Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Spiritual-Scientific Consideration of Social and Pedagogic Questions
GA 192

21 April 1919, Stuttgart

I. Prelude to the Threefold Commonwealth

To what I was able to say to you here, a year ago, more has doubtless been added for all of you, by a very forceful teacher—I mean, as the latest great teacher, those significant events which have taken place since last we gathered here. Those events spoke to you all the more forcibly because they were the fulfillment of what many of you had believed for a long time would come to pass. Truly it is a long way in content, though, seemingly short in time, back to those first days of August 1914, when amid countless hopes, and even more illusions, Germany suddenly marched out with an army that was not yet on a war-footing, that did not yet have its mobilization-order, and accomplished the siege of Louvain; a long way back to those days when because of various illusions people had already grown accustomed to think and to repeat in speech what certain sides were commanding to be thought. It is even a long way back to those days last autumn when the army outside the German boundaries was in danger of being cut off within a few days from all home supplies, a possibility which immediately led through the well-known events to something that, to you at least, is of greatest importance. All this is a long way back, in significance, even though the time embraces only a few years. And for men of deep vision there is the added disillusionment, that not only Germany's external military capitulation but her spiritual capitulation also was brought about by the very man to whom many looked in the autumn of 1918 as a last hope. The events that took place in that autumn of 1918 were very fitting proofs indeed of all those things which in so many connections could only be indicated between the lines, things which in recent years, as you well know, it was quite impossible to express openly inside the boundaries of what was then the German Empire.

Now, my dear friends,—and this must be said today and to you especially in the sense in which it has often been said here—we are confronted, as it were, by a trial that we must undergo, a test of that which has been developed among us and which I should like to call by an expression that sounds strange, perhaps,—“our Anthroposophical conviction”. Again and again, throughout the last year especially, I have emphasized the fact that this Anthroposophical conviction of ours must not confine itself to the taking in of ideas, in order merely to enjoy a kind of mystic feeling of inner well-being: and that is precisely what the present state of affairs teaches us so loudly and so eloquently. Many of us have been content to find in Anthroposophy something that will answer certain soul-questions for us—which, to be sure, is one's privilege. But truly, it is not without reason that the fact has been emphasized again and again in the last year, that our anthroposophical conviction must lead us further; it must lead us to a better understanding of immediate practical life, which for a thoughtful person is penetrated by the spirit; it must lead as to a better understanding than is possible when one does not have the background of this anthroposophical conviction. It is not for nothing that those persona who have been privileged to permeate themselves with an Anthroposophical conviction have been called to think-through the great problem which mankind faces. Now in a certain sense we face a test of whether that which we have been able to assimilate, which as a matter of fact has often accomplished nothing more than the uncovering of a superior kind of egoism,—whether that can really penetrate our understanding, our feelings, our hearts, so thoroughly that we will awake to the tasks of ever greater magnitude which we are bound to encounter in the immediate future. For much that is now crowding down upon us is just in its infancy. We face the beginnings, my dear friends, of many things. We must learn the lessons that events teach. Only think how the whole of life converged in these events. Think now those men who often seemed of all people the most practical, who regarded Spiritual-Science as a frightful whim, turned out, with all their practicalness, to be hardly awake to what came bursting upon mankind with overpowering elemental force. One must recall today the way in which those persons to whom the earthly destinies of mankind were entrusted, spoke immediately before the great world-war catastrophe. Years ago, in this place, I remarked upon the manner in which they spoke. Today I will only recall to your minds those critical sessions of the German Reichstag, when the minister responsible at that time for Germany's foreign policy could say: “The general political expansion has recently gone forward in a gratifying manner”. And in the same speech he could say: “Our relations with Russia are all that could be desired; the cabinet at Petrograd is not troubled by the press agitation, and we will be able to continue our friendly, neighborly, relations.” He could say in the same speech: “Most gratifying negotiations have been entered into with England, which will be consummated in the near future in the interest of world peace; upon the whole the two governments [he meant the English and the German] so stand that relations between them will become ever firmer and firmer”.

Notice, my dear friends, that those things were said by persons who were looked up to as directors of the destinies of mankind. They made those statements at the same time that I was compelled to say what I have since repeated many times—it was in my lecture in Vienna in the spring of 1914: “The tendencies of life prevailing in the present day will become stronger and stronger until finally they will destroy themselves by their own force. He who penetrates social life with spiritual vision sees how everywhere the conditions exist from which are bound to spring frightful social abscesses: that is the great anxiety regarding civilization that one who penetrates into existence must feel. That is the dread that is so oppressive, and that has compelled one to speak of the means that can be employed toward a solution, so that one would like to shout it aloud to the world. If the social organism develops any further in the direction it has been taking up to the present time, then sores will break out in civilization which will be the same for the social organism as cancers are for the human physical organism”.One spoke thus in that spring of 1914, and was regarded by' the so-called practical people as a dreamer. That general expansion of which Herr von Jagow spoke at that time before the enlightened assembly of the German Reichstag,—before men who should have had some judgment, but who heard everything tranquilly and believed that expansion went forward in such a direction that the following year at least ten to twelve million men were killed, and three times as many were crippled. My dear friends, I say this emphatically because it must be said today: It is essential that one gain an insight into human affairs through quite a different kind of thinking than that to which the leading circles were accustomed. It is essential today that one understand over better and more thoroughly what flowed out of the old world-conception. Such old thinking is worthless even for practical life, because practical life produced more and more the most impossible thoughts, which necessarily led to catastrophe. It is not a question of manufacturing thoughts about readjustment, but,of this: of realizing that humanity must learn new lessons in regard to its deepest thinking. That is the reason why one spoke so seriously of the necessity of renewing one's whole conception of the universe, the need for all of mankind to turn to the sources of reality, that lie in the spiritual life alone. For finally it all comes down to this: the necessity of realizing that we do not merely need organizations in this or that field, altered in this or that way, but that above all we need something quite different for the future, and for the very nearest future: what we need is heads in which something quite different pulsates than pulsated in those heads that were shaped by the influence of a worn-out conception of the universe. Before all things we need a new organizing, a new building of thoughts in men's heads. That is what one has wanted to work for during the last twenty years, for the work had become necessary. Heads are what we need, constructed differently from those which plunged mankind into disaster.

So long as this is not realized thoroughly, and so long as it is not realized that the light from Spiritual Science alone can illumine these beclouded heads: so long, whether people think as Conservatives or Radicals or however they think, no improvement of any kind can come about. With any of the trifling means that issue from the old thoughts there will be no salvation insured to mankind. New thoughts above all things are needed, new thoughts that can only spring up from the ground of what has been talked of in this place for years as the greatest need for the present age and for the immediate future.

You are acquainted, my dear friends, with the so-called Appeal to the German People and to the Civilized World which arose out of the necessity of the time: in which is represented quite openly what in recent years I have taken pains to express in narrow circles, where to be sure it found no response, where the desire was only to hear the thunder of cannons, not the Voice of the Spirit. You know that in this Appeal the demand is made definitely for that which lies in the impulse actually present at this time in human evolution itself. For, my dear friends, he who can see the forces that are active in the world of men considers as the greatest unhealthiness those abstract, so-called immortal, ideals which come not out of a real spiritual life but only out of its reflected images, human concepts and ideas that have no reality out are only images in a mirror. One must be especially conscious of that in the present day. Also in the present day there will be countless men who believe they are saying something full of significance when they tell how mankind can be made everlastingly happy, when they talk of ideal conditions that must be gained for mankind. My dear friends, such ideas of everlastingness and such ideal conditions for mankind are not in the thoughts of one who derives his knowledge from actual spiritual spiritual life. As I have always explained it here, evolution has been like this: one definite epoch has peen followed by another; and above all for each big epoch of post-Atlantean time a single concrete Ideal has been present, just as also for our time and the immediate future. It is not a question of creating a government that will last for a thousand years in a chiliastic manner; but of what the spiritual world desires to bring to realization for a short space of time,—and that, one can only see if one really devotes oneself to Spiritual Science. Our time is in serious need of that which the Appeal presented as its fundamental demand: the threefolding of the social organism. The social organism can only become healthy by means of this threefolding, of which you have read in the Appeal, and as you will find it in my book The Threefold Commonwealth Life Necessities of the Present and Future. The present cycle of humanity demands this threefolding.

Think, my dear friends,—all would have been quite different if in the middle of 1917, or even as late as the autumn of 1917, an important nation, either Germany or Austria, had advocated this threefolding as manifesting the impulse of Middle Europe, in contrast to the so-called Fourteen Points of Woodrow Wilson drawn up from an American point of view. At that time it was an historic necessity. I said to Kühlmann then, “You have a choice: one alternative is to listen sensibly to what is proclaiming itself now in the evolution of humanity as something which is to happen for what I am setting forth is not some program, as there are so many today, but something that is read out of the evolution of mankind and that quite certainly will be realized in the next fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years, but which above all must be realized in Middle Europe. You have these alternatives: either to listen to reason and accomplish sensibly what wants to be accomplished; or else go straight into revolutions and cataclysms.” Instead of listening to reason we got the peace, the so-called peace, of Brest-Litowsk. Think what it would have been (this can be said without boasting) if at that time amid the thunder of cannons, in contrast to the Fourteen Points, the voice of the Spirit could have been heard. All of Eastern Europe would have had an understanding for the threefold social organism in the place of Tsarism (anyone knows this who is acquainted with the forces in Eastern Europe). For that would really have been only what was really obliged to come about.

Those who were sympathetic at the time to the ideas of the Threefold Commonwealth at the most offered their opinion that they should be published in a brochure. Now think what folly that would have been then. It would have remained as literature among all the other things that were not read then. Times change. Today, with the days of October and November 1918 lying between then and now, everything has to be given out wholesale; today the proper way is to adopt a wide publicity about these things. Those people are the greatest menaces to mankind who think that if a thing is right for practical life it must be right at all times in the same way. Things have to be judged at different times from entirely different standpoints.

My dear friends, one must look more deeply into human evolution if one would appreciate the complete far-reaching practicalness of what lies at the foundation of the Threefold Commonwealth. This threefolding—I must emphasize it again and again—is not something that can abruptly come into being. It is what the Spirit of the Time and of the Present demands unconditionally from man, what the Spirit of the Time desires to realize; it is what the Spirit of the Time (and when you hear what follows you will understand this statement which I can now give out) is actually subjectively bringing to pass. And chaos results precisely from the fact that men think and, especially, act differently from the way the Spirit of the Time thinks and acts. As a matter of fact what is contained in this threefolding has been coming into being since the sixtieth year of the 19th century; only, men have talked and maintained an attitude in violent opposition to all that came into existence through events. You know, it is a question of dividing the social organism into three parts—a spiritual part, a real state or political part, and an economic part. I should like to insist before going further that the truth of this fundamental conception can be grasped by mere healthy human understanding, as can everything that is won through Spiritual Science. But I do not believe one can come to it in the right way through present-day thinking—(I beg you not to forget I said: in the right way). There are men who have reached something similar, but the essential thing is that one should accept it on a real, practical basis—a basis that takes into consideration that which is struggling to come into existence in our time, and which actually is beginning to work itself out.

Today let us consider—as a prelude, I might say—just one instance that can help us to a conception of what an exhaustive study of the time reveals in regard to this threefolding. You see, my dear friends, when recently, in the last four centuries, what one calls today the capitalistic economic order and the modern technical order swept over mankind, a new habit of thought, a new conception of the world, came too. If the so-called History in the schools were not a fable convenue then one would learn from history how radically the habits of thought of the entire civilized world changed from the 13th, 14th 15th centuries on into the following centuries. That that has all evolved slowly is a superficial view; for in historical development there are really great and sudden changes. Just such a change lies behind the whole development during, the last 3 or 4 centuries of the spiritual life-habits and thought-habits of mankind. I should like to mention especially something that appeared under our very eyes. I mean always soul-eyes, but which really has hardly been estimated at its true value. It was allowed to go to waste. What small roles in the life of humanity, especially among the Germans, have so-called spiritual personalities really played: How little in the last few centuries has the general schooling at the Universities helped to draw what has unfolded in single spiritual individualities into the general cultural wealth. Take instance of Goethe which I have often mentioned here. Goethe had a great comprehensive conception of the universe; something colossal for the evolution of mankind was taking place during the years from 1749 when Goethe was born to 1832 when he died. Enormous spiritual impulses lay in this Goethe. But let us see what impression Goethe's world-conception, Goetheanism, made on the German people: we obtain an appallingly sad picture. Those very persons who think they know something about Goethe know nothing at all of the deepest impulses of his spiritual being. And perhaps in a still higher degree one could speak in the same way of many others. One must say, my dear friends, that since the spread of technical science and capitalism the spiritual life of single personalities, which was important precisely because of its general human quality, became—one cannot say it in any other way—a parasite, a parasitic growth on the ordinary body of culture. It existed, but fundamentally it existed for naught. As if to prove just that: that the spiritual life of Goethe, for instance, was for naught—that it was thrown back, not absorbed, but merely flirted with theatrically: as if to prove that, we see the Goethe Society itself, which regards itself as the official custodian of Goetheanism, asking from an impulse that became more and more customary—Whom shall we choose as president for our Goethe Society? And the thought was not, who best understands Goetheanism?—but, who can do the best bowing and scraping if the G. S. has to appear at court? And then a minister of finance was chosen as the first president of the Goethe society in Weimar, a man whose spiritual path had never led to Goethe. What might show one the hollowness of the whole thing was the gentleman's surname: Kreutzwendedich von Rheinbaben (English: “Turn thou, oh Cross”). Kreutzwendedich von Rheinbaben was chosen then as by an irony of fate to be the president of the Goethe Society. These seem to be unimportant facts; out just the fact that they can be regarded as unimportant, when in truth they are symptoms of the deepest feelings: that is the horrible thing. Whoever does not comprehend these facts as important symptoms revealing inmost thoughts and feelings shows himself in agreement truly with all that has led mankind into such dire calamity. Now compare this parasitism of the spiritual life, this lack of connection between what is produced on the heights of humanity, and the general life of the people—compare this with earlier ages. It could not have been thought of in earlier ages. Just think what impression a Buddha had, for example, on the general life of the later Indian people. Compare this popularity of Buddha with the popularity that a Goethe had. Perhaps you will say: But by the side of Goethe are so many other spiritual heroes; Buddha was only one. Whoever makes that objection shows that he does no understand anything of the fundamental conditions of the evolution of mankind. For that is the great misfortune, that through natural conditions there has come to be a frightful overproduction of such spiritual persons, such spiritual individualities. So that those who are part of the general working community do not know at all how to find their way about: for look you, there is not merely Goethe but also Herder and Schelling and Schlegel; and not only these but one should read Mabel too, and Wildenbruch. And that's only the beginning; there is every other possible field, and one should concern oneself with everything that belongs to the general world of culture: And then one must think of international figures, etc… Yes, what lies at the bottom of that is of very deep import, something extraordinarily significant. There is a great difference between the men who figure thus next to one another in the history of literature.

But in the course of the last centuries men have lost their reverence for the spiritual life. That fact confronts one in single instances. One must be able to view the evolution of mankind symptomatically, then one finds from the symptoms—what really pulses underground! Look, my dear friends, I spoke once at the beginning of 1890 to a small circle of people who were members of the school examination board. One especially esteemed member of the board, also spoke on that occasion. We remarked how significant it is that so dreadfully little takes place in the school of the present day that will foster the general growth of spiritual impulses, so dreadfully little reaches the young people who are trained spiritually in these places from their tenth to their eighteenth year. Then the examining officer said: “Yes, when we see these camels that we must send out to teach the young, then we cannot nope for anything healthy to come of it.” You see, that is a symptom. Persons such as he, who in recent years were responsible for the spiritual life of the minority, the upper classes, esteemed it of so little worth that they regarded as a matter of course their examining school teachers and then letting them loose like camels among the young. They were convinced that those who handed in the best examinations were the greatest camels. Ah! but men's thoughts, my dear friends, men's thought-habits! everything depends upon them, in spite of all opinions to the contrary. In the end we find that mankind's real happiness and misfortune depend upon these thought-habits; they accumulate finally in such world catastrophes as we have just lived through. One must see into the small things, for they are symptoms of what is taking place in the subconscious sphere, which remains unaccounted for while one is pointing with pride to technical developments, capitalism, etc..

So slightly, then, has the spiritual life been valued that in reality it has become a luxury; men in the most different branches of life could only experience it really as a luxury. But they love this luxury. One might point to many spheres of life where this luxury has taken the place of the spirit. Let as take just one: landscape painting as it has developed in the last century. Do you believe, my dear friends, that outside of a few men who are educated to it, the broad masses of humanity can really have an open heart and taste for this landscape painting? Do you believe, for instance, that the laborer who is enmeshed by the capitalistic order of economic life and technical industry in a truly desperate labyrinth of life,—do you believe that if you throw down to him all the crumbs that you can find in the way of popular lectures, peoples' courses, centres, exhibitions where you show him pictures, do you believe that he can truly with his inmost soul respond to it? Landscape painting—just think—he who is not educated up to it, says: “Ach, why do they paint that? It is much more beautiful outside. Why, honestly, do they paint that?” When you hold popular courses for a palliative, you can persuade him that it is real,—but it does not enter into his subconsciousness. His subconsciousness keeps on saying: Why do they paint that? One shouldn't waste human forces on such nonsense,—And finally from out of these feelings there accumulates that which bursts out today in such eloquent events. That is the crux of the mater. For what, indeed, has not one heard continually in the last ten years, about the noble progress we have made, now human thought speeds like lightning over the widest stretches of country, how we can travel so easily, how spiritual culture has spread, etc. But all that, that has been praised so extravagantly was only possible because under it was a foundation of millions of men who were not able to share in it. None of you would be able to travel by rail, to telephone, to send thoughts out over wide stretches of country, if countless men were not denied the privilege of sharing in any of this culture, if this culture had not meant hunger and need for the body and soul of millions and millions of men. My dear friends, let us look for a moment at a definite point of time, the middle of the 19th century for it was then approximately that what one calls the social question really began. Look at the upper class that gradually arose out of that atmosphere which one cannot otherwise characterise than by pointing to the parasitic condition of the true and good spiritual life—the spiritual life that became parasitic because it was not absorbed; it was meant to penetrate the general culture of the people, but nothing was done about accepting it, the cross had not yet turned. Now look, the people of this upper class were gradually inspired with the idea of getting something for their souls. How often have I remarked what unnatural roads this longing of every soul takes. One could see how the people finally became theosophists in well-heated rooms, as the last rung of the Bourgoisie-ladder, how (and this was the very last phase) they talked about brotherliness, human love, noble ethical ideals, etc. But, my dear friends, in what rooms did these things happen? In what manner of places did all this come about? (I speak of the middle of the 19th century; later it became a little but not much better, and then not by any merit of the upper class.) All this went on in places heated with coal, about which the British government had already in 1840 confirmed the report that 9, 11, and 13 year old children were working in the coal mines, and were not seeing sunlight except on Sunday, for the reason that they were taken into the shafts before the sun rose, and came out again after sundown. Ah, it was easy to speak of love of neighbor, brotherliness, love for all mankind, when one was warmed by coal acquired through such “brotherliness”. It was easy also to talk about improving men's moral sense, when one was kept warm by coal brought out of shafts where, as the British inquiry reported, men and women had to work together the entire day, naked; pregnant women half-naked, men entirely naked; for in the mines it is very hot, etc., etc. I mention these things—they could be added to a hundredfold—in order to show you a picture of what all this is about: a picture of the culture of the last century, the Luxury-culture, a culture that already smelt of decay; and underneath, the foundation without which this culture would not have been possible, millions and millions of men who could not share in it. How people were gradually aroused to improve this 16 hour work in the mines was also reported by the Inquiry. But what was the characteristic of the last half of the century? Thoughtlessness. Preeminently, it was thoughtlessness. And this thoughtlessness is what must be recognized above all things if any improvement is to be worked for. Instead of saying so easily: “Dear stove, fulfil your stove-duty, make the room warm”, one should take wood and make a fire, and stop preaching. There has been so much preaching done, in priest and atheist circles alike: And what has been neglected is thinking: thinking according to reality. It all comes down to that. It is that above all things that must be made clear to the man of today, the fact that it is precisely in the spiritual life that a great change must come about.

The spiritual life cannot flourish unless it is free to manifest itself every day anew. But that will only be possible if it is placed on its own basis. From the lowest school position to the highest, from the established branch of science to creative work in art, in order to endure it must be free, because it can only build on its own strength. He who is acquainted with the spiritual life of mankind knows what unhealthiness has entered into it in the last four centuries through the State, because of the fact that the State spread its wings over this spiritual life, so that all spiritual life should gradually become politicalized, with the exception of some few branches that still remained free and for which also there was danger of subjection. For if affairs had gone any further even free these last branches of free spiritual life would have been politicalized. But men's thought-habits today are not yet broad enough for them to realize that the frightful subjection of the spiritual life to the political state-life must be undone, and that this spiritual life must be sat free. The very goal that men still work toward is this curbing of the freedom of spiritual life and the politicalizing of it, even when so many states have already shown just how state-absorbtion of spiritual life has worked out. It is still very difficult for people to extricate themselves from the great illusion about state-life. I was recently In Berne where the so-called “Peoples' Union” was holding a conference. The people spoke about everything under the sun in the same style as formerly—in May 1914—Herr von Jagow had talked about the future. Just as that which actually came to pass was entirely different from what he expressed by his phrase “the general expansion is making progress”, so is there a difference between that which will actually come to pass and what has been said in Bern. People do not stand at all on the ground of reality. Men who give lectures, who write in German newspapers, made speeches telling what should happen in order to guarantee this Peoples' Union a prosperous existence. How a parliament should be formed, that would now embrace all state relations. The gentleman in question also could not resist saying: “A super-parliament must be created, a super-state”. In a lecture that I was giving at the same time I said that it would be more pertinent to consider what the states ought to leave undone than what they ought to do, in order not to increase further that which led us into the world-catastrophe. The only question one hears is, what should the state do?—in the sense of the old state. One has not learnt from the times to ask: What should the states stop doing? They should before all things stop mixing themselves up in spiritual and economic life. One should hardly be thinking of creating super-parliaments and super-states, when the sub-parliaments and sub-states have had such poor results. Today the question cannot be: What should the State do? but: What should the State give up doing? Only that is appropriate for the present time.

But one must have the courage in one's thinking to look at these things frankly. To see the connection between this spiritual life and what is now going on in the other branches of the social organism, will not be possible to one unless one has filled one's head with something evolved from the thoughts contained in Spiritual Science. Why is Spiritual Science such a horror today to many people? Just because it demands that one think differently from other people. But events have taught us that we can go no further with the thoughts in which mankind has been stuck. Men cannot realize that thy must change their way of thinking, for they cannot see the events. Men find it so difficult today to understand the Threefold Commonwealth because they have not wished to see what has actually occurred.

The evolution of mankind has already brought about a great piece of threefolding in events which escape men's gaze; only men are not aware of the accomplishment. I will give you one instance: if we go pack to 1869 we find the steel-industry in Germany developed to such a point that about 799,000 tons of iron had to be extracted: more than 20,000.were needed to extract these 799,000 tons. By the end of 1880, through the expansion of the industry, through the great demands created on the one hand by the increased railroad trade, and on the other by the great war armament programs—it later rose immeasurably higher, but already at the end of 1880 it had so increased that no longer was it 799,000 tons of raw iron but now 4,500,000 tons were necessary. Now, my dear friends, you can ask: How many workers were needed now? I said, something over 20,000 workers were necessary to extract 799,000 tons. Then there were 4,500,000 tons at the end of 1880. And for that, only 21,300 men were necessary. Now please let these figures speak to you—not as statistics, but comprehend these figures: something over 20,000 men extracted 799,000 tons at the beginning of 1860; 21,000 men, or thereabouts, extracted 4,500,000 tons at the end of 1880. How is that possible? You must indeed ask, How is that possible? It only became possible through enormously fine technical improvements; only because the most inconceivable, immeasurable technical improvements were made, by which it was possible for one man to extract so much more iron. Thus for all the progress that was made in this industry—and one could give similar details for 25 or 30 first-grade industries—for all that developed in them such improvements are the explanation. What does that mean? That is the significance, if just this number of men, because of purely technical improvements, produced that much more? Do you think that has no consequence? Naturally; when the number of workers was not increased much, and production itself was increased to such an enormous extent, the entire economic world that had any connection therewith was revolutionized. Just think what that means for the third part of the decentralized threefold organism. In all the rights-relations, and in all spiritual relations, nothing needed to change; there has only been a change in economic relations. For the change all came to expression in the price of steel and all that is connected with that. It is nothing less an event than this: That independently of the spiritual evolution, of the rights-evolution (for you need no other right, unless you look at the whole) independently of them, the economic life got itself free and transformed itself without men having a hand in the transformation. The things themselves did it, and men took no notice of it. That may be a proof to you that in actual events the threefolding was accomplished. The true economic teaching has progressed far, altogether b: itself; and men did not follow after; they directed their intelligence not to the possibility of following it up, out of staying behind in the old relationships. One may be ever so enthusiastic about the great talent that went into the improvement; that is all right, but for today it is not a question of that. Today the point is, that the economic life has emancipated itself. In the making of prices, and all that is connected with the establishment of prices and values, the economic life has taken its own course. That is the point. The three branches have practically emancipated themselves, and men have artificially welded them together, and have insisted upon welding them together ever more and more closely. That is how we got into the world-catastrophe. The facts lie under the surface of what men want to think today. One must look deep into the relations of things if one wants to judge what the reality is.

I chose such an instance so that one might see how foolish it is to judge the Threefold Commonwealth as senseless. The Threefold Commonwealth has been taken out of existing circumstances, while the men to whom the fate of mankind has been entrusted in the last ten years have altogether failed to adapt themselves to existing circumstances. You can easily prove through a healthy human understanding that this Threefold Commonwealth is the only thing to work for in order to bring about healthy development of the social organism. It does no good today merely to think one should maintain present conditions because this or that cannot be dispensed with. On that score the strangest objections are raised. All kinds of quite crooked e thinking are demonstrated. For instance, lately I was lecturing in Basel on the Threefold Commonwealth. In the discussion that followed, a very clever man got up and said: “Many admirable things have been said about this Threefold Commonwealth and yet one cannot comprehend it, because justice would be maintained by the political state only, thus by only a third of the social organism; and yet justice must exist also in the economic and spiritual life”. I had to reply with a picture. I said: “Now let us take any family in the country, consisting of man and wife, two children, manservants, maidservants, and three cows. The entire family needs milk, just as all three members of the social organism need justice. But is it necessary for all members of the family to give milk? Certainly not, for they will all be well supplied if the three cows provide it. So it is with the threefolding of the social organism. It is essential that all three members have justice. But they will only have it if it is created by the state-organism, the central member, as the milk is provided by the cows.” So crooked is men's thinking that they must needs turn out the wisest sophistries about the simplest conceptions.

Certainly, people are not stupid when they make such objections. One can never say that people are stupid. People who make objections today are, I consider, often very clever. I do not wish to dispute peoples' cleverness but I should like to paraphrase Shakespeare's line: “Honourable men are they all”: and say, Clever people are the: all, all, all—the essential thing however, is not merely to find clever thoughts out to find correct thoughts, that can actually be applied and used. And one comes to a healthy thinking in Spiritual Science, a thinking that can really penetrate to reality. You can have the most distorted thoughts in regard to outer physical affairs, and at the same time with a little elementary mathematics and technical knowledge you can prove that for instance if someone builds a railroad bridge badly, perhaps by the time the third train travels over it the bridge will collapse. But you cannot prove, for instance, let us say out of medical science: if so and so many people are well, and so and so many people die, just what medical science had to do with it. There the facts are not so obvious. And with respect to the social organism, the facts are not obvious at all. There the wildest charlatanism can prevail. There, one cannot help but feel that what was once ridiculed as an old superstition has come right down into recent times, in another field. You all know the place in the second part of Faust where the Middle Age idea of the Homunculus is dealt with. Today many people think it is a superstition, this wanting to construct an homunculus. But it is just as much a superstition to think of creating something out of mere intellectualizing. People do not realize that they have only transplanted the superstition to another field. The social theories of today want to produce a social Homunculus; they want to construct something artificially out of mere intellect. The Threefold Commonwealth is just the opposite of that. It seeks, not to set up an artificial program, but to find how men must meet one another in the three folded organism in order to find out or themselves what is necessary. It goes straight to reality, to the reality in which men stand in the social organism. Because it differs in this way from that Homunculus-idea of which men have become accustomed to think in the last ten years, for that reason it is so difficult to grasp today. For that reason one finds it so incomprehensible, in spite of the fact that it contains not one incomprehensible sentence, or indeed, not one sentence that is not quite easy to understand. It is because men have forgotten how to think accurately; they are satisfied everywhere to think around the edges. They are only content if they can think around the edges, or if they can think what they are told to think by one of the many sides.

It must not be overlooked, however, that the fundamental principles of the Threefold Commonwealth embrace a great many of the one-sided ideas that nave come up here and there. One cannot say that fruitful social ideas nave not also arisen in many heads; but for the most part they are one-sided. I must therefore say: I am for the most part in agreement with the people who have offered me some objection or other, but they are not in agreement with me. What they advance is right from their one-sided point of view, but one does not get a step forward by it, because with one-sided points of view one would accomplish something that then causes mischief on the other side. It is important today that we meet facts in a comprehensive way. That for instance, we do not ask: What should we do with the gold? This question and all others dealing with money standards will be settled within the independent economic life. This is the important point, that one grasp the reality of it. We do not need programs for single cases, programs spun out of the intellect; we need impulses that are related to reality; then, whatever one touches, one will come into contact with the practical. Only, those theorizers who consider themselves practical men are so made that they want to have definite programs everywhere for actual life. It cannot be a question of programs.

That which lies at the bottom, at the foundation, of the Appeal, and of the book elaborating it, is fundamental. It is developed out of that which alone can exist as tie real impulses of social life. In order to make myself better understood I will make a comparison: It has often been said that if one man were to grow up from childhood on an island he would never learn to speak. One learns to speak only in human society. That is correct, speech is a social phenomenon, man speaks because society is necessary to him. That is also true in regard to social impulses in a larger sense. Only within the social organism itself can a man's social life evolve. One man can never set up a social program, for inner individual life goes in quite a different direction from the setting up of social programs. One can only say: Thus and thus must men stand, thus must men be orientated in the field of the+ spiritual life, thus in the political field, and thus in respect to the economic life. Then what is necessary will result. That is the essential. For if a man applies his individuality today in the age of the consciousness soul to develop a social program, when everything is built on individuality, what comes of it? I should like to give you an example: They talk today about Bolshevism, of Lenin and Trotsky; now, I cite a third for you, who by the side of these is a thorough Bolshevist,—only people have not noticed it: Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Fichte, whom we recognize as an ideal thinker, a noble thinker. Read the Self-contained Commonwealth. What Fichte develops as a program is so little different from the Bolshevik program that you could quite easily ascribe Fichte 's Self-contained Commonwealth to Trotsky. How does this happen? That happens when a single man today makes a social program—which is what Fichte did. Only Fichte was still in an age when such a thing as the Self-contained Commonwealth could not yet be comprehended. The war catastrophe had to lead up to it. You see, it will be like that if one man wants to create out of himself a comprehensive social program. Fichte is a proof of it. There will be no social program, any more than the single man on an island will learn to speak. The essential thing therefore is this, that one find the tendencies, the inherent structure of the social organism.

It is not a matter of setting up programs, but of finding the way in which men must live together in order to discover what social impulses they may have. That stands on reality which concerns itself with society and not with the individual. How often in the last few weeks have I had said to me: “Yes, this man and that man are presenting definite programs that regulate the social life in every single point”. But that is of no avail; people nave always done that. Just look how countless the Utopias are. But there should be no Utopia, there should be something that is rooted in practical life. One should have a feeling for this comparison: I have often said: He who does not see the spiritual impulses in outer reality seems to me like someone who has a raw piece of iron. Someone says to him: That is a magnet that attracts other steel. But he says: Ha! that isn't a magnet, that is what one shoes horses with. Which is also true. The relation between them is not that one is right and the other wrong; but he is more deeply right who knows that it is a magnet, and that also it can be used for horseshoes. So it is with reality. They are right who speak of materialism, but the spirit too makes the complete reality.

Therefore it is a question now of coming back to the spirit. But truly, it must not remain a thing of phrases. Nowadays there are all kinds of preachers going about the world. They are like those people who sat in mirrored salons or in well-heated rooms and talked about love or neighbor and brotherliness. As I remarked just now, “stove fulfil thy stove-duty” is what they say. And preachers go about the world saying: Calamity has come to mankind through materialism, men must turn again to the spirit. Yes, the reproach was even made in regard to this Appeal that it contained too little spirit, it devoted too much attention to material life. It is not essential that we do a lot of talking about the spirit, but it is essential that we know how to bring the spirit into actual life. That man is not really standing firmly on the ground of spiritual knowledge who always only talking spirit, spirit, spirit—but he who receives the spirit so deeply into himself that it is able actually to solve the problems of life. That is the point. One could do without men's exhortations to turn again to the spirit. The important thing is that one should strive today to make the spirit living and active in oneself.

But men have gradually forgotten how to do that, precisely because the state has become something to them—what, forsooth? In Faust there is this line—as instruction to a girl, and the philosophers of course have misunderstood it and have sought a deep subtlety therein: “The All-embracer, All-sustainer, Holds and sustains the not thee, me, himself?” That is the way men came gradually to talk spout the State, especially during the war. “The All-embracer, All-sustainer, Holds and sustains the not thee, me, himself?” In the subconscious of people who give such instruction the “me” naturally is emphasized. For they have laid great stress on the fact that they had a somewhat superior, out—characteristically of them—not a very active inner relation to the spirit. What kind of relation have men had to the spirit? They have endeavored to comply for a certain number of years to the state regulations and then have been made into theologists, jurists, or some other kind of person. They have been supposed to grow up in the State, and to do everything that the State desired, and to be specially trained just for that. But where was any inner activity, where was any intense participation in the whole world process—which is the heart of Spiritual Science—where was that? They have said: I want to hold my position in the State for a certain number of years, and then I want the pension that is guaranteed me; in other words, I will work for the State as long as the State prescribes, then the State must see to it that I have a pension the rest of my life. And then at the end of their life they found no active relation to the spirit either, but a passive one—for then the Church was supposed to see about the eternal life of their soul. As a passive man one was, of course, very well taken care of: laid at birth in the State's lap, educated according to its ideas, then working for it, then cared for by it until death; and then after that the Church looked after one's soul without oneself having to make any effort about eternity. One could hardly ask for a more noble life! A life without one's having anything to do about it: that became more and more men's ideal at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. But the possibility for that kind of thinking only existed because of the foundation structure of which I have spoken, where people were not taken care of at all until their death—and even then most insufficiently, through diverse insurance systems. And therefore when it was no longer possible for Rights to blossom out of the world conception of the upper class, the people also lost faith in that after-death age- and invalid-Insurance which the Church distributed for the immortality of the soul.

You see, that is what one must grasp today. But one only grasps some measure of reality if one is able to think practically about what is presented in the Threefold Commonwealth.

Erster Vortrag

Zu demjenigen, was hier vor jetzt wohl genau einem Jahr zu Ihnen gesprochen werden konnte, ist ja zweifellos für Sie alle etwas anderes hinzugetreten, was zu Ihnen gesprochen hat ein sehr eindringlich redender Lehrmeister: das sind, als der letzte große Lehrmeister, die eindringlich sprechenden, die eine so deutliche Sprache sprechenden Tatsachen, die sich, seit wir das letztemal hier versammelt waren, abgespielt haben. Ja, diese Tatsachen haben für Sie alle eine um so deutlichere Sprache gesprochen, als sie wohl für viele etwas anderes aussagten als das, was lange Zeiten hindurch als ein in die Zukunft hineinschweifender Glaube gestanden hat. Es ist ja wahrhaftig ein weiter Weg, inhaltlich, wenn auch zeitlich scheinbar kurz, von den ersten Augusttagen des Jahres 1914, wo unter mancherlei Hoffnungen und unter noch mehr Illusionen Deutschland ausgezogen ist zunächst mit einem Heere, das noch nicht einmal auf Kriegsfuß war, das noch nicht die Mobilisations-Ordre mit sich trug, und den sogenannten «Lütticher Handstreich » ausführte — als unter den mancherlei Illusionen man sich gewöhnt hatte nachzusprechen, was zu denken von gewissen Seiten her befohlen wurde -, es ist ein weiter Weg von dort bis in jene Tage hinein, in denen im vorigen Herbste die Gefahr drohte, daß in wenigen Tagen das jenseits der deutschen Grenzen befindliche Heer abgeschnitten werde von allen Lebensmitteln der Heimat, was dann ja zu den Ihnen wenigstens der Hauptsache nach bekannten Tatsachen geführt hat. Es ist ein weiter Weg inhaltlich, wenn auch der Zeit nach wenige Jahre umfassend. Und zu alledem wird ja für den tiefer blikkenden Menschen die Enttäuschung getreten sein, daß zu der äußeren militärischen Kapitulation auch die geistige Kapitulation von seiten Deutschlands durch den Mann hinzugefügt worden ist, auf den wie auf eine letzte Hoffnung viele Menschen gerade in den Herbsttagen des Jahres 1918 hingeschaut haben. Da waren, in diesem Herbste 1918, Ereignisse eingetreten, welche sehr, sehr geeignet waren, Korrektur auszuüben an all demjenigen, was in den letzten Jahren zwar zwischen den Zeilen in so mancher Beziehung angedeutet werden konnte, was aber offen auszusprechen innerhalb der Grenzen des ehemaligen Deutschen Reiches völlig unmöglich war, wie Sie ja alle wissen.

Nun, meine lieben Freunde, jetzt stehen wir gewissermaßen davor — und das muß insbesondere heute und gerade zu Ihnen gesprochen werden, in dem Sinne, wie das hier öfters angedeutet worden ist -, eine Probe durchzumachen auf dasjenige, was sich innerhalb unserer Reihen herausgebildet hat, und was ich mit einem vielleicht sonderbar klingenden Ausdruck «unsere anthroposophische Überzeugung » nennen möchte. Was ich insbesondere im Laufe der letzten Jahre immer wieder und wieder betont habe: daß diese unsere anthroposophische Überzeugung sich ja nicht darauf beschränken darf, etwas aufzunehmen, um gewissermaßen bloß ein inneres mystisches Wohlgefühl zu haben, das ist es, was uns die laut sprechenden Tatsachen der Gegenwart so eindringlich lehren. Gar mancher hat ja in unseren Reihen sich darauf beschränkt, etwas aus der Anthroposophie aufzunehmen, was ihm gewisse innere Seelenfragen beantworten kann — was selbstverständlich an sich berechtigt ist -, aber, wahrhaftig nicht ohne Grund ist in den letzten Jahren immer wieder und wiederum betont worden, daß unsere anthroposophische Überzeugung dazu führen müsse, das praktische, das unmittelbar wirkliche Leben, das ja für den Einsichtigen vom Geiste durchwallt ist, besser zu verstehen, als es ohne die Grundlagen dieser anthroposophischen Überzeugung verstanden werden kann. Nicht ohne Grund wurden diejenigen, welche sich mit anthroposophischer Überzeugung haben durchdringen können, aufgerufen zum Durchdenken der großen menschheitlichen Probleme. Jetzt stehen wir vor einer Probe gewissermaßen, vor der Probe, ob dasjenige, was wir haben aufnehmen können, was wir oftmals doch nur als die Befriedigung eines höheren Seelenegoismus aufgenommen haben, ob das wirklich wird eindringen können in unseren Verstand, in unser Gemüt, in unser Herz, so daß wir gewachsen sein werden den Aufgaben, die jetzt in immer erhöhterem Maße den Menschen gestellt werden. Denn manches, was jetzt hereindringt, hat erst seinen Anfang genommen. Wir stehen mit Bezug auf vieles erst vor einem Anfang. Und es ist notwendig, daß wir von den Tatsachen lernen. Bedenken Sie nur einmal, wie das ganze Leben innerhalb dieser Tatsachen sich zugespitzt hat. Bedenken Sie, wie diejenigen, die sich oftmals als die allerpraktischsten Menschen dünkten, die auf die Geisteswissenschaft als auf eine furchtbare Phantasterei hinsahen, wie gerade diese praktischen Menschen sich wenig gewachsen erzeigt haben gegenüber dem, was über die Menschheit mit elementarer, mit gewaltig großer Macht hereingebrochen ist. Man muß heute sich erinnern, wie diejenigen Persönlichkeiten, denen die irdischen Geschicke der Menschheit anvertraut waren, unmittelbar vor dem Eintritt der großen Weltkriegskatastrophe gesprochen haben. Ich habe wohl auch hier schon vor Jahren aufmerksam gemacht auf die Art und Weise, wie da gesprochen worden ist. Ich will Sie heute nur daran erinnern, wie in entscheidenden Sitzungen des Deutschen Reichstages der damals für die auswärtige Politik verantwortliche Minister im Frühling 1914 sagen konnte: Die allgemeine politische Entspannung hat in der letzten Zeit erfreuliche Fortschritte gemacht. — Wie er sagen konnte in derselben Rede: Unsere freundschaftlichen Beziehungen mit Rußland sind auf dem besten Wege; das Petersburger Kabinett kümmert sich nicht um die Pressetreibereien, und wir werden unsere freundnachbarlichen Beziehungen in der nächsten Zeit fortsetzen können. — Sagen konnte er in derselben Rede: Mit England sind aussichtsvolle Unterhandlungen angeknüpft, welche wohl in der nächsten Zeit zugunsten des Weltfriedens zum Abschlusse kommen werden; wie überhaupt die beiden Regierungen — er meinte die englische und die deutsche - so stehen, daß sich die Beziehungen immer inniger und inniger gestalten werden.

Das wurde von denjenigen gesprochen, welche ausersehen waren, die Geschicke der Menschheit zu führen. Das wurde gesprochen in der selben Zeit, in welcher ich genötigt war, das, was ich immer wieder und wiederum betont habe, im Frühjahr 1914 in meinem Vortrage in Wien zusammenzufassen mit den Worten: «Die in der Gegenwart herrschenden Lebenstendenzen werden immer stärker werden, bis sie sich zuletzt in sich selber vernichten werden. Da schaut derjenige, der das soziale Leben geistig durchblickt, überall, wie furchtbar die Anlagen zu sozialen Geschwürbildungen aufsprießen. Das ist die große Kultursorge, die auftritt für den, der das Dasein durchschaut. Das ist das Furchtbare, was so bedrückend wirkt und was selbst dann, wenn man allen Enthusiasmus sonst für das Erkennen der Lebensvorgänge durch die Mittel einer Geist-erkennenden Wissenschaft unterdrücken könnte, einen dazu bringen müßte, von den Heilmitteln zu sprechen, die dagegen verwendet werden können, daß man Worte darüber der Welt gleichsam entgegenschreien möchte. Wenn der soziale Organismus sich so weiter entwickelt, wie er es bisher getan hat, dann entstehen Schäden der Kultur, die für diesen Organismus dasselbe sind, was Krebsbildungen im menschlichen natürlichen Organismus sind.»

So sprach man dazumal, wenn man von den sogenannten praktischen Leuten als ein Phantast angesehen worden ist. Die allgemeine Entspannung, von der dazumal Herr von Jagow vor der erleuchteten Versammlung des Deutschen Reichstages gesprochen hat, vor denen, die ein Urteil haben sollten, die aber alles ruhig anhörten und es glaubten - sie hat Fortschritte in der Richtung gemacht, daß in den nächsten Jahren mindestens zehn bis zwölf Millionen Menschen totgeschlagen und dreimal so viele zu Krüppeln geschlagen worden sind. Das sage ich aus dem Grunde, weil heute gesagt werden muß, daß es darauf ankommt, die Lage der Menschheit zur rechten Zeit richtig zu würdigen, daß es darauf ankommt, sich durch ein ganz anderes Denken als das, woran sich die leitenden Kreise gewöhnt haben, Einsicht in die Lage der Menschheit zu verschaffen, daß es darauf ankommt, heute immer besser und eindringlicher zu verstehen, was aus der alten Weltanschauung herausgeflossen ist. Nichts taugen kann ein solches altes Denken, auch nicht für das praktische Leben, weil das praktische Leben immer mehr und mehr die unmöglichsten Gedanken erzeugte, die zu Katastrophen führen mußten. Es kommt nicht darauf an, sich über Einrichtungen Gedanken zu machen, sondern darauf, einzusehen, daß die Menschheit umlernen muß mit Bezug auf die tiefsten Gedanken.

Das war der eine Grund, warum so eindringlich gesprochen worden ist von der Notwendigkeit der Erneuerung der ganzen Weltanschauung, einer Hinwendung der ganzen Menschheit zu den Quellen der Wirklichkeit, die allein im geistigen Leben liegen. Denn zum Schlusse kommt alles darauf an, daß eingesehen werde, daß wir nicht bloß auf dem oder jenem Gebiete so oder so geänderte Einrichtungen brauchen, sondern zuletzt kommt alles darauf an, einzusehen, daß wir vor allen Dingen etwas ganz anderes für die Zukunft, für die allernächste Zukunft brauchen: Köpfe brauchen wir, in denen etwas ganz anderes pulsiert, als in denjenigen Köpfen, die sich unter dem Einfluß der abgetanen Weltanschauung herausgebildet haben. Vor allen Dingen brauchen wir eine Neuorganisation, einen Neuaufbau der Gedanken in den Menschenköpfen. Das ist es, woran man arbeiten wollte in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten, weil dieses Arbeiten notwendig geworden war. Köpfe brauchen wir, die anders organisiert sind als diejenigen, die die Menschheit ins Unglück gestürzt haben. Solange dies nicht in allen Teilen eingesehen wird, solange nicht eingesehen wird, daß das Licht, das allein aus der Geisteswissenschaft kommen kann, die verfinsterten Köpfe erleuchten muß, solange kann - ob man nun konservativ, ob man radikal, oder sonstwie denkt - solange kann keine Besserung kommen. Mit irgendwelchen kleinlichen Mitteln, die aus alten Gedanken fließen, wird der Menschheit kein Heil beschert. Neue Gedanken sind vor allen Dingen notwendig, neue Gedanken, die allein erstehen können auf Grund dessen, was hier in diesen Räumen seit Jahren als die größten Anforderungen für die Gegenwart und für die nächste Zukunft besprochen worden ist.

Sie kennen zunächst dasjenige, was sich aus den Notwendigkeiten der Zeit heraus ergeben hat, als der sogenannte « Aufruf an das deutsche Volk und an die Kulturwelt», in dem zum ersten Mal öffentlich ausgesprochen worden ist, was in engeren Kreisen auszusprechen ich mich bemüht habe in den letzten Jahren, wo es keinen Widerhall gefunden hat, wo nur der Donner der Kanonen gehört werden wollte, nicht die Stimmen des Geistes. Sie wissen, daß in diesem Aufruf zunächst in positiver Weise gefordert wird, was in den Impulsen der Menschheitsentwickelung selbst für unsere Zeit liegt. Denn für das größte Unheil hält derjenige, der eine Einsicht in die treibenden Kräfte der Menschheit hat, die abstrakten, die sogenannten ewigen Ideale, die nicht aus dem wirklichen Geistesleben, sondern bloß aus den Spiegelbildern der menschlichen Begriffe und Ideen hervorkommen, die keine Wirklichkeit sind, die nur eine Spiegelungswirklichkeit in sich haben. Darauf muß man gerade in der Gegenwart besonders aufmerksam sein. Auch in der Gegenwart werden zahlreich diejenigen Menschen sein, die da glauben, etwas Bedeutungsvolles zu sagen, wenn sie darüber reden, wie die Menschheit für ewige Zeiten beglückt werden kann, was für Zustände herbeigeführt werden müssen als Idealzustände der Menschheit. Solche Ewigkeitsideen und solche Idealzustände der Menschheit denkt derjenige nicht, der aus dem wirklichen geistigen Leben heraus seine Erkenntnisse schöpft. Wie ich es immer hier auseinandergesetzt habe, war die Entwickelung so, daß stets eine bestimmte Epoche einer anderen Epoche folgte und vor allen Dingen für alle Hauptepochen der nachatlantischen Zeit ein eigenes konkretes Ideal vorhanden war, wie auch für unsere Zeit und für die nächste Zukunft. Nicht darauf kommt es an, wie in chiliastischer Weise ein tausendjähriges Reich herbeizuführen ist, sondern was die geistige Welt für eine kurze Zeitspanne verwirklichen will, die man aber nur übersehen kann, wenn man sich auf eine geistige Wissenschaft wirklich einläßt. Und unsere Zeit fordert eben in dringlicher Art das, was als der Grundnerv dieses Aufrufes geltend gemacht wurde: Die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Der soziale Organismus kann nur dadurch gesund werden, daß er diese Dreigliederung erhält, die Sie gelesen haben in dem Aufruf, und wie Sie sie finden werden in meiner Broschüre «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage in den Lebensnotwendigkeiten der Gegenwart und Zukunft». Der gegenwärtige Menschheitszyklus erfordert diese Dreigliederung.

Sehen Sie, ein ganz anderes wäre es gewesen, wenn noch in der Mitte oder selbst noch im Herbste des Jahres 1917 diese Dreigliederung von bedeutungsvoller Seite, entweder Deutschlands oder Österreichs, geltend gemacht worden wäre, als eine Kundgebung der Impulse Mitteleuropas gegenüber den von amerikanischen Gesichtspunkten entworfenen sogenannten Vierzehn Punkten des Woodrow Wilson. Dazumal wäre das eine historische Notwendigkeit gewesen. Ich habe Kühlmann dazumal gesagt: Sie haben die Wahl, entweder jetzt Vernunft anzunehmen und auf das hinzuhorchen, was in der Entwickelung der Menschheit sich ankündigt als etwas, was geschehen soll - denn was in diesen Auseinandersetzungen steht, ist nicht irgendein Programm, wie es heute so viele haben, sondern ist etwas, was herausgelesen ist aus der Entwickelung der Menschheit und was ganz gewiß realisiert wird in den nächsten fünfzehn, zwanzig, fünfundzwanzig Jahren, was aber vor allen Dingen realisiert werden muß innerhalb Mitteleuropas -, heute haben Sie die Wahl, entweder Vernunft anzunehmen, was sich realisieren will, durch Vernunft zu realisieren, oder Sie gehen Revolutionen und Kataklysmen entgegen. - Statt Vernunft anzunehmen, bekamen wir den Frieden von Brest-Litowsk, den sogenannten Frieden von Brest-Litowsk. Denken Sie, was es gewesen wäre — das kann ohne Renommisterei gesagt werden -, wenn gegenüber den sogenannten Vierzehn Punkten dazumal in den Donner der Kanonen die Stimme des Geistes hineingetönt hätte. Ganz Osteuropa hätte dafür Verständnis gehabt — das weiß jeder, der die Kräfte in Osteuropa kennt -, den Zarismus ablösen zu lassen von der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Dann wäre zustande gekommen, was eigentlich hätte zustande kommen müssen. Diejenigen, die der Sache dazumal wohlwollend gegenübergestanden haben, haben höchstens den Rat gegeben, man solle das als Broschüre drucken lassen. Nun denken Sie sich, welcher Unsinn das dazumal gewesen wäre. In den mancherlei Dingen, die dazumal nicht gelesen wurden, wäre auch das selbstverständlich Literatur geblieben. Die Zeiten ändern sich. Heute, wo alles auszugehen hat von der breiten Masse, heute, wo zwischen dort und jetzt die Oktober- und Novembertage des Jahres 1918 liegen, heute ist der richtige Weg der, sich mit diesen Dingen an die breite Öffentlichkeit zu wenden. Das sind die größten Schädlinge der Menschheit, die immer glauben, die Sache müsse, wenn sie richtig ist, insofern sie sich auf das praktische Leben bezieht, zu jeder Zeit in gleicher Weise richtig sein. Nein, so faul darf unser Denken nicht werden, wie die Leute, die diese Ansicht haben, glauben. Die Dinge sind zu verschiedenen Zeiten von ganz verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten aus zu beurteilen.

Man muß ja allerdings etwas tiefer hineinschauen in die Entwickelung der Menschheit, wenn man die ganze, volle, weitgehende Praxis desjenigen würdigen will, was gerade dieser Dreigliederung zugrunde liegt. Diese Dreigliederung ist, ich muß das immer wieder und wiederum betonen, nicht etwas, was einem einfallen kann. Sie ist etwas, was der Geist der Zeit und der Gegenwart unbedingt von den Menschen fordert, was der Geist der Zeit verwirklichen will, was der Geist der Zeit — bitte, wenn Sie das Folgende hören, werden Sie auch diesen Satz, den ich jetzt vorausschicken kann, verstehen -—, was der Geist der Zeit tatsächlich verwirklicht. Und gerade dadurch entsteht das Chaos, daß die Menschheit anders denkt und vor allen Dingen anders handelt, als der Geist der Zeit denkt und handelt. Eigentlich verwirklicht sich schon seit den siebziger Jahren des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts das, was in dieser Dreigliederung steht, nur die Menschen haben sich anders verhalten und sind dadurch in furchtbare Widersprüche geraten mit dem, was in den Tatsachen verwirklicht wird. Sie wissen, es handelt sich vor allen Dingen um die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus in einen geistigen Teil, in einen eigentlich staatlichen oder politischen Teil und in einen wirtschaftlichen Teil. Betonen möchte ich zunächst: Das Erweisen der Richtigkeit dieser Grundanschauung kann aus dem bloßen gesunden Menschenverstand geschehen, wie überhaupt alles aus dem gesunden Menschenverstand heraus begriffen werden kann, was geisteswissenschaftlich gewonnen wird, wie ich das ja auch immer betont habe. Aber ich glaube allerdings nicht, daß aus dem heutigen Denken heraus man in richtiger Weise - bitte nicht zu vergessen, daß ich sagte: in richtiger Weise - dazu kommen kann. Es sind ja Menschen, welche zu ähnlichem gekommen sind, aber es handelt sich darum, daß man auf wirklich praktischer Grundlage dazu kommt, auf einer Grundlage, die dasjenige berücksichtigt, was in unserer Zeit sich verwirklichen will, und eigentlich sich verwirklicht.

Betrachten wir also einmal heute, ich möchte sagen provisorisch und einleitend, einiges, was uns Vorstellungen geben kann über die Art, wie eine gründliche Betrachtung der Zeit über diese Dreigliederung spricht. Sehen Sie, als in der neueren Zeit, seit etwa vier Jahrhunderten, heraufgezogen ist über die Menschheit das, was man heute nennt die kapitalistische Wirtschaftsordnung und die moderne technische Ordnung, da zog auch herauf die neue Denkgewohnheit, die neue Weltanschauung. Wenn das, was man in der Schule Geschichte nennt, nicht eine Fable convenue wäre, so würde aus der Geschichte schon folgen, wie gründlich sich die Denkgewohnheiten der ganzen zivilisierten Welt geändert haben vom dreizehnten, vierzehnten, fünfzehnten Jahrhundert in die folgenden Jahrhunderte hinein. Eine oberflächliche Betrachtung glaubt ja, daß sich alles das langsam entwickelt, während dem im historischen Werden die großen Umschwünge erfolgen. Ein solcher Umschwung liegt zugrunde dem, was sich seit drei bis vier Jahrhunderten in den ganzen geistigen Lebensgewohnheiten und Denkgewohnheiten der Menschen entwickelt hat.

Da möchte ich Sie vor allen Dingen auf eine Erscheinung aufmerksam machen, die sich unter den Augen, ich meine immer Seelenaugen, abgespielt hat, aber im Grunde genommen kaum tiefer gewürdigt worden ist. Man hat eben sie sich so abspielen lassen, diese Erscheinung. Das ist die Erscheinung: Welche geringe Rolle eigentlich im Leben der Menschheit, besonders der deutschen Menschheit, die sogenannten geistigen Persönlichkeiten gespielt haben, wie wenig die allgemeine Schulbildung bis hinauf zur Hochschule dazu beigetragen hat, daß dasjenige, was sich in den letzten Jahrhunderten in einzelnen geistigen Individualitäten ausgebildet hat, eingezogen ist in das allgemeine Kulturgut. Nehmen Sie den Fall, den ich hier oftmals erwähnt habe, den Fall Goethe. Ja, Goethe war der Träger einer großen, umfassenden Weltanschauung. Es hat sich für die Entwickelung der Menschheit Ungeheueres abgespielt in den Jahren von 1749, wo Goethe geboren worden ist, bis 1832, da er gestorben ist. Ein Ungeheures an geistigen Impulsen liegt in diesem Goethe. Sehen wir aber, welchen Eindruck Goethes Weltanschauung, der Goetheanismus, auf die deutsche Menschheit gemacht hat, da bekommen wir ein furchtbar trauriges Bild. Selbst diejenigen, die glauben, etwas von Goethe zu wissen, wissen von den innersten Impulsen seines Geisteswesens gar nichts. Und ebenso könnte man, vielleicht in noch höherem Grade, von manchem anderen sprechen. Davon muß man sprechen, daß, seit sich die Technik, seit der Kapitalismus sich ausgebreitet hat, das geistige Leben, das sich in einzelnen Individualitäten gerade mit Bezug auf das rein und allgemein Menschliche geltend gemacht hat, sich, man kann nicht anders sagen, wie ein Parasit, wie etwas Parasitäres auf dem übrigen Kulturkörper entwickelt hat. Es war da, aber es war im Grunde genommen zu nichts da. Wie um eine Bestätigung zu liefern dafür, daß das geistige Leben, insofern es zum Beispiel Goethe betrifft, zu nichts da war, wie es zurückgewiesen wurde, wie es nicht aufgenommen wurde, sondern nur theatralisch, zum Schein damit kokettiert wurde, sehen wir, daß schließlich die Goethe-Gesellschaft, die sich als die offizielle Vertreterin des Goetheanismus fühlt, aus einem Impulse heraus, der allmählich mehr und mehr gang und gäbe geworden war, fragte: Wen wählen wir jetzt am besten zum Vorsitzenden unserer Goethe-Gesellschaft? - Und da wurde nicht gedacht: Wer versteht am meisten von Goetheanismus?, sondern daran wurde gedacht, wer die besten Kratzfüße machen könnte, wenn die GoetheGesellschaft bei irgendwelchem Hofe auftreten mußte. Da wurde dann ein ehemaliger Finanzminister zum ersten Vorsitzenden der GoetheGesellschaft in Weimar gewählt, dessen geistige Wege niemals zu Goethe führten. Was einen etwas hinweisen konnte auf die Hohlheit des Ganzen, war, daß der Vorname des Betreffenden war: Kreuzwendedich. Kreuzwendedich von Rheinbaben war dazumal wie aus einer Ironie des Schicksals heraus gewählt worden als Vorsitzender der Goethe-Gesellschaft. Das sind scheinbar unbedeutende Tatsachen, aber gerade daß sie als unbedeutend angesehen werden können, wo sie doch in Wahrheit Symptome für das tiefste Fühlen sind, das ist das Schreckliche. Derjenige, der diese Tatsachen nicht als wichtige Symptome für die Enthüllung des innersten Denkens und Empfindens erklärt, der erklärt sich im Grunde genommen einverstanden mit all dem, was die Menschheit in das schreckliche Unglück hineingeführt hat.

Diesen Parasitismus des Geisteslebens, diese Zusammenhangslosigkeit dessen, was auf den Höhen der Menschheit produziert wurde, mit dem allgemeinen Volksleben, vergleichen Sie es mit den früheren Zeitaltern. Es ist in früheren Zeitaltern gar nicht denkbar. Denken Sie einmal, welchen Eindruck für das allgemeine Volksleben, sagen wir, um ein Beispiel herauszugreifen, im späteren Indien der Buddha gemacht hat. Vergleichen Sie diese Popularität des Buddha mit der Popularität, die ein Goethe gehabt hat. Vielleicht werden Sie sagen: Nun ja, neben Goethe sind so viele andere Geisteshelden, Buddha war nur einer. - Wer diesen Einwand macht, zeigt, daß er nichts versteht von dem, was die Grundbedingungen der Entwickelung der Menschheit sind. Denn das ist das große Unglück, daß an solch geistigen Leuten, an solch geistigen Persönlichkeiten durch die natürlichen Verhältnisse eine furchtbare Überproduktion entstanden ist. So daß die, die im allgemeinen Leben drinnen stehen und zu arbeiten haben, sich schon gar nicht zurechtzufinden wissen. Nicht wahr, es ist ja nicht bloß Goethe da, sondern auch noch Herder und Schelling und Schlegel; aber nicht nur diese, nun soll man auch noch Geibel, Wildenbruch lesen. Und gar erst auf allen möglichen anderen Gebieten: mit was allern man sich da beschäftigen soll, was zum allgemeinen Kulturwert gehören soll! Und wenn man nun gar erst an die internationalen Verhältnisse denkt!

Ja, was da zugrunde liegt, das ist etwas sehr tief Einschneidendes, etwas außerordentlich Bedeutungsvolles. Zwischen denjenigen, die so in den Literaturgeschichten nebeneinander figurieren, zwischen denen ist trotzdem ein großer Unterschied. Aber den Respekt vor dem geistigen Leben haben die Menschen im Laufe der letzten Jahrhunderte eben im großen Stile verloren. Das tritt einem in einzelnen Dingen entgegen. Symptomatisch muß man die Entwickelung der Menschheit betrachten können, dann findet man aus den Symptomen schon heraus, was eigentlich in den Untergründen pulsiert! Ich sprach einmal in einem kleinen Kreise im Anfang der neunziger Jahre des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts mit einigen Leuten, die auch Mitglieder von Gymnasiallehrer-Prüfungskommissionen waren. Ein besonders angesehener Prüfer der Gymnasiallehrer-Prüfungskommission sprach dazumal innerhalb dieses kleinen Kreises, und wir besprachen, wie bedrückend es eigentlich ist, daß in den jetzigen Gymnasien so furchtbar wenig für die allgemeine Erhöhung der geistigen Impulse geschieht, daß doch so furchtbar wenig hineinkommt in die jungen Leute und in die Knaben - später sind auch die Mädchen dazugekommen, dadurch wurde nichts gebessert -, die vom zehnten bis achtzehnten Jahre da in diesen Anstalten geistig dressiert werden. Da sagte der betreffende Prüfungskommissär: Ja, wenn wir da sehen, wie wir diese Kamele loslassen auf die Jugend, die wir da zu prüfen haben, wenn wir schen, wie wir diese Kamele hinschicken müssen als Lehrer der Jugend, dann kann man nicht hoflen, daß etwas Günstiges dabei herauskommt. -— Sehen Sie, das ist ein Symptom. Solche Leute, die in den letzten Jahren verantwortlich waren gerade für das Geistesleben der weniger breiten Massen, der führenden Klassen, die hatten so wenig Respekt, daß sie es als selbstverständlich ansahen, die Gymnasiallehrer zu prüfen und als Kamele loszulassen auf die Jugend. Sie sind überzeugt, daß die, welche die besten Examina machten, die größten Kamele sind. Ja, aber das Denken der Menschen, die Denkgewohnheiten, die sind es doch, von denen, trotz aller gegenteiligen Anschauung, alles abhängt. Wir sehen zuletzt, indem sich die Dinge summieren, wirklich Glück und Unglück der Menschheit abhängen von diesen Denkgewohnheiten, die sich zuletzt kumulieren zu solchen Weltkatastrophen, wie wir sie in den letzten Jahren erlebt haben. Man muß auf die Kleinheiten eingehen, denn sie sind Symptome für das, was in den unterbewußten Sphären regiert und was unberücksichtigt bleibt für die Zeit, in der man mit Recht hinweist auf technische Entwickelung, auf Kapitalismus und so weiter.

So hat man es gehalten mit dem Geistesleben, und im Grunde genommen ist ein Luxus-Geistesleben entstanden, ein Geistesleben, das die Menschen in den verschiedensten Zweigen eigentlich nur noch als Luxus empfinden konnten. Aber sie lieben diesen Luxus. Man könnte auf vielen Gebieten auf diesen Luxus hinweisen, der an Stelle des Geistes getreten ist. Nehmen wir ein Gebiet heraus: die Landschaftsmalerei, wie sie das letzte Jahrhundert entwickelt hat. Glauben Sie, daß außer den wenigen Menschen, die darauf dressiert werden, glauben Sie, daß die breite Masse der Menschheit wirklich ein offenes Herz und Sinn haben kann für diese Landschaftsmalerei? Glauben Sie, daß zum Beispiel der Proletarier, der durch die kapitalistische Wirtschaftsordnung und den technischen Betrieb eingespannt worden ist in eine wahrhaft trostlose Ödigkeit des Lebens, daß der, wenn Sie ihm so allerlei Brocken, die da abfallen, hinwerfen in Volksvorträgen und Volkskursen, in Volkshäusern, in Veranstaltungen, wo Sie ihm Bilder zeigen, glauben Sie, daß er wahrhaftig mit seinem Innern daran herankommen könnte? Ja, die Landschaftsmalerei — glauben Sie mir: der, der nicht darauf dressiert ist, sagt: Ja, warum malt man das? Draußen ist es ja doch viel schöner. Warum malt man das eigentlich? - Sie können ihm andressieren, wenn Sie Volkskurse abhalten als Heil- und Palliativmittel, daß das wirksam ist; aber das Unterbewußte fällt nicht darauf herein. Das Unterbewußtsein sagt immer: Wozu malen die das? Man muß doch nicht die Menschheitskräfte verschwenden auf solches Zeug. — Aus diesen Stimmungen setzt sich zuletzt das zusammen, was heute in so laut sprechenden Tatsachen auspulst. Das ist es schon, worauf es ankommt. Denn, nicht wahr, was konnte man nicht in den letzten Jahrzehnten immer wieder darüber hören, wie wir es so herrlich weit gebracht haben, wie der menschliche Gedanke mit Blitzesschnelligkeit hinrollt über die weitesten Länderstrecken, wie wir so bequem reisen können, wie die geistige Kultur sich ausbreitet und so weiter. Aber das alles, was man so lobhudeln konnte, war ja doch nur dadurch möglich, daß es sich ausbreitete auf einem Unterbau, der Millionen von Menschen umfaßte, die nicht teilnehmen konnten an diesen Dingen. Sie alle hätten nicht reisen können mit der Eisenbahn, hätten nicht telephonieren können, hätten nicht den Gedanken hinschicken können über weite Strecken, wenn nicht unzählige Menschen außerstande gewesen wären, irgendwie an dieser Kultur teilzunehmen, wenn diese Kultur nicht Millionen und aber Millionen von Menschen leiblich und seelisch Elend und Not gebracht hätte.

Ja, blicken wir einmal auf einen bestimmten Zeitpunkt, blicken wir hin auf die Mitte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, denn diese Mitte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts ist es ja ungefähr auch, wo das, was man häufig die soziale Frage nennt, eigentlich begonnen hat. Die führenden Kreise, die sind allmählich aus jener Stimmung entstanden, welche man nicht anders charakterisieren kann, als daß man auf den Parasitismus des eigentlich guten Geisteslebens hinweist. Das gute Geistesleben ist zum Parasiten geworden, weil es die anderen nicht angenommen haben. Es war vorbestimmt, einzudringen in die wirkliche Volkskultur, aber es wurde nichts dazu getan, es einzulassen, das Kreuz hatte sich eben noch nicht gewendet. Ja, in dieser Zeit waren die Menschen dieser führenden, leitenden Kreise allmählich dahin gelangt, für ihre Seele doch etwas zu bekommen. Wie oft habe ich es hier betont, welch unnatürliche Wege diese Sehnsucht mancher Seelen geht. Nicht wahr, man konnte es erfahren, wie die Leute in gut eingeheizten Zimmern zuletzt Theosophen geworden sind, als letztes Ende des Bourgeoisie-Strebens, wie sie — aber das war ja die letzte Phase — da geredet haben von Brüderlichkeit, von Menschenliebe, von hehren ethischen Idealen und so weiter. In welchen Zimmern geschah denn das? In welchen Räumen geschah denn das? Ich rede von der Mitte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. Es ist nachher, aber wahrhaftig nicht durch das Verdienst der führenden Kreise, etwas besser geworden, wenn auch nicht viel. In welchen Räumen geschah denn das? In solchen Räumen, die mit Kohlen geheizt waren, für die die englische Regierungs-Enquete schon in den vierziger Jahren das Resultat festgestellt hatte, daß in den Kohlengruben neun-, elf-, dreizehnjährige Kinder arbeiteten, Kinder, welche außerhalb des Sonntags niemals das Sonnenlicht sahen, einfach aus dem Grunde, weil sie, bevor die Sonne aufging, in den Schacht geführt wurden und nach Sonnenuntergang heraufkamen. Ja, es ließ sich leicht von Nächstenliebe, von Brüderlichkeit, von allgemeiner Menschenliebe sprechen, wenn man mit Kohlen heizte, die durch solche «Brüderlichkeit» gewonnen wurden. Da ließ sich auch leicht von der Erhöhung der Sittlichkeit der Menschen sprechen, wenn man mit Kohle heizte, die aus diesen Schächten geholt wurde, wo, wie wiederum die englische Enquete feststellte, Männer und Frauen den ganzen Tag zusammen arbeiten mußten, nackt; schwangere Frauen halbnackt, Männer ganz nackt, denn in den Schächten ist es sehr heiß. Ich erwähne diese Dinge, die verhundertfältigt werden könnten, um Ihnen das Bild zu zeigen, um das es sich handelt, das Bild der Kultur der letzten Jahrhunderte, eben der Luxuskultur, einer Kultur, welche noch außerdem ihren Verwesungsgeruch in sich trug: unten der Unterbau, ohne den diese Kultur nicht möglich geworden wäre, Millionen und Millionen von Menschen, die nicht teilnehmen konnten an dieser Kultur. Wie allmählich der Verstand der Menschen beschaffen war, die diese sechzehnstündige Arbeit in den Kohlengruben verrichteten, das wurde dazumal bei der Enquete auch konstatiert. Aber was war denn das Charakteristische des letzten halben Jahrhunderts? Das Charakteristische war die Gedankenlosigkeit. Vorzugsweise die Gedankenlosigkeit. Und die Gedankenlosigkeit ist dasjenige, worauf man vor allen Dingen sehen muß, wenn auf Besserung hingearbeitet werden soll. Statt daß man so leicht sagt: Lieber Ofen, erfülle deine Ofenpflicht, das Zimmer warm zu machen - sollte man lieber mit Holz einheizen und das Predigen lassen. Das ist es, was in priesterlichen Kreisen und in Kreisen der Atheisten immer getan worden ist: gepredigt wurde. Und was unterlassen worden ist, ist das Denken, das Denken an die Wirklichkeit. Das ist es, worauf es ankommt, Das ist es vor allen Dingen, was dem heutigen Menschen nahelegen kann, daß gerade im Geistesleben ein Umschwung eintreten muß.

Das Geistesleben kann nicht gedeihen, wenn es nicht jeden Tag aufs neue seine eigene Wirklichkeit beweisen muß. Aber das Geistesleben wird sich beweisen können nur dann, wenn es auf sich selbst gestellt ist. Von der niedersten Schulstelle an bis hinauf zur höchsten Schulstelle, von dem ausgesprochenen Zweig der Wissenschaft bis zur freien künstlerischen Schöpfung: es muß in sich, für sich bestehen, geistig in sich bestehen, weil es auf nichts anderes bauen kann, als auf dasjenige, was in seiner eigenen Stärke lebt. Derjenige, der das Geistesleben kennt, der weiß, welches Unheil angerichtet worden ist in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten durch die moderne Staatsform, dadurch, daß der Staat seine Fittiche gespannt hat über dieses Geistesleben, daß alles, was Geistesleben ist, allmählich verstaatlicht werden sollte mit Ausnahme von einigen wenigen Zweigen, die noch geblieben sind und denen auch der Untergang droht. Denn wäre es weiter gegangen im Sinne der letzten Zeit, so wären auch die letzten Zweige des freien Geisteslebens noch verstaatlicht worden. Aber die Denkgewohnheiten der Menschen sind heute noch nicht so weit, daß sie einsehen, daß gerade mit Bezug auf die furchtbare Versklavung des Geisteslebens durch das politische Staatsleben der Rückweg angetreten werden muß, daß dieses Geistesleben befreit werden muß. Noch immer gehen die Ziele der Menschen auf die Unterbindung der Freiheit des Geisteslebens und die Verstaatlichung des Geisteslebens hin, wo so viele Staaten bewiesen haben, wie eigentlich das Umfassen des Geisteslebens durch den Staat gewirkt hat.

Es ist ja den Menschen die Illusion des Staatslebens auch heute noch sehr schwer auszutreiben. Ich war in der letzten Zeit einmal in Bern, wo die sogenannte « Völkerbund-Konferenz» war. Die Leute sprachen von allem möglichen, so ungefähr im Stil der vorigen Zeit, wie Herr von Jagow im Mai 1914 gesprochen hat von den kommenden Dingen. So wie das, was dazumal gekommen ist, verschieden war von dem, was ausgedrückt worden ist durch «die allgemeine Entspannung macht Fortschritte», so wird sich das unterscheiden, was kommen wird, von dem, was in Bern gesagt worden ist. Die Herren stehen nirgends im Boden der Wirklichkeit drinnen. Da wurde gesprochen von Leuten, die Reden halten, die in deutschen Zeitungen schreiben, was alles geschehen solle, um diesen Völkerbund zustandezubringen. Wie ein Parlament gebildet werden solle, das so wie die Parlamente der Staaten vorher, nun den ganzen Zusammenhang von Staaten umfassen werde. Der betreffende Herr konnte sich auch nicht entbrechen, zu sagen: Ein Überparlament muß geschaffen werden, ein Überstaat. - Ich habe damals in einem Vortrag, den ich zur gleichen Zeit hielt, gesagt, daß es mehr an der Zeit wäre, darüber nachzudenken, was die Staaten unterlassen sollten, als darüber, was sie tun sollten, um nicht das, was in die Weltkatastrophe hineingeführt hat, noch weiter auszudehnen. Man fragt nur: Was soll geschehen im Sinne des alten Staates? — Man hat nicht gelernt von der Zeit, zu fragen: Was sollen die Staaten unterlassen? — Sie sollen vor allen Dingen unterlassen, sich in das geistige und in das wirtschaftliche Leben hineinzumischen. Man soll nicht daran denken, Überparlamente und Überstaaten zu gründen, nachdem die Unterparlamente und Unterstaaten so geringe Eifolge gehabt haben. Heute kann nicht die Frage sein: Was sollen die Staaten tun? sondern: Was sollen die Staaten unterlassen? Das paßt in die heutige Zeit hinein. Aber man muß den Mut haben, mit Bezug auf das Denken, in diese Dinge rückhaltlos hineinzuschauen.

Den Zusammenhang gerade zwischen diesem Geistesleben und demjenigen, was sich nun in den anderen Zweigen des sozialen Organismus abspielt, diesen Zusammenhang einzuschen, dazu wird man gar nicht kommen, wenn man nicht erst etwas gefüllt hat den Kopf durch das Aufnehmen derjenigen Gedanken, die in der Geisteswissenschaft enthalten sind. Warum ist denn für viele Leute die Geisteswissenschaft in der Gegenwart ein solcher Greuel? Nun, weil sie eben fordert, daß man anders denkt, als die Menschen denken. Aber die Tatsachen haben ja gelehrt, daß es mit dem Denken, in dem die Menschheit steckt, eben nicht weiter geht. Daran können sich die Menschen so schwer gewöhnen, daß sie umdenken müssen. Sie können nicht auf die Tatsachen hinschauen.

Dreigliederung: die Menschen finden sie heute schwer verständlich, weil sie eben nicht haben sehen wollen auf das, was wirklich geschehen ist. Die Entwickelung der Menschheit hat eigentlich in den Tatsachen, die sich nur den Blicken der Menschen entziehen, ein großes Stück der Dreigliederung schon verwirklicht, nur passen sich die Menschen der Verwirklichung nicht an. Ich will Ihnen ein Beispiel anführen: Wenn wir in die sechziger Jahre zurückgehen, so finden wir, daß innerhalb Deutschlands die Eisenindustrie so beschaffen war, daß dazumal ungefähr 799 000 Tonnen Rohstofle zu Eisen verarbeitet werden mußten: von etwas mehr als 20 000 Arbeitern wurden diese 799 000 Tonnen Rohstoffe zutage gefördert. Bis zum Ende der achtziger Jahre war durch den Aufschwung der Eisenindustrie, durch die großen Anforderungen, welche auf der einen Seite der vermehrte Eisenbahnverkehr, die großen Kriegsrüstungen auf der anderen Seite stellten — das hat sich später noch ins Unermeßliche gesteigert -, schon am Ende der achtziger Jahre war die Eisenindustrie so gestiegen, daß nicht mehr 799000 Tonnen Roheisen verarbeitet wurden, sondern daß notwendig wurden bereits 4500000 Tonnen Roheisen. Nun werden Sie fragen können: Wie viele Arbeiter sind denn nun notwendig geworden, um dieses Roheisen zutage zu fördern? Ich sagte: Etwas über 20000 Arbeiter waren notwendig, um 799000 Tonnen zutage zu fördern. Dann waren es 4500000 Tonnen. Dazu waren am Ende der achtziger Jahre nur etwa 21300 Menschen notwendig. Also bitte, lassen Sie diese Zahlen einmal zu Ihrem Gemüte sprechen, lassen Sie sie nicht so sprechen, wie Statistiker sprechen, sondern fassen Sie diese Zahlen auf: Etwas über 20000 Menschen ungefähr haben 799000 Tonnen zutage gefördert im Anfang der sechziger Jahre. 21000 Menschen ungefähr, also wenig mehr Menschen, haben 4500000 Tonnen Roheisen gefördert Ende der achtziger Jahre. Wie ist das möglich? Sie müssen doch fragen: Wie ist das möglich? Das ist nur möglich geworden durch ungeheuer knifflige technische Verbesserungen, nur dadurch, daß ausgiebigste, geradezu unermeßliche technische Verbesserungen eingetreten sind, die es möglich gemacht haben, daß ein Mann so viel mehr an Roheisen zutage förderte. Also für alles das, was an Fortschritten stattgefunden hat mit Bezug auf diesen Betriebszweig - und man könnte Ähnliches ausführen für fünfundzwanzig bis dreißig Betriebszweige erster Linie, erster Repräsentation -, für alles das, was in einem solchen Betriebszweige stattgefunden hat, sind solche Verbesserungen eingetreten.

Was bedeutet denn das? Was bedeutet es, wenn fast dieselbe Menschenzahl durch rein technische Verbesserungen soundso viel mehr produziert? Glauben Sie, das hat keine Folgen? Natürlich hat es die Folgen, da die Menschenzahl sich nicht sehr vermehrt hat, daß dieselbe Menschenzahl dieselbe Sache produziert in so viel größeren Mengen, daß dadurch das ganze übrige Wirtschaftliche, das sich daranschließt, revolutioniert wird. Denken Sie sich einmal, was das bedeutet für den dritten Zweig des abgegliederten, des dreigliedrigen Organismus. Von allen Rechtsverhältnissen, von allen geistigen Verhältnissen braucht sich nichts zu verändern, lediglich hat sich etwas verändert in dem wirtschaftlichen Verhältnis. Denn alles das, was sich verändert hat, kam in der Preislage des Eisens und alledem, was damit in Zusammenhang steht, zum Ausdruck. Es heißt das nichts Geringeres, als daß sich unabhängig von der geistigen Entwickelung, von der rechtlichen Entwickelung — denn Sie brauchen kein anderes Recht, wenn Sie nicht auf das Ganze schauen -, unabhängig davon sich das Wirtschaftsleben loslöste und, ohne daß die Menschen daran teilnahmen, sich umgestaltete. Die Dinge taten das Ihrige, nur die Menschen nahmen keine Rücksicht darauf. Das mag Ihnen ein Beweis dafür sein, daß in den Tatsachen die Dreigliederung sich vollzog. Die wahre Wirtschaftslehre ist ganz von selber weiter fortgeschritten, die Menschen aber kamen nicht nach; sie verwendeten ihren Verstand dazu, nicht nachkommen zu brauchen, bei den alten Verhältnissen bleiben zu können. Mag man noch so schr begeistert sein für die große Kapazität, die in die Verbesserung hineinging, das ist richtig, aber darauf kommt es nicht an für heute. Heute kommt es darauf an, daß das Wirtschaftsleben sich emanzipiert hat. In der Preisbildung und in alledem, was mit der Preisbildung und der Währungsbildung zusammenhängt, hat das Wirtschaftsleben seinen eigenen Gang gemacht. Darauf kommt es an. Die drei Zweige haben sich im Grunde genommen voneinander emanzipiert, und die Menschen haben sie künstlich zusammengeschweißt und waren genötigt, sie immer mehr und mehr zusammenzuschweißen. Dadurch sind wir in die Weltkatastrophe hineingekommen.

Die Dinge liegen unter der Oberfläche dessen, was die Menschen heute denken wollen. Man muß tief in die Verhältnisse hineinschauen, wenn man die Wirklichkeit beurteilen will. Ich wollte ein solches Beispiel herausgreifen, damit Sie sehen, wie blödsinnig es ist, wenn als unsinnig hingestellt wird die Dreigliederung. Die Dreigliederung ist aus den allerpraktischsten Verhältnissen herausgeholt, während es die Menschen, denen in den letzten Jahrzehnten die Schicksale der Menschen anvertraut waren, vermieden haben, den praktischen Verhältnissen sich anzupassen. Sie können überall beweisen durch gesunden Menschenverstand, daß diese Dreigliederung das einzige ist, worauf hingearbeitet werden muß, wenn eine gesunde Entwickelung des sozialen Organismus eintreten soll. Das nützt heute gar nichts, wenn der einzelne nur daran denkt, wie notwendig es ist, die Verhältnisse aufrechtzuerhalten, weil das oder jenes nicht entbehrt werden kann.

Da trifft man auf die sonderbarsten Einwendungen. Manches ganz verrenkte Denken trifft man an. Zum Beispiel neulich sprach ich in Basel in einem Vortrage über die Dreigliederung. In der darauf folgenden Diskussion ist ein sehr gescheiter Mann aufgetreten, der sagte: Ja, über diese Dreigliederung sei ja manches Treffliche gesagt worden, und doch könne man die Dreigliederung nicht begreifen, denn da würde doch nur durch den politischen Staat, also durch ein Drittel des sozialen Organismus, die Gerechtigkeit hervorgebracht, aber die Gerechtigkeit müsse doch auch im Wirtschaftsleben und im Geistesleben sein. Ich mußte damals erwidern mit einem Bild. Ich sagte: Nun ja, nehmen wir einmal an, irgendeine Familie auf dem Lande bestünde aus dem Herrn und der Frau, ein paar Kindern, Knechten, Mägden und drei Kühen. Die ganze Familie braucht Milch, wie alle drei Glieder des sozialen Organismus Gerechtigkeit brauchen. Ist es aber deshalb notwendig, daß alle Familienglieder Milch geben? Das ist gewiß nicht notwendig, sondern sie werden gerade alle mit Milch gut versorgt sein, wenn die drei Kühe Milch geben. So ist es auch mit der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Es handelt sich ja gerade darum, daß alle drei Glieder wirklich Gerechtigkeit haben, aber sie werden sie nur haben, wenn von dem staatlichen Organismus, dem mittleren Gliede, Gerechtigkeit wirklich erzeugt wird, wie die Milch von den Kühen. So verrenkt ist das Denken der Menschen, daß es über die einfachsten Vorstellungen glaubt, die allerklügsten Dinge hinüberstülpen zu müssen.

Gewiß, die Leute sind nicht dumm, die solche Einwendungen machen. Man kann durchaus nicht sagen, daß die Leute dumm sind. Die Leute, die heute Einwendungen machen, schätze ich oftmals als sehr gescheit. Ich will nicht die Gescheitheit der Leute in Abrede stellen, sondern ich möchte mit der Umschreibung eines ShakespeareWortes «Ehrenwerte Männer sind sie alle» sagen: Gescheite Leute sind sie alle, alle, alle. Aber darauf kommt es an, daß man nicht bloß die gescheiten Gedanken findet, sondern daß man die richtigen Gedanken findet, daß man findet, was in der Wirklichkeit tatsächlich verwendet werden kann, gebraucht werden kann. Und auf ein gesundes Denken, ein Denken, das wirklich eindringen kann in die Wirklichkeit, kommt es an, gerade in der Geisteswissenschaft. Sie können nämlich die vertracktesten Gedanken haben in bezug auf das äußere physische Geschehen, da können Sie höchstens bei den elementarsten Dingen der reinen Mathematik und Technik nachweisen, wenn einer einen Kohl gemacht hat: Wenn einer eine Eisenbahnbrücke falsch baut, geht vielleicht beim dritten Eisenbahnzug, der darüber fährt, die Brücke kaputt. Aber nicht nachweisen können Sie zum Beispiel, nun, sagen wir, aus der medizinischen Wissenschaft heraus, wenn soundso viele Leute gesund werden und soundso viele Leute sterben, welchen Anteil daran die medizinische Wissenschaft gehabt hat. Da liegt die Sache nicht so klar. Und mit Bezug auf den sozialen Organismus, ja, da liegt die Sache erst recht unklar. Da können die Kurpfuschermethoden in der wüstesten Weise sich breit machen.

Da bat man schon das Gefühl: Dasjenige, was man als alten Aberglauben verlachte, das ist so recht eingezogen in der neueren Zeit, wenn auch auf anderen Gebieten. Sie kennen alle die Stelle im zweiten Teil des «Faust», wo wiederbelebt wird die mittelalterliche Homunkulus-Idee. Heute sind viele Menschen der Ansicht: Das ist Aberglaube, zusammensetzen zu wollen einen Homunkulus. — Es ist aber auch Aberglaube, aus bloßen Verstandesurteilen das zustande zu bringen. Sie denken aber nicht daran, daß sie den Aberglauben nur verpflanzt haben auf ein anderes Gebiet. Das, was heute als soziale Theorien existiert, das will den sozialen Homunkulus produzieren, das will aus dem bloßen Verstand heraus etwas künstlich zusammensetzen. Gerade auf das Entgegengesetzte geht diese Dreigliederung. Sie geht nicht darauf hin, ein künstliches Programm aufzustellen, sondern zu suchen, wie sich die Menschen zusammenfinden müssen in der Dreigliederung, um aus sich heraus dasjenige zu finden, um was es sich handelt. Sie geht gerade auf die Wirklichkeit, auf die Wirklichkeit, in der innerhalb des sozialen Organismus eben die Menschen stehen. Weil sie so verschieden ist von demjenigen, was die Menschen sich als Homunkulus-Ideen gewöhnt haben zu denken in den letzten Jahrzehnten, deshalb wird die Sache heute noch so schwer begriffen. Deshalb findet man sie unverständlich, trotzdem sie eigentlich kaum irgendeinen unverständlichen oder einen nicht ganz leicht verständlichen Satz enthält. Das ist es, daß die Menschen verlernt haben, in gerader Weise zu denken, daß die Menschen überall befriedigt sind, wenn sie in die Ecken hinein denken. Weil sie nur befriedigt sind, wenn sie entweder über die Ecke denken sollen, oder wenn sie denken können, was ihnen befohlen wird zu denken von irgendeiner Seite.

Auf der anderen Seite darf nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben, daß das, was dieser Dreigliederung zugrunde liegt, eben manches zusammenfaßt von dem, was einseitig da oder dort auftritt. Man kann nicht sagen, daß nicht in zahlreichen Köpfen auch fruchtbare soziale Ideen aufgetreten sind; sie sind aber meist einseitig. Ich muß daher sagen: Ich bin mit den Leuten, die mir etwas einzuwenden haben, meist einverstanden, aber sie sind es nicht mit mir. Das, was sie vertreten, ist von ihrem einseitigen Standpunkte aus richtig, aber damit kommt man nicht vorwärts, weil man sich mit einseitigen Standpunkten hineinreitet in irgendeine Realisierung, welche auf der anderen Seite wiederum Schaden hervorbringt. Es handelt sich darum heute, daß wir in umfassender Weise die Dinge treffen. Daß wir nicht zum Beispiel fragen: Was sollen wir mit dem Gelde machen? - Diese Frage, wie auch die Frage nach der Währung, wird auf dem Boden des selbständigen Wirtschaftslebens zur Lösung kommen. Das ist es, worauf es ankommt, daß man aus der Wirklichkeit heraus versteht. Man braucht nicht vom Verstande in den Einzelheiten ausspintisierte Programme, man braucht Impulse, die sich auf die Wirklichkeit beziehen. Wo man dann angreift, kommt man schon auf das Praktische. Nur die, die Theoretiker sind, während sie sich einbilden, Praktiker zu sein, sind so geartet, daß sie überall für das wirkliche Leben bestimmte Programme haben wollen. Um solche Programme kann es sich nicht handeln. Es ist etwas Fundamentales in dem, was diesem Aufrufe und dem eben vollendeten Buche zugrunde liegt. Es ist einmal auf dasjenige hingewirkt, was allein in den realen Impulsen des sozialen Lebens sein kann.

Um mich darüber noch verständlicher zu machen, will ich einen Vergleich nehmen. Es ist oft gesagt worden: Würde ein einzelner Mensch sich auf einer Insel vom kleinen Kind auf entwickeln, so würde er niemals sprechen lernen. Sprechen lernt man nur in der menschlichen Gesellschaft. - Das ist richtig, da die Sprache eine soziale Erscheinung ist, weil die Sozietät notwendig ist, damit der Mensch sprechen kann. Nur in einer anderen Weise ist das aber auch für die sozialen Impulse in umfassendster Art richtig. Nur innerhalb des sozialen Organismus kann sich das soziale Leben für einen Menschen entwickeln. Ein einzelner Mensch kann niemals wirklich ein soziales Programm aufstellen, denn das innere, das individuelle Leben ist zu etwas ganz anderem da, als um soziale Programme aufzustellen. Man kann nur sagen: So und so müssen die Menschen stehen, so und so müssen die Menschen orientiert sein auf dem Gebiete des Geisteslebens, so und so auf dem politischen Gebiet und so und so in bezug auf das Wirtschaftsieben. Dann wird sich ergeben, was notwendig ist. Das ist es, worauf es ankommt. Denn wenn der Mensch seine einzelne Individualität verwendet, um heute im Zeitalter der Bewußtseinsseele, wo alles auf Individualität gebaut ist, ein soziales Programm zu entwickeln, was kommt dabei heraus? Ich möchte Ihnen ein Beispiel sagen: Sie reden heute von Bolschewiken, von Lenin und Trotzki. Nun ja, ich führe Ihnen einen dritten an, der neben diesen ein gründlicher Bolschewik ist, nur bemerken es die Leute nicht: Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Johann Gottlieb Fichte, den wir anerkennen als einen ganz idealen, als einen großartigen Denker. Lesen Sie den «Geschlossenen Handelsstaat». Das, was Fichte da als Programm entwickelt, unterscheidet sich so wenig von dem Bolschewiken-Programm, daß Sie ganz gut unterschieben könnten dem Trotzki den «Geschlossenen Handelsstaat » von Fichte. Woher kommt das? Das kommt daher, weil der einzelne Mensch heute ein soziales Ideal macht, und das hat Fichte auch getan. Fichte war nur noch in einem Zeitalter, wo an so etwas nicht gedacht werden konnte wie an die Verwirklichung dieses «Geschlossenen Handelsstaates». Erst die Kriegskatastrophe konnte dazu führen. Wenn der einzelne Mensch aus sich heraus ein umfassendes soziales Programm machen will, so wird es so. Dafür ist Fichte der Beweis. Es wird kein soziales Programm, so wenig wie der einzelne Mensch auf einer Insel sprechen lernt. Daher ist das Fundamentale dieses, daß man die Orientierung, die Struktur des sozialen Organismus finde. Darum handelt es sich nicht, Programme aufzustellen, sondern daß man die Art findet, wie die Menschen zusammenleben müssen, um das zu finden, was soziale Impulse sein können. Das steht auf dem Boden der Wirklichkeit, was sich an die Sozietät wendet und nicht an den einzelnen.

Wie oft ist mir immer wieder und wiederum gesagt worden in den letzten Wochen: Ja, der und der stellt bestimmte Programme auf, die in allen einzelnen Punkten das soziale Leben regeln. —- Darauf kommt es aber nicht an, das haben die Leute schon immer getan. Sehen Sie sich doch an, wie unzählige Utopien es gibt. Aber es soll eben keine Utopie sein, es soll das sein, was im praktischen Leben wirklich wurzelt. Und da ist schon notwendig, daß man ein Gefühl hat für das, was ich als Vergleich auch hier schon gebracht habe. Ich habe oft gesagt: Derjenige, der die geistigen Impulse nicht sieht in der äußeren Wirklichkeit, der kommt mir vor wie jemand, der ein halbrundes Stück Eisen hat. Es sagt ihm einer: Das ist ein Magnet, das zieht anderes Eisen an. — Er aber sagt: Ach was, das ist kein Magnet, damit beschlägt man doch nur die Rosse. — Das ist auch wahr. Die beiden unterscheiden sich nicht dadurch, daß der eine recht und der andere unrecht hat; aber das tiefere Recht hat doch der, der weiß, daß es ein Magnet ist und daß es Verschwendung ist, das Eisen als Hufeisen zu brauchen. So ist es auch mit der äußeren Wirklichkeit. Die haben recht, die von Materialität sprechen, aber der Geist erst macht die volle Wirklichkeit. Es handelt sich darum jetzt, daß man auf diesen Geist zurückkommt, aber es darf wahrhaftig nicht bei der Phrase bleiben.

Es gehen jetzt durch die Welt mancherlei Prediger. Die machen es so, wie es diejenigen gemacht haben, die in Spiegelsälen oder in gut geheizten Zimmern von Nächstenliebe und Brüderlichkeit gesprochen haben. Wie ich schon sagte: Ofen, erfülle deine Ofenpflicht, - so sagen sie. So gehen Prediger durch die Welt und sagen: Über die Menschheit ist Unglück gekommen durch Materialismus. Die Menschen müssen sich wiederum zurückwenden zum Geiste. — Ja, sogar das konnte man erleben, daß diesem Aufruf der Vorwurf gemacht worden ist, er enthalte zu wenig Geist, er widme sich zu sehr dem materiellen Leben. Darauf kommt es nicht an, daß vom Geiste geredet wird, sondern darauf kommt es an, daß wir den Geist zu verwirklichen wissen. Nicht der ist wirklich auf dem Boden einer GeistErkenntnis, der immer nur redet: Geist, Geist, Geist —, sondern der, der den Geist so in sich aufnimmt, daß der Geist wirklich auch die Probleme des Lebens zu lösen vermag. Darauf kommt es an.

Die Ermahnungen der Menschen, wiederum zum Geiste sich zurückzuwenden, die könnte man unterlassen. Wichtig ist es, daß man sich heute anstrengt, den Geist in sich tätig und lebendig zu machen. Aber das haben die Menschen nach und nach verlernt, indem ihnen gerade der Staat zu etwas geworden ist - ja, zu was denn? Im «Faust » steht, allerdings als Mädchenunterricht, und die Philosophen haben es nur mißverstanden, haben darin eine große Tiefe gesucht: Der Allumfasser, der Allerhalter, erhält er nicht dich, mich, sich selbst? Aber so redeten allmählich, besonders während der Kriegszeit, die Leute vom Staate. Der Allumfasser, der Allerhalter, erhält er nicht mich, dich, sich selbst? Im Unterbewußtsein war bei den Leuten, die solchen Unterricht gaben, natürlich das «mich» betont. Denn sie haben darauf ein großes Gewicht gelegt, daß sie ein etwas gediegenes, nach ihrer Art aber nicht sehr innerlich aktives Verhältnis zum Geiste hatten. Was hatten die Menschen für ein Verhältnis zum Geiste? Sie strebten darnach, daß ihre Nachkommen bis zu einem gewissen Jahr nach Anordnung des Staates zu Theologen, zu Juristen oder sonstigen Leuten gemacht worden sind. Dann sollten sie in den Staat hineinwachsen, sollten all dasjenige tun, was der Staat verlangt, sollten dazu ganz besonders tauglich sein. Aber die innere Aktivität, das ganze Dabeisein bei dem Weltprozeß, was der Nerv der Geisteswissenschaft ist, wo war das? Es lag darin, daß die Leute sagten: Ich will vom Staate mein Gehalt beziehen bis zu gewissen Jahren, dann aber meine sichere Pension haben, also so lange für den Staat arbeiten, als der Staat es vorschreibt; dann soll der Staat sorgen für eine Pension bis an mein Lebensende. Und dann, nach dem Lebensende, für das begründete man auch kein aktives Verhältnis, sondern ein passives: dann soll die Kirche sorgen für die ewige Seligkeit der Seele. Nun, so war man als passiver Mensch allerdings recht gut versorgt, zunächst in den Schoß des Staates gelegt, erzogen nach seinem Sinn, dann arbeitend für ihn, dann versorgt von ihm bis zum Tode, und dann sorgte die Kirche für die ewige Seligkeit, ohne daß man selber den Impuls des Ewigen in sich aufnahm. Ein herrlicheres Leben konnte man nicht führen. Ein Leben, ohne selbst etwas dazuzutun, das war immer mehr und mehr das Ideal der Menschen am Ende des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts geworden oder gar am Beginn des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Aber es gab eben nur die Möglichkeit, so zu denken auf Grundlage jenes Unterbaues, von dem ich gesprochen habe: wo die Leute gar nicht versorgt waren bis zu ihrem Tode, sondern wo man höchst dürftig durch allerlei Versicherungswesen in letzter Zeit anfing, sie zu versorgen. Deshalb haben diese Leute dann auch angefangen, da nichts Rechtes mehr heraussprießen konnte aus der Weltanschauung der leitenden Kreise, deshalb haben sie auch angefangen, nicht mehr zu glauben an jene nachtodliche Alters- und Invalidenversicherung, welche durch die Kirche gegeben wurde mit Bezug auf die ewige Seligkeit.

Sehen Sie, das ist es, wo angefaßt werden muß heute. Aber man faßt der Wirklichkeit gemäß nur an, wenn man praktisch zu denken vermag dasjenige, was in der Dreigliederung gegeben ist.

First Lecture

In addition to what was said to you here exactly one year ago, something else has undoubtedly come to pass that has spoken to you all very forcefully: the last great teacher, the forceful facts that speak so clearly, which have unfolded since we last gathered here. Yes, these facts have spoken all the more clearly to you, as they probably meant something different to many than what had long been believed to be the future. It is truly a long way, in terms of content, even if it seems short in terms of time, from the first days of August 1914, when, amid many hopes and even more illusions, Germany set out with an army that was not even on a war footing, that had not yet received its mobilization orders, and carried out the so-called “Liège coup” — when, amid many illusions, people had become accustomed to repeating what certain quarters had ordered them to think—it is a long way from there to those days last autumn when the danger threatened that in a few days the army beyond the German borders would be cut off from all food supplies from home, which then led to the events with which you are at least familiar in their main outlines. It is a long way in terms of content, even if it only spans a few years. And on top of all this, those who look more deeply will be disappointed that the external military surrender has been accompanied by the intellectual surrender of Germany by the man on whom many people had pinned their last hopes, especially in the autumn days of 1918. In the autumn of 1918, events occurred that were very, very well suited to correcting everything that had been hinted at between the lines in many respects in recent years, but which it was completely impossible to say openly within the borders of the former German Empire, as you all know.

Now, my dear friends, we are, so to speak, standing before a test—and this must be said especially today and especially to you, in the sense that has often been hinted at here—a test of what has developed within our ranks, and what I would like to call, with an expression that may sound strange, “our anthroposophical conviction.” What I have emphasized again and again, especially in recent years, is that our anthroposophical conviction must not be limited to accepting something in order to have, so to speak, a mere inner mystical feeling of well-being. This is what the loud facts of the present teach us so urgently. Many in our ranks have limited themselves to taking something from anthroposophy that answers certain inner soul questions for them — which is of course justified in itself — but it is truly not without reason that it has been emphasized again and again in recent years that our anthroposophical conviction must lead us to understand practical, the immediately real life, which for those who understand is permeated by the spirit, better than it can be understood without the foundations of this anthroposophical conviction. It is not without reason that those who have been able to penetrate anthroposophical conviction have been called upon to think through the great problems of humanity. Now we are facing a test, so to speak, a test of whether what we have been able to take in, what we have often taken in only as the satisfaction of a higher soul egoism, whether this can really penetrate our minds, our hearts, so that we will be grown to the tasks that are now being set for human beings in ever greater measure. For much of what is now coming in has only just begun. In many respects, we are only at the beginning. And it is necessary that we learn from the facts. Just consider how the whole of life has come to a head within these facts. Consider how those who often considered themselves the most practical of people, who regarded spiritual science as a terrible fantasy, how precisely these practical people proved themselves ill-equipped to deal with what has befallen humanity with such elemental, such tremendous power. Today we must remember how those personalities to whom the earthly destiny of humanity was entrusted spoke immediately before the outbreak of the great catastrophe of the World War. I have already drawn attention here years ago to the manner in which they spoke. I would just like to remind you today how, in decisive sessions of the German Reichstag in the spring of 1914, the minister responsible for foreign policy at the time was able to say: “The general political détente has made encouraging progress in recent times. How he was able to say in the same speech: Our friendly relations with Russia are on the best footing; the Petersburg Cabinet is not concerned with the press agitation, and we will be able to continue our friendly neighborly relations in the near future. — He could say in the same speech: Promising negotiations have been initiated with England, which will probably be concluded in the near future in favor of world peace; as in general the two governments — he meant the English and the German — are in such a position that relations will become ever closer and closer.

This was said by those who were chosen to guide the destiny of humanity. It was said at the same time that I was compelled to summarize what I had emphasized again and again in my lecture in Vienna in the spring of 1914 with the words: “The tendencies prevailing in life today will become ever stronger until they finally destroy themselves. Those who see through social life spiritually can see everywhere how terribly the seeds of social ulcers are sprouting. This is the great cultural concern that arises for those who see through existence. This is the terrible thing that has such a depressing effect and that, even if one could suppress all enthusiasm for recognizing the processes of life through the means of a spirit-recognizing science, would compel one to speak of the remedies that can be used against it, so that one would like to shout words about it to the world, as it were. If the social organism continues to develop as it has done so far, then damage to culture will arise which is to this organism what cancer is to the natural human organism.

That is what people said in those days when they were regarded as fantasists by so-called practical people. The general relaxation of tension about which Mr. von Jagow spoke at that time before the enlightened assembly of the German Reichstag, before those who were supposed to have a judgment but who listened quietly and believed everything—this relaxation has made progress in the sense that in the next few years at least ten to twelve million people will be beaten to death and three times as many will be beaten into cripples. I say this for the reason that because it must be said today that it is important to assess the situation of humanity correctly at the right time, that it is important to gain insight into the situation of humanity through a way of thinking that is completely different from that to which the ruling circles have become accustomed, that it is important today to understand better and more urgently what has flowed out of the old worldview. Such old thinking is useless, even for practical life, because practical life has increasingly produced the most impossible ideas, which were bound to lead to catastrophes. It is not a matter of thinking about institutions, but of realizing that humanity must relearn with regard to the deepest thoughts.

That was one reason why there was such insistent talk of the necessity of renewing the entire worldview, of turning the whole of humanity toward the sources of reality, which lie solely in spiritual life. For in the end, it all comes down to realizing that we do not merely need institutions changed in this or that way in this or that area, but that ultimately it all comes down to realizing that, above all, we need something completely different for the future, for the very near future: We need minds in which something completely different pulsates than in those minds that have developed under the influence of the outdated worldview. Above all, we need a reorganization, a rebuilding of the thoughts in people's minds. This is what we have been trying to work on over the last two decades, because this work has become necessary. We need minds that are organized differently from those that have plunged humanity into misfortune. As long as this is not understood in all respects, as long as it is not understood that the light that can come only from spiritual science must illuminate the darkened minds, as long as this is the case, whether one thinks conservatively, radically, or otherwise, no improvement can come. No salvation will come to humanity through petty means that flow from old ideas. Above all, new thoughts are necessary, new thoughts that can arise solely on the basis of what has been discussed here in these rooms for years as the greatest demands of the present and the near future.

You are familiar with what arose from the necessities of the time, the so-called “Appeal to the German People and to the Cultural World,” in which I publicly expressed for the first time what I had been trying to express in smaller circles in recent years, where it found no echo, where only the thunder of cannons could be heard, not the voices of the spirit. You know that this appeal first of all demands in a positive way what lies in the impulses of human development itself for our time. For those who have insight into the driving forces of humanity consider the greatest calamity to be abstract, so-called eternal ideals that do not arise from real spiritual life but merely from the mirror images of human concepts and ideas, which are not reality but only have a mirror-image reality within themselves. We must be particularly attentive to this in the present day. Even today, there will be many people who believe they are saying something meaningful when they talk about how humanity can be made happy for all eternity, what conditions must be brought about as ideal conditions for humanity. Such ideas of eternity and such ideal conditions for humanity are not thought by those who draw their insights from real spiritual life. As I have always explained here, development has always been such that one epoch has always followed another, and above all, each of the main epochs of the post-Atlantean period has had its own concrete ideal, as is the case for our time and for the near future. It is not a question of how a thousand-year kingdom is to be brought about in a chiliastic manner, but rather what the spiritual world wants to achieve in a short period of time, which can only be understood if one truly engages in spiritual science. And our time urgently demands what has been asserted as the fundamental nerve of this appeal: The threefold social order. The social organism can only become healthy by preserving this threefold order, which you have read about in the appeal and which you will find in my booklet “The Crucial Points of the Social Question in the Life Needs of the Present and the Future.” The present cycle of human history requires this threefold order.

You see, it would have been quite different if, in the middle or even in the autumn of 1917, this threefold division had been asserted by a significant authority, either in Germany or Austria, as a manifestation of Central Europe's impulses in response to Woodrow Wilson's so-called Fourteen Points, which had been drafted from an American point of view. At that time, it would have been a historical necessity. I said to Kühlmann at the time: You have the choice either to accept reason now and listen to what is emerging in the development of humanity as something that must happen — for what is at stake in these conflicts is not just any program, as so many have today, but something that has been read from the development of humanity and that will most certainly be realized in the next fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years, but which must above all be realized within Central Europe—today you have the choice: either accept reason, what wants to be realized, and realize it through reason, or you are heading for revolutions and cataclysms. Instead of accepting reason, we got the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, the so-called Peace of Brest-Litovsk. Think what it would have been like—and this can be said without pretension—if, in response to the so-called Fourteen Points at that time, the voice of reason had been heard amid the thunder of cannons. All of Eastern Europe would have understood—everyone who knows the forces at work in Eastern Europe knows this—that tsarism had to be replaced by the threefold social order. Then what should have come about would have come about. Those who were sympathetic to the cause at the time advised, at most, that it should be printed as a brochure. Now think what nonsense that would have been at the time. In many of the things that were not read at the time, even that would naturally have remained literature. Times change. Today, when everything has to come from the broad masses, today, when the days of October and November 1918 lie between then and now, today the right course of action is to address these issues to the general public. The greatest pests of humanity are those who always believe that if something is right, insofar as it relates to practical life, it must be right in the same way at all times. No, our thinking must not become as lazy as the people who hold this view believe. Things must be judged at different times from very different points of view.

One must, of course, look a little deeper into the development of humanity if one wants to appreciate the whole, full, far-reaching practice of what lies at the basis of this threefold division. This threefold division is not something that can simply occur to us, I must emphasize this again and again. It is something that the spirit of the times and the present absolutely demands of human beings, something that the spirit of the times wants to realize, something that the spirit of the times—please, when you hear what I am about to say, you will understand this sentence that I am now anticipating—something that the spirit of the times is actually realizing. And it is precisely because humanity thinks differently and, above all, acts differently from the spirit of the times that chaos arises. Actually, what is contained in this threefold division has been realized since the 1870s, but people have behaved differently and have thus fallen into terrible contradictions with what is being realized in reality. As you know, this primarily concerns the threefold division of the social organism into a spiritual part, a state or political part, and an economic part. I would like to emphasize first of all that the correctness of this basic view can be proven by common sense alone, just as everything that is gained through spiritual science can be understood by common sense, as I have always emphasized. However, I do not believe that it is possible to arrive at this view in the right way—please do not forget that I said “in the right way”—from today's thinking. There are people who have arrived at similar conclusions, but the point is that one must arrive at them on a truly practical basis, on a basis that takes into account what wants to become real in our time and is actually becoming real.

Let us consider today, provisionally and by way of introduction, a few things that can give us an idea of how a thorough consideration of the times speaks about this threefold division. You see, when in recent times, for about four centuries, what we now call the capitalist economic order and the modern technical order arose among humanity, a new way of thinking, a new worldview also arose. If what we call history in school were not a fable convenue, it would be clear from history how thoroughly the habits of thinking of the entire civilized world changed from the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries into the following centuries. A superficial observation would lead one to believe that everything developed slowly, while the great upheavals took place in the course of historical development. Such an upheaval underlies what has developed over the last three to four centuries in the entire intellectual habits and ways of thinking of human beings.

I would like to draw your attention above all to a phenomenon that has taken place before our eyes, I mean always the eyes of the soul, but which has hardly been appreciated in depth. People have simply allowed this phenomenon to take place. This is the phenomenon: what a minor role the so-called spiritual personalities have actually played in the life of humanity, especially of the German people, how little general school education, right up to university level, has contributed to ensuring that what has developed in individual spiritual personalities over the last few centuries has become part of the general cultural heritage. Take the case I have often mentioned here, the case of Goethe. Yes, Goethe was the bearer of a great, comprehensive worldview. Something tremendous happened for the development of humanity in the years from 1749, when Goethe was born, to 1832, when he died. There is something tremendous in Goethe's spiritual impulses. But when we look at the impression Goethe's worldview, Goetheanism, has made on the German people, we are presented with a terribly sad picture. Even those who believe they know something about Goethe know nothing at all about the innermost impulses of his spiritual being. And one could say the same, perhaps even more so, about many others. It must be said that since technology and capitalism have spread, spiritual life, which has asserted itself in individual personalities precisely in relation to what is purely and universally human, has developed, one cannot say otherwise, like a parasite, like something parasitic on the rest of the cultural body. It was there, but it was basically useless. As if to confirm that spiritual life, insofar as it concerns Goethe, for example, was useless, how it was rejected, how it was not accepted but only flirted with theatrically, for show, we see that finally the Goethe Society, which considers itself the official representative of Goetheanism, out of an impulse that had gradually become more and more commonplace, asked: Who should we now elect as chairman of our Goethe Society? And the question was not: Who understands Goetheanism best? Instead, the question was: Who could make the best obsequious bows when the Goethe Society had to appear at some court or other? A former finance minister was then elected as the first chairman of the Goethe Society in Weimar, whose intellectual paths never led him to Goethe. What might have hinted at the hollowness of the whole thing was that the first name of the person in question was Kreuzwendedich (Turn Around). Kreuzwendedich von Rheinbaben had been chosen as chairman of the Goethe Society at that time as if by an irony of fate. These are seemingly insignificant facts, but it is precisely because they can be regarded as insignificant, when in reality they are symptoms of the deepest feelings, that they are so terrible. Anyone who does not recognize these facts as important symptoms revealing the innermost thoughts and feelings of a people is, in essence, agreeing with everything that has led humanity into this terrible misfortune.

Compare this parasitism of intellectual life, this disconnect between what has been produced at the heights of humanity and the general life of the people, with earlier ages. It is unthinkable in earlier ages. Think, for example, of the impression that Buddha made on the general life of the people in later India. Compare the popularity of Buddha with the popularity of Goethe. Perhaps you will say: Well, there are so many other intellectual heroes besides Goethe; Buddha was only one. Anyone who makes this objection shows that they understand nothing of the fundamental conditions of human development. For it is a great misfortune that natural circumstances have led to a terrible overproduction of such intellectual people, such intellectual personalities. So that those who are involved in everyday life and have to work can no longer find their way. It is not only Goethe, but also Herder, Schelling, and Schlegel; but not only them, now one must also read Geibel and Wildenbruch. And in all other fields: what one must concern oneself with, what belongs to general cultural value! And when one thinks of international conditions!

Yes, what lies at the root of this is something very profound, something extraordinarily significant. There is nevertheless a great difference between those who appear side by side in the history of literature. But over the last few centuries, people have lost their respect for intellectual life on a grand scale. This is evident in individual cases. One must be able to view the development of humanity symptomatically, then one can discern from the symptoms what is actually pulsating beneath the surface! Once, in the early 1890s, I was talking in a small circle with some people who were also members of high school teacher examination boards. A particularly respected examiner from the high school teacher examination board spoke at that time within this small circle, and we discussed how depressing it actually is that so little is being done in today's high schools to raise the general level of intellectual stimulation, that so little is getting into the young people and boys—later the girls were added, which did not improve things—who are being intellectually trained in these institutions from the ages of ten to eighteen. Then the examiner in question said: Yes, when we see how we let these camels loose on the youth we have to examine, when we see how we have to send these camels out as teachers of youth, then one cannot hope that anything good will come of it. “You see, that is a symptom. Such people, who in recent years were responsible for the intellectual life of the less educated masses, the leading classes, had so little respect that they took it for granted to examine high school teachers and send them out like camels to the youth. They are convinced that those who did best in the exams are the biggest camels. Yes, but it is people's thinking, their habits of thought, that, despite all contrary opinions, everything depends on. Ultimately, we see that, as things add up, the happiness and unhappiness of humanity really depend on these habits of thought, which ultimately accumulate into such world catastrophes as we have experienced in recent years. One must pay attention to the little things, for they are symptoms of what reigns in the subconscious spheres and what is ignored at a time when one rightly points to technical development, capitalism, and so on.

This is how intellectual life has been treated, and basically a luxury intellectual life has developed, an intellectual life that people in various fields can now only perceive as a luxury. But they love this luxury. One could point to many areas where this luxury has taken the place of the intellect. Let us take one area: landscape painting as it developed in the last century. Do you believe that, apart from the few people who are trained to appreciate it, the broad masses of humanity can really have an open heart and mind for this kind of landscape painting? Do you believe that, for example, the proletarian, who has been harnessed by the capitalist economic order and technical operations into a truly desolate wasteland of life, that when you throw him all sorts of scraps that fall off in popular lectures and courses, in community centers, in events where you show him pictures, do you believe that he could truly approach this with his inner self? Yes, landscape painting—believe me: those who are not trained to see it will say, “Yes, why paint that? It’s much nicer outside. Why paint that?” You can train them to believe that it is effective when you hold public courses as a remedy or palliative, but the subconscious will not be fooled. The subconscious always says: Why are they painting that? You don't have to waste human energy on such things. — These moods ultimately make up what is so loudly expressed in today's facts. That is what matters. For, isn't it true that in recent decades we have heard time and again how wonderfully far we have come, how human thought rolls across the farthest reaches of the earth with lightning speed, how comfortably we can travel, how intellectual culture is spreading, and so on. But all that could be praised was only possible because it spread on a foundation that included millions of people who could not participate in these things. None of them would have been able to travel by train, make phone calls, or send their thoughts over long distances if countless people had not been unable to participate in this culture in some way, if this culture had not brought physical and mental misery and hardship to millions and millions of people.

Yes, let us look at a specific point in time, let us look at the middle of the nineteenth century, because it was around the middle of the nineteenth century that what is often called the social question actually began. The leading circles gradually emerged from a mood that can only be characterized as parasitism on the part of what was actually a good intellectual life. The good spiritual life had become parasitic because others had not accepted it. It was predestined to penetrate the real folk culture, but nothing was done to let it in; the tide had not yet turned. Yes, at that time, the people in these leading circles had gradually come to want something for their souls. How often have I emphasized here what unnatural paths this longing of some souls takes. Isn't it true that one could see how people in well-heated rooms finally became theosophists, as the last resort of bourgeois striving, how they — but that was the last phase — talked about brotherhood, love of humanity, lofty ethical ideals, and so on. In what rooms did this happen? In what spaces did this happen? I am talking about the middle of the nineteenth century. Since then, things have improved somewhat, though not by much, and certainly not thanks to the leading circles. In what rooms did this happen? In rooms heated with coal, about which the English government commission had already concluded in the 1840s that nine-, eleven-, thirteen-year-old children worked in the coal mines, children who never saw the sunlight except on Sundays, simply because they were led into the shaft before sunrise and did not come up until after sunset. Yes, it was easy to talk about charity, brotherhood, and universal love when one heated with coal obtained through such “brotherhood.” It was also easy to talk about the elevation of people's morals when they heated their homes with coal extracted from these mines, where, as the English inquiry found, men and women had to work together all day long, naked; pregnant women half-naked, men completely naked, because it is very hot in the mines. I mention these things, which could be multiplied a hundredfold, to show you the picture I am talking about, the picture of the culture of the last centuries, namely the culture of luxury, a culture which, moreover, carried within itself the stench of decay: at the bottom, the substructure without which this culture would not have been possible, millions and millions of people who could not participate in this culture. The state of mind of the people who worked sixteen hours a day in the coal mines was also noted at the time during the inquiry. But what was the characteristic feature of the last half-century? The characteristic feature was thoughtlessness. Thoughtlessness above all else. And thoughtlessness is what we must look at above all else if we want to work toward improvement. Instead of saying so easily, “Dear stove, do your duty and heat the room,” we should rather heat with wood and leave the preaching alone. That is what has always been done in priestly circles and in atheist circles: preaching. And what has been neglected is thinking, thinking about reality. That is what matters. That is above all what can make it clear to people today that a change must take place in intellectual life.

Intellectual life cannot flourish if it does not have to prove its own reality anew every day. But spiritual life can only prove itself when it is left to its own devices. From the lowest school to the highest, from the most specialized branch of science to free artistic creation: it must exist in and of itself, spiritually, because it can build on nothing else but what lives in its own strength. Those who know intellectual life know what harm has been done in the last four centuries by the modern form of government, by the state spreading its wings over intellectual life, by gradually nationalizing everything that is intellectual life, with the exception of a few branches that still remain and are also threatened with extinction. For if things had continued in the same vein as in recent times, even the last branches of free spiritual life would have been nationalized. But people's habits of thinking are not yet so far advanced that they can see that it is precisely in relation to the terrible enslavement of spiritual life by political state life that the way back must be taken, that this spiritual life must be liberated. People's goals are still aimed at suppressing the freedom of spiritual life and nationalizing spiritual life, even though so many states have proven how the state's control of spiritual life has actually worked.

It is still very difficult to dispel the illusion of state life from people's minds, even today. I was recently in Bern, where the so-called “League of Nations Conference” was held. People spoke about all sorts of things, in much the same style as in the past, like Mr. von Jagow spoke in May 1914 about things to come. Just as what happened then was different from what was expressed by “general détente is making progress,” so what is to come will differ from what was said in Bern. These gentlemen have no grasp of reality. There was talk of people who give speeches and write in German newspapers about everything that needs to be done to bring about this League of Nations. How a parliament should be formed which, like the parliaments of the states before it, will now encompass the entire community of states. The gentleman in question could not refrain from saying: A super-parliament must be created, a super-state. In a lecture I gave at the same time, I said that it was more important to think about what states should refrain from doing than about what they should do in order not to further extend what has led to the world catastrophe. One only asks: What should happen in the spirit of the old state? — We have not learned from the past to ask: What should states refrain from doing? — Above all, they should refrain from interfering in intellectual and economic life. We should not think of establishing super-parliaments and super-states after the sub-parliaments and sub-states have had so little success. Today, the question cannot be: What should states do? but rather: What should states refrain from doing? That fits in with the present day. But one must have the courage to look unreservedly into these things with regard to thinking.

The connection between this spiritual life and what is now happening in the other branches of the social organism cannot be understood unless one first fills one's head with the ideas contained in spiritual science. Why is spiritual science such an abomination to many people today? Well, because it demands that we think differently from the way people think. But the facts have taught us that the way of thinking in which humanity is stuck will not take us any further. People find this so difficult to get used to that they have to rethink. They cannot look at the facts.

Threefold social order: people find it difficult to understand today because they have not wanted to see what has really happened. The development of humanity has actually already realized a large part of the threefold social order in facts that are hidden from human view, but people are not adapting to this realization. Let me give you an example: if we go back to the 1960s, we find that the iron industry in Germany was such that at that time approximately 799,000 tons of raw materials had to be processed into iron: these 799,000 tons of raw materials were extracted by slightly more than 20,000 workers. By the end of the 1980s, due to the boom in the iron industry and the great demands placed on it by increased rail traffic on the one hand and large-scale war armament on the other — which later increased immeasurably — the iron industry had grown so much that it was no longer 799,000 tons of raw iron that were processed, but 4,500,000 tons of pig iron were already needed. Now you may ask: How many workers were needed to extract this pig iron? I said that just over 20,000 workers were needed to extract 799,000 tons. Then there were 4,500,000 tons. At the end of the 1980s, only about 21,300 people were needed for this. So please, let these figures speak to your mind, don't let them speak as statisticians speak, but take these figures at face value: a little over 20,000 people mined 799,000 tons in the early 1960s. Approximately 21,000 people, just a few more than that, produced 4,500,000 tons of pig iron at the end of the 1980s. How is that possible? You have to ask: How is that possible? It was only possible through incredibly complex technical improvements, only through the most extensive, almost immeasurable technical improvements that made it possible for one man to extract so much more pig iron. So for all the progress that has been made in this branch of industry—and one could say the same for twenty-five to thirty other leading branches of industry—for everything that has happened in such a branch of industry, such improvements have taken place.

What does that mean? What does it mean when almost the same number of people produce so much more through purely technical improvements? Do you think that has no consequences? Of course it has consequences, because the number of people has not increased significantly, so that the same number of people produce the same thing in such larger quantities that the entire rest of the economy that is connected to it is revolutionized. Just think what that means for the third branch of the threefold social organism. Nothing needs to change in legal or intellectual relations; only something has changed in economic relations. For everything that has changed has found expression in the price of iron and everything connected with it. This means nothing less than that, independently of spiritual development, of legal development—for you need no other law if you do not look at the whole picture—independently of this, economic life has detached itself and, without human participation, has been transformed. Things did their part, but people took no notice of them. This may be proof to you that the threefold division was taking place in reality. True economic theory advanced all by itself, but people did not keep up; they used their intellect to avoid having to keep up, to remain in the old conditions. No matter how enthusiastic one may be about the great capacity that went into the improvement, that is true, but it is not what matters today. What matters today is that economic life has emancipated itself. In price formation and in everything connected with price formation and currency formation, economic life has gone its own way. That is what matters. The three branches have basically emancipated themselves from one another, and people have artificially welded them together and been forced to weld them together more and more. That is how we got into the global catastrophe.

Things lie beneath the surface of what people want to think today. You have to look deep into the circumstances if you want to judge reality. I wanted to pick out such an example so that you can see how absurd it is to portray the threefold social order as nonsense. The threefold social order is derived from the most practical circumstances, while those who have been entrusted with the fate of humanity in recent decades have avoided adapting to practical circumstances. You can prove everywhere, using common sense, that this threefold division is the only thing we must work toward if we want to achieve a healthy development of the social organism. That is of no use today if individuals only think about how necessary it is to maintain the status quo because this or that cannot be dispensed with.

One encounters the strangest objections. One encounters some very twisted thinking. For example, I recently gave a lecture in Basel on the threefold social order. In the discussion that followed, a very intelligent man said: Yes, many excellent things have been said about this threefold social order, but it is impossible to understand it because justice is brought about only by the political state, that is, by one third of the social organism, whereas justice must also be present in economic life and in the life of the spirit. At the time, I had to respond with an image. I said, “Well, let's assume that a family in the countryside consists of a husband and wife, a couple of children, servants, maids, and three cows. The whole family needs milk, just as all three parts of the social organism need justice. But is it necessary for all family members to produce milk? That is certainly not necessary; rather, they will all be well supplied with milk if the three cows give milk. The same is true of the threefold social organism. The point is precisely that all three members must truly have justice, but they will only have it if justice is truly produced by the state organism, the middle member, just as milk is produced by cows. People's thinking is so distorted that they believe they must impose the most intelligent ideas on the simplest concepts.

Certainly, people who raise such objections are not stupid. One cannot say that they are stupid. I often consider the people who raise objections today to be very intelligent. I do not want to deny people's intelligence, but I would like to paraphrase a phrase from Shakespeare, “They are all honorable men,” and say: They are all intelligent people, all of them. But what matters is not merely finding intelligent thoughts, but finding the right thoughts, finding what can actually be used in reality, what can be put to use. And what matters is healthy thinking, thinking that can really penetrate reality, especially in the humanities. You can have the most complicated thoughts about external physical events, but you can only prove the most elementary things in pure mathematics and technology when someone has made a mistake: if someone builds a railway bridge incorrectly, the bridge may collapse when the third train passes over it. But you cannot prove, for example, from medical science, if so many people get well and so many people die, what part medical science has played in this. The matter is not so clear. And with regard to the social organism, the matter is even less clear. There, quack methods can spread in the most chaotic way.

One was left with the feeling that what had been ridiculed as old superstition had really taken root in more recent times, albeit in other areas. You all know the passage in the second part of Faust where the medieval idea of the homunculus is revived. Today, many people believe that it is superstition to want to create a homunculus. But it is also superstition to try to achieve this through mere intellectual judgments. They do not realize that they have simply transplanted their superstition into another area. What exists today as social theories wants to produce the social homunculus, wants to artificially assemble something out of pure intellect. The threefold social order aims precisely at the opposite. It does not seek to establish an artificial program, but to find out how human beings must come together in the threefold social order in order to find within themselves what is at stake. It goes straight to reality, to the reality in which human beings stand within the social organism. Because it is so different from what people have become accustomed to thinking of as homunculus ideas in recent decades, it is still so difficult to grasp today. That is why it is found incomprehensible, even though it contains hardly any incomprehensible or difficult-to-understand sentences. It is because people have forgotten how to think in a straightforward manner, because people are satisfied everywhere when they think in corners. Because they are only satisfied when they are supposed to think around corners, or when they can think what they are told to think by some authority or other.

On the other hand, it must not be overlooked that what underlies this threefold division summarizes some of what occurs one-sidedly here and there. It cannot be said that fruitful social ideas have not occurred in numerous minds; but they are mostly one-sided. I must therefore say that I agree with most of the people who have objections to me, but they do not agree with me. What they represent is correct from their one-sided point of view, but that does not get us anywhere, because one-sided points of view lead to some kind of realization which in turn causes damage on the other side. What matters today is that we deal with things in a comprehensive manner. That we do not ask, for example: What should we do with the money? This question, like the question of currency, will be resolved on the basis of independent economic life. That is what is important, that we understand things from reality. We do not need programs that have been spun out in detail by the intellect; we need impulses that relate to reality. Wherever we then take action, we will already be on the practical path. Only those who are theorists, while imagining themselves to be practitioners, are so inclined that they want to have specific programs for real life in every area. Such programs are not what we are talking about. There is something fundamental in what underlies this appeal and the book just completed. The aim is to work toward what can only be found in the real impulses of social life.

To make myself even clearer, I will use a comparison. It has often been said: If a single human being were to develop from infancy on an island, he would never learn to speak. Speech can only be learned in human society. This is true, because language is a social phenomenon, because society is necessary for human beings to speak. But this is also true in a different way for social impulses in the most comprehensive sense. Social life can only develop for a human being within the social organism. A single human being can never really establish a social program, because the inner, individual life is there for something completely different than to establish social programs. One can only say: This is how human beings must stand, this is how human beings must be oriented in the realm of spiritual life, this is how in the political realm, and this is how in relation to the economic realm. Then what is necessary will emerge. That is what matters. For if human beings use their individuality to develop a social program today, in the age of the consciousness soul, where everything is built on individuality, what will come of it? Let me give you an example: you talk today about Bolsheviks, about Lenin and Trotsky. Well, I will mention a third person who is just as much a Bolshevik as they are, only people do not notice it: Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Johann Gottlieb Fichte, whom we recognize as a completely ideal, as a great thinker. Read The Closed Commercial State. What Fichte develops there as a program differs so little from the Bolshevik program that you could easily attribute Fichte's “The Closed Commercial State” to Trotsky. Where does this come from? It comes from the fact that the individual human being today creates a social ideal, and Fichte did the same. Fichte was still living in an age when it was impossible to think of something like the realization of this “closed commercial state.” Only the catastrophe of war could lead to it. If the individual human being wants to create a comprehensive social program out of himself, that is what will happen. Fichte is proof of this. It will not become a social program, any more than an individual human being on an island can learn to speak. Therefore, the fundamental thing is to find the orientation, the structure of the social organism. It is not a matter of drawing up programs, but of finding the way in which people must live together in order to find what social impulses can be. What is based on reality is what addresses society and not the individual.

How often have I been told again and again in recent weeks: Yes, so-and-so is drawing up certain programs that regulate social life in every detail. But that is not the point; people have always done that. Just look at the countless utopias that exist. But it is not supposed to be a utopia; it is supposed to be something that is truly rooted in practical life. And that requires a feeling for what I have already mentioned here by way of comparison. I have often said that those who do not see the spiritual impulses in external reality seem to me like someone who has a semicircular piece of iron. Someone says to him: That is a magnet; it attracts other pieces of iron. But he says: Oh, come on, that is not a magnet; it is only used to shoe horses. That is also true. The two do not differ in that one is right and the other is wrong; but the deeper right is with the one who knows that it is a magnet and that it is wasteful to use iron as a horseshoe. So it is with external reality. Those who speak of materiality are right, but it is the spirit that makes up the whole reality. The point now is to return to this spirit, but it must not remain a mere phrase.

There are many preachers going through the world today. They do as those did who spoke of charity and brotherhood in halls of mirrors or in well-heated rooms. As I have already said: Oven, fulfill your duty as an oven, they say. So preachers go through the world and say: Misfortune has come upon humanity through materialism. People must turn back to the spirit. — Yes, one could even experience that this call was reproached for containing too little spirit, for devoting itself too much to material life. It does not matter that we talk about the spirit; what matters is that we know how to realize the spirit. He who always talks only about spirit is not really grounded in spiritual knowledge: Spirit, spirit, spirit — but rather those who take the spirit into themselves in such a way that the spirit is truly able to solve the problems of life. That is what matters.

We could refrain from admonishing people to turn back to the spirit. What is important today is that we make an effort to make the spirit active and alive within ourselves. But people have gradually forgotten how to do this, precisely because the state has become something to them — yes, but what? In Faust, it is written, albeit as a lesson for girls, and philosophers have misunderstood it, seeking great depth in it: Does not the all-encompassing, the all-sustaining, sustain you, me, itself? But this is how people gradually came to talk about the state, especially during wartime. The all-encompassing, the all-sustaining, does it not sustain me, you, itself? In the subconscious of the people who taught this, the emphasis was naturally on “me.” For they attached great importance to the fact that they had a somewhat dignified, but in their own way not very inwardly active relationship with the spirit. What relationship did people have to the spirit? They strove to ensure that their descendants, up to a certain age, were trained by the state to become theologians, lawyers, or other professionals. Then they were to grow into the state, do everything the state demanded, and be particularly well suited to it. But where was the inner activity, the whole participation in the world process, which is the nerve center of spiritual science? It lay in the fact that people said: I want to receive my salary from the state until a certain age, but then I want to have my secure pension, that is, I will work for the state for as long as the state prescribes; then the state shall provide for a pension until the end of my life. And then, after the end of life, no active relationship was established, but rather a passive one: then the church would provide for the eternal bliss of the soul. Well, as a passive person, one was certainly well provided for, first placed in the bosom of the state, educated according to its principles, then working for it, then provided for by it until death, and then the church ensured eternal bliss without one having to take up the impulse of eternity within oneself. One could not lead a more wonderful life. A life without having to do anything oneself had increasingly become the ideal of people at the end of the nineteenth century and even at the beginning of the twentieth century. But it was only possible to think this way on the basis of the foundation I have spoken of: where people were not provided for until their death, but where, in recent times, people had begun to provide for them in a most meager way through all kinds of insurance schemes. That is why these people then began to see that nothing good could come out of the worldview of the ruling circles, and why they also began to lose faith in the post-mortem old-age and disability insurance provided by the Church with reference to eternal bliss.

You see, that is where we must start today. But we can only grasp reality if we are able to think practically about what is given in the threefold social order.