Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Impulse for Renewal in Culture and Science
GA 81

9 March 1922, Berlin

5. Anthroposophy and Social Science

My dear venerated guests! Besides the introductory words I want to say regarding today's task, I want to limit myself to essential indications in the following lectures to details of the economic life in its relationship to the area coming under discussion.

Social science can't be talked about today from only a theoretical standpoint. Today—I mean at this very present moment—one can only speak about such questions while the dire situation of the economic life existing in the civilised world is in the background. Into this desolate situation was also added something which I set out in my “Key Notes of the Social Question”, after the temporary end of the terrible catastrophe of world war.

At that time, I urged everyone to observe the social economic life in relation to the present time of world development. It is this economic life at present which is intimately intertwined with that which moves in the entire circumference of the social question. Yes, most people at present can hardly sense that the social question can be separated from the economic question. Yet my book “Key Notes of the Social Question” enters into establishing clarity in relation to the area in question here, where it will be pointed out how the economic life within the social organism needs to establish its own independent position, such an independent position within which the same facts and indications acquire their form only according to economic principles, economic opinions and impulses. In this respect my book—I say it here in quite frankly, because that is what matters most—contains an inner contradiction. Only, this book is not to be regarded as a theoretical book on social science. This book wants to give suggestions above all to life practitioners; this book was written out of observations of the European economic life over decades. Because this book strives to be completely realistic, a direct encouragement for practical activities—practical action in the moment—it had to contain a contradiction. This contradiction is namely nothing other than what permeates our entire social life and consists in our social life being in the course of modern time mixed up, chaotic; only viable if it develops its individual branches from out of its own conditions.

I must speak about the threefold divisions of the social organism which leads to the economic life becoming separated in a fully, free way from the organised legal and state life as well as from the spiritual life, so that the economic life becomes, for those who stand within it, formed out of their personal actions and initiatives. However, we presently live at a time in which such a situation doesn't exist, in which the economic life stands within the structure of the general social organism. We live in a time in which contradiction is a reality. As a result, a manuscript, which has aimed at being written out of reality and is being offered with suggestions based on reality, can bring about a contradictory turn; it could only come from the standpoint of bringing the contradiction to clarity, and with this clarity achieve relationships.

I am thus in an unusual position today by giving this introduction because in connection to what is based on anthroposophical grounds, created with anthroposophical methods of thought, founded on decades of realistic observation of European economic relationships—it is in the widest circles where it was first misunderstood in the worst possible way. I can only say I fully understand these misconceptions which have been given to these underlying intentions; these misunderstandings are phenomena of our time. However, I must be on the other side of the standpoint, that in overcoming these misconceptions lies what we first have to strive for sociologically, socially, and to this I would like to say a few words to orientate us.

When my book “Key Notes of the Social Question” was first published, it took place in the middle of the European development which was immediately followed by the terrible war catastrophe. It was during the time preceded by the Versailles treaty, a time in which value relationships in central and eastern European states were essentially different. Not from some cuckoo land cloud impulse was my “Key notes” written down, but thought through from the immediate world situation in such a way that I hoped to believe a large number of people would find it, and on the basis of these suggestions search further, then one could—namely from central Europe—throw an impulse also into the economic development which would lead to a significant, acceptable ascent which from then on and up to today had been a continual waste on the economy and social life in general. At that time you could say to yourself that a person could think out of this complicated world situation: Perhaps no stone will remain standing as he has created into the thought structures of the “Key Notes of the Social Question”—; that these ideas would be made up out of those who were there. Still, it could be grasped and would perhaps have given quite a different result to what could be fixed in a manuscript. It is not important that ideas are presented in a utopian manner, that an image can be presented as a social futuristic organism, but it comes down to people discovering and understanding: real problems exist here, directly in life; we have to deal with these problems out of our expertise and see if we can handle these issues by finding an ever wider understanding for them.

Basically, something quite different has happened. On the one hand theorists have all kinds of discussions regarding the content of my book, discussions to which all manner of demands are linked regarding its contents. Some theoreticians misinterpreted what had been said completely, wanting to turn it in a utopian sense by asking: How will this be, how will that be?—ie: what one could actually expect. It turned out to be a strange fact to me which took me by surprise because precisely those practicing economists who work routinely within the economic life, who know about this or that branch of business and rejected what I had said, spoke about things in their business which wasn't practiced in their business—that these practitioners argue over the key points of the social question and as a result, prove themselves to be abstract theoreticians. This shows that one can have a routine practical involvement in economic life—in the old sense; under the newer relationships it can no longer be—these practitioners were absolutely not in the position to what was being battered here as also being related to problems of the economic life, other than discussion points made in abstract theories; which could raise doubts when you oppose practitioners and get involved in their discussions because nothing concrete is entered into but only completely trivial generalities are repeated about the social question, if you question someone.

The other thing you could come across would be that at first those, who on the whole are quite substantial practitioners, even reject wanting to talk in this way about the possible form which economic problems could take on. Going on from here, some interest could be stimulated for instance in socialistic circles; here the experience could be that what is wished for is the least understood from that side and that everything should be judged according to whether they fit into old party templates or not. And so time passed by from when these suggestions were thought about. The whole terrible Valuta-misery came about which has to be considered in quite a different way to how it is usually judged today.

With the first appearance of my “Call to the German Nation and the Cultural World” and then “Key Notes of the Social Question”, individual personalities immediately appeared who in their way are quite honest about healing central European economic life, and said: ‘Yes, such proposals’—they called them proposals—‘look quite attractive, but it should first be asked how we can enhance the Valuta.’ That was said during a time when the Valuta-misery according to today's relationships, still existed in pure paradise. Now it shows in such demands that tampering with only external symptoms are wanted. It has little understanding that Valuta relations battered on the surface show unhealthy economic relationships, that with such a cure of a symptom the evil is not addressed, and that it requires entering into much, much deeper social economic conditions today if one wishes to in some or other way arrive at speaking about problems realistically, regarding the indications in my “Key Notes of the Social Question.” Now it has come about that what I repeated in conclusion of lectures which I held in the end of the “Key notes” at that time, had the call: people have to wake up before it is too late—that this “too late!” has come to the fore to a large degree today. We are not at all in the position to resonate in the original sense with the “Key notes” to understand them because in the mean time chaos has broken into the economic life where now quite other additions would be necessary and not what was merely mentioned but what had to be spoken about according to my conviction. One can hardly pass by a characteristic common to our age if one wants to discuss the most damaging aspect in today's economic life.

When I picked up the newspaper yesterday, I came across—and it could today be one of the most important symptoms we find everywhere, which our contemporaries express in single sentences—I came across the article “Postponing the resignation of Lloyd George until after the Genoa Conference”. With this once again our daily situation is announced because the characteristic of today is “wait”. “We want to wait”—this has actually become the ruling principle: wait until something happens but you can't tell what it will actually be. This is what is deeply embedded in the human soul today, on all levels.

Now I want to apparently—only apparently—introduce something quite abstract: this is intended in a complete realistic way because it indicates the forces working among us which have in the course of human development gradually enabled us to arrive at such a promising principle as “We want to wait” and apply it to everything.

When we look back at ancient cultural development we find in these old cultures, that factual thinking, in the sense as it appeared in ancient times—you know this from my lectures I held in the Philharmonic—can't be called purely “scientific”. If one considers what stands in the place of today's scientific thinking then you will know that first of all, out of this thinking the economic life could not have directly emerged. The economic life had to more or less first become independent of human thinking, developed instinctively—not meaning automatically—as exchange in humanity. What wanted to be done in the economic life simply developed out of practical life. People acted instinctively; even expanded trade into this or that area but everything happened more or less instinctively. Now, one can from some point of view object according to today's understanding of human freedom, human worth and so on, to the economic conditions of olden times; all this would be good to be seen from the other side, how the extraordinary symptoms of human evolution, which even today can be instructive, for instance appear in the way employees and employers—if you want to apply a modern expression to olden times—lived in relation to one another during ancient Greece, old Egypt and right over to Asia. Today these things are taken in such a way that they elicit the sharpest criticism; but, each such a criticism is not historical and one must say: the conditions in the corresponding epochs resulted from the feelings of humanity at that time. This is what one needs to focus on.

The other one is a fact connected to that shift in humanity's evolution which I've often pointed out, of around the fifteenth century, through which the soul constitution of civilised humanity became something quite different. I've already said outer history hardly points out that the collective soul constitution of humanity has become something different. If we ask ourselves how this human evolution relates to the economic life, then we get the following answer. The time for instinctive leadership as I've characterised, this time reached into the epoch of the shift. With this shift intellectualism arrived into the soul constitution; the drive to understand the world purely through human mental logic. This drive, which simply became a deep need in the human constitution, proved itself so brilliantly in the field of natural science and in that field which developed as a result: the field of technology where in the most extraordinary way it has not celebrated enough triumphs. However, this intellectualism—it was shown in various arguments, which during this course have already been dealt with—has shown itself as completely incapable of understanding the phenomena of human life and human nature as well as social relationships. With this intellectualism, this intellectual orientation, the soul can be brought back in a grandiose way to outer sense perceptible nature and its laws. You can't intertwine the one with the other in this intellectualism and while this intertwining goes on, get organised and while organising yourself also enjoy life and grasp spiritually permeated social relations. I would like to say the following. The network of intellectual ideas is too broad for what lies in social life. To think scientifically—that, humanity learnt from this intellectualism. Everything has been drawn into it, even theology. Intellectualism rules while we observe and experiment with our entire scientific way of thinking, and finally, what we have introduced into it which can't fit between the lines of intellectualism, we see as not scientific.

During this time intellectualism fell into the transition from a purely instinctive economic life to one fuelled with human thoughts. We may say that in the time when people didn't think intellectually about the world, the economic life was directed instinctively. When however, the time came when more and more world economy and world traffic appeared, this tendency required human beings to penetrate world economy and world traffic with their thoughts. These thoughts only came from intellectualism. As a result, everything which came from economic thoughts—in mercantilism, physiocratism, in the national economic ideas of Adam Smith, as in everything which later appeared right up to Karl Marx—on the one side demanded economic life, which was not merely instinctively mismanaged but it was grasped with thoughts, however on the other side, where thoughts could only come from intellectualism, all economic observations would become thoroughly one-sided, so that nothing could result from this economic observation which could be seen as continuing to work in economic practice. On the one hand you have the economic theorists who created axioms from intellectual sentences—like for instance Ricardo, Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill—and who now develop systems on the basis of these principles on which they built a complete self-contained mentality (Geistesart). On the other hand, the economic practice needed and demanded penetration by the spirit, but found no connection to what had continued to work instinctively and as a result it fell into complete chaos.

So these two streams became more and more common in recent times, on the one hand were the economic theorists—without the influence of economic practice; on the other hand the practitioners with their old practices which had become a continued routine and as a result let the economic life of the civilised world fall into chaos. Obviously one must express such things in a somewhat radical manner because then one will really distinguish what works and what can be understood as a problem.

If one now wants to find, I might call it, a connection, a kind of synthesis between economic thinking—which has gradually been eradicated by practice—and this economic practice—then one finds this connection at least in one of them. Recently a kind of economic realism has developed; a kind of economic-scientific realism which says that one can hardly find general laws for economic life if economic facts are not considered and events between single nations or groups are looked at what has happened only in an external way, to find guidelines for economic trade. From this basis has developed the so-called social-political in economic law-making. This means people gradually believed they have discovered through mere observation of factual economic relationships in connection with the permeating social connection that they could find certain guidelines which could be brought to expression in economic law-making; people now had, by taking detours through the State, tried to actualize some of these which had developed out of observation, but as a result it had to be actually admitted that these foregoing observations of real scientific economic laws could not at all emerge. Yes, we are actually still basically in this situation today. Just when one is in the situation of encountering decisive experiences, I could call it social Ur-phenomena being judged in the right way, then one sees the situation one is in.

You all know that Woodrow Wilson's “fourteen points” arrived at the dreadful chaotic point civilised life had entered. What were these fourteen points actually? They were basically nothing other than abstract principles of an unworldly man, a person who knew little about reality, who appeared in Versailles where he could actually have played an important role. This man who was a stranger to reality wanted to show the world how to get organised according to principles founded on intellectualism. One only had to experience with what inspiration civilised mankind hung on to these fourteen points, however with the exclusion of a large part of the central European population, they unfortunately also fell for these fourteen points after a short period of time.

During 1917, by contrast, I tried to show individual central European personalities who were interested but who were not following it, but were either approached or brought to it, how abstract, how unrealistic this was which wanted to be brought into the social form, how so to speak everything which ruled in the poor educational principles in modern civilisation was a concentration of what this school master Woodrow Wilson had introduced, and how the abstract principles—in a bad sense—were received with enthusiasm. At that time, I tried to show that a healing of the relationships could be entered into if you take a stand in opposition to such abstract attitudes, without excluding thoughts but which promotes realistic thoughts in order to develop from a realistic basis. Then it will not be a utopian invention—I would like to say the Woodrow Wilson principles were the most condensed utopian, utopianism already in its third potency, but one must be clear about finding contemporary humanity in its real conditions in order to discover impulses. Therefore, I gave up having to deal with any utopian theory, refrain from even saying how capital, how labour and suchlike must be formed; I gave at most some examples for how one could think about forming the future according to contemporary relationships. That was however only as illustration to what should happen; because just as I have spoken about the transformation of capital forces in my “Key notes”, just so this transformation can be fulfilled in a modified way. It is not important for me to present an image of the future but to say from which foundations, in a real way, one can now—not with theoretically thoughts—come to an actual solution for the so-called social question. It is not important to say that this or that is the solution to the social question. I have already had too many experiences in trying to find such a solution. Already in the 1880's in pleasant Vienna all kinds of clever people gathered nearly every afternoon after two o'clock. In the course of one hour the social question was solved many times! Those who considered the relationships of the present in an unbiased manner, know very well that solutions which often appear in thick books have much less worth than those negotiated in comfortable Vienna with a stroke or two of the pencil and fantastic words across a white tablecloth. That is not the point and it was the worst mistake brought to me that it should be something like that.

What I wanted to point out was the following. The solution of the social problems can only be affected in a real way out of itself; the result can't be solved through discussion but through events and actions. Conditions first need to be established to contain this activity, conditions I try to refer to in my “Key notes” and in other sources. I'm trying to show we need arrangements in our social organism which makes it possible for a spiritual life to develop out of its own conditions in which the spiritual life itself works; that we need a second member, where only legal-state impulses are at work, and besides that a third member, where only those impulses work which come out of production and consumption of goods, and lastly that it develops out of an associative economic system, culminating in healthy pricing. In this way the old class system will not be recalled. It won't be people branching into an educational class, a defence class and a nutritional class, but the modern human being has moved into individuation and will not be divided into some particular state.

What exists externally as an arrangement simply comes from the forces in history's unfolding, which are separate from the conditions out of which they are negotiated, to do something for the spiritual life, the legal or state life and economic life. Only when conditions are created which for instance the economist can do purely out of economic impulses, which would be modified by contemporary market trends, or should modify the capitalistic relationships, only when such possibilities are created among people will they develop something of a real solution—which is in a continuous becoming—of what can be called the social question.

It is not important for me that the social question is solved because I have to agree that the solution can't at any one moment be given as something self-contained, while the social problem from which it has originated is in a constant forward flow. The social organism is something which becomes young, and older, into which new impulses must flow, of which the following can never be said: it has this or that form. If the social organism is not so, that people sit together in one parliament that mixes all interests together, where those interested in economics make decisions about questions of the spiritual life, legal life and economic questions and so on, but when in a healthy social organism each individual sphere is considered out of its own conditions, then the state life can be placed on a realistic democratic foundation; then what is to be said doesn't come from one person in one such a single parliament, but it will emerge from continued ongoing negotiations among individual branches of the social organism.

In this context my book was also a warning to finally stop the fruitless arguments about the social question and to place it on the foundation where the solution to the social questions can be taken up every day. It was a call to the understanding how to take what was abstract in thought and to really translate this into thoughtful action. Added to this for example the associations can serve the economic life. Such associations are different from those which in recent times have been established as socialization, and can be created every day out of economic foundations. They are concerned with those people who handle goods production, in the circulation and consumption of goods—which every person is—to unite in associations through which healthy pricing can develop. It is a long way from knowledge of the subject and specialised knowledge which have to be achieved by people linked to associations, up to what doesn't come from legislation, also not from results of discussions but results from experience, which will give healthy pricing. Above all people have the desire, the broad outline of what they want at the time and which I am trying to present to you to discuss through these introductory words, because the world is so schooled in abstract thinking that one also takes this suggestion only from the point of view of abstract thinking, which I'm only using as an illustration, and discuss it for hours, while it should be about really understanding how each day the members of the social organism can be tackled in the way as indicated in my “Key notes.”

Today it is not of importance to find theoretical solutions to the social question but to search for conditions under which people can live socially. They will live socially when the social organism works according to its three members, just like a natural organism under the influence of its relative threefoldness also work towards unity.

You see, it first has to be explained what is meant by such things. When these things are spoken about, words are still required; yet words need to be taken up according to their intellectualised meaning which we attach to them today. These are translated immediately into intellectual things which are quite clearly not immersed in intellectualism. Therefore, in my book I have spoken in such a way about capital and about the natural foundations of production simply as ideas being thought out. When we want to deal with things abstractly, we can create definitions for a long time, and that has in fact happened. Someone says with equal right: Capital is crystallized labour, work which is stored up—and someone else says with the same right: Capital is saved labour. You can do this with all economic concepts if you remain within intellectualism. But these are not all things which can be dealt with theoretically only; we need to understand them in a lively form. If practitioners do a lot for the benefit of their practice and routine, cultivated out of the abstractions in these things, they can achieve the following, which I want to explain through a comparison.

I look at Ernst Muller. He is small with completely childish features and childish qualities. Twenty years later I look at Ernst Muller and say that this is not Ernst Muller because he is small and has childish qualities and quite a different physiognomy.—Yes, if at that time I had formed a concept of Ernst Muller and now want to attribute him with what at that time I had met as his real being, then I'll be making a terrible mistake. As little as people want to believe this, yet it is the way people are thinking along economic routes. They form thoughts and ideas about capital and labour and so on, and they believe these ideas must always have the same validity. It is not necessary to wait twenty years; you only need to go from one employer to another, from one land to another to discover the concept which you had created in one place is no longer valid in another because a change has been brought about—like in Ernst Muller. People don't recognise what exists when one doesn't have mobile ideas moving within life.

This is what makes it possible that on an anthroposophical foundation today's needs also find their expression in economic institutions because Anthroposophy's nature involves flexible ideas, which can teach you how you can provide your ideas with forces of growth and inner mobility and that with such ideas—as little as today's practitioners want to believe it—they can dive into other kinds of reality, which are revealed in the social life between one person and another, between one nation to another, through to entirely what has become necessary now in the artificially impaired world economy. One can therefore rightly say it is not an external attempt made on Anthroposophical grounds towards social ideas but to arrive at social impulses.

I still remember a time when many discussions took place about these things. I always had to stress: I'm talking about social impulses!—This upset people terribly. Obviously I should have said: social ideas or social thoughts, because the people only had thoughts in their heads about such things. That I spoke about impulses angered them terribly because they hadn't noticed I used “impulses” on this basis of indicating realities and not abstract ideas. Obviously one had to express oneself in abstract ideas.

Today it must again be grasped that a new understanding must be found for what is called the social question. We live in different relationships today than in the year 1919. Time is moving fast, especially in economic areas. It is necessary that even those very ideas which were considered at that time as mobile, continue to be contained in the flow and that one's observations of viewpoints stay within the spiritual present.

Whoever wants to look at the reality of relationships within the economic life knows they have essentially changed since the writing of my “Key notes” and one can no longer just use deductions as before. At least in the “Key notes” one would find an attempt to search for this method of social thinking in a realistic way, perhaps exactly because this attempt has grown from the soil where realities are always looked for, where one doesn't want to fall into fanaticism or false mysticism—because this attempt is grown out of accuracy on the wrestling ground of the anthroposophical world view.

Anthroposophie und Sozialwissenschaft

Meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden! Noch mehr als bei den übrigen einleitenden Worten, die ich zu diesen Tagesunternehmungen vorauszusprechen habe, wird es heute der Fall sein, daß ich mich auf Andeutungen zu beschränken habe, da ja das Wesentliche, was zu sagen ist, in den folgenden Vorträgen über Einzelheiten des Wirtschaftslebens gerade für das heute in Betracht kommende Gebiet wird liegen müssen.

Man kann heute wohl nicht über Sozialwissenschaft sprechen, wenn man nur von einem theoretischen Standpunkte ausgeht. Man kann heute - und ich meine damit die unmittelbare Gegenwart, den gegenwärtigen Augenblick — über solche Fragen nur sprechen, wenn man im Hintergrunde hat die trostlose Lage des Wirtschaftslebens in der gegenwärtigen zivilisierten Welt. In diese trostlose Lage fiel in einer gewissen Weise auch noch dasjenige hinein, was ich nach der vorläufigen Beendigung der furchtbaren Weltkriegskatastrophe darzustellen versuchte in meinen «Kernpunkten der sozialen Frage».

Ich ging dazumal aus von jener Beobachtung des sozialwirtschaftlichen Lebens, die sich eigentlich im gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt der Weltentwicklung jedem aufdrängen sollte. Es ist die, daß das Wirtschaftsleben der Gegenwart innig verquickt ist mit dem, was sich innerhalb des ganzen Umfanges der sozialen Frage bewegt. Ja, die meisten Menschen in der Gegenwart werden wohl kaum empfinden, daß die soziale Frage getrennt werden könne von der wirtschaftlichen Frage. Und dennoch ging gerade mein Buch «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage» darauf aus, dadurch Klarheit zu schaffen in bezug auf das hier in Betracht kommende Gebiet, daß darauf hingewiesen wurde, wie das Wirtschaftsleben innerhalb des sozialen Organismus seine eigene selbständige Stellung erhalten müsse, jene selbständige Stellung, durch welche innerhalb desselben die Tatsachen und Einrichtungen lediglich nach wirtschaftlichen Grundsätzen, wirtschaftlichen Gesichtspunkten und Impulsen ihre Gestaltung bekommen. Insofern enthält eigentlich mein Buch — ich sage es hier in ganz unumwundener Weise, weil gerade darauf außerordentlich viel ankommt — einen inneren Widerspruch. Allein, dieses Buch wollte nicht ein theoretisches Buch der Sozialwissenschaft sein. Dieses Buch wollte Anregungen geben vor allen Dingen den Lebenspraktikern; dieses Buch wollte aus dem heraus geschrieben sein, was man in jahrzehntelanger Beobachtung des europäischen Wirtschaftslebens sich aneignen konnte. Und indem so dieses Buch anstrebte, durch und durch realistisch zu sein, unmittelbar eine Anregung für praktisches Handeln zu sein - und zwar für praktisches Handeln im Augenblick —, mußte es ja einen Widerspruch enthalten. Dieser Widerspruch ist nämlich kein anderer als der, der unser ganzes soziales Leben durchzieht, und der darin besteht, daß dieses soziale Leben im Laufe der neueren Zeit durcheinander, chaotisch das gebracht hat, was nur dann lebensfähig ist, wenn es sich aus seinen eigenen Bedingungen in jedem seiner einzelnen Glieder entwickelt.

Ich mußte sprechen von einer Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, die dazu führen würde, daß das Wirtschaftsleben in völlig freier Weise, relativ abgesondert sich organisiert von dem Rechts- und Staatsleben und von dem geistigen Leben, daß also dieses Wirtschaftsleben von denjenigen, die in ihm drinnen stehen, die aus seinen eigenen Impulsen heraus handeln können, gestaltet wird. Nun aber leben wir ja zunächst in einer Zeit, in welcher ein solcher Zustand nicht da ist, in welcher das Wirtschaftsleben absolut drinnen steht in der übrigen Struktur des sozialen Organismus. Wir leben in einer Zeit, in welcher der Widerspruch eine Realität ist. Daher konnte eine Schrift, die aus der Realität heraus geschrieben sein wollte und für die Realität Anregungen bieten wollte, nur etwas Widerspruchsvolles wiederum bringen; sie konnte nur darauf ausgehen, aus dem Widersprechenden heraus zunächst zur Klarheit, zur Klärung der Verhältnisse aufzurufen.

Ich bin deshalb heute in einer ganz besonderen Lage, indem ich diese Einleitung spreche, weil in bezug auf dasjenige, was auf anthroposophischem Boden, mit anthroposophischen Denkmethoden gefunden worden ist, aber gefunden worden ist aufgrund durchaus realistischer, jahrzehntelanger Beobachtung der europäischen Wirtschaftsverhältnisse — weil das doch in den weitesten Kreisen zunächst in der ärgsten Weise mißverstanden worden ist. Ich kann nur sagen: Ich begreife vollständig diese Mißverständnisse, die diesen zugrunde liegenden Absichten entgegengebracht worden sind; diese Mißverständnisse sind eben auch ein Zeitphänomen. Allein, ich muß auf der anderen Seite der Anschauung sein, daß in der Überwindung dieser Mißverständnisse dasjenige liegt, was wir zunächst auf soziologischem, auf sozialem Gebiete anzustreben haben, und gerade dazu möchte ich einiges Orientierende sagen.

Als mein Buch «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage» zuerst veröffentlicht wurde, fiel es in eine Zeit mitteleuropäischer Entwicklung, die unmittelbar gefolgt war der furchtbaren Kriegskatastrophe. Es war eine Zeit, die dem Versailler Vertrag vorangegangen war; es war eine Zeit, in welcher die Valutaverhältnisse der mitteleuropäischen und der osteuropäischen Staaten noch wesentlich andere waren. Nicht aus irgendeinem Wolkenkukkucksheim heraus waren die Impulse gemeint, die damals in meinen «Kernpunkten» niedergeschrieben wurden, sondern sie waren aus der unmittelbaren Weltsituation der damaligen Zeit heraus so gedacht, daß ich glauben durfte, wenn eine größere Anzahl von Menschen sich fände, welche auf Grundlage dieser Anregungen Weiteres suchte, dann würde man — namentlich von Mitteleuropa aus —- einen Impuls auch in die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung hineinwerfen können, der zu einer Art von Aufstieg führen könnte in dem ja damals deutlich vernehmbaren und bis heute andauernden Abfall des Wirtschaftslebens und des sozialen Lebens überhaupt. Man konnte damals sich sagen, wenn man aus den sehr komplizierten Verhältnissen der Weltsituation heraus dachte: Vielleicht bleibt kein Stein stehen, so wie er hineingebaut ist in das Ideengebäude der «Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage» —; aber diese Ideen waren überall herausgedacht aus demjenigen, was war. Doch man könnte sie angreifen, und es wäre vielleicht etwas ganz anderes herausgekommen, als man zunächst schriftlich fixieren konnte. Denn nicht darauf kam es an, Ideen in utopistischer Weise hinzustellen, die ein Bild etwa eines sozialen Zukunftsorganismus entwerfen wollten; sondern darauf kam es an, Menschen zu finden, welche verstanden: Hier liegen reale, unmittelbar im Leben vorhandene Probleme vor; wir müssen uns aus unserer Sachkenntnis heraus mit diesen Problemen befassen und müssen sehen, ob wir, indem wir uns mit diesen Problemen befassen, dann immer weiteres und weiteres Verständnis finden.

Nun ist im Grunde genommen etwas ganz anderes eingetreten. Es haben sich auf der einen Seite wohl Theoretiker gefunden, welche über das, was in meinem Buche steht, allerlei Diskussionen gepflogen haben, welche an das dort Ausgesprochene allerlei Forderungen geknüpft haben. Es hat auch Theoretiker gegeben, die in vollständig mißverstehender Art das, was gesagt war, in utopistischem Sinne umdeuteten und immer wieder fragten: Wie wird sich dieses, wie wird sich jenes gestalten?, — was man ja eigentlich hätte abwarten müssen, Es hat sich sogar die merkwürdige Tatsache herausgestellt, die für mich ganz überraschend war, daß gerade die wirtschaftlichen Praktiker, die in irgendeinem Gebiete des Wirtschaftslebens mit ihrer Routine ganz gut drinnenstanden, die sich in diesem oder jenem Geschäftszweige auskannten und es abgelehnt hätten, sich in ihrem Geschäftszweige etwas hereinreden zu lassen von dem, der nicht gerade in diesem Geschäftszweig versiert war —, daß diese Praktiker diskutierten über die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage und sich durch das, was von ihnen als Folgerung gezogen wurde, gerade als die abstraktesten Theoretiker erwiesen. Es zeigte sich, daß man im Wirtschaftsleben ganz gut ein routinierter Praktiker sein konnte — im alten Sinne; unter den neuen Verhältnissen kannten sie sich nicht mehr aus —, daß aber diese Praktiker absolut nicht in der Lage waren, das, was hier angeschlagen war in bezug auf die Probleme auch des Wirtschaftslebens, anders als gerade von dem Gesichtspunkte der abstraktesten Theorien aus zu diskutieren; so daß man da gerade in Verzweiflung kommen konnte, wenn man Praktikern gegenüberstand und sich mit ihnen eine Diskussion entwickelte, wo sie durchaus nicht auf etwas Konkretes eingingen, sondern nur das völlig triviale Allgemeine über die soziale Frage und namentlich über den wirtschaftlichen Teil der sozialen Frage wiederholten, wenn man sich mit ihnen irgendwie darüber aussprach.

Das andere, was einem da entgegentreten konnte, war, daß zunächst ja diejenigen, die nun so die ganz handfesten Praktiker sind, es überhaupt ablehnten, sich in solcher Weise über die mögliche Gestaltung der wirtschaftlichen Probleme zu unterhalten. Das Weitere war, daß ja einiges Interesse zum Beispiel in sozialistischen Kreisen erweckt werden konnte, daß man aber gerade dort die Erfahrung machen konnte, daß das, was gewollt war, am allerwenigsten von dieser Seite verstanden wurde, und daß alles nur danach beurteilt wurde, ob es sich in die alten Parteischablonen einfüge oder nicht. Und so verging jene Zeit, aus der heraus diese Anregungen gedacht waren. Es kam das ganze furchtbare Valuta-Elend, das aber in einer ganz anderen Weise eigentlich zu beurteilen ist, als man es heute gewöhnlich beurteilt.

Als zuerst mein «Aufruf an das deutsche Volk und an die Kulturwelt» und dann die «Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage» erschienen waren, da zeigte sich sogleich, wie einzelne Persönlichkeiten, die es ja in ihrer Art mit einer Gesundung des mitteleuropäischen Wirtschaftslebens ganz ehrlich meinten, sagten: Ja, solche Vorschläge — sie nannten das Vorschläge — sind ja ganz schön, aber es sollte zunächst einmal gesagt werden, wie wir zu einer Aufbesserung der Valuta kommen. Das wurde in Zeiten gesagt, als das Valuta-Elend gegenüber den heutigen Verhältnissen noch das reine Paradies war. Nun zeigt sich in solchen Forderungen, wie man überall nur an den äußeren Symptomen herumpfuschen will. Es zeigt sich wenig Verständnis dafür, daß ja in den Valutaverhältnissen nur die an die Oberfläche schlagenden ungesunden Wirtschaftsverhältnisse sich symptomatisch anzeigen, daß man mit einer solchen Symptomenkur überhaupt das Übel gar nicht anpackt, und daß es sich darum handelt, viel tiefer und tiefer in die sozialwirtschaftlichen Zustände der Gegenwart hineinzugehen, wenn man in irgendeiner Weise dazu kommen will, die Probleme realistisch zu besprechen, für die die Andeutung gegeben werden sollte in den «Kernpunkten der sozialen Frage». Und so ist es denn gekommen, daß das, was ich wiederholt am Schlusse von Vorträgen, die ich im Anschlusse an die «Kernpunkte» hielt, damals gerufen habe: man solle sich besinnen, ehe es zu spät ist —, daß dieses «Zu spät!» in einem hohen Grade heute eingetreten ist, daß wir gar nicht mehr in der Lage sind, in dem ursprünglichen Sinne, der die «Kernpunkte» durchpulst, die Sache anzufassen; denn mittlerweile ist das Chaos des Wirtschaftslebens so hereingebrochen, daß wiederum ganz andere Ergänzungen notwendig wären zu dem, was dazumal nicht bloß ausgesprochen werden sollte, sondern ausgesprochen werden mußte, meiner Überzeugung nach. Und man wird wohl doch kaum vorübergehen können an einer Charakteristik unseres Zeitalters im allgemeinen, wenn man das besprechen will, was heute auch dem Wirtschaftsleben am allerschädlichsten ist.

Als ich gestern ein Zeitungsblatt in die Hand nahm, da trat mir — und es können einem heute ja die wichtigsten Symptome gewissermaßen aus einzelnen Sätzen, die heute unsere Zeitgenossen aussprechen, überall entgegentreten —, es trat mir ein Artikel entgegen: «Verschiebung der Demission des Lloyd George bis nach der Konferenz von Genua». Damit war wieder einmal die heutige Tagessituation ausgesprochen, indem alles, was heute den Tag charakterisiert, «wartet». «Wir wollen warten» — das ist eigentlich heute überall das Prinzip; warten, bis irgend etwas geschieht, von dem man nicht sagen kann, was es eigentlich sein wird. Was da geschehen soll, weiß man nicht, aber man wartet, bis es geschehen ist! Das ist das, was heute den Leuten tief in den Seelen sitzt, auf allen Gebieten. Und nun möchte ich etwas scheinbar — aber nur scheinbar — recht Abstraktes vorbringen; aber auch das ist durchaus in realistischem Sinne gemeint, denn es weist hin auf die unter uns wirksamen Kräfte, durch die wir eigentlich im Laufe der Menschheitsentwicklung allmählich dazu gekommen sind, dieses so aussichtsvolle Prinzip «wir wollen warten» überall geltend zu machen.

Wenn wir in ältere Kulturentwicklungen zurückblikken, so finden wir gerade bei diesen älteren Kulturen, daß ein eigentliches wissenschaftliches Denken, auch in dem Sinne, wie es in den alten Zeiten vorhanden war — Sie wissen das ja aus dem Vortrage, den ich hier zuletzt in der Philharmonie gehalten habe —, nicht rein «wissenschaftlich» zu nennen ist. Sieht man aber auf das, was an Stelle des heutigen wissenschaftlichen Denkens stand, so kann man wissen, daß aus jenem Denken zunächst nicht unmittelbar das wirtschaftliche Leben hervorgegangen ist. Das wirtschaftliche Leben hat sich zunächst mehr oder weniger unabhängig von dem menschlichen Gedanken, wie instinktiv - um nicht zu sagen automatisch — im Wechselverkehr der Menschheit entwickelt. Was man im wirtschaftlichen Leben hat tun wollen, hat sich einfach aus der Lebenspraxis heraus entwickelt. Man hat instinktiv gehandelt, hat ja wohl auch den Bereich des Handels erweitert über dieses oder jenes Gebiet, aber alles ist eben mehr oder weniger instinktiv geschehen. Man mag nun das eine oder andere einwenden vom Gesichtspunkte der heutigen Auffassungen von Menschenfreiheit, Menschenwürde und so weiter gegen die wirtschaftlichen Zustände älterer Zeiten; allein, man wird gut tun, auch auf der anderen Seite zu sehen, wie ganz merkwürdige Symptome in der Menschheitsentwicklung, die auch heute noch lehrreich sein können, sich zum Beispiel zeigen in der Art und Weise, wie Arbeitnehmer und Arbeitgeber - wenn wir diese modernen Ausdrücke auf alte Zeiten anwenden wollten — im Verhältnis zueinander lebten im alten Griechentum, im alten Ägyptertum, bis nach Asien hinüber. Diese Dinge nehmen sich gegenüber den heutigen Empfindungen so aus, daß sie eben die schärfste Kritik selbstverständlich herausfordern; allein, jede solche Kritik ist eben unhistorisch, und man muß sagen: Es waren eben diejenigen Verhältnisse in den entsprechenden Zeitepochen da, die sich aus dem damaligen Empfinden jener Menschheit ergaben. Das ist das eine, was man ins Auge fassen muß.

Das andere ist die Tatsache, die zusammenhängt mit jenem Umschwung in der Menschheitsentwicklung, auf den ich schon öfters hindeuten mußte, der etwa im 15. Jahrhundert liegt, und durch den die Seelenverfassung der zivilisierten Menschheit eine ganz andere geworden ist. Ich sagte schon: Die äußere Geschichte weist wenig darauf hin, wie damals die Gesamtlebensauffassung der menschlichen Seele eine andere geworden ist. Und wenn wir uns dann fragen: Wie steht diese menschliche Entwicklung zum Wirtschaftsleben? - dann bekommen wir die Antwort: Die Zeit der instinktiven Führung des Wirtschaftslebens, die so war, wie ich sie eben charakterisiert habe, diese Zeit reichte noch herein bis in die Epoche dieses Umschwunges. Mit diesem Umschwunge kam dann herauf in die Seelenverfassung der Menschheit der Intellektualismus, der Drang, mit reiner Verstandeslogik die Welt zu begreifen. Dieser Drang, der einfach ein tiefes Bedürfnis der menschlichen Seelenverfassung wurde, er bewährte sich ja in so glänzender Art gerade auf naturwissenschaftlichem Gebiete und auf jenem Gebiete, das aus der Naturwissenschaft in so glänzender Weise sich herausgebildet hat: auf dem Gebiete der Technik, wo er die außerordentlichsten, nicht genug anzuerkennenden Triumphe gefeiert hat. Aber dieser Intellektualismus — und das werden doch verschiedene Auseinandersetzungen gezeigt haben, die hier auch während dieses Kursus schon gepflogen worden sind — hat sich völlig unfähig gezeigt, die Erscheinungen des Menschenlebens und Menschenwesens selbst, auch in sozialer Beziehung, zu ergreifen. Man kann mit diesem Intellektualismus, mit dieser intellektualistischen Orientierung der Seele in grandioser Weise die äußere sinnliche Natur auf ihre Gesetzmäßigkeiten zurückführen. Man kann aber nicht mit diesem Intellektualismus diese sich ineinander verschlingenden und während des Verschlingens sich organisierenden und während des Organisierens sich seelisch auslebenden und geistig sich durchdringenden Verhältnisse des sozialen Lebens ergreifen. Ich möchte sagen: Das Netzwerk intellektualistischer Ideen ist einfach zu weitmaschig für das, was im sozialen Leben vorliegt. Aber wissenschaftlich zu denken — das hat die Menschheit gelernt an diesem Intellektualismus. In ihn ist ja zuletzt alles einbezogen worden, bis in die Theologie hinein. Der Intellektualismus beherrscht, wenn wir auch beobachten und experimentieren, doch unsere ganze wissenschaftliche Denkweise, und wir haben es zuletzt dahin gebracht, das, was nicht in die Bahnen des Intellektualismus hineingebracht wird, einfach als nicht wissenschaftlich anzusehen.

In diese Zeit des Intellektualismus fiel nun hinein der Übergang von dem rein instinktiven zu demjenigen Wirtschaftsleben, das angefacht werden soll mit menschlichen Gedanken. Wir dürfen sagen: In der Zeit, wo man noch nicht intellektualistisch über die Welt gedacht hat, wurde das Wirtschaftsleben instinktiv geführt. Als aber die Zeit heraufkam, die immer mehr und mehr nach Weltwirtschaft und Weltverkehr hintendierte, wurde der Mensch aus dieser Tendenz nach Weltverkehr und Weltwirtschaft dazu angehalten, auch das Wirtschaftsleben nun mit Gedanken zu durchdringen. Diese Gedanken aber wurden allein aus dem Intellektualismus heraus genommen. Dadurch zeigte sich in allem, was als wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Gedanken heraufgezogen ist — im Merkantilismus, im Physiokratismus, in den nationalökonomischen Ideen eines Adam Smith, wie in allem, was dann später hervorgetreten ist bis zu Karl Marx —, daß auf der einen Seite das Wirtschaftsleben forderte, daß nicht mehr bloß instinktiv gewirtschaftet würde, sondern daß es mit Gedanken erfaßt werde, daß aber auf der anderen Seite, da die Gedanken nur hergenommen werden konnten aus dem Intellektualismus, damit alle wirtschaftlichen Anschauungen durch und durch einseitig wurden, so daß aus diesen wirtschaftlichen Anschauungen niemals eigentlich etwas hervorging, was man fortwirken gesehen hätte in der wirtschaftlichen Praxis. Auf der einen Seite waren die Wirtschaftstheoretiker, die aus intellektualistischen Sätzen Axiome bildeten — wie zum Beispiel Ricardo, Adam Smith oder John Stuart Mill —, und die auf solchen Axiomen Systeme aufbauten, womit sie eine ganz in sich verlaufende Geistesart bildeten; auf der anderen Seite war die wirtschaftliche Praxis, die eigentlich einer Durchdringung mit dem Geist bedurft hätte, die diese Durchdringung geradezu forderte, aber keinen Anschluß fand, die im alten Instinktleben fortwirkte und daher in das vollständige Chaos verfiel.

So waren diese zwei Strömungen in der neueren Zeit immer mehr gang und gäbe geworden: auf der einen Seite die Wirtschaftstheoretiker — ohne Einfluß auf die wirtschaftliche Praxis; auf der anderen Seite die Praktiker, welche die alte, zur Routine gewordene Praxis fortsetzten, und damit das Wirtschaftsleben der zivilisierten Welt in das Chaos hineinwarfen. — Man muß selbstverständlich solche Dinge in einer etwas radikalen Weise aussprechen, denn nur dadurch wird wirklich auf das hingedeutet, was ist, was wirksam ist und was als Problem aufgefaßt werden muß.

Wenn man nun, ich möchte sagen, eine Art Verbindung, eine Art Synthese zwischen wirtschaftlichem Denken — das aber von der Praxis allmählich ganz ausgerottet worden ist — und dieser wirtschaftlichen Praxis sucht, so findet man diese Verbindung höchstens in einem. In der neuesten Zeit bildete sich nämlich heraus eine Art von wirtschaftlichem Realismus, eine Art wirtschaftlich-wissenschaftlicher Realismus, der da sagt, man könne überhaupt nicht so allgemein zu Gesetzen des Wirtschaftslebens kommen, sondern man müsse die Tatsachen der Wirtschaft betrachten, wie sie sich bei einzelnen Nationen oder Menschengruppen abspielen, und nur wenn man in dieser Weise rein äußerlich betrachtet, was geschehen ist, könne man einige Richtlinien für das wirtschaftliche Handeln finden. Was aus diesen Untergründen heraus entstanden ist, das ist das, was dann als die sogenannte sozialpolitische, als die wirtschaftliche Gesetzgebung aufgetreten ist. Das heißt, man hat allmählich geglaubt, herausgefunden zu haben, daß man zwar durch die Betrachtung der tatsächlichen wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse im Zusammenhange mit den sie durchsetzenden sozialen Verhältnissen gewisse Richtlinien bekommen könne, die man dann in der wirtschaftlichen Gesetzgebung zum Ausdruck brachte; man hat also auf dem Umwege durch den Staat versucht, einiges von dem zu verwirklichen, was aus den Beobachtungen hervorgegangen ist, aber dadurch hat man in Wirklichkeit selbst zugegeben, daß aus diesen Beobachtungen wirkliche wissenschaftliche Wirtschaftsgesetze gar nicht hervorgehen können. Ja, in dieser Situation steht man eigentlich im Grunde genommen heute noch drinnen. Und gerade, wenn man in der Lage ist, einschneidende Erfahrungen zu machen und, ich möchte sagen, soziale Urphänomene in der richtigen Weise zu werten, dann sieht man, wie man in dieser Situation drinnen steht.

Sie wissen ja alle, daß in das in ein so furchtbares Chaos hineingehende Zivilisationsleben in einem gewissen Zeitpunkte die sogenannten «Vierzehn Punkte» Woodrow Wilsons fielen. Was waren diese Vierzehn Punkte denn eigentlich? Sie waren im Grunde genommen nichts anderes als die abstrakten Prinzipien eines weltfremden Mannes, die abstrakten Prinzipien eines Menschen, der von der Wirklichkeit wenig wußte, wie sich dann in Versailles, wo er in der Wirklichkeit eine hervorragende Rolle hätte spielen können, gezeigt hat. Ein wirklichkeitsfremder Mann wollte aus dem Intellektualismus heraus der Welt zeigen, wie sie sich organisieren sollte. Man muß nur erlebt haben, mit welcher Begeisterung die zivilisierte Menschheit an diesen Vierzehn Punkten hing, allerdings mit Ausnahme eines großen Teiles der mitteleuropäischen Bevölkerung, für die es aber leider auch einen, wenn auch kurzen Zeitraum gab, in dem sie auf diese Vierzehn Punkte hereinfiel.

Im Jahre 1917 versuchte ich demgegenüber, einzelnen Persönlichkeiten Mitteleuropas, die sich dafür interessierten, denen aber nicht nachgelaufen wurde, sondern die entweder herankamen oder herangebracht wurden, zu zeigen, wie abstrakt, wie wirklichkeitsfremd dasjenige ist, was da in die soziale Gestaltung der Welt herein will, wie sozusagen alles das, was an schlechten Erziehungsgrundsätzen in der modernen Zivilisation waltet, kondensiert in diesem Weltschulmeister Woodrow Wilson sich darstellte, und wie die abstrakten Grundsätze dieser — im schlechten Sinne - Weltschulmeisterei von den Leuten mit Begeisterung aufgenommen wurden. Dazumal versuchte ich zu zeigen, daß eine Gesundung dieser Verhältnisse nur eintreten könne, wenn man gegenüber allen solchen abstrakten Einstellungen sich auf den Boden stellt, der die Gedanken nicht ausschließt, der aber gerade die Gedanken so hervorbringt, daß sie aus der Wirklichkeit, aus der Realität herauswachsen. Dann darf man sich aber nicht irgend etwas Utopistisches ausdenken — ich möchte sagen, die Woodrow Wilsonschen Grundsätze waren der verdichtetste Utopismus, waren der Utopismus in der dritten Potenz schon —, sondern dann muß man sich klar sein, daß man aus den realen Bedingungen der gegenwärtigen Menschheit selbst suchen muß, wie Impulse zu finden sind. Daher verzichtete ich bei dem, was ich auseinanderzusetzen hatte, auf jede utopistische Theorie, verzichtete darauf, überhaupt zu sagen, wie sich etwa Kapital, wie sich Arbeit und dergleichen gestalten sollten; ich gab höchstens einige Beispiele dafür, wie man sich denken könne, daß sie sich aus den gegenwärtigen Verhältnissen heraus in eine nächste Zukunft hinein gestalten könnten. Das aber war alles nur zur Illustration dessen gesagt, was sie werden sollten; denn ebenso gut wie ich da über die Wandlung der Kapitalkräfte in meinen «Kernpunkten» gesprochen habe, ebenso gut könnte diese Wandlung auch in einer modifizierten Weise sich vollziehen. Nicht darauf kam es mir an, ein abstraktes Zukunftsbild hinzustellen, sondern zu sagen, aus welchen Untergründen heraus, auf reale Art, man nun — nicht zu einer theoretisch ausgedachten, sondern zu einer wirklichen Lösung der sogenannten sozialen Frage kommen könnte. Es handelte sich nicht darum, zu sagen: Dies oder jenes ist die Lösung der sozialen Frage. Um eine solche Lösung zu versuchen, dazu habe ich nun wirklich zu viele Erfahrungen gemacht. Ich war schon in den 80er Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts in dem gemütlichen Wien fast jeden Nachmittag nach zwei Uhr eine Stunde zusammen mit allen möglichen gescheiten Leuten. Da ist im Verlaufe einer Stunde die soziale Frage jeden Nachmittag mehrmals gelöst worden! Und derjenige, der unbefangen genug in die Verhältnisse der Gegenwart hineinsieht, weiß schon ganz gut, daß Lösungen, die heute oftmals in dicken Büchern auftreten, auch nicht viel mehr wert sind, als die, welche damals in Wien mit einigen Bleistiftstrichen und vielen fanatischen Worten über einer weißen Tischplatte verhandelt worden sind. Darum konnte es sich also nicht handeln, und das war das ärgste Mißverständnis, das mir entgegengebracht wurde, daß es sich um so etwas handeln sollte.

Was ich zeigen wollte, war: Die Lösung des sozialen Problems kann nur auf reale Weise selbst erfolgen; diese Lösung kann überhaupt nicht durch Diskussionen, sondern nur durch Geschehen, durch Tätigkeit erfolgen. Zu dieser Tätigkeit müssen aber erst die Bedingungen hingestellt werden, und auf diese Bedingungen versuchte ich in meinen «Kernpunkten» und in anderen Auseinandersetzungen zu verweisen. Ich versuchte zu zeigen, daß wir in unserem sozialen Organismus einmal solche Einrichtungen brauchen, die es ermöglichen, daß ein Geistesleben aus seinen eigenen Bedingungen heraus sich entwickeln kann, wo also nur die Bedingungen des Geisteslebens selbst wirken; daß wir sodann ein zweites Glied brauchen, wo nur die rechtlich-staatlichen Impulse wirken, und außerdem ein drittes Glied, wo nur diejenigen Impulse wirken, die aus der Warenproduktion und der Warenkonsumtion hervorgehen, und die zuletzt, wenn sie sich aus einem assoziativen Wirtschaftssystem entwickeln, gipfeln müssen in einer gesunden Preisbildung. Damit sollten nicht etwa die alten Stände wieder ins Dasein zurückgerufen werden. Nicht die Menschen sollten sich gliedern in einen Lehrstand, einen Wehrstand und einen Nährstand; sondern der Mensch der neueren Zeit ist bis zur Individualität vorgeschritten, und er wird nicht in abstrakter Weise eingegliedert sein in einen bestimmten Stand. Aber was draußen als Einrichtungen vorhanden ist, das tendiert einfach aus den Kräften, die im geschichtlichen Werden vorhanden sind, dazu, daß abgesondert aus den eigenen Bedingungen heraus verhandelt wird, etwas getan wird für das Geistesleben, für das Rechts- oder Staatsleben und für das Wirtschaftsleben. Dann erst, wenn die Bedingungen dazu geschaffen sind, daß zum Beispiel der Wirtschafter rein aus wirtschaftlichen Impulsen heraus das gestalten kann, was etwa die gegenwärtigen Marktverhältnisse modifizieren soll, oder was die gegenwärtigen Kapitalverhältnisse modifizieren soll, erst wenn solche Möglichkeiten geschaffen sind, entwickelt sich unter den Menschen dasjenige, was eine reale Lösung — die aber in fortwährendem Werden ist — der sozialen Frage genannt werden kann.

Also es geht mir nicht darum, die soziale Frage zu lösen, weil ich der Meinung sein mußte, daß überhaupt diese Lösung nie in einem einzelnen Moment als etwas Abgeschlossenes gegeben werden kann, weil das soziale Problem, nachdem es einmal heraufgekommen ist, in fortwährendem Fluß ist. Der soziale Organismus ist etwas, was jung wird, altert, und dem immer neue Impulse eingeflößt werden müssen, von dem aber nie gesagt werden kann: so und so ist seine Gestalt. Wenn der soziale Organismus nicht so ist, daß die Menschen in einem, alle Interessen zusammenmischenden Parlament zusammensitzen, wo dann wirtschaftlich Interessierte über Fragen des Geisteslebens, staatliche Interessen über wirtschaftliche Fragen und so weiter entscheiden, sondern wenn in einem gesunden sozialen Organismus die einzelnen Gebiete aus ihren eigenen Bedingungen heraus betrachtet werden, dann wird einmal das Staatsleben auf eine reale demokratische Grundlage gestellt werden können; dann wird das, was zu sagen ist, nicht von einem Menschen in einem solchen einzigen Parlament gesagt werden, sondern es wird hervorgehen aus den fortdauernden kontinuierlichen Verhandlungen unter den einzelnen Gliedern des sozialen Organismus.

In diesem Sinne war also mein Buch eine Mahnung dazu, endlich aufzuhören mit dem unfruchtbaren Reden über die soziale Frage und sich auf einen Boden zu stellen, von dem aus man jeden Tag die Lösung der sozialen Probleme in die Hand nehmen kann. Es war ein Ruf, der an die Verstehenden ging, um wirklich das, was immer nur im Abstrakten gedacht war, überzuführen in das durchdachte Handeln. Dazu sollten zum Beispiel im wirtschaftlichen Leben die Assoziationen dienen. Solche Assoziationen sind grundverschieden von dem, was in der neueren Zeit an Vergesellschaftungen zustande gekommen ist, und können jeden Tag aus den wirtschaftlichen Untergründen gebildet werden. Bei ihnen handelt es sich darum, daß nun wirklich diejenigen Menschen, die im Behandeln von Warenproduktion, von Warenzirkulation und im Konsumieren von Waren verbunden sind — was jeder Mensch ist —, sich zu Assoziationen zusammenschließen, so daß daraus vor allem die gesunde Preisbildung hervorgeht. Es ist ein langer Weg von dem, was aus Sach- und Fachkenntnis heraus die in den Assoziationen verbundenen Menschen werden zu leisten haben, bis zu dem, was nicht durch eine Gesetzgebung, auch nicht als Resultat von Diskussionen, sondern als Resultat der Erfahrung sich ergibt als die gesunde Preisbildung. Doch vor allem hatten Menschen das Bedürfnis, die Grundzüge dessen, was damals gewollt wurde und was ich jetzt in diesen einleitenden Worten vor Sie hinzustellen versuchte, zu diskutieren; denn die Welt war so eingeschult in abstraktes Denken, daß man auch diese Anregung nur vom Gesichtspunkte des abstrakten Denkens nahm, und daß man sich mit dem, was ich nur als Illustration gegeben habe, vor allem so hilft, daß man stundenlang diskutiert, während es sich darum handeln sollte, wirklich einzusehen, wie jeden Tag die Gliederung des sozialen Organismus in Angriff genommen werden kann in der Weise, wie es in den «Kernpunkten» angedeutet ist.

So handelt es sich heute nicht darum, theoretische Lösungen der sozialen Frage zu suchen, sondern die Bedingungen aufzusuchen, unter denen die Menschen sozial leben werden. Und sie werden sozial leben, wenn der soziale Organismus nach seinen drei Gliedern hin arbeitet, wie ja der natürliche Organismus auch unter dem Einfluß seiner relativen Dreigliederung gerade zur Einheit hin arbeitet.

Sehen Sie, man muß heute erst einmal sagen, wie solche Dinge gemeint sind. Und wenn man sie ausspricht, wird immer noch gefordert, daß nun die Worte, deren man sich schon einmal bedienen muß, so genommen werden sollen, wie man sie nimmt nach der intellektualistischen Bedeutung, die man ihnen heute beilegt. Man übersetzt sofort in seinen Intellektualismus das, was ganz ausdrücklich nicht in Intellektualismus eingetaucht ist. Daher ist über Kapital, über die Naturgrundlagen der Produktion, über die Arbeit in meinem Buche so gesprochen, daß die Ideen einfach für das Leben gedacht sind. Wenn wir abstrakt verhandeln, können wir lange definieren, und das ist ja auch geschehen. Der eine sagt mit demselben Recht: Kapital ist kristallisierte Arbeit, ist Arbeit, die aufgespeichert ist —, wie der andere mit demselben Recht sagt: Kapital ist ersparte Arbeit. Und so kann man es mit allen volkswirtschaftlichen Begriffen machen, wenn man innerhalb des Intellektualismus stehen bleibt. Aber das alles sind nicht Dinge, mit denen man es nur theoretisch zu tun haben kann, sondern die man lebendig in ihrer Gestaltung erfassen muß. Und wer sich wie die Praktiker, die viel auf ihre Praxis und Routine sich zugute tun, der Abstraktheit in diesen Dingen befleißigt, der kann folgendes machen, was ich durch einen Vergleich verdeutlichen will.

Ich sehe den Ernst Müller. Er ist klein, hat durchaus kindliche Züge und kindliche Eigenschaften. Ich sehe diesen Ernst Müller nach zwanzig Jahren wieder und sage: Das ist nicht der Ernst Müller, denn der ist klein, hat kindliche Eigenschaften und eine ganz andere Physiognomie. — Ja, wenn ich mir damals meinen Begriff von dem Ernst Müller gebildet habe und ihn nun nach zwanzig Jahren zur Deckung bringen will mit dem, was mir jetzt als reale Wesenheit entgegentritt, so mache ich einen furchtbaren Fehler. Doch so wenig es die Menschen glauben mögen: es ist so, wenn sie heute wirtschaftlich denken. Sie machen sich Gedanken und Begriffe über Kapital und Arbeit und so weiter, und sie meinen, diese Begriffe müßten immer Geltung haben. Aber da braucht man nicht zwanzig Jahre zu warten, braucht man nur von einem Arbeitgeber zum andern zu gehen, aus einem Lande ins andere und entdeckt dann, daß der Begriff, den man sich an der einen Stelle gebildet hat, eben an der anderen Stelle gar nicht mehr gilt, wenn er sich nicht von selbst umgewandelt hat - wie der Ernst Müller. Man erkennt nicht, was da ist, wenn man nicht bewegliche Begriffe hat, die voll im Leben drinnen stehen.

Das ist das, was möglich machte, daß gerade auf anthroposophischem Boden in unserer heutigen Zeit der Not auch wirtschaftliche Einrichtungen ihren Ausdruck finden, weil Anthroposophie es ihrer Natur nach gegenüber dem beweglichen Geiste mit beweglichen Ideen zu tun haben muß, weil man an ihr lernen kann, wie man seine Ideen mit Wachstumskraft, mit innerer Beweglichkeit ausstatten muß und dann mit solchen Ideen — so wenig es die heutigen Praktiker glauben mögen — auch in die andersgeartete Wirklichkeit eintauchen kann, die sich abspielt als soziales Leben von Mensch zu Mensch, von Volk zu Volk durch die ganze, nunmehr notwendig gewordene und so künstlich beeinträchtigte Weltwirtschaft hindurch. Und so darf wohl gesagt werden: Nicht eine Äußerlichkeit ist es, daß gerade auf anthroposophischem Boden auch der Versuch gemacht wurde, zu — nicht sozialen Ideen, sondern zu sozialen Impulsen zu kommen. Ich erinnere mich noch an die Zeit, in der über diese Dinge viel diskutiert worden ist. Ich habe immer sagen müssen: Ich meine soziale /mpulse! — Das hat die Leute furchtbar geärgert. Denn selbstverständlich hätte ich sagen sollen: soziale Ideen oder soziale Gedanken; denn die Leute hatten für solche Dinge nur Gedanken im Kopfe. Daß ich von Impulsen sprach, ärgerte sie furchtbar; denn sie merkten nicht, daß ich «Impulse» brauchte aus dem Grunde, weil ich Realitäten meinte und nicht abstrakte Ideen. Ausdrücken muß man sich selbstverständlich in abstrakten Ideen.

So muß heute wieder begriffen werden, daß ein neues Verständnis gesucht werden muß für das, was man das soziale Problem nennt. Wir leben heute unter anderen Verhältnissen als im Jahre 1919. Die Zeit ist insbesondere auf dem Wirtschaftsgebiete außerordentlich schnellebig. Notwendig ist es, daß selbst solche Ideen, die schon für die damalige Zeit beweglich gehalten worden sind, weiter in Fluß gehalten werden, und daß man bei seinen Beobachtungen auf dem Standpunkte des Geistesgegenwärtigen steht. Wer die Verhältnisse des Wirtschaftslebens real ins Auge zu fassen vermag, der weiß, daß sie sich seit der Abfassung der «Kernpunkte» wesentlich geändert haben, und daß man nicht wieder bloß so deduzieren kann wie damals. Aber man wird dort [in den «Kernpunkten»] wenigstens einen Versuch finden, diese Methode des sozialen Denkens in einer realistischen Weise zu suchen, gerade vielleicht deshalb, weil dieser Versuch entsprossen ist einem Boden, wo Realitäten immer gesucht wurden, wo man nicht in Schwärmerei oder in falsche Mystik hineinfallen will - weil dieser Versuch erwachsen ist auf dem nach Exaktheit ringenden Boden der anthroposophischen Weltanschauung.

5. Anthroposophy and Social Science

Ladies and gentlemen! Even more than in the other introductory remarks I have to make about today's activities, I will have to limit myself to hints today, since the essentials of what needs to be said will have to be covered in the following lectures on details of economic life, particularly in the area under consideration today.

Today, it is impossible to talk about social science from a purely theoretical standpoint. Today—and by that I mean the immediate present, the current moment—it is only possible to discuss such issues against the backdrop of the bleak economic situation in the civilized world. In a certain way, this bleak situation was compounded by what I attempted to describe in my “Key Points of the Social Question” after the provisional end of the terrible catastrophe of the World War.

At that time, I started from an observation of social and economic life that should actually be obvious to everyone at the present stage of world development. It is that economic life today is intimately intertwined with everything that moves within the whole scope of the social question. Indeed, most people today would hardly feel that the social question can be separated from the economic question. And yet my book “The Key Points of the Social Question” was intended to clarify the area under consideration here by pointing out how economic life must maintain its own independent position within the social organism, that independent position through which facts and institutions within it are shaped solely according to economic principles, economic considerations, and economic impulses. In this respect, my book actually contains — and I say this quite bluntly here, because it is extremely important — an internal contradiction. However, this book was not intended to be a theoretical book on social science. This book was intended to provide inspiration, above all to those who are practical in their approach to life; this book was intended to be written from what could be learned from decades of observing European economic life. And since this book aspired to be thoroughly realistic, to be a direct stimulus for practical action—namely, for practical action in the moment—it was bound to contain a contradiction. This contradiction is none other than the one that pervades our entire social life, and which consists in the fact that, in recent times, this social life has brought about confusion and chaos in something that is only viable if it develops from its own conditions in each of its individual links.

I had to speak of a threefold social organism, which would lead to economic life being organized in a completely free manner, relatively separate from legal and state life and from intellectual life, so that this economic life would be shaped by those who are involved in it and who can act on their own impulses. But we are currently living in a time in which such a state does not exist, in which economic life is completely embedded in the rest of the structure of the social organism. We live in a time in which contradiction is a reality. Therefore, a text that wanted to be written out of reality and wanted to offer inspiration for reality could only bring something contradictory in return; it could only start from the contradictory and first call for clarity, for clarification of the circumstances.

I am therefore in a very special position today as I give this introduction, because with regard to what has been found on anthroposophical ground, using anthroposophical methods of thinking, but found on the basis of thoroughly realistic, decades-long observation of European economic conditions — because this has been misunderstood in the worst possible way in the widest circles. I can only say that I completely understand these misunderstandings that have been directed at the underlying intentions; these misunderstandings are also a phenomenon of our time. However, I must take the opposite view, namely that overcoming these misunderstandings is what we must strive for in the first instance in the sociological and social spheres, and I would like to say a few words by way of guidance on this point.

When my book “The Key Points of the Social Question” was first published, it came at a time of Central European development that immediately followed the terrible catastrophe of war. It was a time that preceded the Treaty of Versailles; it was a time when the currency conditions of the Central European and Eastern European states were still significantly different. The ideas set out in my “Kernpunkte” were not the product of some cloud cuckoo land, but were conceived in the immediate global situation of the time, in such a way that I believed that if a large number of people could be found who were willing to explore these ideas further, then — particularly from Central Europe — be able to inject an impulse into economic development that could lead to a kind of upswing in the clearly perceptible decline in economic and social life in general, which was evident at the time and continues to this day. At that time, thinking about the very complicated circumstances of the world situation, one could say to oneself: perhaps no stone will remain standing as it is built into the edifice of ideas of the “Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage” (Key Points of the Social Question) — but these ideas were thought out everywhere from what was. Yet one could attack them, and perhaps something completely different would have come out than what could initially be put down in writing. For it was not a matter of presenting ideas in a utopian way that sought to sketch a picture of a social organism of the future; rather, it was a matter of finding people who understood that these were real problems that existed directly in life; we must deal with these problems on the basis of our expertise and see whether, in dealing with them, we can gain ever greater understanding.

Now, basically, something completely different has happened. On the one hand, there have been theorists who have engaged in all kinds of discussions about what is written in my book and who have attached all kinds of demands to what is said there. There have also been theorists who, in a completely misunderstanding way, reinterpreted what was said in a utopian sense and asked again and again: How will this turn out, how will that turn out? — which one would actually have had to wait and see. It even turned out, to my great surprise, that it was precisely the economic practitioners, who were well versed in some area of economic life, who knew their way around this or that branch of business and would have refused to be persuaded in their field by someone who was not particularly knowledgeable in that field — that these practitioners discussed the key points of the social question and, through the conclusions they drew, proved to be the most abstract theorists of all. It became apparent that one could be a well-seasoned practitioner in economic life — in the old sense; under the new circumstances, they no longer knew their way around — but that these practitioners were absolutely incapable of discussing what was at stake here in relation to the problems of economic life other than from the point of view of the most abstract theories; so that one could well despair when faced with practitioners and engaged in a discussion with them in which they did not address anything concrete at all, but only repeated the completely trivial generalities about the social question and, in particular, about the economic part of the social question, when one discussed it with them in any way.

The other thing that could be encountered there was that, at first, those who are the very tangible practitioners refused to discuss the possible shaping of economic problems in this way at all. Furthermore, although it was possible to arouse some interest, for example in socialist circles, it was precisely there that one could see that what was wanted was least understood by this side, and that everything was judged solely on whether or not it fit into the old party templates. And so the time during which these ideas were conceived passed. Then came the whole terrible currency crisis, which, however, should actually be judged in a completely different way than it is usually judged today.

When first my “Appeal to the German People and to the Cultural World” and then the “Key Points of the Social Question” appeared, it immediately became apparent how individual personalities, who were quite sincere in their desire for a recovery of Central European economic life, said: Yes, such proposals—they called them proposals—are all well and good, but first of all it should be said how we are going to improve the currency situation. This was said at a time when the currency crisis was still pure paradise compared to today's conditions. Such demands reveal how people everywhere want to tinker with the external symptoms. There is little understanding that the currency situation is merely a symptom of the unhealthy economic conditions that are apparent on the surface, that treating the symptoms in this way does not tackle the root of the problem at all, and that it is necessary to delve much deeper and deeper into the socio-economic conditions of the present if we want to discuss the problems realistically in any way, as suggested in the “Key Points of the Social Question.” And so it has come to pass that what I repeatedly called for at the end of lectures I gave in connection with the “Key Points” at that time—that we should reflect before it is too late—that this “too late!” has now come to pass to such a high degree that we are no longer in a position to tackle the matter in the original sense that permeates the “Key Points”; for in the meantime, the chaos of economic life has broken out to such an extent that, in my opinion, completely different additions would be necessary to what should not only have been said at that time, but had to be said. And it will hardly be possible to ignore a characteristic of our age in general if we want to discuss what is most damaging to economic life today.

When I picked up a newspaper yesterday, I came across an article that struck me—and today, the most important symptoms can be found everywhere in individual sentences uttered by our contemporaries: “Lloyd George's resignation postponed until after the Genoa Conference.” This once again expressed the current situation, in which everything that characterizes today is “waiting.” “We want to wait” — that is actually the principle everywhere today; wait until something happens that you cannot say what it will actually be. You don't know what is going to happen, but you wait until it happens! That is what is deep in people's souls today, in all areas. And now I would like to say something that seems — but only seems — quite abstract; but this too is meant in a thoroughly realistic sense, for it points to the forces at work among us, through which we have actually gradually come, in the course of human development, to apply this promising principle of “we want to wait” everywhere.

When we look back at older cultural developments, we find that in these older cultures, actual scientific thinking, even in the sense that it existed in ancient times — as you know from the lecture I gave here last time at the Philharmonic — cannot be called purely “scientific.” But if we look at what replaced today's scientific thinking, we can see that economic life did not immediately emerge from that thinking. Economic life initially developed more or less independently of human thought, instinctively — not to say automatically — in the exchange between people. What people wanted to do in economic life simply developed out of practical experience. People acted instinctively, expanding trade into this or that area, but everything happened more or less instinctively. One may now object to the economic conditions of earlier times from the point of view of today's concepts of human freedom, human dignity, and so on; but it would be good to look at the other side as well, at how very remarkable symptoms in human development, which can still be instructive today, are evident, for example, in the way employees and employers — if we wanted to apply these modern terms to ancient times — lived in relation to each other in ancient Greece, in ancient Egypt, and as far as Asia. Compared to today's sensibilities, these things naturally invite the sharpest criticism; however, any such criticism is ahistorical, and it must be said that these were the conditions that existed in the corresponding epochs, resulting from the sensibilities of humanity at that time. That is one thing that must be taken into account.

The other thing is the fact connected with that turning point in human development, to which I have often had to refer, which occurred around the 15th century and through which the soul state of civilized humanity became completely different. I have already said that external history gives little indication of how the human soul's overall view of life changed at that time. And when we ask ourselves: How does this human development relate to economic life? – then we get the answer: The period of instinctive guidance of economic life, which was as I have just characterized it, lasted until the epoch of this turning point. With this turning point, intellectualism arose in the soul of humanity, the urge to understand the world through pure intellectual logic. This urge, which simply became a deep need of the human soul, proved itself in such a brilliant way, especially in the field of natural science and in the field that developed so brilliantly out of natural science: in the field of technology, where it celebrated the most extraordinary triumphs, which cannot be praised enough. But this intellectualism — and this will have been demonstrated by various discussions that have already taken place here during this course — has proved completely incapable of grasping the phenomena of human life and human nature itself, including in social relationships. With this intellectualism, with this intellectualistic orientation of the soul, one can magnificently trace the laws of external, sensory nature. But with this intellectualism, one cannot grasp the intertwining relationships of social life, which organize themselves as they intertwine, and which, as they organize themselves, live out spiritually and permeate each other mentally. I would like to say: the network of intellectualistic ideas is simply too wide-meshed for what exists in social life. But thinking scientifically — that is what humanity has learned from this intellectualism. Ultimately, everything has been incorporated into it, even theology. Even though we observe and experiment, intellectualism dominates our entire scientific way of thinking, and we have ultimately come to regard anything that does not fit into the channels of intellectualism as simply unscientific.

This era of intellectualism coincided with the transition from a purely instinctive economic life to one that was to be fueled by human thought. We can say that in the days when people did not yet think about the world in intellectual terms, economic life was conducted instinctively. But when the time came that increasingly tended toward a global economy and global trade, this tendency toward global trade and global economy prompted people to now also permeate economic life with thought. However, these thoughts were taken solely from intellectualism. As a result, everything that emerged as economic thought — in mercantilism, in physiocracy, in the national economic ideas of Adam Smith, as in everything that later emerged up to Karl Marx — showed that, on the one hand, economic life demanded that it no longer be managed instinctively, but that it be grasped with thought; but on the other hand, since ideas could only be drawn from intellectualism, all economic views became thoroughly one-sided, with the result that these economic views never actually produced anything that could be seen to have a lasting effect on economic practice. On the one hand, there were the economic theorists who formed axioms from intellectualist propositions — such as Ricardo, Adam Smith, or John Stuart Mill — and built systems on such axioms, thereby forming a completely self-contained way of thinking; on the other hand, there was economic practice, which actually needed to be permeated by the spirit, which demanded this permeation, but found no connection, which continued to function in the old instinctive way and therefore fell into complete chaos.

Thus, these two currents had become increasingly common in modern times: on the one hand, the economic theorists — without any influence on economic practice; on the other hand, the practitioners, who continued the old, routine practice, thereby plunging the economic life of the civilized world into chaos. — Of course, such things must be expressed in a somewhat radical way, because only then can we really point to what is, what is effective, and what must be understood as a problem.

If one now seeks, I would say, a kind of connection, a kind of synthesis between economic thinking — which, however, has gradually been completely eradicated from practice — and this economic practice, one finds this connection in one thing at most. In recent times, a kind of economic realism has emerged, a kind of economic-scientific realism, which says that it is impossible to arrive at general laws of economic life, but that one must consider the facts of the economy as they occur in individual nations or groups of people, and only by looking at what has happened in this purely external way can one find some guidelines for economic action. What has emerged from these foundations is what has then appeared as so-called socio-political, economic legislation. In other words, it was gradually believed that by observing the actual economic conditions in connection with the social conditions that prevailed, certain guidelines could be obtained, which were then expressed in economic legislation; In other words, attempts were made, indirectly through the state, to implement some of the findings that had emerged from these observations, but in doing so, it was actually admitted that these observations could not give rise to genuine scientific economic laws. Yes, we are still basically in this situation today. And it is precisely when we are in a position to have profound experiences and, I would say, to evaluate social phenomena in the right way, that we see how we are in this situation.

You all know that at a certain point in time, Woodrow Wilson's so-called “Fourteen Points” fell into the terrible chaos of civilized life. What were these Fourteen Points actually? They were basically nothing more than the abstract principles of a man who was out of touch with reality, the abstract principles of a man who knew little about reality, as was then demonstrated in Versailles, where he could have played an outstanding role in reality. An unworldly man wanted to use intellectualism to show the world how it should organize itself. One only has to have experienced the enthusiasm with which civilized humanity clung to these Fourteen Points, with the exception, however, of a large part of the Central European population, for whom there was unfortunately also a period, albeit a short one, in which they fell for these Fourteen Points.

In 1917, on the other hand, I tried to show individual personalities in Central Europe who were interested in this, but who were not pursued, but who either approached or were brought to me, how abstract and unrealistic the ideas that were being introduced into the social structure of the world were, how everything that was wrong with the principles of education in modern civilization was condensed in this world champion Woodrow Wilson, and how the abstract principles of this world championship – in the negative sense – were enthusiastically received by the people. At that time, I tried to show that a recovery of these conditions could only occur if, in contrast to all such abstract attitudes, one stood on ground that did not exclude thoughts, but which produced thoughts in such a way that they grew out of reality. But then one must not come up with something utopian — I would say that Woodrow Wilson's principles were the most condensed utopianism, were utopianism to the third power — but then one must be clear that one must search for impulses from the real conditions of contemporary humanity itself. Therefore, in what I had to deal with, I refrained from any utopian theory, refrained from saying at all how capital, labor, and the like should be structured; at most, I gave a few examples of how one could imagine them developing from the present circumstances into the near future. But all this was said only to illustrate what they should become; for just as I spoke about the transformation of capital forces in my “Key Points,” this transformation could just as well take place in a modified form. My aim was not to present an abstract picture of the future, but to explain the real reasons why a real solution to the so-called social question could now be found – not a theoretically conceived solution, but a real one. It was not a question of saying: this or that is the solution to the social question. I have had too much experience to attempt such a solution. Back in the 1880s, in cozy Vienna, I spent almost every afternoon after two o'clock for an hour with all kinds of intelligent people. During the course of an hour, the social question was solved several times every afternoon! And anyone who takes an unbiased look at the circumstances of the present knows very well that solutions that often appear in thick books today are not worth much more than those that were negotiated in Vienna at that time with a few pencil strokes and many fanatical words on a white tabletop. That could not be the case, and it was the worst misunderstanding I encountered, that it should be something like that.

What I wanted to show was that the solution to the social problem can only come about in a real way; this solution cannot be achieved through discussion, but only through action. However, the conditions for this activity must first be established, and I attempted to refer to these conditions in my “Key Points” and in other debates. I tried to show that in our social organism we need institutions that enable intellectual life to develop from its own conditions, where only the conditions of intellectual life itself are at work; that we then need a second link where only legal and state impulses are at work, and also a third link where only those impulses are at work that arise from the production and consumption of goods and which, when they develop from an associative economic system, must ultimately culminate in healthy price formation. This is not to say that the old estates should be brought back into existence. People should not be divided into a teaching class, a military class, and a farming class; rather, modern man has progressed to individuality and will not be integrated into a particular class in an abstract way. But what exists outside as institutions simply tends, out of the forces present in historical development, to be negotiated separately from their own conditions, to do something for spiritual life, for legal or state life, and for economic life. Only when the conditions have been created, for example, for the economist to be able to shape, purely out of economic impulses, what is to modify the current market conditions or what is to modify the current capital conditions, only when such possibilities have been created, will that develop among people which can be called a real solution — but one that is in a state of constant becoming — to the social question.

So, I am not concerned with solving the social question, because I had to believe that this solution can never be given as something complete in a single moment, because the social problem, once it has arisen, is in constant flux. The social organism is something that grows young, ages, and must constantly be infused with new impulses, but of which it can never be said: this is its form. If the social organism is not such that people sit together in a parliament that mixes all interests, where those with economic interests decide on questions of intellectual life, state interests on economic questions, and so on, but if, in a healthy social organism, the individual areas are considered on their own terms, then state life will one day be able to be placed on a real democratic foundation; then what needs to be said will not be said by one person in such a single parliament, but will emerge from the ongoing, continuous negotiations among the individual members of the social organism.

In this sense, my book was a reminder to finally stop the fruitless talk about social issues and to stand on ground from which the solution to social problems can be tackled every day. It was a call to those who understood, to really translate what had always been thought of only in the abstract into well-considered action. Associations in economic life, for example, should serve this purpose. Such associations are fundamentally different from what has come about in recent times in terms of socialization and can be formed every day from the economic foundations. The point is that those people who are connected in the handling of commodity production, commodity circulation, and the consumption of commodities — which is everyone — should now really join together in associations, so that above all, healthy pricing emerges from this. It is a long way from what the people associated in these associations will have to achieve on the basis of their knowledge and expertise to what emerges as healthy price formation, not as a result of legislation or discussion, but as a result of experience. But above all, people felt the need to discuss the basic principles of what was wanted at that time and what I have now tried to present to you in these introductory words; for the world was so schooled in abstract thinking that even this suggestion was taken only from the point of view of abstract thinking, and that people used what I gave only as an illustration to help themselves, above all, by discussing it for hours, when it should have been a matter of really understanding how the structure of the social organism can be tackled every day in the way indicated in the “Key Points.”

So today it is not a matter of seeking theoretical solutions to the social question, but of seeking the conditions under which people will live socially. And they will live socially when the social organism works according to its three members, just as the natural organism also works toward unity under the influence of its relative threefold structure.

You see, today we must first of all say what such things mean. And when we say them, it is still demanded that the words we have to use should be taken in the intellectualistic sense that is attached to them today. People immediately translate into their intellectualism what is quite explicitly not steeped in intellectualism. That is why my book talks about capital, the natural foundations of production, and labor in such a way that the ideas are simply intended for life. When we deal with abstractions, we can spend a long time defining things, and that is what has happened. One person says with equal justification: Capital is crystallized labor, it is labor that has been stored up — just as another might say with equal justification: Capital is saved labor. And so one can do this with all economic terms, if one remains within the realm of intellectualism. But these are not things that can only be dealt with theoretically; rather, they must be grasped in their living form. And those who, like practitioners who pride themselves on their practice and routine, devote themselves to the abstract nature of these things, can do the following, which I will illustrate with a comparison.

I see Ernst Müller. He is small, has quite childlike features and childlike characteristics. I see this Ernst Müller again after twenty years and say: That is not Ernst Müller, because he is small, has childlike characteristics, and a completely different physiognomy. — Yes, if I formed my concept of Ernst Müller back then and now, after twenty years, want to reconcile it with what now appears to me as a real entity, I am making a terrible mistake. But as little as people may believe it, this is what happens when they think economically today. They form ideas and concepts about capital and labor and so on, and they think that these concepts must always apply. But you don't have to wait twenty years; you only have to go from one employer to another, from one country to another, and then you discover that the concept you formed in one place no longer applies in another place if it has not transformed itself – like Ernst Müller. You cannot recognize what is there unless you have flexible concepts that are fully rooted in life.

This is what has made it possible for economic institutions to find expression on anthroposophical ground in our present time of need, because anthroposophy, by its very nature, must deal with the flexible mind with flexible ideas, because it teaches us how to endow our ideas with the power of growth, with inner flexibility, and then, with such ideas — however little today's practitioners may believe it — can also be immersed in the different reality that takes place as social life from person to person, from people to people, throughout the now necessary and so artificially impaired world economy. And so it can be said: it is not a matter of appearances that, precisely on anthroposophical ground, an attempt was also made to arrive at — not social ideas, but social impulses. I still remember the time when these things were much discussed. I always had to say: I mean social impulses! That annoyed people terribly. For of course I should have said: social ideas or social thoughts; because people only had thoughts in their heads for such things. The fact that I spoke of impulses annoyed them terribly; for they did not realize that I needed 'impulses’ because I meant realities and not abstract ideas. Of course, one must express oneself in abstract ideas.

So today we must realize once again that a new understanding must be sought for what is called the social problem. We live today under different circumstances than in 1919. Time is moving extremely fast, especially in the economic sphere. It is necessary that even those ideas that were considered flexible at the time be kept in flux, and that one's observations be based on the current state of mind. Anyone who is able to take a realistic look at the conditions of economic life knows that they have changed significantly since the “Key Points” were written and that it is no longer possible to simply deduce as one did then. But there [in the “Key Points”] at least an attempt to seek this method of social thinking in a realistic way, precisely because this attempt arose from a soil where realities were always sought, where one did not want to fall into enthusiasm or false mysticism — because this attempt grew out of the soil of the anthroposophical worldview, which strives for precision.