Anthroposophical Spiritual Science and the Big Questions of Contemporary Civilization

GA 80c — 25 February 1921, Delft

5. Economic Life in the Threefold Social Organism

Dear attendees! First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the esteemed board for their kind invitation, and in particular to Professor Hallo for the kind words he has just spoken. I have all the more reason to do so because it may seem understandable that everything one is able to say today about a question that touches humanity so deeply, as is the case with my topic today, can only be an attempt, perhaps even just the beginning of an attempt. And the appeal is necessary to understanding and sympathetic humanity.

This brings me immediately to the point where the remarks I have to make to you today differ in principle from all similar discussions that have taken place so frequently in recent times on economic issues in the narrower sense, and on social issues in the broader sense. We have had enough of utopias and utopian constructs. They have emerged from the legitimate foundations of modern human endeavor.

Modern technology has complicated economic life and has brought the whole of social life into extraordinarily diverse new circumstances compared to those to which humanity was accustomed in the past. And so the opinion arose in a great many minds that one could say dogmatically in some way how this more complicated modern social life should be shaped so that every human being, including the broad masses, would be able to lead a dignified existence. But it must be said that anyone who today believes that they can make an impression on their fellow human beings with utopian, dogmatic definitions of social conditions does not understand the basic nature of today's civilization, of today's human life.

Let us assume, dear attendees, that someone could ingeniously devise some economic or social system, or even construct one dogmatically from a broad life experience, if he were to hold it up to humanity, he would not be able to make any impression with the most ingenious arguments, which would be held in this sense. Because we live in a time when the prophets should actually be extinct. We live in a time when people are not inclined to accept anything on authority or on the basis of prophecy. Anyone who takes something seriously and honestly, such as the social question or the reorganization of the present and future economic life, must take this into account.

People today are of the opinion that they themselves must find the guidelines for life. They are of the opinion that they must shape what they determine to be the goals of life out of their own elementary soul and organic powers. In this, I would say most universally democratic point of view, stands what I call the impulse for the threefold social order. This impulse is not intended to say that economic or other social conditions should be shaped in this or that way; it is only intended to point out how people can be brought into a position where they want to shape their lives according to the demands of the present, the demands of their own soul, regardless of whether they consciously or unconsciously strive for them.

The impulse for the threefold social order appeals to the human being, not to a description of any institutions or conditions. It wants to call upon the human being and first hear from the human being what this human being considers appropriate. But this impulse will say how the situation can be brought about in which people are given the opportunity to actively shape their own destiny. Thus, the impulse for the threefold social order wants to work entirely from the habits and aspirations of present-day life, without any utopian nuances, purely from practical life. It does, however, start from two premises. The first, which probably few people would admit to at first, but which emerges from what I will be obliged to characterize at least to some extent in a moment, it emerges from anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

It is the conviction that human development goes through meaningful epochs, so that one can look back, for the time being, only at historical times. One sees that there have been different epochs of human development, and in each such epoch, humanity goes through a phase of its being, a phase of its soul and spiritual constitution. What has occurred in one epoch can no longer be repeated in a later one. What earthly humanity has to go through in the course of time through its development thus arises in the course of successive epochs as various missions.

In our epoch, which in this respect has lasted three to four centuries – what has now slowly been preparing has reached a certain culmination – in our epoch we see, welling up from the depths of the human soul, what I would call the democratic urge that runs through the entire modern, civilized world. But I do not mean the triviality that is very often associated with this term; I mean, when I say “democratic urge”, the form of human self-awareness that is developing in our era, through which every human being wants to find within themselves the source for a convincing spiritual life — life of knowledge, life of faith, life of art — welling up from within himself, and in which every human being wants to develop out of himself those feelings through which he relates to his fellow human beings, without this relationship being firmly determined by authority. The human being wants to find their relationship to their fellow human beings from their own free will. And in relation to economic life, the human being wants to come to conditions that enable them to have these foundations of soul and spiritual life in such a way that the democratic impulse can be lived out in the highest sense of the word. In earlier epochs, such a democratic impulse was not present universally within human development. Principles of authority dominated social organisms. And only around the middle of the fifteenth century did the ground slowly begin to prepare for what then came, so to speak, to a grandiose outburst at the end of the eighteenth century and to a culmination in our time, where it wriggles out from civilized humanity through convulsions, through severe trials, through misery and hardship, even through something like the terrible catastrophe we went through in the second decade of the 20th century.

This is one of the things that the person who comes to the impulse of the threefold social organism looks at. He asks himself: What is the most important historical characteristic in the present human being? And the other thing that serves as a starting point for the threefold social organism, I can only characterize it by becoming personal in a certain respect.

I can say that for decades I have observed European economic life, European state life and European intellectual life from different perspectives. For thirty years I have lived in Austria, the experimental country for such observations; in that Austria, where it was shown, especially in its downfall, how the external circumstances were not suitable for solving the great questions of contemporary existence in any way. These and many other conditions of the entire civilization of Europe show that, everywhere in the depths of human souls (one cannot always speak of consciousness, because much still lives in the unconscious or subconscious of most souls today), there is an instinct that a new order must come about. And what I am presenting as the threefold social order is not something I have thought up, least of all fantasized. It is, in a sense, a reading of what could be observed by acquiring an unbiased sense of the economic, constitutional and spiritual development of the present and the last decades. And so what I have to present is the result of observation and experience.

If you take what has been brought into the world in the direction of social and economic issues, up to Karl Marx and those who came later, you will find everywhere that these are logically linked systems. A great deal of ingenuity has been expended. But what humanity needs today is not a logically constructed social system, it is rather something that is as manifold as reality itself. Reality presents itself to us in such a way that what is formed in it could also be different. And if it were different, one would not even be able to say that it is more imperfect. Reality is not unambiguous. Therefore, anyone who speaks about social conditions based on reality cannot speak with the same unambiguousness that is often demanded based on certain dogmatic prejudices. Therefore, my dear attendees, some of what I have to say will give rise to one objection or another, just as one or the other can be objected to in reality itself. But such objections are not important. What is important is whether what one proposes in social terms has the power to sustain life, whether it has the strength to carry us through the present and into the near future.

Today I am speaking to you about economic life in the narrower sense, from the point of view of the threefold social order. But I would not be able to do that if I did not also present you with at least a rough sketch of the nature of this threefold social organism and also of the nature of the starting point of that which underlies what I would like to give as a certain characteristic of economic life, namely anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

When anthroposophy is mentioned, it is easy to imagine something mystical, vague, distant and unworldly. People are accustomed to identifying anthroposophy with such movements when they consider all kinds of sectarian, mystical-theosophical and similar movements. If you identify anthroposophy with such movements, you will misunderstand it completely. Anthroposophy is based on the same starting points as the modern scientific way of thinking, this scientific way of thinking that has brought us such tremendous insights into the external world, that has basically created all modern technology, and that has transformed our social life to such an extent. But just as it is true that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science fully recognizes the great significance of science and modern technology, so it cannot, for that very reason, stop at the methods that science has developed. Starting from these methods, it must develop spiritual scientific methods in order to penetrate from the physical world into a superphysical world. For everything that surrounds us in the physical world is rooted in the superphysical world. A person only becomes aware of this when he develops other cognitive powers, in addition to those he has through ordinary inheritance, through ordinary child and school education, and through academic life and so on, which, so to speak, do not come into play in ordinary life and ordinary science, and which initially remain latent in the human soul life.

Certain higher powers of knowledge are brought out of the human soul through very specific methods, methods of a proper meditation and concentration permeated by a spirit of mathematization, through methods of a proper schooling, which I have described in my books “How to Know Higher Worlds”, “Occult Science”, “A Path to Self-Knowledge”. In my books “The Riddle of Man” and “The Riddle of Souls” I have called these higher powers of knowledge “eyes of the spirit” and “ears of the spirit” in the sense of Goethe's world view. Just as our physical organization develops physical eyes and physical ears in us, we can indeed develop spiritual organs that do not sit partially somewhere, but engage the whole person, working from within the fullness of humanity. We can train such spiritual organs and become aware of a supersensible world around us, just as we perceive the physical world around us through our physical organs and through the mind, which is connected to our brain and which combines physical phenomena. And just as we follow the development of the universe through ordinary natural science by looking back to the first physical states and trying to understand how individual beings have developed up to the point of man, so through spiritual science we arrive at the spiritual foundations and starting points of the universe and the spiritual goals of this universe. In this way, two parts of our spiritual life are joined together into a unity, which modern spiritual life has tragically torn apart for man.

My dear attendees, anyone who, like me, has met those individuals who not only live in the theoretical sense in the knowledge of modern times, but with their whole being, their whole mind, knows what tragedy can play out in the soul of those who take the achievements of modern knowledge, which are to be fully recognized, seriously and honestly. You see, I have met people who said to themselves: 'There I look out into a world of mere natural necessities. Man also comes from this world of mere natural necessities. But something sprouts up in this human interior through which man can truly find himself valuable in life. These are the moral ideals, these are the religious feelings, these are the artistic perceptions of the universe, these are all the things we call right, custom and so on. But then such honest people say to themselves: All this arises from a powerful illusion, from a great deception, like smoke and mist from the depths of the human soul. For in reality, man is an external physical organism that has emerged from the universe only through natural necessity. One must look at how this universe will one day arrive in a state of heat death or the like, and how the great cemetery of all ideals, all moral life, all that appears to man as if it were only giving him a dignified existence, will have disappeared and been extinguished.

But anyone who has seen human beings suffer under this effect of the modern world view on the human mind knows what it means for spiritual science to make a unity out of what lives in the human soul as moral ideals, as religious impulses, as artistic perceptions, and what is out there in nature. Today I can only sketch this out; in my books, which I just mentioned, you will find the above substantiated and proven. But I would like to make myself clear with a comparison: we see a plant, it grows out of the ground. As it grows out of the ground, it unfolds leaves and flowers; but then it also unfolds the germ in the flower, which is already the plant for a new plant next year. The germ is inconspicuous, but it is the germ for an entire plant next year, while the leaves and flowers wither and fall off. This is the case in the universe before the knowledge of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. There we see the outer universe with the natural laws that govern it, right down to the law of the conservation of energy and matter. We see it in the sense of this spiritual science as that which withers, dies, and perishes in death. And we see in the human being the moral ideals, the religious impulses, and the artistic perceptions, and we know that these are the seeds for future worlds. That which we see around us today as nature is the result of the moral experiences of beings from a very distant past. What we carry within us as spiritual worlds is the germ for physical worlds of a distant future.

As I said, I can only sketch this out now. I do this for the reason that I can point to what spiritual science, by developing the spirit of natural science, can provide for humanity as a worldview. There we learn to recognize the living spirit again. There one learns to recognize the difference between the conviction that says: I approach the real, actual spirit of the world through spiritual science; I learn to recognize: not only thoughts and ideas live in me, but living spiritual beings live in my thoughts and ideas. One learns to recognize the living spirit again. The old religions, by merely continuing to live traditionally, have lost the great meaning they once had. We need creativity in the human soul in order to gain access to a spiritual life that works in such elementary ways. In contrast to this, the spiritual life that has developed over the last few centuries is an abstract, theoretical one. We experiment, we observe, we use wonderfully ingenious tools and instruments to explore the physical environment and its laws. But all that we explore is only something that gives us abstract concepts and theories, which we may then apply, but which does not fill us inwardly with a living spirit. So that we can say: we do not merely think in thoughts, we do not merely live in images, but as human beings walk around here on earth, supersensible worlds live in us through their spiritual beings, just as the three kingdoms of nature live in our physical organism.

What the threefold social order has to say about the various areas of social life also stems from this real grasp of the spiritual world. For it is the economic questions that are at the root of the social question today. And if one has come to know this social question not from the outside but from the inside, then one must think about it somewhat differently than is generally the case today. For many years I taught at a workers' education school, where I taught a wide range of subjects to proletarians, people who wanted to satisfy their strong urge for education. But it was also possible for me to get to know the proletarian soul, and at the bottom of the proletarian soul to recognize what wells up from the broad masses of the people as the actual foundations and fundamental difficulties of today's economic problem. Time and again, when talking to thousands upon thousands of people – and these days there are millions of people who have not come to know the proletariat and therefore have no idea of the real issues – one hears the same word over and over again: the word 'ideology'.

The word 'ideology' has become popular among the broad masses today. What does it mean? It means that today these broad masses, who have stood at the modern machine, who have been woven into the fabric of modern technology, have been alienated from the joy of the immediate products of labor , that these broad masses have adopted a deeply internal conviction that only the external, material, economic processes, as people express themselves, the production processes, the modes and types of production, actually have a reality. What man stands in as in material production, that is the actual reality, and what he develops as custom, as law, as religion, as science, as art, is only what people call a superstructure, that is, something that arises as an ideology, as smoke and fog, from the only reality, which is material reality.

Those who belong to the educated classes still have old traditions or at least live in a life that is still dominated by old traditions, by religious traditions, artistic traditions and so on. The broad masses of the people have said goodbye to these traditions. The broad masses have taken on board as their innermost conviction what is a theory of the other classes. One can have such a thing as a conviction, one can even defend it, one can cite all sorts of logical reasons for it, but one cannot live with it. And that one cannot live with it in the deepest part of one's soul can be seen by anyone who has been in contact with these people for years, especially as their teacher. It deserts the soul, it empties the soul when it regards spiritual life as an ideology.

Truly, the leading circles, by having also alienated themselves from the living spiritual life, have made what can become spiritual experience into mere theory, mere abstraction, mere head culture. The modern worker wants to fill the whole person with it, and as a result he remains afflicted with a barrenness of soul. The origin of modern economic difficulties must be sought in this state of mind, which the modern proletarian has inherited from the intellectual life of the ruling classes, in this spiritual barrenness. These economic difficulties do not lie in external institutions, they lie in the mental state of the broadest sections of modern humanity, sections numbering millions, as just outlined and characterized: ideology instead of a living intellectual life.

We must then look for the causes of how it actually came about that ideology could take the place of a living spiritual life in social life as well. And here we come to something that may still be perceived as a paradox today, because people do not realize that what is fully justified for one epoch of humanity cannot also be for all epochs of humanity.

When this modern life emerged, from the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth century, there were already individual states, state structures, that had formed from different prerequisites within modern civilization. These state structures gradually took over all tasks of human development. We know, of course, how educational life was dependent on the denominations in ancient times. The state structures rightly took over the schooling, the educating, the educational life from the denominations. They could not remain with the denominations. For this it was necessary that what school and educational life is was incorporated into the framework of the state. And another urge developed; because one actually only had this social framework of the modern state, the urge also developed, as modern economic conditions became more and more complicated under the influence of triumphant technology, to gradually have economic life also more and more encompassed by state principles and state forces.

And so the three areas of human development were made into an external, abstract unity. In a certain way, it was beneficial that this unity came about, but on the other hand, we are now at the historical point in time where the three different areas of human social life are breaking away from this unity, demanding that they receive their own administration that follows from their essence.

Let us first take spiritual life, as I have characterized it, as it wants to emerge anew from the creative sources of the human soul through anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. This spiritual life can only develop if it can independently administer itself on its own ground, if it does not receive its guidelines from any state measures, from any state administration. These matters, ladies and gentlemen, can easily be challenged on logical grounds. But for anyone who can immerse themselves in the particular structure of intellectual life, it is clear that intellectual life, that which is creative in it, that which brings its own character to the surface, can only develop if the educational life is educational and school system is put on a firm footing; if this spiritual life, namely the most important link in this spiritual life, the public education and school system, is designed in such a way that those who are teaching, instructing and educating in it are also the administrators. They should devote only as much time to education and teaching as is necessary to enable them to administer the education and teaching system itself, in accordance with the same principles as those they teach by the hour. Intellectual life, education and teaching must not be dependent on any external norm. For the interference of an external norm kills that which must be in every educator and teacher: direct responsibility not to a state, not to an economic power, but to the supersensible spiritual life itself.

If each person feels responsible as an individual of humanity towards spiritual life in its essence, then we have a living spiritual life. To shape this living spiritual life, it is necessary that this spiritual life receives its own administration. It will be able to establish its own validity. One only has to emancipate this spiritual life from state and economic life, give it its own administration, and one will see that, because one needs the abilities of capable people, one will also recognize these abilities. And in the same moment in which a person's position in the spiritual life is not determined by external laws and administrative measures, but rather by the fact that a person works out of his or her individuality according to his or her abilities in the free spiritual life, in that same moment there will also be the free recognition of human abilities with regard to the spiritual life.

And basically, one can only get an idea of such a spiritual life from anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. Abstract spiritual life is alienated from the world. The spiritual life that we cultivate at the School of Spiritual Science at the Goetheanum is a spiritual knowledge that approaches the whole human being, that is not a cerebral culture, but that can be said to develop the human being right down to their manual dexterity. I would just like to mention briefly that last fall, at the Goetheanum, we held courses for the School for Spiritual Science, in which thirty personalities participated: scholars, artists, business people, and industrialists who wanted to show how anthroposophical spiritual science can be applied to the whole human being and to all of life. Theoretical and abstract spiritual life does not reach into the muscles and dexterity; it must first acquire routine. A living spiritual life reaches into manual dexterity, into the muscles and nerve formations.

Therefore, a free spiritual life, which from this perspective is the basis of the rest of the social order, will be able to embrace not those unworldly teacher-natures who are often to be blamed for this, because they are, after all, the result of human conditions in the present, but rather people of life. And it is precisely out of this attitude that practical insights into life, everything that is directly related to everyday life, will be recognized and developed from the spiritual life in the same way that philosophy or basic religious conviction is developed. For in such a spiritual life all material and all spiritual is one, and the spirit has the right power in man only when it does not close man off from material life, but when it gives man the ability to intervene in material life in practically every field. We must not withdraw into a nebulous, mystical spiritual life, but let the spirit permeate us, so that precisely the external, physical reality can be spiritualized.

We need this spiritual life as the basis of a healthy economic life. For this spiritual life will in turn embrace man. It will not, as the so-called spiritual life of the last three to four centuries has done, bring the broad masses what is only a dull, deadening ideology, but it will give them a sense of their human dignity. Then it will be possible to work with them. For the social and economic question can only be solved from the human soul, from human knowledge, human feelings and convictions and will impulses. We must find access to the souls of working people. We will not find this access if we continue to talk to them about our sciences as we have talked to them so far, and if we talk about social conditions in the way that these sciences have taught us to talk about them so far.

Thus I have described the first link in the threefold social organism: the independent spiritual life, which is placed in the administration of those who are spiritually creative, namely those who educate and teach. This is, so to speak, on one wing of the modern social organism. On the other wing is economic life. This economic life is fundamentally different from the spiritual life. What does a person in the spiritual life strive for? He strives to come out of his soul to an understanding of the harmony of life. Even the simplest person must have a certain totality of life in relation to the spiritual life. In relation to the economic life, we can never have that. Here, if a person really observes life and has a sense of life, he must make a confession to himself: in economic life there is no total judgment of the individual. What does that mean? I will first make myself clear through an historical fact. Around the middle of the nineteenth century, the gold standard was discussed in many states, and in many areas of public social life in general. In some states, the gold standard was introduced. What was said about the gold standard at that time by parliamentarians, by practical economists, by other practitioners of life – I do not mean this ironically, but quite seriously and honestly – was indeed very astute and clever. One still has great respect for those people who spoke about economic life at that time.

But all that was explained, and with excellent reasons at that, was the prognosis: Free trade would flourish under the influence of the gold standard, the individual states would open their borders, and the appropriate global economic life would be able to develop freely, unimpeded by the borders of the individual states. These state frameworks have, after all, arisen from completely different conditions than modern economic life, which has gradually become a unit through the world economy and which needs completely different connections than those that states can create. Free trade will flourish. So very clever people have said. And what has actually happened? Customs barriers have sprung up everywhere; the superiority of protective tariffs has been much discussed since then, less wisely but with more prospect of achieving things.

What is actually at hand here? What is at hand, ladies and gentlemen, is that in the field of economic life, the cleverness with which one progresses in intellectual life as an individual is of no use in economic life. It is a profound and significant truth that no matter how clever an individual may be, if his economic judgment is to have any weight in economic life, then no matter how clever a judgment based on individual abilities may be, it counts for nothing; in economic life, the only thing that matters is what we acquire through expertise and skill in the individual subjects of economic life. But this cannot develop directly in economic life; rather, it relies on being complemented by what others in other industries, in other fields, can develop as decisive judgment, as judgment that is viable for reality. In economic life, only collective judgment can be decisive, that is, what a particular group of people, uniting the most diverse economic sectors, presents in such a way that one is not dealing with mutual advice; in the case of advice, not much comes of it, only a formless parliamentarization; but rather, you are dealing with mutual interests coming into relation with each other; that you are dealing with working life itself; that one person has this to realize, the other that; that one person has something to assert, a skill in a particular field, the other something in the field of [production] and so on. And it is entirely possible that associations will be formed that must have a certain size, associations in which people from the most diverse economic walks of life unite. Things start from needs. Then it is a matter of uniting with those people who, based on their life experiences, can talk about the needs of certain circles, with other people who are involved in certain branches of production that meet these needs.

And, esteemed attendees, something else is possible than what appears in the modern social democracy when the slogan, which is correct as a slogan, is repeated over and over again: one should not produce to profit, but to consume. What could be more correct than this! But what could be easier than to utter such an abstract sentence? It is always a question of how to do something like that. Because the matter is actually self-evident.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, until now it has only been possible to implement such things in a limited number of areas. And I would like to start by presenting an area to you that you may not recognize because it belongs more to the spiritual realm. However, I will characterize it now only in economic terms – the area of anthroposophical book trade. Many years ago we founded the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House in Berlin. Consider how a publishing house is usually run today. I am citing something from the spiritual life, but you will soon see that it can be applied to the whole material life. How is a publishing house run today? The publisher takes the manuscript from the author. The manuscript is typeset. Books are produced and sent to the booksellers, but are they all sold? Well, anyone who knows the book trade also knows what the term 'crabs' means. These are the books that are returned by the booksellers. There are many such cancers, not only among poets, where almost everything that is printed takes on the nature of cancer. But let's look at what is actually happening. So and so many people are employed to produce the paper, so and so many people to set the books, print them, then ship these books and so on. Do you realize how many people are kept busy with books that are not at all necessary for the life of the general public? Most of them are not necessary, life would go on just as well without them, especially in a field where everything hinges on production. So how did we do it at the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press?

We have not printed a single book that was not certain from the outset to sell. Because we started from spiritual consumption. First there was the Anthroposophical Society. However critical you may think of it, I am only talking about economic matters now. This society developed a need, we knew this need, we lived in association with the Anthroposophical Society, we got to know its needs in a living way, and we took these needs into account in our spiritual production. And the publishing house was never in a position to employ people unnecessarily. It would be much more important than the empty phrases we hear in many programs and the like today to think about how to do things, how to fight worthless production and the worthless employment of people in social life. This can only be done through the principle of association. However imperfect this association I have described is, it is an association.

Later, I tried something that was then interrupted by the war. We had a member in the Anthroposophical Society who was a master baker. I said: Why shouldn't the Anthroposophical Society also be seen as a sum of consumers for bread, which it certainly is as well. So I get them so many consumers that they can pursue their production, I said to the person concerned. It did not succeed, partly because of the individuality of the person concerned, but it could have succeeded; but the war came into the picture as well. Again, starting from demand, an attempt was made to associate demand with production.

You see, what I am describing to you as the associative principle in economic life also shows itself as something that wells up from the subconscious of human society today, so to speak. On the one hand we see the formation of cartels, on the other the formation of trusts, but always only among mere producers, while the connection between producers and consumers is provided by the agencies, and this is also one-sided. By eliminating the agencies and creating associations that stand between consumption and production with their living interests and mediate between them, a fruitful future for economic life is ensured. Cartels allot profits, allot consumption, allot various things. One sees that, under the influence of the world economy, unification is necessary, but the matter is initially approached from the wrong end. Instead of encompassing the entire economy in associations, they initially associate only producers. This exacerbates the very thing that has brought chaos to our economic life. It does not reduce and mitigate it.

Now, my dear attendees, what is it exactly that suggests, when we look at our economic life with open minds, that economic life, as a special link in the three-part social organism, must also be distinguished from the other two, as I have already characterized for the spiritual link and will still characterize for the other link.

I will characterize a very specific fact of today's economic life, which, for those who are now routine in economic life, is felt as an economic difficulty, but about which it is not easy to gain clarity. It is the fact that in our complicated social entity, in which the division of labor prevails, in which people work for each other, we pay for goods as a product of labor; we pay for human labor in the same way as we pay for goods as a product of labor. We pay for both with the same money, so to speak. Sometimes money can represent a certain amount of coal, and at other times it can represent a certain amount of labor. Now imagine if someone wanted to measure with a common measure, lambs and apples, things that simply do not have a common measure, things that have nothing in common. Human labor power as such is not comparable with a commodity in an agitative way, in a very wrong way this thing lives in Karl Marx's agitation.

But in every unbiased sense of humanity, it lives as the source of an explanation of how we have pushed two things together in our economic life that really cannot be measured by any common measure. And here, too, modern life is already working in such a way that it unconsciously wants to help itself, so to speak, in the right direction. Individual states have tried to regulate working hours, set up work insurance, pension insurance and so on, in short, to regulate work through a special legal system, independently of what is contained in economic life itself. Because economic life only includes the production, circulation and consumption of goods. In economic life, work is only indirectly included.

Basically, the situation is as follows: on the one hand, we have nature in the economy. We cannot possibly dictate from mere economic motives – because we as a consortium may need to sell wheat at such and such a price next year if we are to achieve this or that – that there will be so and so much rain or sunshine next year. Nature is taken for granted. We have to accept it. We want to bring human labor directly under the economic point of view. We want to regulate human labor from the economic basis. Social democracy wants it itself, wants it precisely from the economic basis. It represents nothing other than the terribly one-sided continuation of that which led into chaos.

It is important to recognize that goods and human labor are not comparable values, that they must be managed from two different perspectives. We do not need to manage nature; it cannot be managed; it underlies our economic life just as it underlies the economic life of birds and the like. Within the actual economic life, we manage the production of goods, the circulation of goods, and the consumption of goods. However, modern conditions have led to a confusion between the comparative value or price of the goods and that which labor quite remunerates in the same way as one pays for goods – while labor must be regulated according to completely different aspects.

Just think about what has emerged from the unnaturalness of modern conditions; for example, within modern proletarian theory. People say: the manual laborer works this or that, and in doing so consumes organic power that must be replaced; for this he must be remunerated. A great contrast has even been constructed between manual labor and mental labor. Mental labor consumes less because it provides ideas that are then always imitated. It does not provide something that works in this way towards consumption. All these theories have arisen because work has been put into the process of commodity consumption, commodity circulation and commodity production, because the line has not been drawn between the actual economic life and the state or legal or political life. Thus we have the three limbs of the social organism, the spiritual limb, namely, the most important, public spiritual life: the teaching and education system; the state-political limb, in which, for example, labor is to be regulated.

How does someone who takes what I said at the beginning of my lecture very seriously and honestly – the awareness that modern humanity must move towards democracy – cope? Only those who leave out what cannot be democratized from the democratic can take democracy seriously and honestly.

There is a broad and comprehensive area of human affairs in which every person who has come of age is competent; that is the area in which majorities rightly prevail. This is the area where something can be achieved by parliamentarization. Parliamentarization cannot achieve anything in the field of intellectual life, where only the development of the individuality of the individual can be fruitful. Parliamentarization, majority decisions, cannot achieve anything in the field of economic life. There associations must come into being in the way I have described, out of the most diverse branches of life. And these associations will develop to a certain size. There is no need for statistics; they are of no help, they only refer to the past, but it is life that matters. And it is life that should be grasped by people who are members of associations, and that the associations should grasp the needs, not regulate them. Economic life has nothing to do with ethics, with a critique of needs, but only with the observation that the needs are there. The free spiritual life has to do with critique, with the regulation of needs. Political life has to do with what I have just spoken of and what I will speak of yet. In economic life, associations only have to do with what is alive in the production, circulation and consumption of goods.

Once the need has been determined, it is known how many people have to be involved in the production of certain articles. If too many people are involved, the products become too cheap for the need; if too few people are involved, the products become too expensive. We arrive at what I would call the shaping of the price out of the life of the associations. Of course, we can only take something as a kind of calculation, as a kind of general formula. But it is possible to arrive at something fruitful out of such associations by concluding contracts to the effect that as many people as are necessary can work on an article in a certain field. We can arrive at a situation in which what I would call the 'primordial cell of economic life' is fulfilled more and more. It will seem paradoxical to you. And yet, in its subconscious depths, humanity strives for economic satisfaction in the sense of this economic primordial cell: every person should receive for his product of labor — not for his labor, labor does not belong in economic life — he needs for himself, his family and everything else for which he has to provide, in order to fabricate an equal product in turn; thus, he needs as much for the satisfaction of his needs as it takes to produce an equal product. Roughly speaking: If I make a pair of boots, I must receive so much for this pair of boots through the regulation of economic life that I can make a new pair of boots, and while I am making this new pair of boots, I have everything I need for myself, my family and other expenses.

I am not saying that this should be determined by some kind of socialist dogma, but that the associative principle is the necessary one. There is no need to fear that this will lead to a terrible bureaucracy. After all, bureaucracy is already sufficiently taken care of in all countries of the world precisely because of other circumstances. What I mean here by economic association will establish itself alongside work and through work. And since economic areas and economic associations become confusing when they are too large and uneconomical when they are too small, economic organization has a certain size depending on climatic and other conditions, as well as on the characters of the people and so on.

The associations continue to associate. This then provides the basis for a large world association, for the great world economic federation, which can only be created out of economic life, out of an economic life independent of intellectual and political life. Of course, work plays a role in this economic life, but on the other hand, work must be left to the realm of the political and legal state. Every person who has come of age is competent to speak about the extent of work, in association with other people.

My esteemed audience, I spoke earlier about the ill-fated experimental country of Austria, where I spent thirty years. There one could see how modern parliamentary life has emerged. You could see what it means to carry economic interests into political life. When parliamentary life was to be created in Austria in the 1860s, the parliament was composed of four curiae: the curia of the large landowners, the curia of the chamber of commerce, the curia of the cities, markets and industrial towns, and the curia of the rural communities – purely economic points of view! Four curiae, put together purely on the basis of economic interests. They were now supposed to decide on the legal and political situation. Not only the intellectual and national life, no, the internal impossibility has already created destructive forces in a country as difficult to construct and as difficult to put together as Austria, which could already be seen in the 1870s and 1880s by anyone living in Austria with an unbiased mind. There one could study how necessary it is to keep economic life separate, with its own administrative instances, rooted in the associations of the various professional and industrial guilds and of the various branches of economic life in general, and to have, in addition, the free spiritual life, which certainly plays a part in economic life. How it plays a part, I have described in detail in my 'Key Points of the Social Question'. You will also find details in our newspaper on threefolding, which appears in Stuttgart, and also in a Dutch newspaper on the threefolding of the social organism.

Just as you can educate yourself about the fertility of the free spiritual life in the Free Waldorf School in Stuttgart, which we have established and which Emil Molt has set up and which I run, so you can principles, which are, however, only in their infancy, by acquainting yourself with our writings and with what is being attempted, for instance, in the economic institutions of Futurum in Switzerland and Kommenden Tag in Germany. Of course, it is not yet possible to found many associative life; the facts of external life, of today's social order, are too much opposed to this associative life, but the beginnings should still be created for it. The impulse given for the threefold social organism should definitely work its way into practical life. And so, in my aforementioned book 'The Core of the Social Question', I also showed how capital basically also has its origin in spiritual life, and must therefore also pass into the individual administration of the human being in connection with spiritual life, with the spiritual element of the social organism.

There have been critics of the threefold social order who said: Yes, this threefold order tears apart into three parts what is a unity. No, it is only through the fact that these three parts are administered in the sense of their own essence that true unity is created. Through the spiritual life and through human individuality, the circulation of capital will gradually come about. I can only mention this briefly here, but you can read more about it in my book “The Essentials of the Social Question”. The regulation of labor will be subject to the rule of law. In this legal or political state, all matters for which every adult is competent will be regulated. And anyone who is sincere about democracy must, on the one hand, exclude intellectual life and, on the other, economic life, in which nothing can be regulated purely democratically; then there remains for the actual state a broad area that encompasses all human affairs; that is, those matters in which one person is equal to another, those matters in which all people are truly equal.

This impulse for the threefold social order is truly drawn from the depths of human nature. Because of the diversity of spiritual, state and economic life, a separate administration is required for all three areas, and because the human being is involved in all three, the right unity and the right interaction will only arise. From the spiritual life into the economic life, capital administered by the spirit is at work. From the state into the economic life, the way in which each human being, as an equal, regulates his work, the measure and so forth, is at work. This work will have to be accepted in the economic life, as nature is accepted. We will say to ourselves: Rain or shine, I cannot control it. I must accept economic life as it unfolds under these conditions. Likewise, in the field of economic administration, I must accept what is regulated as work. And when the associations set prices, the only thing that will be considered is the product of labor, not labor as such.

But this brings us to the intimate interpenetration of the three members of the social organism. And an economic life that does not somehow deal with all kinds of spiritual matters, a state life that does not deal with all kinds of spiritual programs and the like, but only deals with those matters in which all people as equals are competent, such an economic life and such a state life will receive the most beautiful fertilization from the free spiritual life. There will be a vigorous interaction between the three elements, if each is administered in its own way.

I have also been told that I want to resurrect an old Platonic idea of the teaching, military and nutritional classes. No, it is not the various classes that are to be constituted, but rather the external administration is to be constituted by leading people to a free judgment in these three areas. No utopia is to be presented dogmatically. No fantasies are to be used to describe how the institutions should be. Rather, attention should be drawn to how people must organize themselves in the social organism so that, through their cooperation, they can find the solution to the social question, and so that the organization of economic life, which must basically take place with the constant active participation of the competent associations, can also be found. Just as the human organism must be nourished every day.

And so we can say: Three areas confront us in the entire social organism; three areas that each demand their own administration based on their own nature. Freedom should prevail in spiritual life; equality should prevail in democratic state life, where only those things are administered from the majority that can really be decided by the majority, because every person is competent for them. And fraternity can develop precisely in an economic life that is built on the associative principle in the way described. These three great maxims of human development resound across to us from the eighteenth century. And what human heart would not beat faster when it allows these three maxims of human development to take effect on it with deep understanding. But clever people in the nineteenth century repeatedly emphasized that in the unitary state these three lofty ideals contradict each other. And they were right. The solution to this riddle is that although people have asserted the three greatest ideals of social life, freedom, equality and fraternity, out of an inner intuition, they have so far been under the suggestion of the unitary state that only the threefold social organism can realize these three ideals, namely, freedom in the spiritual realm, equality in the state-political realm, and fraternity in the associatively shaped economic realm.

And in characterizing economic life today, I had to show how it can be built as a foundation for a free spiritual life and for the true, state-based democracy that modern humanity strives for. But these two areas are in intimate harmony with economic life. For it is an economic life that alone can give all people a dignified existence; one that is built on the basis of the laws that shape the economy itself, that draws its fertilizing forces from an independent, real state-based life and its administrative roots from a free spiritual life. Therefore, we can say that an economic life of the future is only conceivable as being associated with an independent legal life and a creative, free spiritual life that works out of human souls.

Answering questions

Question: You have not told us how the associations are to come into being. Do these associations float in the air? Where do they come from? Do you think that today's workers' organizations or the existing consumer cooperatives can become associations through their training and development, or are associations only utopian? Are they based on something that has emerged historically or do you want to build something, do something, create something? You have talked about utopias so often.

Rudolf Steiner: When I speak of utopias, I mean something that has come to light, for example, in Proudhon, Blanc, Saint Simon, [Bakunin], and to some extent also in Karl Marx. There you will find utopias, thought structures about a social order of the future. The only thing that sets Marxist utopia apart from the others is that it appeals to a particular class, appeals to the instincts of a particular class, and has therefore become a very real force in the world of agitation. But it is precisely in the present day, when this utopia is producing the most terrible results by claiming to be realized in reality, that we see the utopian aspect of the matter. This utopianism can be seen to the highest degree in those who believe that they are standing firmly on the ground of reality. One does not need to go to Russia to study the details of how Leninism kills culture and civilization. One only needs to familiarize oneself with what lives in the mind of Lenin. All sorts of social conditions are described that this new tsar wants to realize. But then Lenin says: with all this, what is actually humanly dignified is not achieved after all, but something is achieved that destroys the present. Then the present perishes, and with it people go into decadence; and then a new human race will arise, which will establish the humanly dignified existence. — There we have posited something utopian to the point of blood. This utopianism basically dominates more than one might think the minds and souls of contemporary people. What I have presented to you is not at all conceived utopianistically, but is conceived in such a way that, basically, it can be started every day with the appropriate things.

If I immediately tie in with what the previous speaker said: we have consumer cooperatives. The consumer cooperatives do not work in the sense that today the incommensurability between labor and labor product and commodities could somehow be eliminated, but they work in the midst of these conditions. If they are not production-consumption cooperatives, they ultimately only aim at regulating consumption, not at an interaction between producers and consumers, as the associations do. But it can be developed. It is not utopian to build on what already exists. Of course, you must not have the idea that it is already utopian if you just don't leave what is there as it is. So what is there are, so to speak, the elements that associate. I'm not talking about organization.

Dear attendees, I am actually Austrian, but I have spent half of my life in Germany, then in Switzerland, but I come from Germany. Nevertheless, although I come from Germany, the word “organization” really seems like something burning to me. I expect nothing from an organization, because an organization emanates from a center. The organization is regulated from above. In reality, it is the special love for the organization that has prepared Germany for what is happening now. And if you come to Germany today, you will find that the addiction to organization is still flourishing terribly, even if you believe that you have outgrown these organizations. What is called organization in Germany has the same effect on me as a red cloth on a bull (not that I claim to be a bull). Association is different from organization. The best and the most capable join together, not those who are at the center of things and want to organize.

Particularly with regard to this organization, an example can be given in Germany. A German professor has now written a book about price formation during the First World War. On the basis of extremely thoroughly compiled material, he has determined what happened as a result of the state intervening in economic life through the organization of prices. He presents four sentences with the right consistency, which are worthy of being in a scientific book in terms of methodology: Firstly, the price-setting authorities had no idea what was important. Secondly, prices were regulated everywhere in such a way that the opposite of what was actually believed to be achieved was achieved. Thirdly, by regulating prices, large sections of the population have been affected in the most terrible way. Fourthly, profiteering has been encouraged at the expense of honest industry and honest trade. These are the scientific conclusions that the economist in question has reached. Then he adds: Yes, science says that about economic life, but in social life there are other interests; there the state must intervene, and what is recognized as economically right by the economist no longer applies before the state.

Now, what is more sensible: for the economist to stand and lament that the state is thwarting his correct scientific conclusions, or for him to say: economic life must be organized in such a way that there is no need to point out what disturbs correct price formation. Everywhere, the impulse of the threefold social organism ties in with natural conditions. What is the production of goods, the circulation of goods, the consumption of goods, must arise out of the individual human being, out of the individual human being, the individual human groups. And this efficiency in the individual associates itself. At the beginning, one does not know what is associating, not organizing; only in accordance with one's own efficiency does what is to come about arise.

This is also the case in the spiritual life, for example, if you look at the Waldorf School, which leads a completely free spiritual life. I run the school, but I have never done anything other than advise individuals. I go into the classes, study the children's development from a psychological point of view, and discuss my psychological studies with the teachers in an advisory capacity, who then try to take things further. In fact, we have even come up with completely new laws for childhood development at different ages, for example, for how children live together and so on. But how does this Waldorf school work? Yes, you see, you would have felt at the beginning like a civil servant or a member of parliament, then you would have sat down with others who also feel like civil servants or members of parliament and made programs. The programs are made very cleverly, because in terms of the intellectual, people are terribly clever. You can set up the most perfect programs, but can they be carried out? We have not done that. What matters for the Waldorf School is that we have our twenty-two teachers, and the Waldorf School will be as good as these teachers are able to make it. There is nothing more dishonest than to set out a program that cannot be followed because the teachers can only work according to their abilities and not according to programs. They try to work out of their abilities. And so it is in economic life. The associations are not formed utopian, but rather by continuing to work on what is already there. I only believe that when the associations are formed, the individualities will also become more efficient. But today we are building on what is there.

Chairman of the students: This evening you have given us an insight into your view of economic life. It is of course impossible to have an overview of the whole problem, but your lecture will certainly be a stimulus for many of us to take a closer look at the threefold social organism. And in this you have achieved an important goal. You came to us despite the fact that you are almost overburdened with work. I would like to thank you for this on behalf of the assembly. It was a very interesting evening.

Rudolf Steiner: Dear Mr. Chairman and all those who helped to organize today's invitation. I can only say that this invitation gave me a very special satisfaction. It came from the student body. And who should be more aware than those who are faced with such problems as those I have mentioned, that today, for the solution of these questions, which will take up the next decades - initially, of course, the preliminary solution - we need above all those who are within the student body today.

I am long past that, but today I often think back to the times when we lived through things differently than you do today. At that time, we had a lot of intellectual, national and, in particular, economic hopes, and many of these economic hopes have indeed proved to be illusions – and not just here or there, but in the whole of international life. This has deterred many from seriously pursuing the deepest human issues. Those who are in a position to go through their student days today can hardly indulge in illusions in the same way. They learn from the great hardship, from the crisis-prone nature of today's life, that deepening is necessary. That is why it fills one with a deep sense of satisfaction to find interest in suggestions of this kind among the student body. Because I didn't want to give more than suggestions. From this point of view, that perhaps, even if I am no longer there, work will continue on the basis of these suggestions, especially by those who are young today, that at least, even if only a very small, tiny drop could be added today through this invitation, from this point of view, I thank you and the whole committee warmly for your kind invitation.

Herman Sijbrand: Hello, Dr. Steiner, you have expressed your thanks for the invitation. Let me now bring up an issue, let me express what has just come to me. The matter is quite the opposite, the feeling of gratitude is entirely on my side. Because you are the one who has succeeded in showing me the synthesis of art, science and religion again. You are the one who, to me, who is and wants to be in the strict service of science and technology, you are the one who has shown me the true path to the ideal of humanity, to the ideal of humanity, to Christ, to the true understanding of Christianity, to the true understanding of Christ and his teaching, I owe it to you. I would still like to have said that.

There followed an untranscribed closing speech by Herman Sijbrand Hello to those gathered in Dutch.