture of the minority, who, since the advent of modern technology and modern capitalism, have been completely harnessed with all their humanity to this technology, to this capitalism that is emptying of meaning.

Now I would like to say: everything that I have characterized as a minority spiritual culture, as a certain attitude towards the broad masses of working proletarians, and as an attitude towards the mechanical course of economic life, which is noticeable on the one hand, has found its echo on the other. And this echo develops slowly, little by little. Only then will one do justice to the present time if one sees in this world catastrophe the leading of the spiritual and economic life ad absurdum, which I have just described. But now, from the other side, for more than half a century, there has been the sound of what once ended in the words, the world-shattering words: “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” And the catastrophe of the world wars has brought about the era in which everything that has since taken hold in the hearts and souls of the broadest circles of the proletariat under the influence of that from which that call arose has been realized. It has brought all this about and summarized it in a new way.

Therefore, the present is even more permeated with the necessity of pointing out with understanding what stands like an echo on the other side of the abyss. There we see that the proletarian masses look at the intellectual culture of the minority, which was to be given to them through all kinds of popular events and everything that is connected with the minority's intellectual life and habits, and there we see that the proletarian masses look at all this because they could not participate in it; and they found it understandable when their ingenious leader, who is just as great in his truths as he is great in his fallacies, when Karl Marx gave them the word, which characterized their relationship to the life of the minority in a way that could be misunderstood, generally misunderstood, but all the more understandable to the hearts of the masses, in the words “surplus value” and “labor performance”. And more or less clearly, large masses of proletarians were seized by the awareness, one might say, not to understand everywhere, but to feel: What we have as a relationship between what elevates religiously, what satisfies artistically, what warms as a worldview for the minorities, that is, we create the basis for this intellectual culture of the minorities by generating the capital base through the added value, through what is taken from what we have produced, from the proceeds of our products, beyond what is only compensation for our labor. And we must not judge the present time merely from the external standpoint of political economy; we shall not do justice to it; we must also judge it from the standpoint of the mass psychology of humanity. Here it is not a matter of whether one can discuss a word like surplus value more or less accurately, but rather how such a word works in the masses; how it arouses feelings, what hopes it inspires. These hopes are entirely in line with what I have just characterized. And more and more closely and more and more accurately did these proletarian masses see what their share is in that which lives as a spiritual culture, and what as a spiritual culture also guides legal and economic life. And that is why they also understood a second word, which was coined for them from the same source; they understood the word about the labor power of man, which can be bought as a commodity on the labor market, just as other commodities can be bought and sold. It may be that intellectually they did not grasp what was meant by this, but they felt it. By being made aware of this word, and hearing it from sources that were more or less clear or obscure, they sensed their way back to ancient times, when slavery still prevailed and when the whole human being could be bought and sold on the labor market like a thing or an animal. And they looked to the somewhat later period of serfdom, when fewer, but still enough human strength and labor were harnessed in bondage. And they sensed something of that personality consciousness that has gripped the hearts and souls in the development of humanity, as I explained the day before yesterday, since the middle of the fifteenth century. And they sensed: The time is past when something like a commodity, like a thing, can be sold by man. And they felt: the leading, guiding circles have failed to see the moment when the labor force must be stripped of the character of the commodity. And in one way or another, more or less clear or unclear, this demand “stripping the labor force of the character of the commodity” arises. Such was the answer to the lack of understanding shown by the leading, leading circles for the great masses of the proletariat.

And another point was also made, which must be taken into account if, in as naive a way as Woodrow Wilson does, one treats the social question of the present day only as a production question. It is certainly a production question, but the fact that it has only become a production question is precisely the fault and the neglect of the leading and guiding circles. What has developed in humanity over the last three to four centuries, ladies and gentlemen, is not only the newer economic life with its expanded technology and its capitalism. It is also a very specific direction of intellectual life. This spiritual life is not only the spiritual life of the minority, as I have characterized it, but a very specific direction of the spiritual life has moved into humanity.

When we look back to earlier times, there was also a religious, artistic spiritual life; a spiritual life that is now more or less regarded as a fantasy life. We do not want to talk about that now. But it was a spiritual life that provided people with a living world view, with an inner momentum; it placed people in the development of humanity and in the social order in such a way that each person could, in some way, find the answer from this spiritual life, how they are connected as spirit, as soul, with the spirit, with the soul of the world. He received the answer to the question: Do I have a dignified existence in the whole world? This possibility ceased under the influence of what came from modern science to meet man. This newer scientific attitude and orientation has ultimately lost all connection with the foundations of existence; it is directed only at the exterior of existence. In the end, one no longer had the feeling: a super-sensible element shines into your thoughts, into your ideas – but one had the feeling: the thoughts, the ideas are only thoughts, only ideas. One did not admit this to oneself; one retained the gesture of the old religious, the old artistic and other world-view feeling; but what one shaped anew was formed in such a way that it could not fulfill man as a whole. The proletarian, who had been snatched from the social situation in which he had formerly lived, to the machine, into soul-destroying capitalism, the proletarian, he truly could not believe in what had been revealed to the leading, guiding circles as the content of this spiritual life. They still spoke in the old formulas, which speak of a divine world order, a moral world order, expressing itself in the historical becoming of humanity. The proletarian was trapped in the mere economic order, in capitalism, which orients and guides this mere economic order. He felt nothing but: what is developing in the newer intellectual life is mere phrase, mere ideology; only the economic life has truth; only the economic order has truth! And so the view resounded again and again, especially in the leading thinking people of the proletariat: everything spiritual, everything artistic, everything religious, everything scientific, everything legal, everything moral is something that rises like a smoke from the only real, from the economic basis of existence, which is the only reality.

Yes, with such a view it is possible to think, it is possible to know – what is usually called knowing – but it is not possible to live with such a view, because the soul becomes desolate with it, because the soul is finally withdrawn from everything that can answer the question: Do I live a dignified human existence? The soul is driven to a mere brutal belief in the external product and its effectiveness. This ideology, it did not educate the proletariat! This disbelief in the spirit, the proletariat did not educate it. All this is the last legacy that the proletariat has inherited from the leading, guiding circles. It has inherited it in good faith, believing that it must be the newer worldview. And everything that has become soul-destroying in the hearts and minds of the proletarians comes from this side. And so we see what it looks like on the other side of the abyss. And we become aware that the proletariat, when it looks at the intellectual life that the modern age has brought forth, has finally said: In the end, it is only the smoke and sound of what is rising from the economic life, the actual basis of human life, the life of the leading, guiding circles. We want nothing to do with that!

And the other consciousness arose in the proletarian: these leading, guiding circles have separated themselves from us by taking possession of the old structure of economic life and shaping the life of the minority from it. But they have left us to be a second-class class, and our relationship to them is not that of man to man; our relationship to them is actually that of a disadvantaged class to a privileged class. And it is a cliché when they speak of the divine, the moral world order, of the ideas that live in history, of the spiritual powers, because all this comes from the economic order. And from a different economic order must come that which satisfies us as they are satisfied by their spiritual and other culture, their culture of life in the minority! What is called “historical materialism” arose out of these feelings.

From the threefold path, the proletariat has learned how a gulf has arisen between itself and the leading, guiding circles, in the way of the spiritual life in the way I have mentioned. But then, as this intellectual life developed and the minority had to draw in the broad masses of the proletariat for its work, something else arose. What is called the newer human formation had to be more or less carried into the broad masses. What was the result of this? Yes, a special fact emerges. The fact that when one quality of the soul develops, another develops at the same time. One of these was the one that developed through the intellectuality of the proletariat, in that democratic education, education of the people, was carried into the proletariat. But as this quality developed, something else developed as a general human world consciousness. There has been much talk about this consciousness today. For those who look at the things of this world impartially, this consciousness today is an elementary emanation of the human being itself. Just as one cannot really discuss color with someone who does not have a healthy eye, one cannot discuss what is a universal human right with a human soul that has not awakened. But it was possible to discuss these universal human rights with the proletarian soul, which was increasingly awakening from patriarchal conditions. And a clear awareness arose of the right that man has by being human. From this consciousness the proletarian looked at what the ruling and leading circles had taken over from the state and made it into a living right. And he found not this human right, but the right of favored classes and the disadvantage of other classes. That was what ate deeper and deeper into the souls of the proletarians. And that was the cause of the second ordeal, the legal process, and the third was what necessarily resulted from the proletarian being completely harnessed into economic life and capitalism; that he could not, like the others, find the [leisure] and rest from work, could not find human development through education to participate in what beautifies the life of the minority. That was what he felt, while he had to say to himself: I am only harnessed into economic life; I am basically only a wheel in economic life. The whole of human life is for me a running off of this economic life. I am harnessed like a machine into this economic life.

That is the third ordeal that the proletariat went through. This threefold suffering of the proletariat, if properly followed and compared with what lives on the other side of the abyss in the way I have characterized, leads to seeking that which must first be striven for from our present-day consciousness, again in a threefold way: in the life of the spirit, in the life of right or state, and in the life of the economy. And that in relation to these three ways of life, something must be striven for from the consciousness of modern humanity, is evident in three fundamental demands of modern times, which have been clearly expressed, but which have nevertheless remained more or less generalities and have not been fully incorporated into our modern life.

Over the past few centuries, the call for liberalism has been rising more and more in human consciousness. Today a word that is no longer held in high regard. Likewise, the call for democracy is rising. And thirdly, the call for socialism is becoming ever clearer and clearer. From this or that side, one could not resist the one or other impulse expressed in these three; but one nevertheless tried to remain in the old conditions and to let what is announced in these three expressions flow into the old conditions, to press it into them. They simply took the old unified state and tried to shape it in a liberal, democratic and social way. Today we live in an age in which it must be recognized that the error lies in living under the suggestion of this unified state and believing that what is expressed in liberalism, democracy and socialism can be pressed into this unified state.

Let us take democracy, which has emerged as an impulse as the middle way in modern humanity. Does not the call for democracy express everything that I have just characterized as emerging from the human sense of right and wrong? Does not the call for democracy express the impulse for something that makes every human being equal to every other human being in the world? Is there not something in it that says that every mature human being has a say in everything that simply affects the position of the human being in the world? Once this has been thought out, the necessity for the development of a democratic state order arises. Democratic state orders are developed in which every person of legal age deals more or less directly with every other person of legal age through representation, and in which each person is to be equal to the other. In the course of modern development, it was impossible to resist what lives in humanity as such an impulse of democracy. And they tried to permeate what they took over historically as the old states with this democratic element in the modern parliaments. They did not realize that two elements of life do not fit into this democratic element, especially if it is to be understood honestly and sincerely. As true as it is that every mature human being must decide on everything in which each person is equal to the other, and as true as it is that this must be experienced and regulated from the standpoint of democratic parliamentarism , it is just as true that the moment this democratic element is allowed to decide on the one hand over economic life and on the other hand over intellectual life, it leads to impossibilities.

Let us first consider economic life. Economic life is based on the fact that the individual human being works his way into the economic knowledge of the individual profession and branch of production in the course of his life. Only someone who is not just theoretically, but through having experienced it, is inside a profession or branch of production, only such a person can decide what is necessary in that profession or branch of production. Only those who have grown together with any profession through which this or that is produced can be trusted in this economic life. In short, any branch of production in economic life, harnessed to democracy, becomes an impossibility, because then the one who does not understand it and does not understand it or who is involved in one economic sector, decides by majority, he decides over those who are involved in completely different sectors, of which he understands nothing. We have seen how terribly this lack of understanding of the relationship between democracy and economic life has manifested itself in those states that have proven to be least mature, above all, in the sub... [gap in the transcript]. But anyone who has lived there for half their life, three decades of life, and has been involved in Austrian political life, knows where the damage lies, which has ultimately led to the fact that such terrible horrors have befallen Austria, that Austria has collapsed so terribly in this world war catastrophe. Because, you see, when people in this patriarchal-clerical Austria in the 1860s worked to get out of the old conditions, to at least take the modern call for liberalism and democracy into account by means of a people's representation – how was this people's representation shaped? They were formed in such a way that four electoral curiae were created: large estates, cities and markets, chambers of commerce and industry, rural communities; all economic curiae. The representatives were people who had to represent the economic interests of individual groups. These people now formed the Austrian parliament. What did they actually do there? What did they strive for? Nothing other than the mere transformation of economic interests into human-legal conditions, into state conditions, into security conditions. The state's mutual human relationships should arise from what was decided in the interest of individual economic circles. It was believed that only economic interests needed to be transformed in order to create legal interests. Anyone who has been able to follow the development of Austria knows that in this construction of state life out of mere economic conditions, the damage that must necessarily lead to ruin has arisen. And as with this example, so could be substantiated by numerous examples for other states, that it is impossible to forge together that which emerged as a democratic demand in modern times with that which has been shaped in economic life.

The same question arises with regard to intellectual life and intellectual culture as a whole. It is impossible for decisions to be made on a democratic basis about what is actually at stake in intellectual culture. In the case of intellectual culture, it is essential that everything that arises, let us say, from unknown sources as human, individual abilities and talents, be developed according to purely spiritual principles; according to those principles that look impartially at what can develop spiritually and individually in the human being, right down to the physical working capacity. But in modern times, the entire care for this development of the individual human abilities has been relegated to the state. This has come about through quite understandable historical facts. In more recent times, when it became necessary to wrest the state side of the church's educational system from certain underground sources, it was justified to hand over certain branches, namely the public branches, the branches of education and instruction, to the state, to which one had to adhere, as the spiritual life. Time and again, it turned out that this spiritual life became a mere copy of the state; that ultimately, in what people produced spiritually, it was not what lives that springs from the direct nature of the human being, what the spiritual produces in the human being, but that what emerged in the spiritual life was what corresponded to the interests and needs of the state. No wonder that eventually – and the world war catastrophe showed this terribly – no wonder that this intellectual life remained free in a few individual branches, in art or the like; that the rest of the intellectual life became nothing but a copy, a reflection of the utilitarian demands and interests of modern states. And as the modern states have become more and more economic entities due to the increasing complexity of economic life, intellectual life was ultimately only an expression of economic life.

The proletariat saw what recent times have done to intellectual life. The proletariat saw this and believed that this was the absolute truth, that intellectual life always only emerges from economic life. That is the great error of the modern proletariat, to take an appearance for something absolute. That is the great error of Marxism, that it does not look at the fact that precisely through the development of the last three to four centuries, on the way I have indicated, the spiritual life has been absorbed by the state, which has increasingly become an economic body, and that we are under the effect of this fact today; but it is not right to say: Let us change the economic life, then a different intellectual life and a different legal life will come. Rather, it is necessary today to say: the spiritual life must be made free again; the spiritual life must be torn away from the state order; the spiritual life must be placed on its own ground. In the future, only that which emerges from the spiritual foundations of the human being may be expressed in the spiritual life. The spiritual life must not be a mere mirror image of the state or economic life.

On the basis of these documents, what first emerged in my appeal “To the German People and to the Cultural World” and then in my book “The Key Points of the Social Questions in the Necessities of Life in the Present and Future” has now been developed and is represented by the Federation for Social Threefolding in its various branches. What this book seeks to do is to dispel the suggestion that the social organism must be a unified state, which, on the one hand, is completely submerged by economic life and, on the other, absorbs spiritual life.

No, what is necessary for the future is to place economic life on its factual and professional basis, to lift this economic life out of the democratic parliament. Only then will it be possible to socialize this economic life when this economic life is placed on its own ground in such a way that those people who are of the same profession, of the same profession as manual laborers, as intellectual workers, join together in associations; when those people who comprise certain consumer and production circles join together in other associations. When such economic communities arise, linked together by federal foundations, then negotiations will be conducted from profession to profession, from consumerism or rather linked together with production branches to other branches. Then it will no longer be possible for a parliament based on democratic principles to decide on economic interests with a majority of people who decide only out of self-interest or ignorance. Then, from profession to profession, from branch of production to branch of production, the interests of economic life will be served by free economic behavior. Then nothing else will occur within this economic life than that which will lead to the fair regulation of the mutual prices of commodities. Then nothing else will assert itself in this economic life but the production, circulation, and consumption of commodities. Above all, everything that must be administered on a democratic basis must be eliminated, above all human labor and capital. Where does human labor lead us? Today, human labor is at the center of economic life. I have pointed out that the proletariat is aware that the wage relationship in economic life is treated like other commodities. The commodity labor power is bought through wages. Labor power must be removed from economic life in terms of its dimensions, in terms of its nature, and then only the mutual value of the commodity will be contained in the prices of the goods. Then the price of the goods will not contain what is contained in the wage situation today. Then, in the field of economic life, decisions will only be made about the price of the goods, which is separate from the human being. Then, in the field of legal or state life, political life, security life, decisions will be made about the extent, type and time of human work. The regulation of human work will be a legal relationship. The regulation of human labor will not be such that the economic coercive relationship has an influence on it. Rather, only that which is decided on the basis of democracy will have an influence on the determination of the human labor force, where every person who has come of age decides on what is due to every person who has come of age. The regulation of the human labor force belongs in the democratic legal order. If this human labor is regulated by democracy, then the worker enters the economic body as a person who freely disposes of his labor and does not conclude an employment contract, which can never contain justice, but a contract for services with those who, as spiritual leaders, are involved in this service. Then the contract is simply concluded on the basis of the earnings and the services provided. Then the regulation of labor is completely separated from economic life.

In the light of their prejudices, this seems completely incredible to people today, to the extent that even a thinker like [Rathenau] believes that such a detachment of the labor force from the economic cycle is not possible. It is possible precisely because what depends on natural conditions is not included in the economic cycle; what the soil yields and what climatic conditions determine must be accepted in economic life. What raw materials are in the soil and how they can be extracted must be accepted as given. This cannot be decided according to so-called economic cycles. In the same way, in the future, it will no longer be permissible to decide, on the basis of economic conditions, what the worker receives. This will be decided by mature people on democratic ground. With this decision, the worker will enter into the economic cycle and conclude a contract in which his labor provides a basic condition, like the natural conditions themselves. The economic process will be constrained on the one hand by natural conditions and on the other by legal conditions. This is what the broad masses of humanity unconsciously demand. One need only understand this unconscious demand; one need only raise it into consciousness and formulate it; then one will perceive with clarity what is so terribly confusing in life today, which manifests itself as social ambiguity. What this path, the threefold social order, is pointing to, is a real path to clarity about the abstract demands that are being raised today. If someone says: Abolish the wage relationship! —, then one can say that for a long time. As long as one does not show a way to overcome this wage relationship, it remains an abstract demand that only has a disturbing effect, that only arouses the elementary instincts of human nature, but that leads to nothing. The moment one realizes that, with regard to public institutions, economic life must be completely separated from legal life, that labor law, as a prerequisite for economic life, must be developed on the basis of democratic legal life, one can show an economic path that can be taken every day from any starting point. For it is impossible to follow such a path tomorrow if one only has the good will to do so. And the same applies to the capital conditions that are currently wedged into economic life.

Oh, people have actually already completely forgotten what the origin of capitalism actually is. The origin of capitalism is diverse. For example, it is based on the fact that in older times land was conquered and thus passed into private ownership, and those over whom the conquests extended came into dependency, into ownershiplessness. It is based on the fact that from what resulted from the conquests as property, the possibility was offered to bring the power conditions of modern times, the means of production, into the private, selfish possession of the individual. In view of what has just been mentioned, the proletariat in turn formulates a demand: the abolition of capital. In its naivety, it does not realize that the words “abolition of capital” actually say nothing, even if they are repeated over and over again. They express what they feel is fair, but they do not take into account that these modern conditions are such, in their economic and other configurations, that one must work with capital in modern social life. Even if you transform the whole modern state into a large cooperative, as some socialists want, nothing else but capital could work in it either, only instead of today's private owners, the [bureaucratic] official would take their place. And those who today, as proletarians, raise this demand would very soon notice how they are much worse off under these newer conditions than under the present ones. Here, by thinking out of reality, one must think quite differently about the conditions of capital. One must also be clear about the fact that it is ultimately the fundamentals of human abilities that lead the individual to have a certain superiority over others. The fact that the individual has acquired a certain superiority makes it possible to collect the means of production and the means of production that made him the leader and that enabled him to transfer to others what he achieved as the leader. Those who think this through carefully, who judge it according to reality, judge it impartially, know, my dear attendees, that all capital is based on the ability of the individual human being, and that this individual ability of the human being must not be eliminated. If you replace the individual, capable person who manages the production processes with the abstract generality, it will only lead to the dismantling or depletion of economic life, not to its reconstruction. But that does not mean that the old institutions should live on, that, as is currently happening, what is capital or the means of production should always be transferred again in the sense of the old order. Rather, it can be replaced by the old order, by which, little by little, those people come into possession of capital in the form of money capital and rent, who no longer have anything to do with production, with the application of individual abilities in the management of economic life, come into possession of capital. What must be opposed to the old economic order is directed against this. It must also be quite possible in the new economic order that capital is concentrated through the abilities of the individual human being, but that only as long as this individual human being, who has brought together these capitals, that is, means of production, remains the head, or in any case remains in a context with these means of production, as his individual abilities can be connected with it. Then, in the ways I have indicated in my book The Core of the Social Question, the capital, or the sum of the means of production, passes through legal transfer to those who in turn have the best individual abilities. This introduces what I call the circulation of capital in the social organism. This circulation of capital, or of property, has always been admitted on spiritual ground, at least in principle, to a certain extent. If today one expects of people that what they admit on spiritual ground should also occur in the field of material possessions, then they certainly make astonished faces. What I produce spiritually remains spiritually mine and the property of my heirs only for a certain time; then it passes into the public domain, in which everyone who has the individual ability to do so can administer it. Similarly, in the future, what is acquired as material property must be transferred to the person who can best manage and administer it through individual abilities. Then there will be harmony between the physically and spiritually working. Then capital, which always originates from individual abilities, will not be able to pass over to those who do not justify ownership through individual abilities. Rather, individual abilities will always remain connected with the management of the means of production. Then the person who has work to do under such management will say to himself: My work thrives best when the circulation of capital takes place in this way, that a sum of means of production always passes to the one who has the best abilities; for he manages my work best.

It is certainly not the case that the impulse for the threefold social order should be accused of false idealism. Those who say that it will take other people to carry it out do not take into account that this impulse for the threefold social order is based on the people we have at present. The manual laborer has an egoistic interest in always having the best leader at hand. But this can only be achieved if the means of production are circulated in this way. But this requires, ladies and gentlemen, that we break with the principle that the means of production are a commodity like those goods that are consumed directly by human needs. A means of production, that is, one in which capital is invested, may only be able to claim capital as long as it costs something until it is finished. The locomotive may only be considered capital until it is finished. Then it ceases to have an external commodity value. Then it only passes to the one who knows how to manage it best in the interest of the whole through transfer or through legal relationships. Land will be... [gap in transcript] from the very beginning.

Today, people still oppose such things out of prejudice, which is rooted not only in habitual ways of thinking but also in the habits of life associated with old institutions. But those who cannot bring themselves to realize that the terrible catastrophe of the world wars calls upon us to think not in terms of a small reckoning, but in terms of a great reckoning, will only contribute to further decline and to destruction, but never to escape from destruction. Thus we see that simply economic life, in which only the production, circulation and consumption of goods may occur, must be separated from the regulation of labor, from the administration of capital. And what must occur in our entire life through this detour that I have just described? That capital, that is, the means of production, must always be administered by the person who has the individual abilities to do so. What must come about is the detachment of the spiritual life from our economic and legal life. This spiritual life must be placed on its own ground. So that in the future, no longer will some experts, merely harnessed into state bureaucracy and torn out of the spiritual life, participate in the administration, but that this spiritual life will be organized from factual foundations entirely by itself, through its self-administration. In the future, the life of the social organism must be shaped in such a way that the spiritual life is administered by those who are at the same time somehow directly involved in the production of this spiritual life. If we look at this spiritual life in particular, on the basis of education and teaching, then only those people who participate in education, from the lowest elementary school teacher to the highest university teacher, must be part of the spiritual organism. In the future, anyone who teaches in any field will only have to teach so much that they still have time left over from this teaching to help administer. That is to say, the production of the spirit and the administration of spiritual life will be carried out in one combined activity. No state school system, no connection between intellectual life and economic life; completely self-contained, so that the lowest elementary school merely aims to artistically acquire knowledge of man or anthropology in the broadest sense, so that from the age of six to fourteen, the child is taught in such a way that this teaching leads solely to the development of the strengths that the child needs in life. This will automatically lead to a unified school, not one that is dictated by the state. Everything that is built up will arise from general human needs. For example, at the secondary schools, the design will be such that at certain school levels, teaching is geared to the fact that the person who has received the teaching is suitable for entering into this or that state system. The opposite must happen: that the school levels are designed according to pedagogical-didactic, spiritual principles, and people will have achieved this or that at 17, at 19 years of age, and the state will have to ask itself: how do I use people who have been educated according to spiritual principles? The state will have to adapt to the spiritual life. The universities will have to have autonomy; they will be the administrators in the highest sense of the spiritual teaching and education system itself.

I can only sketch out all this. It should only be expressed that in this field of spiritual life, a struggle of spiritual efficiency with spiritual efficiency must really take place. Furthermore, that which can be called comprehensive liberalism must be allowed to develop.

In the sphere of state life, in the sphere where decisions are made about the transfer of capital, about the administration of labor law, that which has emerged as democratic impulses will come to fruition.

In the economic sphere, what serves the circulation of goods and human abilities will give full rein to the socialization that has emerged in recent times; the individual spheres of economic life will be linked according to objective principles, where only goods and their production are administered, not people. Then it will be possible to produce in the economic life out of associations, which get to know the needs of the people in a liberal way, not through statistics or other connections, but which get to know them in a liberal way. It will be possible to produce in such a way that the abstract demands of the proletariat are transformed into more concrete demands, into a real path. The proletariat has emphasized that in the future production should not be for profit, but for consumption. But consumption is only possible if the associations of the socially organized economic cycle really create such connections between producers and consumers that production is not based on the randomness of supply and demand on markets, but on a careful, understanding, and appropriate study of needs. It will be necessary to understand and, above all, follow the laws of economics quite differently than they are followed in today's random relationship between supply and demand. We will have to know that at the moment when too many workers are employed in a branch of production, production in that branch of production is too cheap. Human labor is being wasted. Workers must be directed through negotiations and contracts to other branches of production. If too little is produced somewhere, the article will become too expensive; then other workers will have to be directed into that branch of production.

In short, in the future there must be in socialist, capitalist economic life what is now being established through the efforts of the Federation for Threefolding as the institution of the free [works councils], to which the traffic councils, the economic councils, this whole system, will later be joined. But this is not a political system, because the political must be based on democracy. This system of councils, rooted in economic life, which is only concerned with the proper administration of economic life, is the system that will emerge to the surface of modern life, not through the arbitrary demands of individuals, but through the legitimate demands of the times. The institute of the advisers will be such a body, which does not rule by bureaucratic or democratic coercive laws, but which rules by negotiations from person to person, from council to council, from economic association to economic association. If the labor force is distributed across individual branches of production in such a way that every commodity, every good that people need, is produced in such a quantity as is needed for it. Then such prices arise, then in economic life there is that which can form the basis for fair prices to prevail in economic life, whereas, since we have wages in economic life, which, as a commodity, corresponds to the labor force, you can increase wages, ... [gap in the transcript] the prices of goods also increase because no just legal relationship can be established as long as something is included in economic life that does not belong in it, namely human labor, which belongs in legal life.

Thus we see, my dear attendees, that in the future what has had such a suggestive effect on people must be structured as a unified state, in the three-part social organism, in the independent spiritual life, administered according to its own requirements; in the democratic state or political life, in which it is decided, directly and indirectly, by each mature person, what concerns him as an equal to every other person. This also includes property and working conditions. In the future, economic life, in which only appropriate administration by economic associations and bodies takes place, will be the third independent element. These three areas will get along with each other. It is well known, for example, that members of the intellectual professions have concerns and cannot live because the state does not pay them enough. It will become clear in the future that, just as the proletariat must be paid as teachers, only that the path must be different. The spiritual corporations will belong to the economic body in the same way as they belong to the economic body as consumers, and the appropriate relationship will have to be established. This regulation will only be one reason why the individual elements of legal, economic and spiritual life will come together harmoniously, precisely because each one can really work in its own field of expertise.

And there is no need to be afraid of how international relations will judge these things. What I have presented here first arose from a consideration of the international conditions that led to our terrible war catastrophe. Anyone who has studied the development of modern humanity over the decades that preceded this catastrophe knows, for example, how the Balkan issues arose from the interweaving of the three areas of intellectual or cultural life, political or legal life and economic life down there in south-eastern Europe, insofar as they affected the relationship between the Balkans and Austria; that they then led to the outbreak of the world war from this side. First of all, there was the general cultural question of the cultural and intellectual conflict between the Slavs and the Germans. To what extent there was a legal question when the old conservative Turkish element was replaced by the Young Turkish element, the Turkish-Bulgarian question, for example, the history of the Sanjak railway, if you study it, you can see that there were economic interests from Austria to the Balkans. If these circumstances could have been organized out of their own foundations, something else would have emerged than this tangle of circumstances. It was this tangle that brought about such international conflicts. You can also study the problem of the Baghdad Railway. There, too, you will see how the cultures of the nations involved are constantly intermingled with the political, legal and economic aspects. And again and again we see how the economic becomes more powerful than the cultural, and thus again and again another state is on top, for example with the problem of the Baghdad Railway, and so on. It is precisely in international relations that this interweaving of the three areas, which on the ground of each social organism must become three links, plays a terrible role. The only hope for the development of humanity in the future lies in the threefold social organism, in an independent spiritual life with its own administration, in a democratic legal life, in an independent economic life that administers itself from within through its own nature in associations and corporations, in cooperatives. And anyone who studies what is hidden in this terrible, horrific war catastrophe and in what has now emerged from it, need only look to the East and they will find that behind these conditions, which prevailed in the East and which today lead to such terrible exploitation out of misunderstood social impulses, live the great spiritual impulses of the Russian and other Eastern peoples. These spiritual impulses are smouldering beneath the surface today, and they must first work their way up again from what has been superimposed by prejudices of civilization and what lurks as a threatening social spectre from the East towards Central Europe. To prevent this from happening in Central Europe, efforts should be made to ensure that in Central Europe, what is being confused in the East is not confused, but that in Central Europe, intellectual life, state or legal life, economic life are separated.

And let us look to the West. These Western states have essentially brought it about that economic life is developed. They permeate the world economy; they expand private competition to the great imperialistic conditions. That which prevails there one-sidedly as economic life corrupts state and spiritual life. Here in Central Europe, these three areas must be separated. If we have not yet grasped this through the lessons of the terrible catastrophe of the war, we will grasp it out of the necessity into which the threefold unnatural foundations of modern development have brought us, since the time I mentioned the day before yesterday, around the middle of the fifteenth century, began. People longed for a spiritual life, but a new spiritual life did not arise. The spiritual life was not placed on the own ground of the modern spiritually producing personalities. Only the Reformation and the Renaissance, a renewal of the old, came up. Today we live in a great, important time. Today we must not be content with a renaissance of an old spiritual life; today we must appeal to a completely new spiritual life. But this cannot flourish in the shadow of economic life, in the shadow of a state order. It can only flourish if it is free to stand on its own.

Let us look to the East; there we can see how it was initially intellectual life that had an effect, with economic and legal interests only hiding behind it. At first, it was the case that the Banat peoples were to be liberated from Russia. This was based on genuine popular instincts. Confounded with this was what should not be confounded with it.

And then the French Revolution, one sees the same thing happening there. This French Revolution was a different kind of Renaissance. People thirsted for human rights. Rights only came into humanity, a renaissance of state life, to which we also devoted ourselves in Central Europe in the nineteenth century.

But a new legal life is demanded of man as such. In the sphere of the legal life, we have no need of a renaissance, of Roman or other legal conceptions. We need a thorough separation of the legal life from the intellectual and economic life, from which no relationship of power, either spiritual or physical, of one man over another, may arise. Only that which places all mature men on an equal footing may arise from the democratic state. From all this an economic life has developed, in relation to which it is believed that it is sovereign. In Eastern Europe, it is intended to regulate legal-political life and spiritual life from mere economic life. In this way it will be possible to achieve a mere administration of goods, but only such an administration of goods which, instead of founding a new human right, breaks down the old rights and cannot replace them with anything; which, instead of founding a new spiritual life, lets the old spiritual life fade away and finally seep away, and transforms everything into the mechanism of an economic life. Only when they have overcome the old order, which was rightly called the service of throne and altar, will people see whether they have achieved something better. But this service to the throne and the altar must not merely give way to service to the office and the machine in the mechanized economy; rather, the future must bring us an independent economic life in which the individual corporations and associations and cooperatives join together fraternally in genuine socialization. But this can only be built up if it is supported by a democratic state in which man finds his rights as an equal alongside other equals. And economic life, which otherwise would dry up and become rigid, can be stimulated when there is a free spiritual life constantly producing forces and sending them into life, which do not produce a reality-strange world of ideas and science, a reality-strange spiritual culture, but which produce a spiritual culture that can be applied to all areas of life. We have imitated the Renaissance in its love of all things Greek, but the Renaissance created a spiritual life for itself. We need a spiritual life that is suitable only for our present time. And, however strange it may sound, the more spiritual, the more practical this spiritual life will be; and the more we will be able to really intervene in state and economic life. Only it will be the spirit that can fertilize capital; that calls upon labor, the same service for the same service for all. Not as it is today, where production is merely for the market. Only then will we understand what it actually meant when, in the course of the nineteenth century, very clever people reflected on the great motto of the end of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality, fraternity, and said – truly not out of prejudice – that liberty must contradict equality, and that ultimately, everything that lives in liberty and equality is incompatible with fraternity. It turned out that there are contradictions between what one perceives as freedom, as equality and as fraternity, that is, between the three great, public ideals of humanity. How is it possible that three ideals can stand, as if born out of the innermost, most honest striving of the human heart and soul, and yet contradict each other? The reason for this, ladies and gentlemen, is that these three ideals have so far been established from the point of view of the unitary state. As long as we believe that these three ideals, liberty, equality, fraternity, must live in the unitary state, we will find contradictions in them. The future must understand that this unitary state must not bundle together three areas of life that must be administered from different bases. The future must understand that this unitary state, as a social organism, must be divided into three areas, and that in the future the spirit must prevail in freedom. That man must live as the owner of his human rights in democratic equality. That work for the needs of the people must be done in associations, in cooperatives, in short, through brotherhoods on a large scale, out of economic brotherhood. Only when we are no longer under the influence of the unitary state will we be able to hear the call of the future clearly enough.

If we have so far been somewhat shy in Central Europe about directing our thoughts, our feelings, our habits of life to the three spheres of life in their true form – since Versailles, since we have been living under the prospect of much adversity and misery still We will perhaps find our way back to those forces of our Central European culture from which emerged in earlier times what we call German idealism, which can also live in areas other than the artistic and intellectual fields. It is a mere prejudice to believe that practical men are those who, coming from ancient times, had too short thoughts for economic life, so that this economic life of modern times is sailing towards destruction. Those who are ridiculed today as impractical idealists will be seen in the future as true practical men. For public affairs, people will turn to those who have developed these forces, to the forces that Lessing, Goethe and Schiller have brought forth in us. But then one will work out of these healthy forces of Central Europe into the development of the future of humanity in such a way that the threefold social organism will stand on its three healthy foundations, which can be characterized by the fact that in the future the spirit must live in freedom, in free development; that everything that makes each person equal to every other person must live in democratic equality; that legal life must live in the sun of this democratic equality; that economic life, regulated associatively and managed factually in a federative way, must live under the principle of fraternity. Only then will the future of humanity flourish in Central Europe. This Central Europe should radiate something that can be a model for East and West. It should radiate from Central Europe what will benefit humanity in the future. So what should happen will have to happen from this Central Europe, and we will have to say of this event:

Freedom for the mind,

Equality for the law,

Brotherhood for economic life!

Discussion [not reported]

Closing words

Dear attendees,

What is presented as a social-democratic program was suitable – I said in the lecture that when it comes to such things, which are, so to speak, great cultural-educational means, it does not matter so much whether one can discuss them, whether one can prove or disprove them, but rather how they work in terms of education. And in what was the Social Democratic program, what, in a sense, Dr. Einstein listed in his summary, that is such an educational tool. And I am familiar with all the various currents, the individual perceptions and thoughts that have found their way into the hearts and souls of the proletarians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in this way. Above all, however, we must not forget how this program has led to the establishment, within our modern economic and political life, of the notion, let us say, of the self-development of this economic and political life. It was so easily imagined: that which emerged as capitalism became private capitalism, it will concentrate more and more into large capital holdings, and then the transformation of capitalist society into a socialist one will happen by itself.

Today, we still see talk of positive impulses, of germinal thoughts leading to action, and this self-development is held up to us. It is intimately connected with what Dr. Einstein regards as the correct socialist program. But the whole situation with regard to what has just been mentioned has become somewhat different for the truly unbiased observer of current world events due to the world war catastrophe. Today we are not dealing with a self-perpetuating economic or political development; we are dealing with the fact that old cultural currents - as I expressed it in the lecture - have led themselves into self-dissolution. Today we are not dealing with some program, but with the fact that people are faced with a collapsing economic order and have to rebuild it.

Today we are faced with the proletarian human being with his subjective demands and subjective impulses. It is therefore necessary not to get stuck in general phrases, such as “socialization of the means of production”, but to show: how can we make the means of production function in a truly progressive way? And for me, the problem was to apply all these abstractions, including what Dr. Einstein said, to a concrete reality and to always ask: what can be done without dismantling, but by what is there, further develop it; not by ruining the cultural development, but by developing it in such a way that the legitimate demands, which I have also enumerated today in my lecture, can be satisfied for the broad masses. That was the task: not to stand still with the old socialist party programs, which are still floating around today like mummies of party officials, but to move forward in the spirit of the lessons that this world war catastrophe has taught us. That is what it is about, that the abstract, the non-realistic of social democracy must again be transformed into that which is conceived in terms of the three-part social organism that is being implemented today. It is a strange thing when some speaker appears who describes ideology and the fact that ideology has entered into the hearts and souls of people as desolate for the soul, when a speaker who sees in ideology a harmful legacy of the proletariat on the part of the former ruling circles, then a speaker who says: This speaker only wants a new ideology. That means falling back into old dogmatics; it means not wanting to go along with what honestly endeavors to bring the old into a truly contemporary form. That today it is being said again that the old remedy at the beginning, if not at the end, is a transfer of the means of production into the ownership of the totality, on the other hand, it must always be objected: What is this totality? I have explained to you in concrete terms how this transfer to the service of the whole comes about through the circulation of the means of production. It is an empty concept that never contains a germ of action if one only talks about transferring the means of production to the service of the whole. Because how this whole can function with the means of production is what matters. This is something that anyone who does not remain mired in the old dogmas will recognize. They will not want to impose a new ideology here; rather, they will see how an attempt is being made here to finally implement honest and well-intentioned abstractions in realistic thoughts and realistic social will.

I see in those who do not want to develop under the impression of our difficult, distressing and painful times, but who only want to remain with the old dogmas, I see in them - without wanting to offend anyone personally, least of all Dr. Einstein, of course - a terribly conservative mind. And I am glad that at least there are people today, especially in the proletariat, who go beyond these conservative leaders and demand that we look beyond the heads of the leaders for what can finally lead to the goals. If, like Du Bois-Reymond, you proclaim your 'ignorabimus' in the face of the limitations of nature, proclaiming an ignorabimus against this threefold social organism; or if you say, 'We cannot wait', then you are actually saying that you are substituting a nothing for that which, of course, cannot be exhaustively characterized in a short lecture. But today it is necessary not to get stuck in empty abstractions, not to just keep talking: because the pressure gauge is at 95, we need the revolution. But what is the revolution, after all, if we don't think about what we actually want to achieve through a revolution? If people only ever talk about conquering the machines, then the question must be asked: What do they do with these machines when they have them? That is the question. We have often had the example in the development of mankind that people who had machines did not know what to do with them. Should the demand for machines be sought from the vague abstractions, and then it be experienced that one does not know what to do with them?

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have had to explain this to you, especially in connection with a point of view that I appreciate, like that of the person who spoke about it in the usual way. I have been accustomed to this since the 1980s, and what I have learned from it for myself has been incorporated into what I advocate today as the threefold social order.

To those who have objected that we cannot wait, I would simply refer them to my book “Key Points of the Social Question”, in which I explain in detail how what I have outlined today can be put into practice. then he will no longer say that we have to wait so and so many years, but he will say: we can bring about development in such a direction, as envisaged by the threefold social order, from today to tomorrow, from every point of spiritual, economic and political life. We just have to move in that direction, and the rest will follow. But we need courage for that. It takes less courage to keep talking about how the revolution must come, that the dictatorship of the proletariat must be striven for, and so on, than to really get to work on the details. Because this courage includes overcoming old habits of thinking.

My dear audience, when you go into more detail about what the threefold social order is, you will no longer say: practical work should be done and not lectures given forever! Practical work has been indicated piece by piece in the very will of the threefold social order.

And when it is said: we need other people, yes, then one does not know what relationship exists between the social in which the human being lives and between what the human being does. You see, the other day a magazine that also calls itself a social one wrote that socialization should not be rushed because people are not yet mature today. When I hear or read something like that, I always think that those who talk like that are not mature themselves. Because if we had those people who were now fully mature in this sense, then we would no longer need socialization, then people would truly live freely and equally and fraternally. Then we would not have the whole social question. The issue at hand is something else. I would like to mention a fact that occurred in a certain area. During the so-called war economy, it was necessary to employ merchants in the bureaucracy, for example, because they were specialists. The merchants still differed considerably from the bureaucrats when they were outside. But a strange fact occurred: after a few months, these merchants were more bureaucratic than the bureaucrats. Thus the environment had rubbed off on them. This will happen if you do not give each individual link in the social organism the character I have mentioned today. Then a social minority will be created in which people who used to be quite different can develop further in the sense of human ennoblement. I would like to know how one could think of social ideals if one were always to move in the circle: We need other people to achieve other conditions. If we keep going round in circles, we will never be able to achieve other conditions. The point is to create the conditions under which people can develop ethically and spiritually! This is another feature of threefolding: it does not go round in circles but goes straight for the facts; it aims to intervene directly in reality.

If someone says that I should have said this ten to fifteen years ago, when it would have been new, then I would reply that it is no different today than it was ten years ago. But how do you know that what I am saying today, perhaps less clearly formulated, I did not say ten to fifteen years ago? I would like to tell you something about that. I have already mentioned that I was a teacher for many years at the Workers' Education School founded by Liebknecht. There I tried in particular to show people how the materialistically oriented teaching only abstracts from the historical development of the last three to four centuries. At that time – that is, at the beginning of the present century – I had a fairly large number of students. When I had few students, the party bigwigs paid little attention to what I said to the people. When the number of students grew and grew, these party bigwigs became unpleasantly aware of what was being taught in a central workers' education school. As a result, a large number of students were called together one day and some party leaders were sent to the people. I said at the time: You want to be a party of the future, you want to establish future conditions. I would now like to know where freedom of teaching is to prevail today if you always want to suppress it, if you want to teach party dogmatism here. One of these leaders stood up and said, in contradiction to his entire group of hundreds of students: We cannot tolerate freedom of teaching; we know of no freedom in this area, we only know reasonable constraint. That is the [experience] I had at the time. It showed me that one must continue to work first, but that one must wait until one can meet with understanding. That is why I must also refuse today when it is said: You don't need a new party! You certainly don't need one. I really don't know where it could be inferred from the lecture that I want a new party. I have spent my whole life studying the various social conditions in all circles and all walks of life. But I have never been involved in parties. And I am glad of that. And do you think that now, at the end of my sixth decade, I would like to put myself in the shoes of a party, after saying what the parties have actually achieved and where they have brought our political life? I appeal to the intellect and reason of each individual and not to parties; I always have to say that when I am told that what I am saying is difficult to understand. I know it is taken from reality. And that which is taken from reality requires a certain instinct for its realizability. This certain instinct for realizability cannot be absorbed from abstract party-line opinions. But we should also learn from the past. Unfortunately, we have experienced it enough in Central Europe that people have accepted what they have been ordered to accept from any side, for more than four and a half years. We have experienced it: if only from the great headquarters or from somewhere else the opinions that one truly could not understand well with one's own reason, if one could repeat them, then one saw them. You didn't ask yourself: should this be understood or not? You took orders to understand. Now it is a matter of understanding something that you are not ordered to understand, but to understand out of the freedom of the human soul. And only this appeal to the direct freedom of the human soul leads us forward. I am not thinking of a party, but I am thinking of all those people who today, out of necessity and misery, want to save themselves – a reasonable judgment of common sense: they will not flock to a party. But perhaps they will be the bearers of what we need for the future, what we must strive for if we want to emerge from confusion and chaos.