The Rudolf Steiner Archive

32. Ideal Detours and Publicist Morals

[ 1 ] Noteworthy is a confession that the socialist theorist Karl Kautsky feels compelled to make in his recently published book "How the World War Came About". Kautsky talks about the question of guilt. Of course, he cannot help but point to individuals and institutions as the causes of the terrible world catastrophe. He feels that he is violating a tenet of a socialist theory that he has defended for decades. He says: "Marx taught that the course of history is not determined by individual persons and institutions, but ultimately by economic conditions. Capitalism in its highest form, that of finance capital, produces imperialism everywhere, the striving for the violent expansion of state territory... It is not individual persons and institutions that are guilty, but capitalism as a whole; this must be fought."

[ 2 ] Anyone familiar with the development of the Marxist tinged socialist party current knows how the doctrine crystallized in the above sentences has been hammered into the heads of the broad masses of the proletariat. One can agitate excellently with such a doctrine. It can be used to forge party programs. Kautsky's attitude to the reality of life becomes apparent at the moment when he is not supposed to work with the doctrine on the construction of the social organism, but when he only wants to gain an objective judgment of the destructive powers of this organism. He finds himself compelled to say about the judgment that capitalism is the culprit of the world war: "This sounds very radical and yet it has a very conservative effect wherever it dominates practical work. For capitalism is nothing but an abstraction derived from the observation of numerous individual phenomena... One cannot fight an abstraction except theoretically; but not practically." And then he admits that in the practice of life, one is forced to direct one's attention "against certain institutions and persons as bearers of certain social functions".

[ 3 ] It is not worth pointing out such confessions when they occur among dozen-agitators. But Kautsky is no dozen-dollar agitator. He is a conscientious, scientifically-minded socialist. He is one of the very best among his peers.

[ 4 ] He feels compelled to take the step from a party dogmatism that is hostile to life to the reality of life, because he wants to find out "how the world war came about". All the popular party abstractions must fall apart. The actual proof is provided that one can justify parties with such abstractions, but that they are completely alien to the practice of life. Should such a fact not shed a bright light on the destructive effect that parties must have that want to model life according to their abstractions?

[ 5 ] The drives towards the threefolding of the social organism find their main opposition in party dogmatisms that are rooted in abstractions. For these drives are based on the insight into the unfruitfulness of such abstractions. They approach social questions from the point of view of the broadest possible observation of life. Of course, one cannot claim that abstractions are not necessary when observing and shaping life. But it depends on the spirit in which one abstracts. When abstracting, one should never lose sight of "certain institutions and persons as bearers of certain social functions". Abstracting can be an instrument for approaching life; but for those who view it in this way, it will never become an obstacle to working within the real practice of life.

[ 6 ] It does not refute what has been said here when Kautsky then continues (see page 14 of his book): "It is ... It is by no means Marxism to divert attention from the search for guilty persons by referring to the impersonal guilt of capitalism." For this sentence is nothing more than an outgrowth of party dogmatism that is alien to life. In one particular case, Kautsky feels compelled to reinterpret this dogma, because without it he could not have written his book. But if it were a question of such a party man passing judgment on the idea of the threefold organization of the social organism, then the "abstractions" of the kind of "capitalism" would immediately march up again as if by military command and "divert" the gaze from work in keeping with life. Whether one can theoretically claim that something is "Marxism" or not is irrelevant for real life; what is relevant is the spirit that Marxism pours into its bearers.

[ 7 ] Marxism can only be an example of what is meant here. For other party doctrines have an equally unrealistic character. The damage to our social life is based on the pathological phenomenon of the times that is being pointed to here. - One can now imagine how someone who is under the influence of this contemporary disease will easily come up with objections to what has been said. He may say: Yes, of course Kautsky cannot denounce abstract capitalism; but how can one point to specific individuals if one wants to work out a general social view of life? Of course one cannot. What one can do, however, is to build such an outlook on the knowledge of reality in such a way that, as a result, institutions arise in which people can live. And if one builds up such an outlook, then it will be applicable to conditions of reality without artificial reinterpretation in the sense of Kautsky's confession. The abstractions with which such an outlook must also work will not even make it necessary to emphasize that one cannot practically fight against them; for by their very nature they will everywhere point to the real that one has to fight against.

[ 8 ] Almost everything that rejects the idea of the tripartite organization of the social organism is under the influence of ideas that are alien to reality, which at present often consider themselves to be the only practical ones. Those who stand on the ground of real observation of life could be discussed with them. For it goes without saying that no one who professes the idea of the threefold structure should claim that all the proposals for this or that put forward by the supporters of this idea are incontestable. What must be asserted, however, is that these proponents stand on the ground of a view of life against which all those have sinned who have been shown by the painful events of recent years that their ideas are alien to life.

[ 9 ] It is a long way from the perniciousness that clings to the currents of the times of the kind described to that which in the present time is producing its perverse blossoms by saying things in public life that have no connection with reality. And yet, a generation which, as long as it can, educates itself in abstractions devoid of essence, gradually loses its sense of responsibility for the connection between what it believes it can say and what really is. This becomes very clear to those who are affected by it themselves. - These days, a number of German newspapers have carried a note: "The theosophist Steiner as a henchman of the Entente." Everything in this article is a slanderous untruth from beginning to end. The slander even goes so far as to speak of passages in letters that are intended to elicit information intended to serve the Entente. All this is nothing but the most nonsensical untruth.

[ 10 ] I am the object of much hostility. I've kept quiet about almost everything so far. I consider it fruitless to argue with personalities who consider it compatible with their sense of responsibility to write the nonsense: "About Steiner ... people around him have recently complained that he is becoming sterile, that he no longer has any new insights and always presents the same thing; he will probably soon throw himself into something new." What is the value of dealing with someone whose state of mind allows him to seek a path to the truth on such grounds! It was even claimed that I was once a Catholic priest, and then this untrue assertion was retracted by the same party that spread it, with the words: this can probably no longer be maintained. I don't like to polemicize against people who don't check whether something is true before they claim it.

[ 11 ] However, even learned people today are known to repeat assertions without checking them and say: The matter has not been refuted.

[ 12 ] For this time I would just like to say the following in response to the slanderous falsehood identified above: We know the murky sources from which such things originate. We also know the soil on which the intentions that speak from them grow. But we also know that proving that such things are objectively untrue is of no avail against these intentions. One would only wish that as many people as possible would shed the naivety that prevents them from seeing through such things. For only in this way could many things become better that are in great need of improvement in our time. I don't need to say that, despite this debate, I don't lump the misguided abstract thinkers together with those I last characterized here.