The Social Question
GA 328
3 February 1919, Zürich
I. The True Form of the Social Question
The concept contained in the words “social question” is something which thinking humanity has been occupied with for decades, occupied because this question has not only become urgent for the evolution of humanity, but it has become a burning question. In particular, one may say that the terrible war catastrophe which has broken over mankind during recent years has thrown its dark light on the social question in particular and its correlation to humanity's mobility in the immediate present.
As I wish to place the social enigma within the totality of history of more recent times I need to address in my upcoming lectures various things which are connected to the cause and course of the terrible catastrophe of war. In these introductory explorations, I only need to point out how, already at the war's starting point, it is clear how the social question works itself into every emotion of fear, clearly seen in those present at the beginning of the war. Certainly, a lot would have changed in 1914 when those who had encountered difficult decisions here or there, would no longer have stood under the fear of the question: ‘What will happen if the social movement becomes increasingly pertinent?’ Much which has crystallized out of this so-called war has sprung out of fear on the one hand and under complete misunderstanding of some leading personalities regarding the social question, on the other. Things would have developed in a different way if this fear and misunderstanding were not there. Then again, in the course of the war we see how personalities, who are active within the social movement, call for hope in themselves and others to activate the actual possibility towards restoring balance in the disharmony which has entered in such a shocking way into people's lives. Now, because these tragic events have infiltrated in a type of crisis, we see specific results have been left in the conquered countries: the most urgent necessity to take a stand towards the social question and to intervene in the social demands appearing in the history of this time.
Out of all of this, a thinking person viewing life at present, who wants to become familiar with present day habits, can gather how something appears in the social question which all members of humanity have been occupied with for an extremely long time. Just at this moment when, as we said, solutions to the social question are promoted in these conquered countries, something like tragedy is stored in the largest part of civilised humanity.
By looking at the spiritual efforts, at literature and anything similar which for many decades have appeared within meetings and in discussions with the intention of relating them to the social question, it appears as an immense amount of human labour in the minds of mankind. Never before has the social question been approached with such liveliness as today. Today the social demands are apparent in life itself. Despite all efforts, penetrating thoughts, despite the best will being shown in the last decades which have been instilled in capabilities, it was still insufficient to deal with the social question as it comes to the fore in its true form today when placed before the life of the human soul. Something unbelievably tragic is stored against the efforts of present day humanity. Something on which humanity has been preparing itself for such a long time, now met only those who one would like to believe had authority, but for which they were apparently quite unprepared.
For those who weren't occupied with the social question from the viewpoint of theoretical science, nor out of mere notions and not from one sided party views in the last decades, those would have discovered that the most powerful contradictions of life in just these areas always come to light. Perhaps the following is one of the most obvious contradictions in the areas of social life which has come forward. Much has been heard in discussion, much can be read by people whose lives are orientated towards the modern social movement. When within the midst of a discussion, standing within the will of a modern workforce itself one always has the feeling: Yes, here various things are discussed regarding many questions and various life forces. There is an attempt to give one or the other impulse a direction. However, in what one could call social will is something completely different to what is spoken about. Regarding any kind of event in life, no can one come to a clearer feeling than this: a more or less greater role is played by the subconscious, undeclared elements than what comes to the fore through apparently clear concepts delivered in a sober discussion. Here is the point where one can find the connection and not doubt the attempt in approaching the social question from a specific point of view.
Here in Zurich and in other Swiss towns I have often spoken about the question of spiritual science. From the standpoint of spiritual scientific research, I have also approached the social question for decades. If you hear about people who consider themselves practical you can certainly doubt that a convincing result will solve some relevant question out of simple spiritual research. Only contradiction, which I have pointed out in the striving within social life, drives away this doubt. One sees how important personalities within the social movement smile when the argument turns to people's desire to find a solution for the social question out of this or that spiritual effort; they smile because for them it is an ideology, a grey theory. Out of thoughts, out of mere spiritual life, so they think, nothing can be attributed towards the burning social question of the present. However, if you look more closely then it becomes obvious how the actual nerve, the actual foundation for the modern-day proletarian movement does not lie in what they are talking about, but it lies in their thoughts.
The modern proletarian movement is, perhaps like no other similar movement in the world—when one looks more closely it strikes you in the most imminent way—a movement born out of thoughts. This I don't say purely out of consideration. If I'm permitted to add a personal remark it would be this: For years I have taught in an educational school among the most varied branches of proletarian workers. I learnt to know what lives and strives in the souls of the modern proletarian worker. From this I came to recognise what lived in the labour unions in the most varied occupations and range of professions. Thus, not only from the point of view of theoretic consideration like in a clever play of words do I want to express it, but as the result of a real experience in life. Whosoever—this is so seldom the case in leading intellectuals—has learnt to know the modern worker's movement, where it is carried by the workers, will know what a wonderful phenomenon this is, how a certain direction of thought, a certain stream of thought has taken hold of these souls. It is this which makes it so difficult today to take a position regarding the social question, because such a small possibility exists for the understanding, the mutual understanding of the classes. The middle class has difficulty in placing themselves into the souls of the proletarians, they can hardly understand how it came about, one could call it, that a still unknown mind with an elementary intelligence could find a place such as this—be as it may towards this content—that one can have human thought develop the highest measure for an applied system, like the philosophy of Karl Marx.
Certainly, the philosophy of Karl Marx can be accepted by one and rejected by another, perhaps on the same grounds as the other. It may well be revised later for those observing social life after the death of Marx and his friend Engels. I do not wish to speak about the content of this philosophy at all. The most important for me is the fact presented: there worked a forceful thought impulse within the workforce, within the proletarian world. Added to this, one can express it in the following way: a practical movement, a pure philosophy of life with universal human claims has never stood nearly as totally alone based on a purely scientific thought as this modern proletarian movement. It is to some extent the first of its kind of movement in the world based purely on a scientific basis. Nevertheless, if all of this is considered—I've already indicated it—what the modern proletarian expresses about his personal thoughts, desires and experiences seem hardly important when considered through a penetrating examination of life.
Many people have fiercely shown how this modern proletarian social movement originated from the evolution of humanity during the last few centuries. Vehemently it was shown how the development of modern technology in particular, through the development of the modern nature of machines, actually created the proletariat in the modern sense; how through even the forceful scientific turnaround of the new time, it created the social question. Other sharp criticisms about the origin of the social question I do not wish to repeat. However, it seems important to me to characterize the present contradictions in this modern proletarian movement. Certainly, it is important that without the enormous turnaround, without the technical revolution of the new age the modern social movement could not have come to expression to such an extent. However intensively as its origins are claimed out of purely scientific impulses, out of economic powers, out of class clashes and out of class struggles, what is obvious in social life today does not stand as coming from mere scientific oppositions, mere scientific forces if considered through penetrating soul observations of the modern proletariat. Those who are familiar with a spiritual scientific approach who considers all that is human, the refinements and intimacies of soul life, even though these carriers of the soul life are often not conscious, for them it is clear that nothing which is technically or scientifically created has an importance in today's social question but that the facts are important which relate to the entirely different interrelationships in life where some people are involved with machines in the realm of big capitalist enterprises. Through this placement something is awakened in these people that are not directly related to what surrounds them and the economic situation in which they are involved. What is awakened in them is far more connected to the deepest lifetime habits of modern humanity.
If history is only considered in this way, as it wants to do now again in the newer time out of social science which says results follow from what went before—processes always refer to earlier causes—it indicates that forces of change and evolution are not considered as being alive in reality, but are being seen as mere cause and effect—one could call it the sober, arid connection of cause and effect expressed at certain points of its revolutionary development.
Take a single example in human development. For my sake let's take, if we may call it ‘successive’ development, what happens between birth and the first change of teeth. An enormous transformation takes place in the human body. Just observe what develops during this period of life. There is no obvious straight line connecting cause and effect. Then again, we can consider what happens between the seventh and fourteenth years, fifteen years and so on, in order to follow a straight line of development from cause to effect. Now again a revolutionary formation in the human body takes place towards adolescence. These changes are less obvious later but they are there. Just like such things happen which ruin the repetition of comfortable but inaccurate claims that Nature makes no jumps, jumps that take place in single organisms, it does appear in the historical evolution of humanity. In the time between the middle of the 14th and 15th centuries up to today you have quite powerful evolutionary processes taking place in human consciousness itself.
Just as a single human organism becomes something different after puberty than in the specific direction it had been going before, just so the human social organism has become something different after the elementary, underlying aspects have been validated by not merely following the straight line of cause and effect. Whoever wishes to observe history knows that before present time, humanity reacted instinctively but that now we enter our present time in full consciousness, it must be approached with full awareness. Due to this the social movement takes on a particular characteristic, expressed in a word which does not characterise it intensively enough: proletarian class consciousness. With this expression ‘proletarian class consciousness’ one should take less into account that it points to a necessary battle where proletarians get mixed up with other classes but rather much more that the social instincts which lived in the souls of the proletarians earlier, have now been transformed into a social awareness. Earlier, class instinct existed. Now the basis of the social movement is class consciousness.
This class consciousness, one could say, is only superficially indicated when one takes the wording: proletarian class consciousness. What is hidden in this expression ‘proletarian class consciousness’ is something quite different. It could be said—when one wants to briefly characterise this serious fact—within the relationships of historical occupations, for example expressed in the handwork or other crafts of olden days, lies specific social instincts which shone through human souls and worked out of human souls. These instincts enabled a process to be brought about between the way people thought, felt and acted, what they treasured for their honour, their joy and their aesthetic needs. This work itself gave something to the people.
When people were introduced to machines, when they entered into the totally impersonal mechanism of modern capitalism, it was no longer clearly transparent how the remuneration for the human performance was evaluated but monetary increase of capital became most important, so people were driven on the one side by the power of machines and on the other side into modern capitalistic economic regulations, having been torn out of their present day relationship to the world and life which gave them something personal, something towards personal joy, personal honour and personal will impulses. They were to some extent placed on the pinnacle of the personal beside the machine, within the purely objective, impersonal circulation of goods and capital, which they did not basically care for on a human personal level. However, the human soul always strives for fulfilment, wants to unfold its entire circumference. The workers, torn from their characterised other relationships in life, were torn loose from a full human life and were urged to reflect about human dignity, urged to recreate human dignity.
So, hidden behind what we called proletarian class consciousness in modern history's evolution was actually a dawning, a brightening up of a self-created human consciousness out of the souls of the people. Steering the consciousness gave rise to the question: What am I as a human being? What meaning do I have as a human being in the world?—Experiencing this gave the opportunity to proletarians while being positioned beside machines denying humanity, next to capital denying humanity.
I do still believe that the entire consideration of the social question is placed on another basis if one thinks that, while the rest of humanity more or less out of the context of their lives were not brought out of old instincts as radically and revolutionarily and drawn into the modern consciousness, the modern proletarian radically entered into a conscious understanding of themselves, whereas before they had been driven by instincts and human dignity for individuals in the community.
The arrival of consciousness in the soul of proletarians is connected to all kinds of other things which appeared earlier in human evolution. Its arrival coincides with certain steps in human thought, with certain steps in human development. Basically, the historical development of humanity is poorly understood. The historical development of humanity is basically always approached from one or other party. Whoever considers humanity's development objectively often sees it as completely different from how statements are made about this development. One can also say that whoever looks at what presently enjoys the most authority today, namely science, knows, anything proven with absolute objectivity has developed out of a previous element and clearly carries indications of its origin which can in turn take on other forms. If you look at science and its brilliant methods, at its endless conscientious research, so suitable at penetrating the phenomena of nature, then you see that the most pervasive statement it has to admit to is that basically it is hardly appropriate for understanding the deepest, most intimate human feelings and experiences, that it has little to say about actual concerns of the human being when he or she turns their gaze to self-knowledge and mindfulness. Science itself has also to some extent torn itself away from human beings. It no longer carries a personal character and it no longer speaks about the spiritual, super-sensory or eternal in human beings. If science does mention it then it is clearly shown as is the fashion today, that it neither has the corresponding methods nor the corresponding ways to research it.
One can look back to a time when the form of science within the development of humanity was fully integrated in the religious conception of life, with religious experience and scientific observation. The two separated. What was once united split around the same time when this revolution towards objectivity started, the time of machines, when modern capitalism found expression. At the time of this radical scientific change it was also the time religious evolution came to a standstill and did not want to cooperate with scientific developments. At the time Giordano Bruno became criticized over Galileo Galilei (heliocentrism), remnants remained of a withdrawal from intimate human experiences and feelings which needed expression about nature and the world as such. Humanity lost the belief that knowledge could be penetrated with a religious glow, with religious warmth. Today one is proud that science can remain free from all that is blameworthy in religion. During this time when science freed itself more and more from religion, wanting to become free of the spirit, into this time came the development of the proletarian consciousness, the apprehension of the human consciousness through the Proletariat.
Proletarianism penetrated into modern thinking, into modern intelligence, which can be grasped by human intelligence. It founded a science which no longer had the impact to capture and fulfil the whole human being. This resulted in the modern Proletariat having a specific form. The spiritual awareness of humanity, the spiritual consciousness of earlier classes which existed in earlier times lost the impact and human circumstances more or less were delivered to abstract science. Thus, the Proletarians in this new time saw science in opposition to their souls, science which did not instil trust that something can come out of it as a most true, inner spiritual reality living in the outer sensory, scientific activity. This was the type of science the Proletarian confronted, was set against. It lived into human beings. From the spiritual evolutionary basis, something rose up and today appears as a naturalness, as an absolute truth, which can only be recognised in its true nature if you have the ability to see what is happening in the soul of a person. An observer with deeper insight is moved the most by the manner and way which the modern Proletarian talk about actual spiritual affairs, about customs, morality, art, religion, even about science within evolution, that all of this is included by expressions of ideals. This is the most moving. In particular, it is most moving to know that the modern Proletarian clearly believes that everything, from thought, artistic creativity and religious experience actually arises out of the human soul as a falsely created image, an ideology. The actual reality is however scientific battles, economic causes; they represent reality. The reflection within the soul is human evolution, considered as ideological. At least this throws an impulse back into the pure materialistic reality of economic events. Even though it works back on economic events, it still has had its origins developed out of economic events.
This statement about spiritual life living in the modern proletarian question was something far more real than what is thought. Why have art, customs, morality, religion and the spiritual life of the modern Proletarian become an ideology? Because earlier ruling circles presented a science which no longer wanted to uphold a living relationship with the actual spiritual world, a science which no longer pointed to an impulse directed at actual spirituality. Such a science can at most lead to abstract concepts of natural laws. It can lead to nothing other than seeing the spiritual as an ideology. It produces methods which are only suitable on the one side for the purely objective, non-human nature and within human life only as economic events. When the modern proletarian had to take over this direction of science, his gaze was as if conquered by a mighty suggestive power which can only be linked to such a science; the economic life. He now started to believe that this economic life could be the only reality because for him from a civil class, science becomes the directive as the only truth for his economic life.
This was an unbelievably critical element because this gave the proletarian movement its actual characteristic impulse. One can see how old instincts within this proletarian movement were still present, even in the last decades of the 19th Century. One still finds in some proletarian programs such items of discussion on the awareness of man's worth, the preoccupation of rights leading to such real worthiness. Since the nineties we see under the influence of this impulse which I've just mentioned, how the Proletarians and their learned advocate glances appear as a powerful persuasive force linked to economic life. They no longer believed a spiritual or soul element from elsewhere needed to enter as an impetus into the realm of the social movement. They believed that only through the development of the un-spiritual, economic life void of soul could a sense of man's worth be brought about. They aimed at revolutionizing economic life to such a degree that all the harm resulting from egoism of single workers in private enterprise would be taken from them and single employers doing justice to the demands of human worth from the side of the employees made impossible. Thus, the Proletarians considered the only salvation to be the transfer of all private property towards a means of production in a communal business or else a common ownership. In addition, this depended basically upon people deviating their gaze from any spiritual or soul elements, regarding the spiritual as mere ideology when there was a purely scientific method, firmly established, which could be steered towards a pure economic process.
A very peculiar fact now transpired, showing how many contradictions lay in this modern proletarian movement. The modern Proletarian believed that the economy itself had to develop in such a way as to finally become a full human right. To acquire human rights as it appeared to him, was what he fought for. However, within his aspiration something appeared which could never have originated if it came only out of economic life. This is an important, penetrating fact of discourse at the centre of various forms of the social question arising from life's necessities of present day humanity which was believed to have come out of economic life itself, but which did not originate from economic life but developed much more during the gradual evolution of the old serfdom of bodily possession during the feudal times leading up to the modern proletarian worker. Just as the circulation of goods, circulation of money, the nature of capital, possession, the nature of land and grounds and so on has developed something out of modern life which cannot be expressed clearly by the modern Proletarian, it is nevertheless clearly experienced as the actual foundation of social will. It is like this: the modern capitalistic economic order basically only knows about its goods within its areas of circulation. It knows about building wealth of goods within the economic organism. It is within the capitalistic organism of the newer age where it has become goods, but the Proletariat feels it may not be goods. However, if he focuses scientifically on economic life he can't say anything but: “It is goods.” That is in other words his own labour.
When a person realizes where the basic impulse of the social movement comes from, with his subconscious experiences through his instincts as a modern Proletariat, a disgust grows towards this idea that labour is sold to the employee just like goods, this disgust grows because his labour is dependent on supply and demand, it comes down to disgust for the labour commodity as the actual basic impulse of the modern social movement, when this is impartially considered and not penetrated and radically spoken about adequately as socialistic theories then the point is reached which gives rise to the urgent, nay burning question regarding the social movement.
In olden times, there were slaves. An entire person was sold as goods. In serfdom, a little less of a person was sold, but still nearly the whole person. Capital became the power which made people a form of goods, namely labour. A method needs to be found for dividing the rest of the circulation of goods with labour as goods. Humanity will only realize what hides behind this fact when the economy is not considered through persuasion but through quite another method, when applied to the human being itself, is understood, not out of economy but quite something different flowing in a way which distances the human worker away from the nature of goods. People must realise—and here spiritual scientific research is available as a basis—that the belief is wrong that through the consideration of only the economic system which only fits the scientific method, the way can be found of how the labour of individuals can become members of the social organism. Only when the understanding is reached that labour belongs to the economic system as much as processes in the lung-, heart- and circulatory systems are the same as in the nerves and head system, then one is on the same track. The nervous system and senses centralised in the head is an independent member of the human organism. The lung and heart system are also independent members. Similarly, with the digestive system. These things can be studied more precisely in my book Riddles of the Soul. It is characteristic of the human organism that through their correct development and processes they are not centralised but exist beside one another and work freely together. If one can't understand the human organism in this all-inclusive, penetrating way, then one could through science, which has not been renewed and needs spiritual science to reform it, not understand the social organism correctly. Today it is believed that the human organism is centralised, while it is in fact threefold.
In the same way, the social organism is threefold. Today the powerful persuasion considered as the economic system, is only one member. Another member which needs to come out of this is an understanding of the function of human labour in the entire structure of the social organism. The two systems need to exist side by side. The attribute linked to goods by the labour force is wrongly given by modern thinking. This narrow minded, modern thinking which needs to place the third independent member into the social organism, the spiritual life, is made into a mere ideology. The theoretical view that spirituality is mere ideology, is the most harmless. The important element is that people who have the point of view that the spirit is not rooted at the base of all things in reality, but that it's only an ideology, can't be the real spiritual impulse. Such a person has no interest in his spiritual life allocating his true role in the world. By examining the more modern necessities of life in the proletarian consciousness then one finds no possible insight in the three aspects of the social organism. It was lost to them. Nationalization was striven for because it was believed to be the only social organization which could conquer everything. Spiritual scientific awareness may reveal a wider horizon as even today in this burning time of appointed leaders it is often given with reference to the social question. It needs to be pointed out that what is, is really needed is the necessity to renew thinking, the necessity to not only develop a scientific way of observing social life which is being substituted by traditional science but that it is necessary to recreate a science, a new way of thinking which will become a reality in the social organism, in human consciousness. This will have to lead to so much unhappiness in modern times being removed from consciousness. Those who do not work theoretically but out of life itself, as I believe they have done so during this hour, are also dispatched and made harmless by those who call themselves practical, by saying: ‘Oh, from such theoretical things nothing advantageous comes into the world.’ These people who practice practicality for life, who are the real members of abstractions, these people whose practice is nothing other than the limitation of their senses by the narrowest boundaries, these have caused a multitude of bad luck and catastrophes lately. If they are able to economise further in all party directions, misfortunes will not come to an end but will spread out immensely. The real life-practitioners must maintain their proper positions in the public sphere and speak about developmental possibilities in the spatial and temporal social organism as in the case of every single human being. These real life-practitioners who speak out of a deeper reality are the ones upon whom we may depend. They are the ones who do not need to disbelieve their own knowledge. However, as practical people, also socialistic life practitioners, they see their suffering and their regret on the other side with only the belief that it will lead nowhere else other than to the depletion of life. Those who as life practitioners want to work out of the spirit, strive out of reality towards viable reality.
Regarding the sense in which solutions can be found to the question I attempted out of newer habits of today and revealing their true form, how attempts at finding solutions could be proven on the basis of an examination of the reality of social life and the community's structure of humanity, I will allow myself to speak about, the day after tomorrow.
Erster Vortrag
Die wirkliche Gestalt der sozialen Frage, erfaßt aus den Lebensnotwendigkeiten der gegenwärtigen Menschheit auf Grund geisteswissenschaftlicher Untersuchung
Was sich heute einschließt in das Wort soziale Frage, ist etwas, das die denkende Menschheit zu einem großen Teile intensiv seit Jahrzehnten beschäftigt, beschäftigt weil diese soziale Frage heute, man kann sagen, nicht nur drängend ist für die Entwickelung der Menschheit, sondern brennend geworden ist. Insbesondere aber darf man sagen, daß die furchtbare kriegerische Katastrophe, welche in den letzten Jahren über die Menschheit hereingebrochen ist, auch ihr düsteres Licht geworfen hat gerade auf das, was man die soziale Frage und die damit zusammenhängende Menschheitsbewegung der unmittelbaren Gegenwart nennt.
Da ich das soziale Rätsel in die ganze geschichtliche Bewegung der neueren Zeit hineinstellen muß, werde ich in den nächsten Vorträgen über mancherlei Dinge, welche mit Ursache und Verlauf der furchtbaren kriegerischen Katastrophe zusammenhängen, zu sprechen haben. In diesen einleitenden Ausführungen möchte ich nur darauf hinweisen, wie schon im Ausgangspunkt des Krieges sich zeigte das Hereinkraften der sozialen Frage in jenen Angstemotionen, die deutlich wahrzunehmen sind bei denjenigen, welche am Ausgangspunkt dieses Krieges standen. Gewiß wäre vieles anders geworden im Jahre 1914, wenn diejenigen, die da oder dort wichtige Entscheidungen zu treffen gehabt haben, nicht unter der Angst gestanden hätten: Was soll werden, wenn die soziale Bewegung immer mehr und mehr sich geltend macht? Vieles, was sich in diesem sogenannten Kriege herausgestaltet hat, hat sich herausgestaltet unter der Furcht auf der einen Seite und unter dem vollen Mißverständnis von seiten mancher führender Persönlichkeiten gegenüber der sozialen Frage auf der anderen Seite. Manches hätte sich anders gestaltet, wäre diese Furcht und dieses Mißverständnis nicht dagewesen. Und wiederum, im Verlaufe des Krieges sehen wir, wie Persönlichkeiten, die innerhalb der sozialen Bewegung sich betätigen, Hoffnungen hervorrufen bei sich und anderen, daß gerade die Möglichkeit sich zeigen könnte, zu diesem oder jenem Ausgleich der Disharmonien zu kommen, die in so schrecklicher Weise in das Menschenleben eingezogen sind. Und jetzt, da diese tragischen Ereignisse in eine Art von Krise eingezogen sind, sehen wir, wie insbesondere in den besiegten Ländern zurückgeblieben ist als Ergebnis: drängendste Notwendigkeit, zu der sozialen Frage Stellung zu nehmen, in dasjenige einzugreifen, was als soziale Forderungen in die Zeitgeschichte eintritt.
Schon aus alledem könnte derjenige, der das Leben der Gegenwart denkend überblickt, der nur irgendwie die Neigung hat, sich bekanntzumachen mit den Lebensgewohnheiten der Gegenwart, er könnte ersehen, wie in der sozialen Frage gerade jetzt etwas auftaucht, womit sich alle Glieder der menschlichen Gesellschaft werden lange, sehr, sehr lange zu beschäftigen haben. Und gerade in diesem Zeitpunkt, wo, wie gesagt, in den besiegten Ländern das Leben einfach Lösungsversuche der sozialen Frage fordert, lagert jetzt etwas wie Tragik über einem groBen Teile der zivilisierten Menschheit.
Überblickt man die geistigen Leistungen, die Literatur und alles ähnliche, das seit vielen Jahrzehnten aufgetaucht ist innerhalb der Besprechungen, der Diskussionen, der Bestrebungen in bezug auf die soziale Frage, es ist ein Unermeßliches an Menschenarbeit, an Menschendenken. Aber niemals stand man den sozialen Problemen so lebendig gegenüber wie heute. Heute zeigt sich am I.eben selbst, was als soziale Forderung auftritt. Es scheint, als ob trotz aller Anstrengungen, eindringlichstem Denken, trotz bestem Wollen, das sich geltend gemacht hat in den letzten Jahrzehnten, doch das, was sich an Fähigkeiten herausgebildet hat, durch und durch ungenügend war, um die soziale Frage, so wie sie in ihrer wahren Gestalt heute durch das Leben vor die Menschenseele gestellt wird, zu bewältigen. Das lagert wie etwas ungeheuer Tragisches über den Bestrebungen der gegenwärtigen Menschheit. Etwas, worauf man sich so lange vorbereitet hat, es trifft gerade diejenigen, von denen man glauben möchte, daß sie maßgebend wären, anscheinend ganz unvorbereitet.
Wer nicht vom Gesichtspunkte theoretischer Wissenschaft, nicht aus bloßen Begriffen heraus und auch nicht aus einseitigen Parteianschauungen heraus in den letzten Jahrzehnten sich mit der sozialen Frage beschäftigt hat, der hat finden können, daß die mächtigsten Lebenswidersprüche gerade auf diesem Gebiete immer zutage getreten sind. Und vielleicht ist der folgende einer der bemerkenswertesten Widersprüche, die auf dem Gebiete des sozialen Lebens zutage getreten sind. Vieles hat man diskutieren hören, über vieles hat man lesen können durch Leute, die vom Leben selbst hineingestellt waren in die moderne soziale Bewegung. Überall hatte man, gerade wenn man vielleicht mitten drinnen stand in der Diskussion, mitten drinnen stand in dem Wollen der modernen Arbeiterschaft selbst, überall hatte man das Gefühl: Ja, da wird mancherlei gesprochen, da wird über viele Fragen, über mancherlei Lebenskräfte gesprochen. Man versucht, diesen oder jenen Impulsen Richtungen zu geben. Aber in dem, was man nennen könnte soziales Wollen, liegt noch etwas ganz, ganz anderes als das, was da ausgesprochen wird. Kaum irgendeiner Lebenserscheinung gegenüber konnte man so deutlich das Gefühl haben: das mehr oder weniger Unterbewußte, Unausgesprochene, spielt eine größere Rolle als das, was in scheinbar klare Begriffe, in nüchterne Diskussionen hineinverlegt worden ist. Hier ist der Punkt, wo man den Anhalt dafür finden kann, nicht zu verzweifeln bei den Versuchen, gerade von einem bestimmten Gesichtspunkte aus den sozialen Rätseln sich zu nähern.
Ich habe ja hier in Zürich, in anderen Städten der Schweiz, öfter gerade über Fragen der Geisteswissenschaft sprechen dürfen. Vom Standpunkte dieser geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschung suchte ich mich auch seit Jahrzehnten den sozialen Rätseln zu nähern. Hört man heute manche, die sich Praktiker dünken, dann könnte man gewiß verzweifeln daran, irgend etwas Ersprießliches leisten zu können für die einschlägigen Fragen vom Gesichtspunkte der bloßen geistigen Forschung aus. Allein gerade das Widerspruchsvolle, auf das ich hinzudeuten habe in den Bestrebungen innerhalb des sozialen Lebens, das treibt diese Verzweiflung wieder weg. Denn man sieht, wie wichtige Persönlichkeiten innerhalb der sozialen Bewegung lächeln, wenn die Rede darauf kommt, man wolle durch diese oder jene geistigen Bestrebungen etwas beitragen zur Lösung der sozialen Frage; sie belächeln das als Ideologie, als eine graue Theorie. Aus dem Gedanken heraus, aus dem bloßen Geistesleben heraus, so meinen sie, werde gewiß nichts beigetragen werden können zu den brennenden sozialen Fragen der Gegenwart. Aber sieht man genauer zu, dann drängt es sich einem auf, wie der eigentliche Nerv, der eigentliche Grundimpuls der modernen, gerade proletarischen Bewegung nicht in dem liegt, wovon der heutige Proletarier spricht, sondern gerade liegt in Gedanken.
Die moderne proletarische Bewegung ist, wie vielleicht noch keine ähnliche Bewegung der Welt -— wenn man sie genauer anschaut, zeigt sich dies im eminentesten Sinne -, eine Bewegung aus Gedanken entsprungen. Dies sage ich nicht bloß wie ein Aperçu. Wenn es mir gestattet ist, eine persönliche Bemerkung einzufügen, so sei es diese: Ich habe jahrelang innerhalb einer Arbeiterbildungsschule in den verschiedensten Zweigen proletarischen Arbeitern Unterricht erteilt. Ich habe kennengelernt, was in der Seele des modernen proletarischen Arbeiters lebt und strebt. Von da ausgehend habe ich kennengelernt, was in den Gewerkschaften der verschiedenen Berufe und Berufsrichtungen lebt. Also nicht bloß vom Gesichtspunkte theoretischer Erwägungen, wie in einem Aperçu, ist das ausgesprochen, was ich sagen will, sondern als Ergebnis wirklicher Lebenserfahrung.
Wer — was bei den führenden Intellektuellen leider so wenig der Fall ist —, wer die moderne Arbeiterbewegung da kennengelernt hat, wo sie von Arbeitern getragen wird, der weiß, welch wunderbares Phänomen dieses ist, wie eine gewisse Gedankenrichtung, eine gewisse Gedankenströmung die Seele gerade dieser Menschen in der intensivsten Weise ergriffen hat. Das ist ja das, was es so schwierig macht heute, zu den sozialenRätselnStellungzunehmen, daß eineso geringe Möglichkeit des Verständnisses, des gegenseitigen Verständnisses der Klassen da ist. Die bürgerlichen Klassen können heute sich so schwer in die Seele des Proletariers hineinversetzen, können so schwer verstehen, wie in der, ich möchte sagen, noch undekadenten Intelligenz, in der elementarischen Intelligenz Platz greifen konnte ein solches — mag man nun zum Inhalte stehen, wie man will-, ein solches, an menschliche Denkforderungen höchste Maßstäbe anlegendes System, wie das Denksystem von Karl Marx.
Gewiß, Karl Marxens Denksystem kann von dem einen angenommen, von dem anderen widerlegt werden, vielleicht das eine mit denselben guten Gründen wie das andere. Es konnte revidiert werden von denen, die das soziale Leben weiter betrachten nach Marxens und seines Freundes Engels Tode. Von dem Inhalt dieses Systems will ich gar nicht sprechen, von dem Inhalt dieses Gedankensystems. Der scheint mir das allerwenigst Bedeutungsvolle. Das Bedeutungsvollste erscheint mir, daß die Tatsache vorliegt: Innerhalb der Arbeiterschaft selbst, innerhalb der proletarischen Welt wirkt als mächtigster Impuls ein Gedankensystem. Man kann geradezu die Sache in der folgenden Art aussprechen: Eine praktische Bewegung, eine reine Lebensbewegung mit alleralltäglichsten Menschheitsforderungen stand noch niemals so fast ganz allein auf einer rein wissenschaftlichen, gedanklichen Grundlage wie diese moderne Proletarierbewegung. Sie ist gewissermaßen sogar die erste derartige Bewegung der Welt, die sich rein auf eine wissenschaftliche Grundlage gestellt hat. Dennoch, wenn man wiederum alles das nimmt —ich deutete es schon an -, was der moderne Proletarier über sein eigenes Meinen und Wollen und Empfinden zu sagen hat, so scheint einem das bei eindringlicher Lebensbeobachtung durchaus nicht als das Wichtige.
Nun haben viele in einer sehr scharfsinnigen Weise gezeigt, wie diese moderne proletarische soziale Bewegung heraus entstanden ist aus der Menschheitsentwickelung der letzten Jahrhunderte. Scharfsinnig gezeigt worden ist, wie insbesondere durch die Entwickelung der modernen Technik, durch die Entwickelung des modernen Maschinenwesens . eigentlich das Proletariat im modernen Sinne erst geschaffen worden ist, wie durch den gewaltigen wirtschaftlichen Umschwung der neueren Zeit eben die moderne soziale Frage entstanden ist. Was andere in einer so scharfsinnigen Weise gerade über diese Entstehung der sozialen Frage gesagt haben, ich will es hier nicht wiederholen. Aber mir scheint es notwendig, gerade auf das hinzuweisen, was die vorhandenen Lebenswidersprüche in dieser modernen proletarischen Bewegung charakterisiert. Gewiß istes richtig, daß ohne den gewaltigen Umschwung, ohne die technische Revolution der neueren Zeit die moderne soziale Bewegung nicht in der Gestalt hätte kommen können, in der sie nun einmal heraufgezogen ist. Allein so intensiv es auch behauptet wird, daß bloß aus wirtschaftlichen Impulsen, aus ökonomischen Kräften, aus Klassengegensätzen, aus Klassenkämpfen heraus sich dasjenige ergeben habe, was im sozialen Leben heute sich zeigt, vor einer eindringlichen Seelenbeobachtung des modernen Proletariers hält die Behauptung, daß nur wirtschaftliche Gegensätze, nur wirtschaftliche Kräfte dabei im Spiele seien, nicht stand. Gerade derjenige, der gewöhnt ist aus der Geisteswissenschaft heraus, bei allem Menschlichen hinzublicken auf die Feinheiten und Intimitäten des seelischen Lebens, die dem Träger dieses Seelenlebens oftmals selbst nicht bewußt sind, gerade dem ist es klar, daß nicht das, was sich technisch, wirtschaftlich herausgebildet hat, das Wesentliche ist in der Gestaltung der heutigen sozialen Frage, sondern daß die Tatsache bedeutungsvoll ist, daß aus ganz anderen Lebenszusammenhängen heraus gewisse Menschen zu dem Betrieb der Maschine in der Art des großkapitalistischen Betriebes hingestellt worden sind, und daß durch dieses Hinstellen in diesen Menschen etwas erwacht ist, was nicht in unmittelbarem Zusammenhange mit dem steht, was wirtschaftlich um sie ist, und in das sie wirtschaftlich verstrickt sind. Was da erwacht ist, das hängt vielmehr zusammen mit den tiefsten Lebensgewohnheiten der modernen Menschheit.
Wer die Geschichte nur so betrachtet, wie es nun auch die sozialistische Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit wiederum tun will, daß man immer sagt, das Folgende gehe aus dem Vorhergehenden hervor, Wirkung führe immer auf eine Ursache zurück, der berücksichtigt nicht, daß Wandelkräfte, Umgestaltungskräfte in der lebendigen Wirklichkeit vorhanden sind, die den bloßen Zusammenhang von Utsache und Wirkung, ich möchte sagen: des nüchternen, trockenen Zusammenhangs von Ursache und Wirkung, an bestimmten Punkten dieser Entwickelung revolutionierend gestalten.
Sehen wir hin auf die einzelne menschliche Entwickelung. Wir können sie, wenn man so sagen darf, sukzessive verfolgen, meinetwillen von der Geburt bis zum siebenten Lebensjahre ungefähr, wo der Zahnwechsel eintritt. Da ist eine mächtige Revolution in der Entwickelung des menschlichen Organismus. Man muß den Blick hinrichten auf das, was da gerade in dieser Periode des Lebens geschieht. Da ist nicht bloß ein geradliniger Zusammenhang von Ursache und Wirkung. Dann geht es wiederum vom siebenten bis annähernd in das vierzehnte, fünfzehnte Jahr hinein so, daß man eine geradlinige Entwickelung von Ursache und Wirkung verfolgen kann. Dann aber folgt wiederum eine revolutionierende Gestaltung im menschlichen Organismus bei der Geschlechtsreife. Weniger bemerkbar sind später solche Umwandlungen, aber sie sind auch da. Wie so im einzelnen menschlichen Leben solche Dinge sich abspielen, welche zuschanden machen das immer und immer wiederholte bequeme, aber durchaus unrichtige Wort, die Natur mache keine Sprünge, wie im einzelnen Organismus solche Sprünge vorhanden sind, so auch in der geschichtlichen Entwickelung der Menschheit. Einfach haben sich innerhalb derjenigen Zeit, die sich etwa begrenzen läßt von der Mitte des 14., 15. Jahrhunderts bis heute, die weiter laufen wird, mächtige Umwandlungsprozesse im menschlichen Bewußtsein selber abgespielt.
So wie der einzelne menschliche Organismus ein anderer ist, wenn er geschlechtsreif geworden ist, als er vorher war in einer gewissen Richtung, so ist der menschliche soziale Organismus etwas anderes geworden, nachdem die elementaren, grundlegenden, nicht bloß innerhalb der geraden Linie von Ursache und Wirkung aufzufindenden Impulse sich geltend gemacht haben. Wer genauer das geschichtliche Leben zu beobachten vermag, der weiß, daß vor diesem Zeitraum in der Menschheit vieles instinktiv sich abgespielt hat, was in diesem Zeitraum eintritt in die volle Bewußtheit, was aufgenommen werden muß von der vollen Bewußtheit. Daher nimmt die soziale Bewegung in dieser Zeit, für die sie besonders charakteristisch ist, die Gestalt an, die in dem ja oft gebrauchten Wort, das nur nicht intensiv genug charakterisiert wird, zutage tritt: proletarisches Klassenbewußtsein. Bei diesem Wort «proletarisches Klassenbewußtsein» sollte man viel weniger darauf Rücksicht nehmen, daß es hindeutet auf den notwendigen Kampf, in den sich der Proletarier gegen die anderen Klassen verstrickt glaubt, man sollte vielmehr darauf hinweisen, daß etwas eingezogen ist in die Seele des Proletariers in einem Zeitalter, in dem soziale Instinkte, die früher gewaltet haben, in soziales Bewußtsein sich umgestalten. Früher waren Klasseninstinkte vorhanden. Nunmehr liegt zugrunde der sozialen Bewegung Klassenbewußtsein.
Dieses Klassenbewußtsein, es ist, ich möchte sagen, nur der Oberfläche nach bezeichnet, wenn man den Wortlaut ernst nimmt: proletarisches Klassenbewußtsein. Das, was sich in diesem Wort «proletarisches Klassenbewußtsein» versteckt, das ist etwas ganz anderes. Und es läßt sich vielleicht, wenn man kurz eine wichtige Tatsache charakterisieren will, diese Tatsache so charakterisieren: Innerhalb alter Berufszusammenhänge, wie sie sich zum Beispiel im alten Handwerk oder in anderen Berufen zum Ausdrucke brachten, lagen gewisse soziale Instinkte, die in die menschliche Seele hereinleuchteten, die in der menschlichen Seele krafteten. Diese Instinkte konnten wirken, so daß sie ein gewisses persönliches Band bildeten zwischen dem, was der Mensch denkt, fühlt, will, was er für seine Ehre, für seine Freude, für sein ästhetisches Bedürfnis hält. Die Arbeit selbst gab den Menschen für alle diese Dinge etwas.
Als der Mensch an die Maschine gestellt worden war, als er in das durchaus unpersönliche Getriebe des modernen Kapitalismus hineingestellt wurde, wo nicht mehr klar durchsichtig für die verfertigte Menschenleistung das Entgelt auftritt, sondern wo die Vermehrung des Kapitals durch das Kapital das Wesentliche ist, also der Mensch hineingestellt worden ist auf der einen Seite in das Maschinengetriebe, auf der anderen Seite in den modernen Kapitalismus und seine Wirtschaftsordnung, da war er herausgerissen aus denjenigen Welt- und Lebenszusammenhängen, die ihm etwas gaben für sein Persönliches, für seine persönliche Freude, für seine persönliche Ehre, für seine persönlichen Willensimpulse. Er war gewissermaßen auf die Spitze seiner Persönlichkeit gestellt neben der Maschine, innerhalb der rein objektiven, unpersönlichen Zirkulation von Ware und Kapital, die ihn menschlich-persönlich im Grunde nichts anging. Aber die menschliche Seele will immer in einer gewissen Weise voll wirken, will immer ihren ganzen Umfang eigentlich entfalten. Und so wurde der Arbeiter, der entrissen wurde aus den charakterisierten anderen Lebenszusammenhängen, der hineingestellt wurde in einen Zusammenhang, der losgerissen ist von der volllebendigen Menschlichkeit, darauf hingewiesen, über seine Menschenwürde nachzusinnen, seine Menschenwürde nachzuempfinden.
Und so verbirgt sich hinter dem, was man proletarisches Klassenbewußtsein nennt, in der modernen geschichtlichen Entwickelung in Wahrheit ein Heraufdämmern, ein Heraufglänzen eines vollen, aus dem Menschenwesen, aus der menschlichen Seele selbst geschöpften Menschenbewußtseins. Hinlenkung des Bewußtseins auf die Frage: Was bin ich als Mensch? — auf die Frage: Was bedeute ich als Mensch in der Welt? - das zu empfinden hatte derjenige Gelegenheit, der als Proletarier hingestellt war neben die den Menschen verleugnende Maschine, neben das den Menschen verleugnende Kapital.
Da glaube ich doch, daß die ganze Betrachtung der sozialen Frage auf einen anderen Boden gestellt wird, wenn man bedenkt, daß, während die übrigen Menschen mehr oder weniger aus Lebenszusammenhängen heraus, die nicht so radikal Revolutionierendes brachten, aus den alten Instinkten in das moderne Bewußtsein hineingetrieben worden sind, der moderne Proletarier radikal in die bewußte Auffassung seiner selbst hineingetrieben wurde aus der früher bloß instinktiven Auffassung der Menschenwürde und der sozialen Stellung des einzelnen Menschen in der menschlichen Gesellschaft.
Nun fiel dieses Eintreten des Menschheitsbewußtseins in die Seele des Proletariers zusammen mit allerlei anderem, das ja vorging in der menschlichen Entwickelung. Es fiel zusammen mit einer gewissen Stufe des menschlichen Denkens, mit einer gewissen Stufe der menschlichen Entwickelung. Man kennt heute im Grunde genommen die geschichtliche Entwickelung der Menschheit sehr schlecht. Denn diese geschichtliche Entwickelung der Menschheit, sie wird ja im Grunde genommen immer von der einen Seite oder von der anderen Seite parteiisch dargestellt. Wer unbefangen hinblickt auf die Entwickelung der Menschheit, dem stellt sich oftmals etwas ganz anderes heraus als das, was üblich ist zu sagen über diese Entwickelung der Menschheit. So kann man auch sagen: Wer heute auf das hinsieht, was gegenwärtig am meisten Äutorität genießt, die Wissenschaft, der weiß, daß auch das, was man heute gewissermaßen mit absoluter Objektivität belegt, sich entwickelt hat, aus irgend etwas hervorgegangen ist und deutlich in sich die Kennzeichen davon trägt, daß es auch wiederum andere Gestalten annehmen werde. Sieht man auf diese Wissenschaft hin in ihren glänzenden Methoden, in ihren unendlich gewissenhaften Forschungsweisen, auf diese Wissenschaft, die geradezu besonders geeignet ist, die Natur und ihre Erscheinungen zu durchdringen, so merkt man: das Eindringlichste an ihr, was sie zu sagen hat, ist, daß sie im Grunde genommen recht wenig geeignet ist, zu ergreifen das tiefste, intimste menschliche Fühlen und Empfinden, daß sie recht wenig zu sagen hat über das, was der Mensch eigentlich wissen will, wenn er seinen Blick richtet auf Selbsterkenntnis und Selbsterfassung. Auch die Wissenschaft hat sich in gewisser Weise losgerissen vom Menschen. Sie trägt keinen persönlichen Charakter mehr, und sie spricht auch nicht mehr von dem, was im Menschen das Geistige, das Übersinnliche, das Ewige ist. Spricht sie davon, so zeigt sie deutlich, daß sie in der Art, wie sie heute Mode ist, nicht die entsprechenden Methoden, nicht die entsprechenden Forschungsweisen hat.
Man kann von dieser Gestalt der Wissenschaft zurückblicken auf jene Zeiten, wo innerhalb der Menschheitsentwickelung das Leben noch in vollem Zusammenhang zeigte religiöse Erfassung der Welt, religiöses Empfinden und wissenschaftliches Anschauen. Die beiden traten auseinander. Was einheitlich war, spaltete sich ungefähr in derselben Zeit, in der jene objektive Revolution heraufkam, die im Maschinenzeitalter und im modernen Kapitalismus ihren Ausdruck findet. Damals war es auch, als diese wirtschaftliche Umwälzung geschah, damals war es auch, wo gewissermaßen die religiöse Entwickelung stillestehen wollte, nicht mitmachen wollte das, was der wissenschaftlichen Entwickelung sich ergab. Damals, als man die Galilei, die Giordano Bruno verurteilte, da blieb in einer gewissen Weise das innerste menschliche Empfinden und Fühlen zurück vor demjenigen, was aus dem Menschen heraus über die Natur, über die Welt überhaupt sprechen will. Der Mensch verlor den Glauben daran, daß er durchdringen könne sein Wissen mit religiöser Glut, mit religiöser Wärme. Heute ist man stolz darauf, daß man die Wissenschaft freihalten kann von alldem, was man nur der Religion zuerteilen will. In diese Zeit hinein, wo die Wissenschaft immer mehr und mehr religionsfrei, geistfrei werden wollte, in diese Zeit hinein fällt die Entwickelung des proletarischen Bewußtseins, fällt die Ergreifung des Menschheitsbewußtseins durch das Proletariat.
Dieses Proletariat drängte hin zum modernen Denken, zur modernen Intelligenz, zum Erfassen desjenigen, was erfaßt werden kann mit den menschlichen Geisteskräften. Es fand aber eine Wissenschaft, die nicht mehr in sich die Stoßkraft hatte, den ganzen Menschen zu ergreifen und zu erfüllen. Und das hat der Seele des modernen Proletariers die besondere Gestalt gegeben. Das geistige Bewußtsein der Menschheit, das geistige Bewußtsein der führenden Klassen, die es in früheren Zeiten waren, hatte seine Stoßkraft verloren, hatte der Menschheit eine mehr oder weniger für die menschlichen Angelegenheiten abstrakte Wissenschaft geliefert. So sahen sich die Seelen des Proletariats der neueren Zeit einer Wissenschaft gegenübergestellt, die nicht das Vertrauen erweckte, daß durch sie etwas gegeben werden kann, was als wahrste innerste Geistwirklichkeit in der äußeren sinnlichen und wirtschaftlichen Tätigkeit lebt. Eine solche Wissenschaft hatte der Proletarier vor sich, einer solchen Wissenschaft sah er sich gegenübergestellt. In sie lebte er sich ein. Und so trat in seiner Seele etwas aus rein geistigen Entwickelungsuntergründen auf, was heute wie als eine Selbstverständlichkeit, wie als eine absolute Wahrheit genommen wird, was aber nur in seiner wahren Wesenheit erkannt wird, wenn man einen Blick hat für das, was in den Seelen der Menschen vor sich geht. Was den tieferen Beobachter am meisten berührt, das ist die Art und Weise, wie der moderne Proletarier über die eigentlichen geistigen Angelegenheiten, über Sitte, Sittlichkeit, Kunst, Religion, selbst über Wissenschaft innerhalb der Menschheitsentwickelung redet, daß er alle diese Dinge mit dem Ausdruck Ideologie umfaßt. Das berührt einen am allertiefsten. Insbesondere berührt es einen tief, wenn man vernimmt, dieser moderne Proletarier glaube sich klar sein zu können, daß alles das, was der Mensch denkt, was er künstletisch ausbildet, was er religiös empfindet, eigentlich nur wie ein aus der menschlichen Seele heraus gebildetes Scheinbild, eine Ideologie ist. Die wahre Wirklichkeit aber sind die wirtschaftlichen Kämpfe, sind die ökonomischen Vorgänge; die stellen eine Wirklichkeit dar. Das, was sie wie einen Abglanz hineinwerfen in die menschliche Seele, das ist geistige Entwickelung der Menschheit, das ist Ideologie. Das wirft höchstens wiederum einige Impulse zurück in die rein materielle Wirklichkeit des ökonomischen Geschehens. Aber es ist auch, wenn es wieder zurückwirkt in das ökonomische Geschehen, doch ursprünglich aus diesem ökonomischen Geschehen herausgewachsen.
Diese Stellung zum geistigen Leben, die lebt in der modernen proletarischen Frage als etwas viel Wesentlicheres, als man denkt. Und warum, warum ist Kunst, Sitte, Sittlichkeit, Religion, sonstiges geistiges Leben dem modernen Proletarier zur Ideologie geworden? Weiler empfangen hat von denjenigen, die früher die führenden Kreise waren, eine Wissenschaft, die nicht mehr einen lebendigen Zusammenhang unterhalten will zu der wirklichen Geistwelt, eine Wissenschaft, die nicht mehr aufweist irgendeinen Impuls, der zu wirklicher Geistigkeit führt. Eine solche Wissenschaft kann höchstens zu abstrakten Begriffen als Naturgesetze führen. Sie kann auch zu nichts anderem führen, als zu einer Anschauung des Geistigen als Ideologie. Sie zeitigt Methoden, die eben nur geeignet sind auf der einen Seite für die rein objektive, außermenschliche Natur, und innerhalb des Menschenlebens nur für das wirtschaftliche Geschehen. Als der moderne Proletarier diese Wissenschaftsrichtung übernehmen mußte, da wurde sein Blick wie durch eine mächtige suggestive Kraft hingelenkt auf das, worauf man durch solche Wissenschaft nur hingelenkt werden kann, auf das Wirtschaftsleben. Und er fing an zu glauben, daß dieses Wirtschaftsleben die einzige Wirklichkeit sei, während die Wahrheit die ist, daß das, was ihm die bürgerlichen Klassen als Wissenschaft übergeben haben, eben einzig und allein sich richten kann auf das wirtschaftliche Leben.
Das aber war ein ungeheuer Ausschlaggebendes, denn das gab der modernen proletarischen Bewegung ihren eigentlichen charakteristischen Impuls. Man kann sehen, wie altes Instinktives in dieser proletarischen Bewegung noch vorhanden war, selbst bis in die letzten Jahrzehnte des 19. Jahrhunderts hinein. Man findet da in einzelnen proletarischen Programmen noch solche Punkte, wo gesprochen wird von einem Bewußtsein der Menschenwürde, von der Inanspruchnahme von Rechten, die zu solcher wahren Menschenwürde führen. Seit den neunziger Jahren aber sehen wir unter dem Einfluß derjenigen Impulse, von denen ich eben gesprochen habe, wie des Proletariers und seines gelehrten Verfechters Blick wie durch eine mächtige suggestive Kraft bloß hingelenkt worden ist auf das Wirtschaftsleben. Und nun glaubt er nicht mehr, daß anderswo in einem Geistigen oder Seelischen ein Anstoß liegen könne zu dem, was notwendig eintreten müßte auf dem Gebiete der sozialen Bewegung. Er glaubt allein, daß durch die Entwickelung des ungeistigen, unseelischen Wirtschaftslebens der Zustand herbeigeführt werden kann, den er als den menschenwürdigen empfindet. So wurde sein Blick darauf gerichtet, das Wirtschaftsleben selber so umzugestalten, daß ihm genommen werde all der Schaden, der von der privaten Unternehmung, von dem Egoismus des einzelnen Arbeitgebers herrührt und der Unmöglichkeit des einzelnen Arbeitgebers, gerecht zu werden den Ansprüchen auf Menschenwürde von seiten der Arbeitnehmer. Und so fing der Proletarier an, das einzige Heil zu sehen in der Überführung alles Privatbesitzes an Produktionsmitteln in gemeinschaftlichen Betrieb oder gar gemeinschaftliches Eigentum. Dabei liegt zugrunde das, was sich allein ergeben konnte, wenn man gewissermaßen den Blick abgelenkt hatte von allem Seelischen und Geistigen, wenn das Geistige rein zur Ideologie geworden war, wenn man eine Methode hatte und auf diese als eine rein wissenschaftliche fußte, die doch nur hingerichtet sein konnte auf den rein ökonomischen Prozeß.
Nun stellte sich aber eine sehr merkwürdige Tatsache heraus, die eben zeigt, wieviel Widerspruchsvolles in dieser modernen proletarischen Bewegung liegt. Der moderne Proletarier glaubt, daß die Wirtschaft, das Wirtschaftsleben selbst sich so entwickeln müsse, daß ihm zuletzt sein volles Menschenrecht werde. Um dies volle Menschenrecht, so wie er es anschaut, kämpft er. Allein innerhalb seines Strebens tritt etwas auf, was eben niemals aus dem wirtschaftlichen Leben allein als eine Folge auftreten kann. Das ist eine bedeutende, eine eindringliche Sprache redende Tatsache, daß geradezu im Mittelpunkte der verschiedenen Gestaltungen der sozialen Frage aus den Lebensnotwendigkeiten der gegenwärtigen Menschheit heraus etwas liegt, von dem man glaubt, daß es aus dem Wirtschaftsleben selbst hervorgehe, dieses aber niemals aus dem Wirtschaftsleben allein hervorgehen konnte, was vielmehr in der geraden Fortentwickelungslinie liegt, die über das alte Sklavenwesen durch das Leibeigenwesen der Feudalzeit zu dem modernen Arbeitsproletariat heraufführt. Wie auch immer die Warenzirkulation, die Geldzirkulation, das Kapitalwesen, der Besitz, das Wesen von Grund und Boden und so weiter sich gestaltet haben, innerhalb dieses modernen Lebens hat sich etwas herausgebildet, was nicht deutlich ausgesprochen wird, auch von dem modernen Proletarier nicht ganz deutlich ausgesptochen wird, was aber nur allzu deutlich empfunden wird als der eigentliche Grundimpuls seines sozialen Wollens. Das ist dieses: die moderne kapitalistische Wirtschaftsordnung kennt im Grunde genommen nur Ware innerhalb ihres Zirkulationsgebietes. Sie kennt Wertbildung dieser Waren innerhalb des wirtschaftlichen Organismus. Und es ist innerhalb des kapitalistischen Organismus der neueren Zeit etwas zu einer Ware geworden, von dem heute der Proletarier empfindet: es darf nicht Ware sein. Aber er kann sich wissenschaftlich, da sein Blick nur auf das ökonomische Leben gerichtet ist, doch nichts anderes sagen, als: es ist Ware. Das ist nämlich seine eigene Arbeitskraft.
Wenn man einmal einsehen wird, daß hier einer der Grundimpulse der ganzen modernen sozialen Bewegung liegt, daß in den Instinkten, in den unterbewußten Empfindungen des modernen Proletariers ein Abscheu davor lebt, daß er seine Arbeitskraft dem Arbeitsunternehmer ebenso verkaufen muß, wie man auf dem Markte Waren verkauft, daß er einen Abscheu empfindet, daß auf dem Arbeitskräftemarkt nach Angebot und Nachfrage seine Arbeitskraft ihre Rolle spielt, wie die Ware auf dem Markte unter Angebot und Nachfrage, wenn man darauf kommen wird, daß dieser Abscheu vor der Ware Arbeitskraft der eigentliche Grundimpuls der modernen sozialen Bewegung ist, wenn man ganz unbefangen darauf blicken wird, daß dies eindringlich und radikal auch von den sozialistischen Theorien nicht hinlänglich ausgesprochen wird, dann wird man den Punkt gefunden haben, von dem ausgegangen werden kann in dem, was sich heute so drängend, ja brennend erweist mit Bezug auf die soziale Bewegung.
Im Altertum gab es Sklaven. Der ganze Mensch wurde wie eine Ware verkauft. Etwas weniger vom Menschen wurde verkauft, aber noch immer nahezu der ganze Mensch, in der Leibeigenschaft. Das Kapital ist die Macht geworden, die noch etwas vom Menschen als eine Ware in Anspruch nimmt, nämlich seine Arbeitskraft. Die Methoden müssen gesucht werden, durch die getrennt werden kann von der übrigen Warenzirkulation die Ware Arbeitskraft. Man wird erst durchschauen, was hinter dieser Tatsache steckt, wenn man nicht suggestiv auf das Wirtschaftsleben hinsieht, das nach ganz anderen Methoden begriffen werden muß als der Mensch selber, wenn man wissen wird, daß nicht aus diesem Wirtschaftsleben heraus, sondern aus einem ganz anderen Erleben im sozialen Organismus herausfließen muß die Art, wie die menschliche Arbeitskraft dem Charakter der Ware entzogen werden könne. Man wird einsehen müssen — und geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung wird dazu die Grundlage geben -, daß der Glaube falsch ist, man könne durch die Betrachtung des bloßen Wirtschaftssystems, auf das allein die naturwissenschaftliche Methode paßt, die Wege herausfinden, wie die Arbeitskraft des einzelnen Menschen in den sozialen Organismus sich eingliedern könne. Erst wenn man verstehen wird, daß der Glaube, Arbeitskraft gehöre dem wirtschaftlichen System an, dem anderen Glauben gleicht, dem man sich hingibt, wollte man, was im menschlichen Lungen- und Herzsystem, im Zirkulationssystem vor sich geht, in gleicher Art betrachten wie das, was im Nervensystem des Kopfes vor sich geht, ist man auf dem rechten Weg. Das Nerven- und Sinnessystem, wie es im Kopfe zentralisiert ist, ist im menschlichen Organismus ein eigenes, für sich bestehendes, selbständiges Glied. Was als Lungen- und Herzsystem, als Zirkulationssystem vorliegt, ist wiederum ein für sich bestehendes, selbständiges Glied. Ebenso das Stoffwechselsystem. Das Genauere können Sie in meinem Buch «Von Seelenrätseln» nachlesen. Das ist das Charakteristische im menschlichen Organismus, daß seine Systeme gerade dadurch ihre rechte Entfaltung und Wirksamkeit entfalten, daß sie nicht zentralisiert sind, sondern daß sie nebeneinander bestehen und frei zusammenwirken. Kann man heute nicht einmal in dieser umfassenden, eindringlichen Weise den menschlichen Organismus begreifen, so kann man mit der Wissenschaft, die noch nicht reformiert ist, die aber in geisteswissenschaftlichem Sinne reformiert werden muß, den sozialen Organismus erst recht nicht verstehen. Man glaubt heute, der menschliche Organismus ist etwas Zentralisiertes, während er eine Dreigliedrigkeit ist.
Und so ist auch der soziale Organismus eine Dreigliedrigkeit. Was heute unter einer mächtigen Suggestion als einziger sozialer Organismus angesehen wird, das Wirtschaftssystem, das ist nur ein Glied. Ein anderes Glied ist dasjenige, aus dem heraus entspringen muß das Verständnis für die Funktion der menschlichen Arbeitskraft in der ganzen Struktur des sozialen Organismus. Die beiden Systeme müssen nebeneinandertstehen. Und der Charakter der Ware wird der Arbeitskraft nur im falschen neuzeitlichen Denken verliehen.
Und dieses engherzige neuzeitliche Denken, das hat auf der anderen Seite das dritte, das sich selbständig in den ganzen sozialen Organismus hineinstellen muß, das geistige Leben, zur bloßen Ideologie gemacht. Die theoretische Ansicht, daß das Geistige bloß Ideologie ist, sie ist das Ungefährlichste. Das Wichtigste ist, daß in einem Menschen, der die Anschauung hat, das Geistige wurzele nicht in einer allen Dingen zugrunde liegenden geistigen Wirklichkeit, sondern in einer bloßen Ideologie, nicht die geistige wirkliche Stoßktaft vorhanden sein kann. Ein solcher Mensch hat kein Interesse daran, dem geistigen Leben seine richtige Rolle in der Welt zuzuerteilen.
Betrachtet man gerade nach den Lebensnotwendigkeiten der neueren Zeit das, was sich auf dem Gebiete des proletarischen Bewußtseins abgespielt hat, so findet man, daß man nicht einen Einblick gewinnen konnte in die drei Glieder des sozialen Organismus. Der ist einem verlorengegangen. Nach Verstaatlichung strebt man, weil man glaubt, daß ein einziger sozialer Organismus alles übernehmen könne.
Geisteswissenschaftliches Bewußtsein muß einen weiteren Horizont eröffnen, als heute selbst in dieser brennenden Zeit von berufenen Führern oftmals gegeben wird mit Bezug auf die soziale Frage. Es muß hingewiesen werden darauf, daß nicht nur Neues gewollt werden soll, sondern daß wir nötig haben, neu zu denken, daß wir nötig haben nicht nur eine wissenschaftliche Betrachtung des sozialen Lebens, welche die traditionelle Wissenschaft übernimmt, sondern daß wir nötig haben den Neuaufbau einer Wissenschaft, die neue Gedanken, die erst Wirklichkeitsgedanken sein werden vom sozialen Organismus, in das Bewußtsein der Menschheit hineinbringt.
Das wird dazu führen müssen, daß die Gründe für soviel Unglück in der neueren Zeit einmal durch das Menschheitsbewußtsein beseitigt werden. Auch derjenige, der nicht theoretisch, sondern aus dem Leben heraus wirkt, wie ich glaube, es auch in dieser Stunde getan zu haben, auch der wird heute abgefertigt und unschädlich gemacht zumeist von denjenigen, die sich die eigentlichen Praktiker denken, indem sie sagen: Ach, von solchen theoretischen Sachen kommt doch nichts irgendwie Ersprießliches in die Welt. Diese «Lebenspraktiker», die die wahren Abstraktlinge sind, diese Lebenspraktiker, deren Praxis in nichts anderem besteht als in der Beschränkung ihres Sinnes auf die engste Grenze, diese Lebenspraktiker sind es, die vielfach das Unglück und die Katastrophe der neueren Zeit herbeigeführt haben. Werden sie weiter wirtschaften können aufallen Parteirichtungen, wird das Unglück nicht zu Ende gehen, wird das Unglück sich nur ins Unermeßliche erweitern. Die wirklichen Lebenspraktiker müssen ihre gebührende Stellung in der öffentlichen Wirksamkeit erhalten, diejenigen, die von den Entwickelungsmöglichkeiten sprechen, die im sozialen Organismus räumlich und in der zeitlichen Entwickelung liegen, wie zum Beispiel im einzelnen menschlichen Organismus. Diese wahren Lebenspraktiker, die aus der tiefer liegenden Wirklichkeit heraus sprechen, die sind es, auf welche in Wahrheit heute gerechnet werden sollte. Sie sind es, die nicht zu verzweifeln brauchen an ihrem eigenen Wissen. Sie sehen allerdings zu ihrem Leidwesen und zu ihrem Bedauern, wie das, was die Lebenspraktiker, auch die sozialistischen Lebenspraktiker, auf der anderen Seite einzig und allein tun zu müssen glauben, wie das nirgends zu etwas anderem als zum Raubbau des Lebens führen kann. Derjenige, der aus dem Geiste heraus als Lebenspraktiker wirken will, will aus der Wirklichkeit für lebensfähige Wirklichkeit streben.
In welchem Sinne Lösungsversuche sich ergeben können für die Fragen, die ich versucht habe, heute aus den neueren Lebensgewohnheiten heraus in einer wahren Gestalt darzustellen, wie daraus Lösungsversuche sich ergeben können auf Grundlage einer Wirklichkeitsuntersuchung des sozialen Lebens und der gesellschaftlichen Struktur der Menschheit, davon werde ich mir dann erlauben, übermorgen hier zu sprechen.
First Lecture
The true nature of the social question, understood from the necessities of life of contemporary humanity on the basis of spiritual scientific research
What is included in the term “social question” today is something that has been occupying thinking humanity intensively for decades, because this social question today is not only urgent for the development of humanity, but has become burning. In particular, however, it can be said that the terrible catastrophe of war that has befallen humanity in recent years has also cast its dark shadow on what is called the social question and the related human movement of the immediate present.
Since I must place the social puzzle within the entire historical movement of modern times, I will have to talk about various things related to the cause and course of the terrible catastrophe of war in the next few lectures. In these introductory remarks, I would just like to point out how, even at the outset of the war, the social question was evident in the emotions of fear that were clearly perceptible in those who stood at the starting point of this war. Certainly, much would have been different in 1914 if those who had to make important decisions here and there had not been under the fear: What will happen if the social movement becomes more and more influential? Much of what has developed in this so-called war has developed under fear on the one hand and under complete misunderstanding of the social question on the part of some leading personalities on the other. Some things would have turned out differently if this fear and misunderstanding had not existed. And again, in the course of the war, we see how personalities active within the social movement are giving rise to hopes in themselves and others that the possibility might arise of achieving this or that reconciliation of the disharmonies that have entered human life in such a terrible way. And now that these tragic events have entered a kind of crisis, we see how, especially in the defeated countries, the result is a pressing need to take a stand on social issues, to intervene in what is entering contemporary history as social demands.
From all this alone, anyone who thinks about the present day, anyone who has even the slightest inclination to familiarize themselves with the habits of contemporary life, could see how something is emerging in the social question right now that all members of human society will have to deal with for a long, very long time. And precisely at this moment, when, as I said, life in the defeated countries simply demands attempts to solve the social question, something like tragedy now hangs over a large part of civilized humanity.
If one surveys the intellectual achievements, literature, and everything similar that has emerged over many decades in the debates, discussions, and efforts relating to the social question, it is an immeasurable amount of human work and human thought. But never before have social problems been faced so vividly as today. Today, life itself reveals what is emerging as a social demand. It seems that despite all the efforts, the most intense thinking, and the best intentions that have prevailed in recent decades, the abilities that have developed have been thoroughly insufficient to cope with the social question as it is presented in its true form to the human soul by life today. This hangs like something tremendously tragic over the aspirations of contemporary humanity. Something for which we have been preparing for so long is affecting precisely those whom we would like to believe would be decisive, and who appear to be completely unprepared.
Anyone who has not dealt with the social question from the point of view of theoretical science, from mere concepts, or from one-sided party views in recent decades, has been able to find that the most powerful contradictions of life have always come to light in this very area. And perhaps the following is one of the most remarkable contradictions that have come to light in the field of social life. Much has been discussed, and much has been written by people who were involved in the modern social movement through their own lives. Everywhere, especially when one was perhaps in the midst of the discussion, in the midst of the desires of the modern working class itself, everywhere one had the feeling: Yes, many things are being said, many questions are being discussed, many forces of life are being discussed. Attempts are being made to give direction to this or that impulse. But in what one might call social will, there is something quite different from what is being expressed. Hardly any other phenomenon in life gave one such a clear feeling that the more or less subconscious, the unspoken, plays a greater role than what has been translated into seemingly clear concepts and sober discussions. This is the point where one can find the reason not to despair in one's attempts to approach social puzzles from a particular point of view.
Here in Zurich, and in other cities in Switzerland, I have often had the opportunity to speak about questions of spiritual science. From the standpoint of this spiritual scientific research, I have also sought to approach social enigmas for decades. Listening to some people today who consider themselves practitioners, one could certainly despair of being able to achieve anything fruitful for the relevant questions from the standpoint of mere spiritual research. But it is precisely the contradictions I have pointed out in the efforts within social life that dispel this despair. For one sees how important figures within the social movement smile when the talk turns to wanting to contribute something to the solution of the social question through this or that spiritual endeavor; they dismiss it as ideology, as a gray theory. They believe that nothing can be contributed to the burning social issues of the present from thought, from mere intellectual life. But if one looks more closely, it becomes apparent that the real nerve, the real driving force of the modern, specifically proletarian movement, lies not in what today's proletarians talk about, but precisely in thought.
The modern proletarian movement is, perhaps more than any other similar movement in the world—if you look at it more closely, this becomes apparent in the most eminent sense—a movement that arose from ideas. I am not saying this merely as an aperçu. If I may be permitted to insert a personal remark, it would be this: for many years I taught proletarian workers in a wide variety of fields at a workers' educational school. I have come to know what lives and strives in the soul of the modern proletarian worker. From there, I have come to know what lives in the unions of various professions and occupational groups. So what I want to say is not merely expressed from the point of view of theoretical considerations, as in an aperçu, but as the result of real life experience.
Anyone who has gotten to know the modern labor movement where it is supported by workers—which is unfortunately so rarely the case among leading intellectuals—knows what a wonderful phenomenon this is, how a certain way of thinking, a certain current of thought, has captured the souls of these people in the most intense way. That is what makes it so difficult today to take a position on social issues, that there is so little opportunity for understanding, for mutual understanding between the classes. The bourgeois classes today find it so difficult to empathize with the soul of the proletarian, to understand how such a system—whatever one may think of its content—a system that sets the highest standards for human thought, such as the system of thought of Karl Marx, could take root in the, I would say, still undeveloped intelligence, in the elementary intelligence.
Certainly, Karl Marx's system of thought can be accepted by one person and refuted by another, perhaps with equally good reasons. It could be revised by those who continue to observe social life after the deaths of Marx and his friend Engels. I do not want to talk about the content of this system, the content of this system of thought. That seems to me to be the least significant thing. What seems most significant to me is the fact that within the working class itself, within the proletarian world, a system of thought acts as the most powerful impulse. One can put it this way: never before has a practical movement, a pure movement of life with the most everyday human demands, stood so almost entirely on a purely scientific, intellectual foundation as this modern proletarian movement. In a sense, it is even the first such movement in the world that has placed itself purely on a scientific basis. Nevertheless, if one takes into account everything that the modern proletarian has to say about his own thoughts, desires, and feelings—as I have already indicated—then, upon closer observation of life, this does not seem to be the most important thing.
Many have now shown in a very astute way how this modern proletarian social movement has emerged from the development of humanity over the last few centuries. It has been astutely demonstrated how, in particular through the development of modern technology and modern machinery, the proletariat in the modern sense was actually created, and how the tremendous economic upheaval of recent times gave rise to the modern social question. I do not wish to repeat here what others have said so astutely about the emergence of the social question. But it seems necessary to me to point out precisely what characterizes the existing contradictions of life in this modern proletarian movement. It is certainly true that without the tremendous upheaval, without the technical revolution of recent times, the modern social movement could not have taken the form in which it has now emerged. However intensely it is asserted that what is evident in social life today has arisen solely from economic impulses, economic forces, class antagonisms, and class struggles, the assertion that only economic antagonisms and economic forces are at play does not stand up to a penetrating observation of the soul of the modern proletarian. It is precisely those who, trained in the humanities, are accustomed to looking at the subtleties and intimacies of spiritual life in all human affairs, which are often unconscious even to the bearers of this spiritual life, who realize that it is not what has developed technically and economically that is essential in shaping today's social question, but that what is significant is the fact that, out of completely different life contexts, certain people have been placed in the operation of the machine in the manner of large-scale capitalist enterprise, and that this placement has awakened something in these people that is not directly related to what is economically around them and in which they are economically entangled. What has been awakened is much more closely related to the deepest habits of modern humanity.
Those who view history only in the way that modern socialist science now wants to do again, always saying that what follows arises from what precedes it, that effect always leads back to a cause, do not take into account that forces of change, forces of transformation, exist in living reality, which revolutionize the mere connection between cause and effect, I would say: the sober, dry connection between cause and effect, at certain points in this development.
Let us look at individual human development. We can, if I may say so, follow it successively, for my part from birth to about the age of seven, when the teeth change. There is a powerful revolution in the development of the human organism. We must turn our attention to what happens during this period of life. There is not just a straightforward connection between cause and effect. Then, from the age of seven to around the age of fourteen or fifteen, we can again observe a straightforward development of cause and effect. But then another revolutionary change takes place in the human organism at the onset of sexual maturity. Such transformations are less noticeable later on, but they are still there. How such things play out in individual human lives, which repeatedly disprove the convenient but completely incorrect saying that nature does not make leaps, how such leaps are present in the individual organism, and also in the historical development of humanity. Simply put, within the period that can be roughly limited from the middle of the 14th and 15th centuries to the present day, which will continue, powerful processes of transformation have taken place in human consciousness itself.
Just as the individual human organism is different when it reaches sexual maturity than it was before in a certain sense, so the human social organism has become something else after the elementary, fundamental impulses, which cannot be found merely within the straight line of cause and effect, have asserted themselves. Anyone who is able to observe historical life more closely knows that before this period, much of what is now entering full consciousness, much of what must be absorbed by full consciousness, took place instinctively in humanity. Therefore, the social movement in this period, for which it is particularly characteristic, takes on the form that is revealed in the often-used word, which is not characterized intensively enough: proletarian class consciousness. With this term “proletarian class consciousness,” one should pay much less attention to the fact that it refers to the necessary struggle in which the proletarian believes himself to be embroiled against the other classes. but rather that something has entered the soul of the proletarian in an age in which social instincts that previously prevailed are being transformed into social consciousness. Class instincts used to exist. Now class consciousness underlies social movement.
This class consciousness, I would say, is only superficial if one takes the wording seriously: proletarian class consciousness. What is hidden in the term “proletarian class consciousness” is something quite different. And if one wants to briefly characterize an important fact, this fact can perhaps be characterized as follows: Within old occupational contexts, as expressed, for example, in the old crafts or in other professions, there were certain social instincts that shone into the human soul, that powered the human soul. These instincts were able to take effect, forming a certain personal bond between what people think, feel, and want, what they consider to be their honor, their joy, and their aesthetic needs. Work itself gave people something for all these things.
When man was placed at the machine, when he was placed in the thoroughly impersonal machinery of modern capitalism, where remuneration for human labor is no longer clearly transparent, but where the accumulation of capital by capital is the essential thing, that is, when man was placed on the one hand in the machinery and on the other hand in modern capitalism and its economic order, he was torn out of the world and life contexts that gave him something for his personal life, for his personal joy, for his personal honor, for his personal impulses of will. They were, in a sense, placed at the tip of their personality next to the machine, within the purely objective, impersonal circulation of goods and capital, which basically had nothing to do with them as human beings. But the human soul always wants to function fully in a certain way, always wants to unfold its full scope. And so the worker, who was torn from the other contexts of life described above and placed in a context that is detached from full humanity, was prompted to reflect on his human dignity, to empathize with his human dignity.
And so, behind what is called proletarian class consciousness in modern historical development, there is in truth a dawning, a shining forth of a full human consciousness drawn from human nature, from the human soul itself. Directing consciousness to the question: What am I as a human being? — to the question: What do I mean as a human being in the world? — those who were placed as proletarians alongside the machine that denied human beings, alongside the capital that denied human beings, had the opportunity to feel this.
I believe that the whole consideration of the social question is placed on a different footing when one considers that while other people have been driven more or less out of life contexts that did not bring about such radical revolution, out of old instincts and into modern consciousness, the modern proletarian has been radically driven into a conscious conception of himself out of the formerly merely instinctive conception of human dignity and the social position of the individual human being in human society.
Now, this entry of human consciousness into the soul of the proletarian coincided with all sorts of other things that were happening in human development. It coincided with a certain stage of human thought, with a certain stage of human development. Today, we basically know very little about the historical development of humanity. For this historical development of humanity is always presented in a biased manner, either from one side or the other. Anyone who takes an unbiased look at the development of humanity will often find something quite different from what is commonly said about this development. One could also say that anyone who looks today at what currently enjoys the most authority, namely science, knows that even what is today regarded as absolutely objective has developed, has emerged from something, and clearly bears the hallmarks of the fact that it will in turn take on other forms. If we look at this science with its brilliant methods, its infinitely conscientious research methods, this science that is particularly suited to penetrating nature and its phenomena, one notices that the most striking thing it has to say is that it is, in fact, quite unsuited to grasp the deepest, most intimate human feelings and sensations, that it has very little to say about what human beings actually want to know when they turn their gaze to self-knowledge and self-understanding. Science, too, has in a sense detached itself from human beings. It no longer has a personal character, nor does it speak of what is spiritual, supernatural, and eternal in human beings. When it does speak of these things, it clearly shows that, in the form in which it is fashionable today, it does not have the appropriate methods or the appropriate means of research.
From this form of science, one can look back to those times when, within human development, life still showed a complete connection between religious understanding of the world, religious feeling, and scientific observation. The two diverged. What had been unified split apart at about the same time that the objective revolution arose, which finds its expression in the machine age and modern capitalism. It was also at that time that this economic upheaval took place, and it was also at that time that religious development, so to speak, wanted to stand still and did not want to participate in what scientific development was bringing about. At that time, when Galileo and Giordano Bruno were condemned, the innermost human feelings and emotions lagged behind, in a certain sense, behind what human beings want to say about nature and the world in general. Human beings lost their belief that they could permeate their knowledge with religious fervor, with religious warmth. Today, people are proud that they can keep science free from everything that they want to attribute only to religion. It was during this period, when science wanted to become more and more free of religion and spirit, that the development of proletarian consciousness took place, that the proletariat seized human consciousness.
This proletariat pushed toward modern thinking, toward modern intelligence, toward grasping what can be grasped with the powers of the human mind. But it found a science that no longer had the impetus to grasp and fulfill the whole human being. And that gave the soul of the modern proletarian its special form. The spiritual consciousness of humanity, the spiritual consciousness of the leading classes of earlier times, had lost its impetus and had provided humanity with a science that was more or less abstract in relation to human affairs. Thus, the souls of the proletariat of the modern era found themselves confronted with a science that did not inspire confidence that it could provide anything that lived as the truest inner spiritual reality in external sensory and economic activity. Such a science was before the proletarian; such a science he found himself confronted with. He lived himself into it. And so something arose in his soul from purely spiritual grounds of development, which today is taken for granted, as an absolute truth, but which can only be recognized in its true essence if one has an eye for what is going on in the souls of human beings. What touches the deeper observer most is the way in which the modern proletarian talks about the actual spiritual matters, about customs, morality, art, religion, even about science within human development, that he encompasses all these things with the term ideology. That touches one most deeply. It is particularly moving to hear that these modern proletarians believe they can be certain that everything that human beings think, everything they create artistically, everything they feel religiously, is actually only an illusion formed from the human soul, an ideology. But the true reality is economic struggles, economic processes; they represent reality. What they cast into the human soul like a reflection is the spiritual development of humanity, that is ideology. At most, this in turn throws some impulses back into the purely material reality of economic events. But even when it has a reciprocal effect on economic events, it originally grew out of these economic events.
This attitude toward spiritual life lives on in the modern proletarian question as something much more essential than one might think. And why, why have art, customs, morality, religion, and other aspects of spiritual life become ideology for the modern proletarian? Because they have received from those who were formerly the leading circles a science that no longer wants to maintain a living connection with the real spiritual world, a science that no longer shows any impulse that leads to real spirituality. Such a science can at best lead to abstract concepts as laws of nature. It can also lead to nothing else but a view of the spiritual as ideology. It produces methods that are only suitable, on the one hand, for purely objective, non-human nature, and within human life only for economic events. When the modern proletarian had to adopt this scientific direction, his gaze was directed, as if by a powerful suggestive force, to that which such science can only direct one to, namely economic life. And he began to believe that this economic life was the only reality, whereas the truth is that what the bourgeois classes have handed down to him as science can be directed solely and exclusively toward economic life.
But this was an enormously decisive factor, for it gave the modern proletarian movement its actual characteristic impulse. One can see how much of the old instinctive thinking was still present in this proletarian movement, even into the last decades of the 19th century. In individual proletarian programs, one still finds points where there is talk of an awareness of human dignity, of the assertion of rights that lead to such true human dignity. Since the 1890s, however, under the influence of the impulses I have just mentioned, we see how the gaze of the proletarian and his learned advocate has been directed, as if by a powerful suggestive force, solely toward economic life. And now he no longer believes that anywhere else, in the spiritual or emotional realm, could lie the impetus for what must necessarily occur in the realm of social movement. He believes only that through the development of economic life, which is devoid of spirit and emotion, the state of affairs that he considers humane can be brought about. Thus, his gaze was directed toward transforming economic life itself in such a way that it would be stripped of all the harm caused by private enterprise, by the egoism of individual employers, and by the inability of individual employers to meet the demands of human dignity on the part of employees. And so the proletarian began to see the only salvation in the transfer of all private ownership of the means of production to communal operation or even communal ownership. This is based on what could only have resulted when one had, so to speak, diverted one's gaze from everything spiritual and intellectual, when the intellectual had become purely ideological, when one had a method and based it on a purely scientific one, which could only be directed toward the purely economic process.
However, a very strange fact has come to light, which shows just how much contradiction there is in this modern proletarian movement. The modern proletarian believes that the economy, economic life itself, must develop in such a way that he ultimately gains his full human rights. He fights for these full human rights, as he sees them. But within his striving, something arises that can never arise as a consequence of economic life alone. It is a significant and compelling fact that at the very center of the various formulations of the social question, arising from the necessities of life of contemporary humanity, there is something that is believed to arise from economic life itself, but which could never have arisen from economic life alone, but rather lies in the direct line of development that leads from the old slave system through the serfdom of the feudal era to the modern working proletariat. However the circulation of goods, the circulation of money, the nature of capital, property, the nature of land, and so on may have developed, something has emerged within this modern life that is not clearly articulated, not even by the modern proletarian, but which is felt all too clearly as the real driving force behind his social aspirations. This is it: the modern capitalist economic order basically only recognizes commodities within its sphere of circulation. It recognizes the creation of value of these commodities within the economic organism. And within the capitalist organism of modern times, something has become a commodity that the proletarian today feels should not be a commodity. But since his gaze is directed solely at economic life, he can say nothing else scientifically than: it is a commodity. Namely, his own labor power.
Once we realize that this is one of the fundamental impulses of the entire modern social movement, that in the instincts, in the subconscious feelings of the modern proletarian, there is a revulsion against having to sell his labor power to the employer just as one sells goods on the market, that he feels a revulsion that on the labor market, supply and demand dictate the role of his labor power, just as supply and demand dictate the role of goods on the market, when one realizes that this aversion to labor power as a commodity is the real fundamental impulse of the modern social movement, when one looks at this impartially and sees that even socialist theories do not express this forcefully and radically enough, then we will have found the starting point for what is so urgent, even burning, today with regard to the social movement.
In ancient times, there were slaves. The whole human being was sold like a commodity. In serfdom, slightly less of the human being was sold, but still almost the whole human being. Capital has become the power that still claims something of the human being as a commodity, namely his labor power. Methods must be sought by which the commodity labor power can be separated from the rest of the circulation of commodities. One will only understand what lies behind this fact if one does not look suggestively at economic life, which must be understood by methods quite different from those used to understand human beings themselves, if one knows that the way in which human labor power can be removed from the character of a commodity must flow not from this economic life, but from a completely different experience in the social organism. One will have to realize—and spiritual scientific research will provide the basis for this—that the belief that one can find ways to integrate the labor power of the individual human being into the social organism by considering the mere economic system, to which the scientific method alone is applicable, is false. Only when we understand that the belief that labor belongs to the economic system is similar to the other belief that we would like to consider what goes on in the human lung and heart system, in the circulatory system, in the same way as what goes on in the nervous system of the head, will we be on the right track. The nervous and sensory systems, as they are centralized in the head, are separate, independent parts of the human organism. The pulmonary and cardiac systems, the circulatory system, are also separate, independent parts. The same is true of the metabolic system. You can read more about this in my book “Von Seelenrätseln” (Mysteries of the Soul). It is characteristic of the human organism that its systems develop and function properly precisely because they are not centralized, but exist side by side and interact freely. If we cannot even understand the human organism in this comprehensive, penetrating way today, then we certainly cannot understand the social organism with science that has not yet been reformed, but which must be reformed in the sense of spiritual science. Today, it is believed that the human organism is something centralized, whereas it is a tripartite entity.
And so the social organism is also a tripartite structure. What is today regarded, under powerful suggestion, as the only social organism, the economic system, is only one link. Another link is that from which must spring an understanding of the function of human labor in the whole structure of the social organism. The two systems must stand side by side. And the character of the commodity is only attributed to labor in false modern thinking.
And this narrow-minded modern thinking has, on the other hand, reduced the third element, which must stand independently within the whole social organism, namely spiritual life, to mere ideology. The theoretical view that the spiritual is merely ideology is the least dangerous. The most important thing is that a person who holds the view that the spiritual is rooted not in a spiritual reality underlying all things, but in mere ideology, cannot possess the spiritual driving force. Such a person has no interest in assigning spiritual life its proper role in the world.
If we consider what has taken place in the realm of proletarian consciousness, especially in light of the necessities of modern life, we find that it has not been possible to gain insight into the three members of the social organism. This insight has been lost. People strive for nationalization because they believe that a single social organism can take over everything.
Spiritual science consciousness must open up a broader horizon than is often provided today, even in these burning times, by appointed leaders with regard to social issues. It must be pointed out that it is not only new things that are needed, but that we need to think in new ways, that we need not only a scientific view of social life, which traditional science takes over, but that we need to rebuild a science that brings new ideas, which will first be ideas of reality from the social organism, into the consciousness of humanity.
This will inevitably lead to the causes of so much unhappiness in recent times being eliminated by human consciousness. Even those who act not theoretically but from life experience, as I believe I have done at this hour, are dismissed and rendered harmless today, mostly by those who consider themselves the real practitioners, saying: Oh, nothing beneficial comes into the world from such theoretical things. These “practitioners of life,” who are the true abstract thinkers, these practitioners of life, whose practice consists of nothing more than limiting their minds to the narrowest boundaries, these practitioners of life are the ones who have often brought about the misfortune and catastrophe of recent times. If they continue to operate in all political parties, the misfortune will not end, but will only expand immeasurably. The real practitioners of life must be given their rightful place in public life, those who speak of the possibilities for development that lie in the social organism, both spatially and in terms of temporal development, as, for example, in the individual human organism. These true practitioners of life, who speak from a deeper reality, are the ones who should really be counted on today. They are the ones who need not despair of their own knowledge. However, to their sorrow and regret, they see how what the practitioners of life, including the socialist practitioners of life, on the other side believe they must do, can lead nowhere else but to the overexploitation of life. Those who want to work as practitioners of life out of the spirit want to strive for viable reality out of reality.
In what sense attempts at solutions can arise for the questions that I have tried to present today in a true form based on newer habits of life, how attempts at solutions can arise from this on the basis of an examination of the reality of social life and the social structure of humanity, I will take the liberty of discussing here the day after tomorrow.