Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Social Question
GA 328

5 February 1919, Zürich

II. A Comparison Between the Attempts at Solving the Social Question

With reference to my presentations I would like to ask you to take these four lectures as a unit. This means the content of one lecture is not to be taken as independent and judged this way. The relative theme is so comprehensive that it can only be manageable by doing a number of lectures.

In today's lecture I would like to make a provisional outline for possible solving techniques distilled from actual knowledge of the being of the social organism, of such solution possibilities for the social question which do not come out of some one-sided remark about some or other class, some or other state, but coming from appropriate reality, coming from the properly observed evolutionary forces of humanity and in particular those evolutionary forces which are the most pronounced at present and valid for the near future of humanity. If one tries to find a solution for the social question through the aspirations or the demands of a state, of a class, out of some part of the social organism, then one does nothing other than undermine the other elements of the social organism by calling on yet another class which in some way or other restrict development or healthy living conditions.

For our time here, it is relevant to reveal and substantiate my indications of truths in the following lectures. In modern life, or it could be called the modern social organism, quite a particular form is experienced through expressions characteristic of modern life, through technology, through the technical operation of economic life and its relationships and through the capitalistic process which organises this economic enterprise. Not necessarily only those with a conscious focus observe this modern technology and modern capitalism as they were introduced into life, but their focus was on the more or less conscious or the more or less instinctive, actively organised forces within the social structure of the human community.

The characteristic, particular form of the social question coming to the fore in modern times can be expressed as follows: economic life supported by technology and modern capitalism have worked in a natural self-evident way and brought order into the modern community. Besides this claim for human awareness towards technology and capitalism, the awareness was deflected by other branches, other spheres of the social organism, where awareness should have become as necessary as the health of the social organism as it was with the economic field.

Perhaps I may use a comparison to clearly communicate what I could call the nerve of a comprehensive, many-sided observation of the social question. Please consider that with a comparison I don't mean anything other than a support of human understanding in order to orientate it towards the healing of the social question. Whoever wants to consider what we know as the most complicated organism—that of the human being—needs to pay attention to the existence of three operative systems working side by side in the human form. These three cooperative systems can be characterised in the following way. One could say in the human, natural organism a system works incorporating the nerves and senses. One could call the most important member of this system where the nerves and senses are centralized, the head organisation.

As to the second member of the human organism, in order to develop a real understanding of this organism it is necessary to consider what I would like to call the rhythmic system, in relationship with breathing, blood circulation and everything expressed as rhythmic processes. As a third system, one can recognise all the organs whose actions relate to metabolism. In these three systems are the combined effects, when they interact in a healthy way, of all that is contained in the human organism. I have tried, in full agreement with all the research science has claimed, to characterise this threefold aspect of the human being as an outline in my book Riddles of the Soul I am clear about all the aspects to be introduced in the future by biology, physiology and science regarding the human organism which will see how this threefold head-, circulation-, (or chest system) and digestive systems are maintained—that these members each work in a particular independent way which indicates it is not an complete centralisation of the organism. These three systems each have a particular relationship to the outer world; the head system through the senses, the circulation or rhythmic system through breathing and the digestive system through the nutritional organs. In relation to scientific methods we have not progressed as far as these ideas I'm indicating here, out of spiritual scientific foundations for natural science as I've tried to use, in order to present it in scientific circles as a general statement and in a way, make it desirable for the evolution of knowledge. This means however that our thinking habits, the entire way we imagine the world to be has not completely been adjusted to the example of the human organism as it is presented in its natural processes. In a way one could say yes, science can wait, they may gradually rush to their ideals, they will soon come to the view that such observations are their own. However, regarding the examination and especially the processes of the social organism, one can't wait. Not with some or other expert but for every human soul—because every human soul shares in the work of the social organism—at least must take part in the work of the social organism—at least by an instinctive knowledge of the necessities of this social organism. Healthy thought and experience, a healthy will and desire in relation to the expression of the social order can only develop when people—whether more or less instinctive—can understand that this social organism, if it is to be healthy, must be a natural threefold organism.

Now I am at the point where I need to be very careful not to be misunderstood. Since Schäffle wrote a book about the social organism, there have been repeated attempts at establishing an analogy between a natural organization, let's say an organisation of people, and on the other side, a human community as such. So many efforts have been made to determine the cell of the social organism, where the cell structure exists, what the tissues could be and so on! Recently a book appeared by Aleray, Weltmutation (mutation of the world), in which certain scientific facts and scientific laws are simply transferred on to, what they call, the social organization. With all these analogy games, nothing relates to what we are considering here. Those who at the end of this lecture could say: ‘Oh, here we have yet again such a game of analogy between the natural organism and the social organism’—would prove that the real spirit within the meaning has not been penetrated by the listener. This I don't want—some or other scientific facts adjusted as truth and transplanted on to the social organisation. What I want is for human thinking, human feeling to learn through observation of the natural organism that this method, this way of sensing can in turn be applied to the social organization. When you simply take the belief you learnt about natural organisms and apply that to social organism, like Schäffle has done, like others have done too, likewise with Weltmutation then it shows you are unwilling to develop a capability to consider the social organism as independent, to examine it as such, to research it according to its own laws, just as you do with natural organisms. In order for you to understand me I have made this comparison with a natural organism. The very moment you continue, like the researcher in nature, objectively meeting the natural organism, as you would place yourself before the independence of the social organism in order to learn about its laws, in that moment the game of analogy regarding the earnestness of your observation, will stop.

I want to call your attention now to how this play of analogies must come to an end. The examination of the social organism—here it involves something becoming, something which must come into existence first—in as far as it must be healthy, leads to the three members of this social organism, but they both can only be recognised as independent as such, when considered objectively. On the one side, you can distinguish three members of the human organism, on the other side the objective, independent members of the social organism. If you look for analogies, then you most likely will experience the following. You would say that this human head- or nerve-system relates to human spiritual life with its spiritual abilities; the circulatory system rules the relation with this spiritual system with the crudest system, and the materialistic system with the digestive system. The digestive system could be considered through certain fundamental experiences as the crudest of systems in the human organism. What then, if you continued the game of analogy, would be the next thing? The next thing would be to say the social organism divides into three branches.

Spiritual life develops within a person. That is one member. Within a person his actual political life develops too—we will speak about this division of branches afterwards—and also his economic or business life develops within. You could, if you wanted to play the analogy game, believe that spiritual life as in spiritual culture in the social organism is subject to the same kind of laws which allow a comparison with the laws in the nervous and sense systems. The system considered as unrefined, the most materialistic, the digestive system, can in the game of analogy probably be compared with what one calls the crude system of material business life. Whoever can consider things for themselves and stay far away from the mere game of analogy will know that in reality, things are actually reversed in comparison with what comes out of mere analogy. See, the social organism lies opposite the economic production and consumption, opposite the economic circulation of goods at the basis of life's rules, just like the natural human organism's laws are at the foundation of the nerves- and sense-life, which is its spiritual system. Certainly the life of public law, the actual political life, life which is often too all-encompassing, which can be described as the actual civil life, allows itself to be between the two systems of the digestive and the nerve-sense systems where the rhythmic system lies, the regulating system of the breathing and heart. Only by comparing how the human organism has, between its digestive and nerve-systems the central circulation or rhythmic systems, so between the public rights and the economic system stand the actual life of spiritual culture. This life of spiritual culture, this spiritual life of the social organism has no laws which can be thought of as analogous to laws of human talents, laws of human sense and nerve existence but the spiritual life in the social organism has laws which can only be compared with laws in the crudest system, the metabolic system.

This leads to an objective observation of the social organism. Regarding this particular point the assumption must be clear in order for no misunderstanding to arise in a belief that the physiological or biological elements are simply transferred on to the social organism. The social organism must be considered as an independent organism throughout for its success towards recovery to take place. In various areas in central and eastern Europe the word “socializing” is heard. This socializing will not become a healing process but a fake process in the social organism, perhaps even a disturbing process if the human heart, the soul does not have insight with instinctive knowledge of the necessity for a threefoldness in the social organism. This social organism has in every case, if it is to work in a healthy way, three members. The first member, to begin with from the one side—one could understandably also start on the side of the spiritual life but for now we will start on the economic side as this obviously controls the rest of life through modern technology in modern capitalism—therefore, the first member of the social organism as business life, or economic life, will be looked at. This economic life, we will partly today and partly in the course of these lectures see it has to be an independent member within the social organism just as in comparison, the nerve- sense system is relatively independent in the human organism. Our economic life is connected to all that takes place in the production, circulation and consumption of goods. With everything connected to these three things, economy is linked. We will soon consider its characteristics in order to understand it more closely.

As a second member of the social organism we observe the life of public law, the actual political life, for the purposes of the old constitutional state it could be called the actual life of the state. Meanwhile economic life involves the business of everything which the human being brings out of nature as his own production, because the economic life involves the circulation and consumption of goods, so this second member of the social organism is involved with everything with a human foundation with its relationships of people with people. This I ask you to consider comprehensively, because it is important for knowledge of the members of the social organism to know the difference between public laws which relate to the foundation of one human being to another, while in the economic system it involves the production, circulation and consumption of goods. One must be able to distinguish between the natural human system in relation to the lungs and outer air, the processing of this outer air, how this differs from the manner and way nourishment is transformed in the third natural system within the human being.

As a third member which must be placed independently from the others, there has to be a distinction from everything in the social order which involved spiritual life. More precisely the name ‘spiritual culture’ does not cover everything connected to spiritual life; it should be everything flowing into the social organism which depends on the natural gift of individuals, the natural spiritual and physical talents coming from single individuals. Similar to the first system, the economic system which needs to exist for humanity to relates and regulates the outer world, the second system which must exist in the social organism, relates to everything happening between one person and another; there we have the third system. In order for this third system to have a name it will be called the spiritual system, involved with everything which is created out of the single human individuality and needing to be incorporated into the social organism.

Even as true as it is that modern technology and modern capitalism have given a stamp to our modern community life, it actually is so necessary for the wounds of humanity beaten from this side to be healed and thus enable people and communities to develop the right relationship to the threefold social order I am characterizing here.

Economic life has in our modern time taken on particular forms. It has so to speak penetrated human life with its own rules. Both the other members of the social organism are in the position to bring their own independent laws in the right way into this social organism. For them it is necessary that people out of independence and from a point of awareness carry out the social membership, each in its place, where it is positioned. For the purpose of finding solutions to the social question which we are considering, every single person has a social task in the present and near future. The first member of the social organism, the economic life, rests primarily on a natural background. Just as each individual depends for his learning and his education on the talents of his spiritual and physical organs, on those gifts and talents given to him, likewise economic life depends on certain natural foundations. This natural basis gives economic life—and through this the totality of the social organism—its character. However, these natural foundations are there without having to be discovered through some social organisation, some or other socializing of its original form. This needs consideration. Just as with the education of humanity the various gifts they have need consideration, in natural bodily and spiritual abilities, so every attempt at socializing community living by giving it an economic form as well, need consideration out of its natural foundations. All circulation of goods and also all human labour and any spiritual cultural life lie at the foundation of the first elementary origins chained by human beings to a particular part of nature. Here one needs to really think about the social organism's relationship with the natural foundation, for instance as in individuals in regard to learning and education, in relation to their gifts in thinking. This can be made clear by taking extreme examples.

For instance, you can imagine how in various parts on earth, locally produced bananas present a source of nourishment, how bananas qualify in the community to be displaced from their point of origin and be made into a consumable product at a specific destination. Compare the human labour involved in making bananas into consumables for the community with the work of making wheat into a consumable product in the vicinity of Central Europe, it is clear the work needed for the bananas, modestly calculated, is three hundred times less. The work necessary to make the wheat consumable is, lightly calculated, three hundred times bigger.

This is indeed an extreme example. Such differences regarding the measure of work necessary in relation to its natural origin exist in our production line also, under the production line which is represented in some or other social organism in Europe. Not as radical a difference as between bananas and wheat, but the differences are there. Just as the economic organism is founded on the relationship between human beings and their consumption of nature, the measure of the work talents in reality dependent on the natural origin, so the being of a person is dependent on his natural physical or spiritual gifts. One can make a comparison. In Germany, in the region of middle profit abilities, the sowing of wheat has a crop return of seven to eight times at the harvest. In Chile this becomes twelve times, in north Mexico seventeen times and in Peru twenty times, south Mexico twenty-five times up to thirty-five times. For different regions of the earth the return in wheat productivity is in relation to the earth, to the yield of the earth. This actually affects the measure of labour needed to bring the wheat in an appropriate manner into the economic life.

Just as one can make such data for the measure of labour needed to process the wheat into a consumable item in different regions, so comparisons can be made for the labour needed in the most varied production lines, raw materials with different production lines made consumable within the economic sphere of a social organism.

This whole interconnected being found in the preliminary processes at the beginning of the relation of people to nature, which continue in every human action by transforming products of nature into consumables for the community, all these processes which are involved as a whole from the natural foundations up to consumables, all these processes, and only these, are included in a healthy social organism as a pure economic member of the social organization. This economic member of the social organisation must be—I will in the course of the lectures give more details with proof—with just such an independence be positioned in the whole social organism as the human head organisation stands in relation to the entire human organism.

Independently standing beside the economic system another system must exist and that is the relationship between one person and another. Living within the purely economic system is the relationship which needs to be established between people and objective goods. A healthy social life needs to develop as a second member of the social organism which regulates everything in relationships between one person and another.

People have neglected achieving the correct difference between the two members of the social organism through the hypnotic belief that modern technology and ancient thinking habits in modern times are the economic forces and processes necessary, either for single regions or in the radical social sense, which can be transformed into the totality of economic life, applied to what I have here as the second member, as the actual state region in a narrower sense, as the region of public law, as the area of relationships between one person to the other.

This region of the state can only then develop in a healthy way when the conflicting streams of development cut in, which are considered by some as correct. Many people believe that healing the social organism is only achievable through nationalization as much as possible; with the greatest degree of association with nationalism—but it involves far more the necessity for complete autonomy, acknowledged and applied to all the separate branches of life, which must step in between economic life—with all its laws on the one side—and the narrower life of the state on the other side—again with its own laws.

I can well imagine how many people there are who say: ‘For Heavens' sake, these things are becoming so complicated! Things which are brought together out of necessities for new developments are now to be separated from one another by various systems!’ Whoever speaks in this way, unable to consider origins developing in a natural way, would even refuse to understand that the human organism can only be alive as a result of the relative autonomy of the rhythmic life, the vital breathing and hart in the breast, concentrated, centralized in the breathing and in the heart system. The entire human organism is dependent on such systems being closed in and yet working together. The health of the social organism depends on the economic life having its own laws, that the legal life, the life of public law and public security, everything fitting the narrower description of political, has its own laws and its own proficiencies. Only then will both these spheres work in the right way, in the social organism. May it come about with some, who believe certain requirements have finally been accomplished, while others may well raise a shoulder, that it can eventually be said: no healing in the central management of the social organism, as within a party, can happen without cooperation between economic life and political life. If this does happen we will see it is valid for the third member as well. It is necessary nonetheless, that just as the circulatory system has its own lungs, just as the nerve-sense system has its own brain system, so in a single management system its own management, an autonomous replacement system or party or other representation is there for the economic and political or public legal systems, and then again for the third domain, an autonomous area for spiritual life.

These three spheres have a valid autonomy in a healthy organism and relate to one another through their independent representative, enabling this mutual relationship between the three members of the social organism. This corresponds to them in the same way as the independent relationship is produced by the three members of the natural human organism. It turns out that essentially those representations and administrations produced out of the economic members of the organism, that these essentially work towards the economic organism building an associated foundation for itself, a cooperative, trade unionism, but in a higher form. This cooperative trade unionism will only work with the laws of production, work with the circulation and consumption of goods. This is what creates the foundation, builds the content for the economic member of the social organism. It will depend on the vitality of association. It will depend on those who have given the necessary inequality produced from natural foundations, to balance it out. I have pointed out how many variations exist in the amount of human labour needed according to different relationship of the natural source of a member's production. All this enters into an unnatural social organization, when such cooperation is achieved as it has been up to now, of nature, human labour and capital. In a most chaotic way nature, human labour and capital are infused into a unified state or remain outside lawlessly, outside this unitary state. Even though the life of spiritual culture which is dependent on people's physical and spiritual talents for their expression, so also the chosen public and political laws of life must be acknowledged for their need to develop an independent life for themselves, such as the economic system.

I could, to make myself better understood as far as it is needed today, include the following. Besides other foundations out of which we live today, there is also a surfacing out of mankind's deep, natural foundations for a renewal of the social organism, in which can be heard the three words: brotherhood, equality, freedom. Whoever is unprejudiced towards a healthy human experience for all that is really human, will not feel anything but the deepest sympathy and deepest understanding for the meaning in the words, brotherhood, equality, and freedom. Nevertheless, I know of extraordinary thinkers, deep astute thinkers who repeatedly in the course of the 19th Century took the trouble to show how impossible it is to make a united social organism comprising brotherhood, equality and freedom, a reality. An astute Hungarian searched for proof that these three things, but when they are realized, when they penetrate human social structure, they will contradict themselves. Shrewdly he referred to the example of how impossible it is to instil equality into social life because every human being also wants the necessity for freedom to be valid. He found these three ideals to be contradictory. Interestingly, one can't but agree that there is a contradiction and one can't but sympathise out of a general human experience regarding these three ideals. Why these?

Because as soon as the true sense of these three ideals become clear, it will be recognised as necessarily a threefold social organism. The three members should not be an abstract, theoretical parliament or some unit assembled and centralized, they should be living reality and through their lively activity side by side be brought together in a unit. When these three members are independent they contradict one another in a certain way, just like the metabolic system is at variance with the head and rhythmic systems. However, in life, contradictions are just what work together in a unit. Through an understanding of life one is able to figure out the real gesture of the social organism. A realization will arise that brotherliness must be active in order for cooperation within economic life, where rules are needed among one another regarding particulars, are to be created in this first social member. In the second member of public law where it deals with the relationship of one person to another, only in as far as a human being is a person, it works with the activation of the idea of equality. In the spiritual sphere, where again it has to exist independently in the social organism, it deals with the idea of freedom. Now suddenly the three golden ideals gain their real value when it is known that they may not reach success through an inter-scrambled mixture but that they are orientated according to laws within the threefold organism in which each single one of the three members can achieve its applicable ideal of freedom, equality and brotherhood.

Today I can only propose the structure of the social organism in the form of a sketch. In the following lectures, I will substantiate and prove each one individually. Adding to what has been said is a third member of a healthy social organism with everything arising out of the human individuality, on the foundation of freedom and based on the physical and spiritual gifts of individuals. Here again an area is touched which causes quiet shudders when things are truthfully defined. To continue with this healthy organism, a third area is added which encompasses everything which relates to the religious life of humanity, everything related to schools and education in the widest sense which includes spiritual life, the practice of art and so on. While I only want to mention this today, in the next lectures I will create an extensive foundation regarding everything which belongs to this third sphere—which is not related to public law which belongs in the second sphere—but which is related to private law and criminal law. I found with those to whom I've explained this threefold social organism and who have understood some of it, that they could not grasp the idea that public law, the law which relates to the security and equality of people, should be separated from the right towards law breaking, or towards the private relationships between people; that this could be regarded as separate, and private law and criminal law must be included in the third, in the spiritual member of the social organism.

Modern life has unfortunately turned away from considering these three members of the social organism. Just like the body of economics with its concerns have penetrated into the government, into actual political life, penetrated its concerns into the representative body of political life, the result has clouded the possibility for the second member of the organism to be formed in which human equality can be realized, so too the economic and public life have absorbed the possibility which can only develop itself in a freer form. Out of a certain instinct, out of an erroneous instinct however, modern social democracy has tried to separate religious life from the life of the public state: “Religion is a private affair”; unfortunately, not out of particular care for religion, not out of a special evaluation accessible through the religious life, but out of disregard, out of complacency towards religious life linked to the content I presented in my previous lecture, the day before yesterday. This progression is right for the separation of religious life from the other spheres, from the formation of the economic life and from the formation of political life. Just as necessary as the separation of the lower and higher educational systems are, so too is the spiritual life actually from the two other members. A really healthy social organism can only develop when within these entities they ensure equality of all people before the law, when only out of these entities it is ensured that free human individualities develop schools, religious and spiritual life, when it is ensured that life is developed in freedom and no claim is made according to economic or state rules placed on school, educational and spiritual life.

That sounds radical today. Such radicalism must be expressed as soon as it is detected. Spiritual life, inclusive of education, inclusive of jurisdiction in public and criminal matters, actually underlies the complete freedom flowing out of single individuals which both the other members of the social organism can have no influence upon in its configuration, upon its forms.

Yesterday I only offered a sketch towards the direction thinking can move in the search for solutions of the social question, attempts at solutions based on necessities of life, not based on abstract demands of a single party, of a single class, but based on the powers actually developing in modern people.

I wish to say I can understand every objection raised but ask you to wait with objections until my sketch has been carried to completion in my coming lectures. Particularly today I can understand objections being raised as I'm just trying to characterise; the evidence of the World Trade Organization is not yet clear. I must say I can understand every objection coming out of various experiences which I want to represent here with ideas which I believe I can recognise in frequently misjudged spiritual science as the actual foundations of life which I have related to these things.

Behind us lie a time containing the most terrible human catastrophe. Within the life we had to lead within this catastrophic time, we have not had the human heart in the right place if our vision did not contain the power and ability to say: ‘Where can we find help out of this terrible chaos into which we have been driven?’—I told you the day before yesterday I would speak about the particular relationships of these wars to their causes and their unfolding in relation to the social question in both my following lectures. Today I would like to say it is clear to me, as we are going to be within these events for a long time to come, events now having entered a crisis which some short-sighted thinkers believe are soon at an end, that out of these things, out of chaos, out of the terrible catastrophe in some or other area of the civilized world it is possible to find the correct thoughts, the correct picture of more truthful, more realistic impulses for the human social organism. Towards various personalities who have been active and advisory during the last years within these terrible events, I have proposed what is also the vein of my various presentations here: I have tried to make it clear to these personalities who are involved, how different events would have been if from an authoritative place in the world it was said: ‘We want to head towards a healthy social goal.’—The entire interrelationship of states would have been different if, instead of mere laws and state programs being introduced, a comprehensive program for people in the way indicated here, had been introduced.

One can say that these things have been understood in a certain theoretical way. The content of my lectures has appeared to some in a really sympathetic way. The bridge which needs to be established between understanding such content and the will to actually do something to make it a reality in actual life, each in its own place, this bridge is quite another matter. This would mostly have an uncomfortable effect. For this reason, they compose themselves and say: ‘It all sounds a bit like a dream to me, quite impractical.’—They remain calm only because they don't have the will forces to really involve themselves with the course of events. Not a revolutionary course of events is meant here, not something which should happen from one day to the next, but a direction in which all single measures of public and private life should be brought for healing, to form a healthy social organism. The content of my lecture the day before yesterday, I have brought in another form to some people on whom one wanted to depend during these difficult times, addressed in the following way: Today, I would say for example, we are in the most terrible time of the war. Expressing the social necessity in this, the most terrible time of The War, it would be to say: People who are committed to this or that state into giving humanity a worthy self-realization which will become a reality for humanity, will enable this terrible course of events to take on quite a different, healing direction than merely the sword, the cannons and such like, or offer nothing through existing regional politics. I say they have the choice to either acknowledge what is offered here out of the developmental conditions and developmental forces within humanity, or to stand alone.

Today we stand, because during the last decade humanity has somehow missed acknowledging the essence of these things, today we stand in front of the most terrible catastrophe which has broken out like a plague, an illness attacking an organism which has failed to live according to its natural laws. This war catastrophe should now clearly reveal what is necessary for the healing of the social organism of humanity. This indication could have been perceived before the war but then it was not so clear, not even recognised. To some I have said: You have been given these indications regarding human evolution in the social sphere which will be brought into a reality in the next twenty to thirty years in the civilized world. I'm not talking about a program or ideal but it is the result of observation of those who want to make a reality of the seed towards an inclination already in humanity today, towards the next ten, twenty or thirty years. You have only to choose, I say, either to work through to its realization with reason, or to face revolutions of social cataclysms, terrible social upheavals. No third choice is possible. The war will probably be the time—so I say to some—where reason is acceptable. After that it could be too late. It is not a program which can be implemented or left undone, but involves recognising something which needs implementation through people, because in it lie their necessary historical growth forces for the future.

Another particular obstacle towards understanding is some or other belief that these things only relate to an inner structure of some state or some human territory. No, such social thoughts are at the same time the basis for the real necessary transformation of outer politics of states under one another. Just like the human organism turns each of its particular organs to the outside world, so also can a state only accomplish it when—if I might use this whole expression—such a social organism can shift its three members into outer activity. Relationships between one individual state and another appear quite different when a centralized government and administrations no longer remain in connection with one another but when one socially educated representative with a spiritual life relate to another representative with a spiritual life in another social state; whether it be an economic or a political representative, corresponding to the representative in the other state. When there is an intermixing, a confused mess due to the three members working outwardly in such a way to create an ensuing conflict at its boundary through the chaos of this intermixing of the three members, then, when across the boundary an independent state with threefold representatives working independently, the process of one member in the international relationship will not only be disrupted by the other, but by contrast, will balance out and be corrected.

This is what I wanted to sketch for you today to support the idea that it doesn't merely involve an assertion of inner social structure of one state but involves the international and social life of humanity. I have already tried to make all these things clear while we are in the middle of these horrific catastrophic events. At the moment, terrible misfortune has broken out over many people in central and eastern Europe, terrible misfortune for every individual, for every perceptive person the rest of the world indicates threatening misfortune. This must take place in relation to the real understanding of humanity for their tasks in the present and future: whoever wants to bring about a healing of life out of the actual evolutionary elements in humanity must take this up, not as an impractical ideal but as an actual practical application in life.

The obvious form modern life has taken on through technology and capitalism has to stand in opposition to the most inner human initiative forms of the spiritual, independent spiritual culture and independent state culture, which bring about in actual fact an equality between one person to another and which also, as we will soon see, could regulate labour and wage relations in a desirable way for the Proletariat.

The question about the form or human labour, about the liberation of labour from goods will only become detachable when threefoldness enters the social organism. The desire of the modern socialist is certainly legitimate as a desire; what they consider a remedy would work the least effectively as a remedy when it transforms outer reality in the way they want it to be.

This I need to stress yet again: I am not trying to come from some one-sided class or party position but from the side of the observation of human developmental forces in order to speak about what some call social integration and others call the healing of social life and others the reawakening of a healthy political sense, and so on.

What we are dealing with here is not some random program but the deepest true impulses coming to the fore in the next decades in humanity's evolution, it is actually the very foundation of the entire meaning and intention which I want to make into a reality with these lectures; it doesn't relate to the opinion of a person from this standpoint, but it relates to the expression of the deepest wishes in mankind for the next decades. This I would like to found and implement and prove in my lectures during the week ahead.

Zweiter Vortrag

Die vom Leben geforderten wirklichkeitsgemäßen Lösungsversuche für die sozialen Fragen und Notwendigkeiten auf Grund geisteswissenschaftlicher Lebensauffassung

Mit Bezug auf meine Ausführungen möchte ich die Bitte aussprechen, diese vier Vorträge durchaus als ein Ganzes zu betrachten, so daß das, was in einem der Vorträge vorgebracht wird, keineswegs aus sich selbst wird immer vollständig beurteilt werden können. Das Thema, das in Betracht kommt, ist ja ein so umfassendes, daß es sich wirklich nur bewältigen läßt in einer Anzahl von Vorträgen.

Im heutigen Vortrage möchte ich vorläufig skizzenweise sprechen von denjenigen Lösungsversuchen, die aus einer wirklichen Erkenntnis der Wesenheit des sozialen Organismus kommen können, jene Lösungsmöglichkeiten der sozialen Frage, welche nicht einseitig aus den Forderungen dieser oder jener Menschenklasse, dieses oder jenes Standes hervorgehen, sondern welche hervorgehen aus einer wirklichkeitsgemäßen, aus einer sachgemäßen Beobachtung der Entwickelungskräfte der Menschheit, insbesondere derjenigen Entwickelungskräfte der Menschheit, die in ausgesprochenstem Maße die Entwickelungskräfte der Gegenwart und der nächsten Zukunft dieser Menschheit sind. Versucht man das, was man heute die soziale Frage nennt, irgendwie einer Lösung entgegenzubringen aus den Aspirationen, den Forderungen eines Standes, einer Klasse heraus, überhaupt aus irgendeinem Teil des sozialen Organismus heraus, so kann man gar nicht anders als durch das, was man vollführt auf der einen Seite, Wirkungen hervorzurufen für andere Klassen, für andere Faktoren des sozialen Organismus, die in irgendeiner Weise entwickelungshemmend oder die Gesundheit der Lebensverhältnisse untergrabend sind.

Für unsere Zeit gilt dies, was ich als Wahrheit hier andeute und im Laufe der Vorträge erhärten will: daß das ganze moderne Leben, oder man kann eben auch sagen, der moderne soziale Organismus, eine ganz bestimmte Gestaltung erfahren hat durch das, was ja oftmals als das Charakteristische dieses modernen Lebens ausgesprochen wird, durch die moderne Technik, durch den technischen Betrieb des Wirtschaftslebens und was damit im Zusammenhange steht, durch die kapitalistische Art, diesen Wirtschaftsbetrieb zu organisieren. Auf dasjenige, was moderne Technik, was moderner Kapitalismus in das Leben hereingebracht haben, hat sich notwendig nicht nur der beobachtende Blick der Menschen gerichtet, sondern es haben sich darauf gerichtet auch die mehr oder weniger bewußten oder mehr oder weniger instinktiv wirkenden organisierenden Kräfte innerhalb der sozialen Struktur der menschlichen Gesellschaft.

Man kann nun das Charakteristische, das gerade zu der besonderen Gestalt der sozialen Frage in der neueren Zeit geführt hat, wohl so aussprechen, daß man sagt: Das Wirtschaftsleben, von der Technik getragen, der moderne Kapitalismus, sie haben mit einer gewissen naturhaften Selbstverständlichkeit gewirkt und die moderne Gesellschaft in eine gewisse innere Ordnung gebracht. Neben der Inanspruchnahme der menschlichen Aufmerksamkeit für das, was Technik und Kapitalismus gebracht haben, ist die Aufmerksamkeit abgelenkt worden von anderen Zweigen, anderen Gebieten des sozialen Organismus, die ebenso notwendig wirksam werden müssen, wenn der soziale Organismus gesund sein soll wie das wirtschaftliche Gebiet.

Ich darf vielleicht, um mich über das zu verständigen, was ich gerade als den Nerv einer umfassenden, allseitigen Beobachtung über die soziale Frage erkannt zu haben glaube, von einem Vergleich ausgehen. Aber ich bitte zu berücksichtigen, daß ich nichts anderes meine damit als einen Vergleich, als etwas, was unterstützen kann das menschliche Verständnis, um es gerade in diejenige Richtung zu bringen, welche notwendig ist, um sich Vorstellungen zu machen über die Gesundung des sozialen Organismus. Wer in dieser Hinsicht betrachten muß den kompliziertesten natürlichen Organismus, den menschlichen Organismus, der muß seine Aufmerksamkeit darauf richten, daß die ganze Wesenheit dieses menschlichen Organismus darauf beruht, daß er drei nebeneinander wirksame Systeme in einem inneren Gefüge aufzuweisen hat. Diese drei nebeneinander wirksamen Systeme kann man etwa in folgender Weise kennzeichnen. Man kann sagen: Im menschlichen natürlichen Organismus wirkt dasjenige System, welches in sich schließt das Nerven- und Sinnesleben. Man könnte es auch nach dem wichtigsten Gliede des Organismus, wo das Nerven- und Sinnesleben gewissermaßen zentralisiert ist, den Kopforganismus nennen.

Als zweites Glied der menschlichen Organisation hat man anzuerkennen, wenn man ein wirkliches Verständnis erwerben will für diese menschliche Organisation, was ich nennen möchte das rhythmische System, das zusammenhängt mit Atmung, Blutzirkulation, mit alldem, was sich ausdrückt in rhythmischen Vorgängen des menschlichen Organismus.

Als drittes System hat man dann anzuerkennen alles dasjenige, was als Organe und Tätigkeiten zusammenhängt mit dem eigentlichen Stoffwechsel. In diesen drei Systemen ist enthalten alles dasjenige, was in gesunder Art unterhält, wenn es aufeinander organisiert ist, den Gesamtvorgang, der sich abspielt im menschlichen Organismus.

Ich habe versucht, in vollem Einklange mit alldem, was naturwissenschaftliche Forschung schon heute sagen kann, diese Dreigliederung des menschlichen natürlichen Organismus wenigstens zunächst skizzenweise in meinem Buche «Von Seelenrätseln» zu charakterisieren. Ich bin mir klar darüber, daß alles das, was Biologie, Physiologie, was Naturwissenschaft mit Bezug auf den Menschen in der allernächsten Zeit hervorbringen werden, gerade hinführt zu einer solchen Betrachtung des menschlichen Organismus, welche durchschaut, wie diese drei Glieder — Kopfsystem, Zirkulations- oder Brustsystem und Stoffwechselsystem — gerade dadurch den Gesamtvorgang im menschlichen Organismus aufrechterhalten, daß diese Glieder in einer gewissen Selbständigkeit wirken, daß nicht eine absolute Zentralisation des menschlichen Organismus vorliegt, daß auch jedes dieser Systeme ein besonderes, für sich bestehendes Verhältnis zur Außenwelt hat: das Kopfsystem durch die Sinne, das Zirkulationssystem oder rhythmische System durch die Atmung, und das Stoffwechselsystem durch die Ernährungsorgane.

Wir sind mit Bezug auf naturwissenschaftliche Methoden noch nicht ganz so weit, um das, was ich hier angedeutet habe, was aus geisteswissenschaftlichen Untergründen heraus für die Naturwissenschaft von mir zu verwerten gesucht worden ist, um das wirklich schon innerhalb der naturwissenschaftlichen Kreise selbst zur allgemeinen Anerkennung zu bringen, wie das wünschenswert für den Erkenntnisfortschritt erscheinen kann. Das heißt aber: Unsere Denkgewohnheiten, unsere ganze Art, die Welt vorzustellen, ist noch nicht vollständig angemessen dem, was zum Beispiel im menschlichen Organismus sich als die innere Wesenheit des Naturwirkens darstellt. Man könnte in einem gewissen Sinne sagen: Nun ja, die Naturwissenschaft kann warten, sie wird nach und nach ihren Idealen zueilen, sie wird schon dahin kommen, solch eine Betrachtungsweise als die ihrige anzuerkennen. Aber mit Bezug auf die Betrachtung und namentlich das Wirken des sozialen Organismus, kann man nicht warten. Da muß nicht nur bei irgendwelchen Fachmännern, sondern da muß in jeder Menschenseele — denn jede Menschenseele nimmt teil an der Wirksamkeit des sozialen Organismus — wenigstens eine instinktive Erkenntnis von dem vorhanden sein, was diesem sozialen Organismus notwendig ist. Ein gesundes Denken und Empfinden, ein gesundes Wollen und Begehren mit Bezug auf die Gestaltung des sozialen Organismus kann sich nur entwickeln, wenn man, sei es auch mehr oder weniger bloß instinktiv, sich klar darüber ist, daß dieser soziale Organismus, soll er gesund sein, ebenso dreigliedrig sein muß wie der natürliche Organismus.

Dabinichan dem Punkte, wo ich mich besonders verwahren muß dagegen, mißverstanden zu werden. Es ist ja, seit Schäffle sein Buch geschrieben hat über den Bau des sozialen Organismus, immer wieder und wiederum versucht worden, Analogien festzustellen zwischen der Organisation eines Naturwesens, sagen wir der Organisation des Menschen und der menschlichen Gesellschaft als solcher. Was hat man da alles versucht festzustellen, was im sozialen Organismus die Zelle ist, was Zellengefüge sind, was Gewebe sind und so weiter! Noch vor kurzem ist ja ein Buch erschienen von Meray, «Weltmutation», in dem gewisse naturwissenschaftliche Tatsachen und naturwissenschaftliche Gesetze einfach übertragen werden auf, wie man meint, den menschlichen Gesellschaftsorganismus. Mitall diesen Dingen, mit all diesen Analogiespielereien hat dasjenige, was hier gemeint ist, absolut nichts zu tun. Und derjenige, welcher nach Abschluß dieser Vorträge sagen wird: Aha, hier hat man es auch wiederum mit einem solchen Analogiespiel zwischen dem natürlichen Organismus und dem gesellschaftlichen Organismus zu tun -, der wird dadurch nur beweisen, daß er nicht in den eigentlichen Geist des hier Gemeinten eingedrungen ist. Denn nicht das will ich: irgendeine für naturwissenschaftliche Tatsachen passende Wahrheit herüberverpflanzen auf den sozialen Organismus, sondern das will ich, daß das menschliche Denken, das menschliche Empfinden so lernt an der Betrachtung des naturgemäßen Organismus, daß es seine Methode, seine Empfindungsweise dann auch anwenden kann auf den sozialen Organismus. Wenn man einfach das, was man glaubt gelernt zu haben am natürlichen Organismus, überträgt auf den sozialen Organismus, wie Schäffle es getan hat, wie es andere getan haben, wie es wiederum in dem Buch über «Weltmutation» gemacht wird, so zeigt man damit nur, daß man nicht sich die Fähigkeiten aneignen will, den sozialen Organismus ebenso selbständig, ebenso für sich zu betrachten, nach seinen eigenen Gesetzen zu forschen, wie man dies tut für den natürlichen Organismus. Also nur um mich verständlich zu machen, habe ich den Vergleich gezogen mit dem natürlichen Organismus. Denn in dem Augenblicke, wo man wirklich so vorgeht, daß man objektiv, wie der Naturforscher, sich gegenüberstellt dem natürlichen Organismus, so sich dem sozialen Organismus in seiner Selbständigkeit gegenüberstellt, um dessen eigene Gesetze zu erkennen, in diesem Augenblicke hört gegenüber dem Ernst der Betrachtung jedes Analogiespiel auf.

Ich will gleich bemerken, wie dieses Analogiespiel aufhören muß. Die Betrachtung des sozialen Organismus — allerdings hat man es da mit einem Werdenden, mit einem eigentlich erst Entstehenden zu tun -,, insoferne er gesund sein soll, führt ebenfalls zu drei Gliedern dieses sozialen Organismus; aber man erkennt beides selbständig für sich, wenn man objektiv die Dinge nehmen kann. Man erkennt auf der einen Seite die drei Glieder des menschlichen Organismus, auf der anderen Seite objektiv für sich die drei Glieder des sozialen Organismus. Würde man Analogien suchen, dann würde man vielleicht in der folgenden Weise verfahren. Man würde sagen: Das menschliche Kopf- oder Nerven-Sinnessystem hängt zusammen mit dem menschlichen Geistesleben, mit den geistigen Fähigkeiten; das Zirkulationssystem regelt den Zusammenhang dieses geistigen Systems mit dem gröbsten System, mit dem materiellen System, mit dem Stoffwechselsystem. Das Stoffwechselsystem wird dann nach gewissen Empfindungen, die man nun schon einmal aus gewissen Untergründen heraus hat, als das gröbste System des menschlichen Organismus angesehen. Was wäre nun, wenn man ein Analogiespiel treiben würde, das Nächstliegende? Das Nächstliegende wäre, daß man sagte: Nun ja, auch der soziale Organismus zerfällt in drei Glieder. In ihm wickelt sich ab das menschliche Geistesleben. Das wäre ein Glied. In ihm wickelt sich ab das eigentliche politische Leben - wir werden gleich nachher von dieser Gliederung sprechen -, inihm wickelt sich aber auch ab das Wirtschaftsleben. Nun könnte man, wenn man Analogiespiel treiben wollte, glauben, dasjenige, was als geistiges Leben, als geistige Kultur im sozialen Organismus gewissen Gesetzen unterworfen ist, das hätte solche Gesetze, die sich vergleichen ließen mit den Gesetzen des geistigen Systems, des Nerven- und Sinnessystems. Dasjenige System, das im Menschen als das gröbste, als das eigentlich Stoffliche angesehen wird, eben das Stoffwechselsystem, das würde ein bloßes Analogiespiel wahrscheinlich vergleichen mit dem, was man nennt das grobe, materielle Wirtschaftsleben. Derjenige, der die Dinge nun für sich betrachten kann, der weit von sich weist ein bloßes Analogiespiel, der weiß, daß das, was wirklich ist, gerade umgekehrt ist gegenüber dem, was dutch ein bloßes Analogiespiel herauskommt. Für den sozialen Organismus liegen gegenüber der wirtschaftlichen Produktion und Konsumtion, gegenüber der wirtschaftlichen Warenzirkulation so die Gesetze dem Leben zugrunde, wie im menschlichen natürlichen Organismus Gesetze zugrunde liegen seinem Nerven- und Sinnesleben, gerade seinem Geistsystem. Allerdings, dasjenige, was das Leben des öffentlichen Rechtes ist, das eigentliche politische Leben, das Leben, welches man oftmals viel zu umfassend denkt, das man bezeichnen kann als das eigentliche Staatsleben, das läßt sich nun vergleichen mit dem zwischen den zwei natürlichen Systemen, dem Stoffwechselsystem und dem Nerven-Sinnessystem liegenden rhythmischen System, dem regulierenden System, dem Atmungs- und dem Herzsystem. Aber nur dadurch läßt es sich vergleichen, daß eben, wie im menschlichen Organismus zwischen dem Stoffwechsel- und dem Nervensystem in der Mitte das Zirkulations- oder rhythmische System liegt, so liegt das System des öffentlichen Rechtes zwischen dem Wirtschaftssystem und zwischen dem eigentlichen Leben der Geisteskultur. Und dieses Leben der Geisteskultur, dieses Leben des Geistes im sozialen Organismus, das hat nun nicht Gesetze, die sich analog denken lassen den Gesetzen der menschlichen Begabungen, den Gesetzen des menschlichen Sinnes- und Nervenlebens, sondern das, was geistiges Leben im sozialen Organismus ist, das hat Gesetze, die sich nur vergleichen lassen mit den Gesetzen des menschlichen gröbsten Systems, des Stoffwechselsystems.

Das ist es, wozu eine objektive Betrachtung des sozialen Organismus führt. Das muß aber auch vorausgesetzt werden, damit kein Mißverständnis mit Bezug auf diese Punkte eintritt, damit man nicht glaube, es werde einfach Physiologisches oder Biologisches auf den sozialen Organismus übertragen. Der soziale Organismus muß aber durchaus selbständig für sich betrachtet werden, wenn Ersprießliches zu seinem Gedeihen, zu seiner Gesundung geschehen soll.

Wie tönt aus den mancherlei Gebieten von Mittel- und Osteuropa auch hier herein das Wort «Sozialisierung». Diese Sozialisierung wird kein Heilungsprozeß, sondern ein Kurpfuscherprozeß am sozialen Organismus sein, vielleicht sogar ein Zerstörungsprozeß, wenn nicht in die menschlichen Herzen, in die menschliche Seele einzieht wenigstens die instinktive Erkenntnis von der Notwendigkeit der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Dieser soziale Organismus hat allerdings, wenn er gesund wirken soll, drei solche Glieder in sich.

Das erste dieser Glieder, wenn man auf der einen Seite beginnt — man könnte selbstverständlich auch beim geistigen Leben beginnen, allein wir wollen beim Wirtschaftsleben beginnen, weil sich dieses ja ganz augenscheinlich alles übrige Leben beherrschend durch die moderne Technik und den modernen Kapitalismus in die menschliche Gesellschaft hereingetragen hat -, also als erstes Glied des sozialen Organismus ist das Wirtschaftsleben, ist das ökonomische Leben zu betrachten. Dieses ökonomische Leben, wir werden zum Teil schon heute, zum Teil im weiteren Verlauf dieser Vorträge sehen, daß es ein selbständiges Glied für sich innerhalb des sozialen Organismus sein muß, so relativ selbständig wie das Nerven-Sinnessystem im menschlichen Organismus relativ selbständig ist. Zu tun hat es dieses Wirtschaftsleben mitall dem, was Warenproduktion, Warenzirkulation, Warenkonsumtion ist. Mit alldem, was mit diesen drei Dingen zusammenhängt, hat es das Wirtschaftsleben zu tun. Wir werden uns gleich nachher über seine Eigentümlichkeiten noch genauer verständigen.

Als zweites Glied des sozialen Organismus ist zu betrachten das Leben des öffentlichen Rechtes, das eigentliche politische Leben, jenes Leben, welches man im Sinne des alten Rechtsstaates als das eigentliche Staatsleben bezeichnen könnte. Während es zu tun hat das Wirtschaftsleben mit alldem, was der Mensch braucht aus der Natur und aus seiner eigenen Produktion heraus, während es das Wirtschaftsleben zu tun hat mit Waren, Warenzirkulation und Warenkonsumtion, kann es dieses zweite Glied des sozialen Organismus nur zu tun haben mit alldem, was sich aus rein menschlichen Untergründen heraus auf das Verhältnis des Menschen zum Menschen bezieht. Das bitte ich durchaus zu berücksichtigen, denn es ist wesentlich für die Erkenntnis der Glieder des sozialen Organismus, daß man weiß, welcher Unterschied besteht zwischen dem System des öffentlichen Rechtes, das es nur zu tun haben kann aus menschlichen Untergründen heraus mit dem Verhältnis von Mensch zu Mensch, und dem Wirtschaftssystem, das es nur zu tun hat mit Warenproduktion, Warenzirkulation, Warenkonsumtion. Man muß dieses ebenso wissen, wie man zu unterscheiden wissen muß im menschlichen natürlichen System die Beziehung der Lunge zur äußeren Luft, zur Verarbeitung dieser äußeren Luft, wie man wissen muß dieses zu unterscheiden von der Art und Weise, wie die aufgenommenen Nahrungsmittel, durch das dritte natürliche System im Menschen umgewandelt, für den Menschen verwendet werden.

Als drittes Glied, das wiederum selbständig sich neben die beiden anderen Glieder hinstellen muß, hat man zu unterscheiden im sozialen Organismus alles das, was sich auf das geistige I,eben bezieht. Noch genauer könnte man sagen, weil vielleicht die Bezeichnung «geistige Kultur» oder alles das, was sich auf das geistige Leben bezieht, durchaus nicht ganz genau ist: alles das, was beruht auf der natürlichen Begabung des einzelnen menschlichen Individuums, was hineinkommen muß in den sozialen Organismus auf Grundlage der natürlichen Begabung, geistigen und physischen Begabung des einzelnen Individuums. So wie das erste System, das Wirtschaftssystem, es zu tun hat mit alldem, was da sein muß, damit der Mensch sein materielles Verhältnis zur Außenwelt regeln kann, während das zweite System es zu tun haben muß mit all demjenigen, was da sein muß im sozialen Organismus wegen des Verhältnisses von Mensch zu Mensch, hat es das dritte System, das System, das ich, nur um einen Namen zu haben, das geistige System nenne, zu tun mit alldem, was hervorsprießen muß und eingegliedert werden muß in den sozialen Organismus aus der einzelnen menschlichen Individualität heraus.

Ebenso wahr als es ist, daß moderne Technik und moderner Kapitalismus unserem gesellschaftlichen Leben eigentlich in der neueren Zeit das Gepräge gegeben haben, ebenso notwendig ist es, daß diejenigen Wunden, die von dieser Seite her notwendig der menschlichen Gesellschaft geschlagen worden sind, dadurch geheilt werden, daß man den Menschen und die menschliche Gesellschaft selbst in ein richtiges Verhältnis bringt zu dem, was ich hier charakterisiert habe als die drei Glieder dieses sozialen Organismus. Das Wirtschaftsleben hat einfach durch sich selbst in der neueren Zeit ganz bestimmte Formen angenommen. Es hat sozusagen hereingedrängt in das menschliche Leben seine eigenen Gesetze. Die anderen beiden Glieder des sozialen Organismus sind in der Lage, mit derselben Selbstverständlichkeit sich in der richtigen Weise nach ihren eigenen Gesetzen in den sozialen Organismus hineinzugliedern. Für sie ist es notwendig, daß der Mensch aus Selbständigkeit, aus Bewußtsein heraus die soziale Gliederung vornimmt, jeder an seinem Orte, wo er steht. Denn im Sinne derjenigen Lösungsversuche der sozialen Fragen, die hier gemeint sind, hat jeder einzelne Mensch seine soziale Aufgabe in der Gegenwart und in der nächsten Zukunft.

Das erste Glied des sozialen Organismus, das Wirtschaftsleben, das ruht zunächst auf der Naturgrundlage. Geradeso wie der einzelne Mensch mit Bezug auf das, was er für sich durch Lernen, durch Erziehung, durch das Leben werden kann, ruht auf der Begabung seines geistigen und körperlichen Organismus, auf denjenigen Begabungen und Talenten, die ihm gegeben sind, so ruht alles Wirtschaftsleben auf einer gewissen Naturgrundlage. Diese Naturgrundlage drückt einfach dem Wirtschaftsleben und dadurch dem gesamten sozialen Organismus sein Gepräge auf. Aber diese Naturgrundlage ist eben da, ohne daß sie durch irgendeine soziale Organisation, durch irgendeine Sozialisierung in ursprünglicher Art getroffen werden kann. Sie muß berücksichtigt werden. So wie bei der Erziehung des Menschen berücksichtigt werden muß die Begabung, die er hat auf den verschiedenen Gebieten, seine natürliche körperliche und geistige Tüchtigkeit, so muß von aller Sozialisierung überhaupt, von jedem Versuche, dem menschlichen Zusammenleben auch eine wirtschaftliche Gestaltung zu geben, berücksichtigt werden die Naturgrundlage. Denn aller Warenzirkulation und auch aller menschlichen Arbeit und auch jeglichem geistigen Kulturleben liegt zugrunde als ein erstes elementarisches Ursprüngliches das, was den Menschen kettet an ein bestimmtes Stück Natur. Da muß man wirklich denken über den Zusammenhang des sozialen Organismus mit der Naturgrundlage, wie man beim einzelnen Menschen mit Bezug auf Lernen, mit Bezug auf Erziehung, im Verhältnis zu seiner Begabung zu denken hat. Man kann sich dieses gerade an extremen Fällen klarmachen. Man braucht zum Beispiel nur zu bedenken, daß in gewissen Gebieten der Erde, wo die Banane ein naheliegendes Nahrungsmittel für die Menschen abgibt, in Betracht kommt für das menschliche Zusammenleben das an Arbeit, das aufgebracht werden muß, um die Banane von ihrer Ursprungsstätte aus an einen bestimmten Bestimmungsort zu einem Konsummittel zu machen. Vergleicht man die menschliche Arbeit, die aufgebracht werden muß, um die Banane für die menschliche Gesellschaft konsumfähig zu machen, mit der Arbeit, die aufgebracht werden muß etwa in unseren Gegenden Mitteleuropas, um den Weizen konsumfähig zu machen, so ist die Arbeit, die für die Banane aufgebracht werden muß, bescheiden gerechnet, dreihundertmal geringer. Die Arbeit, die aufgebracht werden muß, um den Weizen konsumfähig zu machen, ist, gering gerechnet, dreihundertmal größer.

Gewiß, es ist ein extremer Fall. Aber solche Unterschiede mit Bezug auf das notwendige Maß von Arbeit im Verhältnis zu der Naturgrundlage sind auch unter unseren Produktionszweigen da, unter den Produktionszweigen, die in irgendeinem sozialen Organismus Europas vertreten sind. Nicht in dieser radikalen Verschiedenheit wie Banane und Weizen, aber diese Unterschiede sind da. So ist das durchaus im Wirtschaftsorganismus begründet, daß durch das Verhältnis des Menschen, seiner Konsumtion zur Natur, das Maß von Arbeitsfähigkeit wesentlich abhängt von der Naturgrundlage, wie das Wesen eines Menschen abhängt von seiner natürlichen körperlichen oder geistigen Begabung. Und man braucht ja nur zum Beispiel zu vergleichen: In Deutschland, in Gegenden mit mittlerer Ertragsfähigkeit, ist das Erträgnis der Weizenkultur so, daß ungefähr das sieben- bis achtfache der Aussaat wiederum einkommt durch die Ernte. In Chile kommt das zwölffache herein, in Nordmexiko kommt das siebzehnfache ein, in Peru das zwanzigfache, in Südmexiko das fünfundzwanzig- bis fünfunddreißigfache. Da haben Sie für verschiedene Gegenden der Erde die Ertragsfähigkeit der Weizenkultur im Verhältnis zum Boden, zu dem Ertrag des Bodens. Das aber beeinträchtigt im wesentlichen das Maß von Arbeit, welches aufgebracht werden muß, um den Weizen in der entsprechenden Weise als Ware in das Wirtschaftsleben einzufügen.

So wie man solche Angaben machen kann für das Maß von Arbeit, das notwendig ist, um den Weizen in verschiedenen Gegenden konsumfähig zu machen, so kann man auch unterscheiden in dem Maße von Arbeit, das notwendig ist, um die verschiedensten Produktionszweige, Rohprodukte der verschiedensten Produktionszweige, innerhalb des Wirtschaftslebens eines sozialen Organismus konsumfähig zu machen. Dieses ganze zusammengehörige Wesen, welches verläuft in Vorgängen, die beginnen in dem Verhältnis des Menschen zur Natur, die sich fortsetzen mit alldem, was der Mensch zu tun hat, um die Naturprodukte umzuwandeln und sie zu bringen bis zur Konsumfähigkeit für den Menschen, alle diese Vorgänge, die in diesen Gesamtvorgängen von der Naturgrundlage bis zur Konsumfähigkeit liegen, alle diese Vorgänge, und nur diese, schließen sich für einen gesunden sozialen Organismus in das reine Wirtschaftsglied der sozialen Organisation ein. Dieses Wirtschaftsglied der sozialen Organisation müßte nun — ich werde das im Lauf der Vorträge noch genauer ausführen und beweisen — mit einer solchen Selbständigkeit im ganzen sozialen Organismus drinnenstehen, wie das menschliche Kopfsystem im menschlichen Gesamtorganismus drinnensteht.

Und selbständig neben diesem Wirtschaftssystem müßte ein anderes System stehen, das es zu tun hat nur mit dem Verhältnis des Menschen zum Menschen. Das, was im reinen Wirtschaftssystem lebt, hat es mit dem Bedarf nach diesem oder jenem zu tun, wodurch festgestellt wird des Menschen Verhältnis zur objektiven Ware. Was als zweites Glied im sozialen Organismus sich entwickeln muß, wenn ein gesundes soziales Leben wach werden soll, das ist alles das, was regelt das Verhältnis von Mensch zu Mensch.

Man hat versäumt, den richtigen Blick für die Unterscheidung dieser zwei Glieder des sozialen Organismus sich anzueignen, dadurch daß man, wie hypnotisiert durch das moderne Wirtschaftsleben und durch uralte Denkgewohnheiten in der neueren Zeit glaubte, die wirtschaftlichen Kräfte und Vorgänge notwendigerweise entweder für einzelne Gebiete oder im Sinne der Sozialisten radikal für das ganze Wirtschaftsleben übertragen zu können, überleiten zu können auf das, was ich hier als das zweite Glied, als das eigentliche staatliche Gebiet im engeren Sinne, als das Gebiet des öffentlichen Rechtes, als das Gebiet des Verhältnisses von Mensch zu Mensch zu schildern habe.

Dieses staatliche Gebiet wird sich nur dann gesund entwickeln können, wenn es die gegenteilige Entwickelungsströmung einschlägt, welche gerade von manchen als die richtigeangesehen wird. Während zahlreiche Menschen heute glauben, daß eine Gesundung des sozialen Organismus nur möglich ist, wenn man möglichst verstaatlicht, wenn man möglichst viel vergesellschaftet, handelt es sich vielmehr darum, daß man erkennt und anzuwenden weiß für alle einzelnen Zweige des Lebens, daß eine durchgreifende Selbständigkeit eintreten muß zwischen dem Wirtschaftsleben auf der einen Seite mit seinen eigenen Gesetzen, und dem engeren Staatsleben auf der anderen Seite, wiederum mit seinen eigenen Gesetzen.

Ich kann mir wohl denken, wie viele Menschen es gibt, die sagen: Um Gotteswillen, so kompliziert soll die Sache werden! Das, was man nun zusammenbringen wollte aus den Notwendigkeiten der neueren Entwickelung, das soll in verschiedene Systeme auseinandergelegt werden! — Wer so spricht, daß ihm das zu kompliziert ist, daß er sich nicht denken könne, daß das Naturgemäße auf diesem Wege zustande kommt, der gleicht dem, der nichts davon wissen will, daß der menschliche Organismus nur dadurch leben kann, daß er mit relativer Selbständigkeit das rhythmische Leben, das Atmungs- und Herzleben, in der Brust, im Atmungs- und Herzsystem konzentriert, zentralisiert hat. Das Ganze des menschlichen Organismus beruht darauf, daß jedes solche Systemleben in sich abgeschlossen ist, und daß sie dann wiederum zusammenwirken. Die Gesundheit des sozialen Organismus beruht darauf, daß das Wirtschaftsleben seinen eigenen Gesetzen gehorcht, das Rechtsleben, das Leben des öffentlichen Rechtes, der öffentlichen Sicherheit, alles das, was man im engeren Sinneals politisch bezeichnen kann, wiederum seinen eigenen Gesetzen gehorcht, seine eigenen Einrichtungen hat. Getrade dann werden die beiden Gebiete des sozialen Organismus in der richtigen Weise zusammenwirken. Und möge es auch bei manchem, der da glaubt, aus gewissen Voraussetzungen heraus sich doch endlich zum Rechten durchgerungen zu haben, mag es nun auch bei manchem ein Schaudern erregen, gesagt werden muß es doch: So lange besteht keine Gesundung des sozialen Organismus, als in einer Partei, in einer Verwaltung zentralistisch zusammen verwaltet wird Wirtschaftsleben und politisches Leben. Wir werden dann sehen, daß das auch für das dritte Gebiet gilt. Notwendig ist, daß ebenso, wie das Zirkulationssystem seine eigene Lunge, wie das Nerven-Sinnessystem sein eigenes Gehirnsystem hat, daß ein eigener Verwaltungsorganismus, ein selbständiger Verwaltungs-, ein selbständiger Vertretungsorganismus, also Parteioder sonstige Vertretung, vorhanden ist je für das Wirtschaftsleben, für das politische Leben oder das öffentliche Rechtsleben, und für das dritte Gebiet, wiederum selbständig, für das geistige Leben.

Diese drei Gebiete haben in sich eine gewisse Souveränität im gesunden sozialen Organismus und verhandeln untereinander durch ihre selbständigen Vertreter, um dadurch jenes gegenseitige Verhältnis herzustellen zwischen den drei Gliedern des sozialen Organismus. Das entspricht dem auch in selbständiger Weise hergestellten Verhältnis der drei Glieder des menschlichen natürlichen Organismus. Es wird sich herausstellen, daß im wesentlichen diejenigen Vertretungen und Verwaltungen, die sich herausergeben werden aus dem Wirtschaftsgliede des Organismus, daß diese im wesentlichen darauf hinzuarbeiten haben, daß dieser Wirtschaftsorganismus für sich auf assoziativer Grundlage aufgebaut ist, Genossenschafts-, Gewerkschaftswesen, aber höheres Genossenschafts-, Gewerkschaftswesen ist, solches Genossenschafts-, Gewerkschaftswesen, das sich nur mit den Gesetzen von Warenproduktion, Warenzirkulation, Warenkonsumtion beschäftigt. Das ist es, was die Grundlage bilden, was den Inhalt bilden wird für das Wirtschaftsglied des sozialen Organismus. Auf dem Assoziationsleben wird er beruhen. Es wird auf demjenigen beruhen, was die notwendigen Ungleichheiten, die durch die Naturgrundlage gegeben werden, zum Ausgleich bringt. Ich habe darauf hingewiesen, wie verschieden der menschliche Arbeitsaufwand ist, je nach dem dies oder jenes Verhältnis zu der Naturgrundlage eines Produktionszweiges besteht. Alles dies kommt in eine unnatürliche soziale Organisation hinein, wenn so zusammenarbeiten, wie bisher zusammengearbeitet haben, Natur, Menschenarbeit und Kapital. Natur, Menschenarbeit und Kapital sind in der chaotischsten Weise hinein konfundiert worden in den Einheitsstaat oder sind anarchisch draußen geblieben, außerhalb dieses Einheitsstaates. Es muß erkannt werden, daß sowohl das Leben der geistigen Kultur, das beruht auf den körperlichen und geistigen Anlagen der Menschen und ihrer Ausbildung, als auch das öffentliche, politische und Rechtsleben, daß sie die Aufgabe haben, gerade auszusondern, für sich zum selbständigen Leben zu bringen das, was das System des Wirtschaftsorganismus ist.

Ich kann noch, um mich vielleicht verständlich zu machen, soweit dies schon heute notwendig ist, zu dem Folgenden greifen. Als aus allerdings anderen Grundlagen heraus als diejenigen sind, in denen wir heute nun schon leben, auftauchte aus tiefen Untergründen der menschlichen Natur heraus der Ruf nach einer Neugestaltung des sozialen Organismus, da hörte man als Devise dieser Neuorganisation die drei Worte: Brüderlichkeit, Gleichheit, Freiheit. Nun wohl, wer sich mit vorutrteilslosem Sinn und mit einem gesunden Menschheitsempfinden einläßt auf alles wirklich Menschliche, der kann natürlich nicht anders als die tiefste Sympathie und das tiefste Verständnis empfinden für alles das, was da liegt in den Worten Brüderlichkeit, Gleichheit, Freiheit. Dennoch, ich kenne ausgezeichnete Denker, tiefe, scharfsinnige Denker, welche immer wieder und wiederum im Laufe des 19. Jahrhunderts sich Mühe gegeben haben, zu zeigen, wie es unmöglich ist, in einem einheitlichen sozialen Organismus die Ideen von Brüderlichkeit, Gleichheit, Freiheit zu verwirklichen. So hat ein scharfsinniger Ungar den Nachweis zu führen gesucht, daß diese drei Dinge, wenn sie sich verwirklichen sollen, wenn sie eindringen sollen in die menschliche soziale Struktur, sich widersprechen. Scharfsinnig hat er nachgewiesen zum Beispiel, wie es unmöglich ist, wenn man die Gleichheit im sozialen Leben allein durchführt, daß dadurch die in jedem Menschenwesen notwendig begründete Freiheit auch zur Geltung komme. Widersprechend fand er diese drei Ideale. Merkwürdig, man kann gar nicht anders, als denen zustimmen, die diesen Widerspruch finden, und man kann gar nicht anders als aus einem allgemein menschlichen Empfinden mit jedem dieser drei Ideale seine Sympathie haben! Warum dieses?

Nun, eben aus dem Grunde, weil man den rechten Sinn dieser drei Ideale erst einsieht, wenn man erkennt die notwendige Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Die drei Glieder sollen nicht in einer abstrakten, theoretischen Reichstags- oder sonstigen Einheit zusammengefügt und zentralisiert sein, sie sollen lebendige Wirklichkeit sein und durch ihr lebendiges Wirken nebeneinander erst die Einheit zusammenbringen. Wenn diese drei Glieder selbständig sind, so widersprechen sie sich in einer gewissen Weise, wie das Stoffwechselsystem dem Kopfsystem und dem rhythmischen System widerspricht. Aber im Leben wirkt das Widerspruchsvolle gerade zu der Einheit zusammen. Daher wird man zu einem Erfassen des Lebens des sozialen Organismus kommen, wenn man imstande ist, die wirklichkeitsgemäße Gestaltung dieses sozialen Organismus zu durchschauen. Dann wird man erkennen, daß im Zusammenwirken der Menschen im Wirtschaftsleben, wo sie untereinander zu regeln haben auf dem besonderen, eigenen Gebiete dieses erste soziale Glied, daß auf diesem Gebiete in dem, was Menschen tun, wirken muß die Brüderlichkeit. In dem zweiten Gliede, in dem System des öffentlichen Rechtes, wo man es zu tun hat mit dem Verhältnis des Menschen zum Menschen, nur insoferne man überhaupt Mensch ist, hat man es zu tun mit der Verwirklichung der Idee der Gleichheit. Und auf dem geistigen Gebiete, das wiederum in relativer Selbständigkeit dastehen muß im sozialen Organismus, hat man es zu tun mit der Idee der Freiheit. Da gewinnen plötzlich diese drei goldenen Ideale erst ihren Wirklichkeitswert, wenn man weiß: sie dürfen nicht in einem chaotisch Durcheinandergewürfelten sich realisieren, sondern in dem, was ein nach wirklichkeitsgemäßen Gesetzen orientierter sozialer dreigliedriger Organismus ist, in welchem jedes einzelne der drei Glieder für sich das ihm zugehörige Ideal von Freiheit, Gleichheit und Brüderlichkeit verwirklichen kann.

Ich kann heute die Struktur des sozialen Organismus nur skizzenhaft andeuten. In den nächsten Vorträgen werde ich dieses alles im einzelnen begründen und beweisen. Was ich aber zu dem Gesagten noch hinzuzufügen habe, ist, daß als drittes Glied des gesunden sozialen Organismus wirken muß alles dasjenige, was sich in ihn hineinstellt aus der menschlichen Individualität heraus, was auf Freiheit basiert sein muß, was auf der körperlichen und geistigen Begabung des einzelnen Menschen beruht. Hier berührt man wiederum ein Gebiet, welches allerdings, richtig charakterisiert, manchem Gegenwartsmenschen noch ein leises Schaudern verursacht. Das, was umschlossen werden muß von diesem dritten Gebiete des gesunden sozialen Organismus, das ist alles dasjenige, was sich auf das religiöse Leben des Menschen bezieht, was sich auf Schule und Erziehung im weitesten Sinne bezieht, was sich auch sonst auf das geistige Leben, auf den Betrieb von Kunst und so weiter bezieht. Und, heute will ich es nur erwähnen, in den nächsten Vorträgen werde ich auch das ausführlich begründen: Alles das gehört in dieses dritte Gebiet, was sich bezieht nun nicht auf das öffentliche Recht, das in das zweite Gebiet gehört, sondern was sich bezieht auf das private Recht und auf das Strafrecht. Ich habe manchen gefunden, dem ich vortragen konnte diese Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus und er hat mancherlei verstanden — das konnte er nun gar nicht verstehen, daß das öffentliche Recht, das Recht, das sich auf die Sicherheit und Gleichheit aller Menschen bezieht, abgetrennt werden muß von dem, was Recht ist gegenüber einer Rechtsverletzung, oder gegenüber dem, was eben private Verhältnisse der Menschen sind, daß das voneinander abgetrennt werden muß, und daß Privatrecht und Strafrecht dem dritten, dem geistigen Gliede des sozialen Organismus zugezählt werden muß.

Nun, das moderne Leben hat sich leider bis jetzt ganz und gar abgekehrt von einer Berücksichtigung dieser drei Glieder des sozialen Organismus. So wie der Wirtschaftskörper mit seinen Interessen eingedrungen ist in das staatliche, in das eigentlich politische Leben, seine Interessen hineingebracht hat in die Vertretungskörper des politischen Lebens, dadurch getrübt hat die Möglichkeit, wirklich dieses zweite Glied des sozialen Organismus so zu gestalten, daß sich die Gleichheit aller Menschen darinnen verwirklicht, so hat auch aufgesogen das Wirtschafts- und das staatliche Leben das, was sich nur in freier Gestaltung entwikkeln kann. Aus einem gewissen Instinkt heraus, allerdings aus einem verkehrten Instinkt heraus hat die moderne Sozialdemokratie das religiöse Leben abzutrennen versucht von dem öffentlichen Staatsleben: «Religion ist Privatsache»; aber leider nicht aus einer besonderen Achtung vor der Religion, aus einer besonderen Schätzung desjenigen, was mit dem religiösen Leben dem Menschen gegeben ist, sondern gerade aus einer Mißachtung, aus einer Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber dem religiösen Leben, was mit den Dingen zusammenhängt, die ich im vorigen Vortrage, vorgestern, ausgeführt habe. Aber richtig ist an dieser Forderung die Abtrennung des religiösen Lebens von den beiden anderen Gebieten, von der Gestaltung des Wirtschaftslebens und von der Gestaltung des politischen Lebens. Aber ebenso notwendig ist die Abtrennung des gesamten niederen und höheren Erziehungswesens, wie des geistigen Lebens überhaupt, von den beiden anderen Gliedern. Und erst dann wird ein wirklich gesundes Leben des sozialen Organismus eintreten, wenn innerhalb derjenigen Körperschaften, die zu wachen haben über die Gleichheit aller Menschen vor dem Gesetze, wenn in dieser Körperschaft nur darauf gesehen wird, daß aus den freien menschlichen Individualitäten heraus Schule, religiöses und sonstiges geistiges Leben sich entwickeln kann, wenn darüber gewacht wird, daß dieses Leben in Freiheit sich entwickelt, wenn nicht der Anspruch darauf gemacht wird, von sich aus zu regeln, von der Wirtschaft oder vom Staate aus zu regeln das Schul-, das Erziehungs-, das geistige Leben.

Das scheint heute radikal. Allein, man muß solche Radikalismen aussprechen, sobald man sie erkannt hat. Das geistige Leben, einschließlich des Erziehungslebens und einschließlich der Rechtsprechung in Privat- und Strafsachen, unterliegt so sehr dem, was aus der einzelnen Individualität des Menschen herausfließt in voller Freiheit, daß die beiden anderen Glieder des sozialen Organismus keinen Einfluß nehmen dürfen auf die Konfiguration, auf die Gestaltung dieses Lebens.

Ich habe Ihnen heute zunächst nur eine Skizze gegeben über die Gedankenrichtung, in der sich die Lösungsversuche der sozialen Frage bewegen müssen, jene Lösungsversuche, welche auf den wirklichen Notwendigkeiten des Lebens beruhen, welche nicht auf den abstrakten Forderungen einer einzelnen Partei, einer einzelnen Klasse beruhen, sondern auf den Entwickelungskräften der neuzeitlichen Menschheit überhaupt.

Ich möchte sagen: Jeden Einwand, der gemacht wird, kann ich verstehen, ich bitte aber gerade mit Einwänden zu warten, bis das gehört ist, was ich zur Ausführung dieser allgemeinen Skizze in den nächsten Vorträgen zu sagen haben werde. Insbesondere heute könnte ich Einwände verstehen, wo ich ja nur versucht habe zu charakterisieren, wo die Beweise noch nicht vorliegen. Aber ich möchte sagen: Ich kann jeden Einwand verstehen aus den mancherlei Erfahrungen heraus, die ich mit den Ideen, die ich auch hier vertreten will und die ich aus der ja so vielfach verkannten Geisteswissenschaft heraus als die Wirklichkeitsgrundlage des Lebens zu erkennen glaube, die ich mit diesen Dingen gemacht habe.

Wir haben hinter uns die Zeit der furchtbarsten Menschheitskatastrophe. Man müßte innerhalb des Lebens, das man führen mußte innerhalb dieser katastrophalen Zeit, nicht das menschliche Herz auf dem rechten Flecke gehabt haben, wenn man nicht Ausblick gehalten hätte nach seinen Kräften, nach seinen Fähigkeiten: Wo liegen die Hilfen aus dem furchtbaren Chaos heraus, in das wir hineintrieben? - Ich sagte Ihnen vorgestern, ich werde über die besonderen Verhältnisse dieses Krieges in seinen Ursachen und in seinem Verlaufe im Zusammenhange mit der sozialen Frage in den beiden nächsten Vorträgen noch zu sprechen haben. Heute möchte ich sagen, daß es mir klar war, als wir noch lange drinnenstanden in den Ereignissen, die jetzt in eine Krise eingetreten sind, von welcher manche kurzdenkende Menschen glauben, daß sie schon ein Ende ist, daß zu denjenigen Dingen, die aus dem Chaos, aus der furchtbaren Katastrophe auf dem einen oder anderen Gebiete der sogenannten zivilisierten Welt herausführen können, auch gehört ein richtiges Denken, ein richtiges Vorstellen wahrhaftiger, wirklichkeitsgemäßer Impulse für den menschlichen sozialen Organismus. Ich habe manchen Persönlichkeiten, die tätig und ratend drinnenstanden in den letzten Jahren in dem, was in so furchtbarer Weise geschah innerhalb der Entwickelung der neueren Menschheit, das vorgelegt, was auch der Nerv meiner jetzt hier zu machenden Ausführungen ist; ich habe mancher Persönlichkeit, auf die es scheinbar ankam, klarzumachen versucht, wie anders die Ereignisse würden, wenn von autoritativer, von maßgebender Stelle aus der Welt gesagt würde: Wir wollen einem gesunden menschlichen sozialen Ziele zueilen. — Das ganze Verhältnis der Staaten untereinander hätte anders werden müssen, wenn statt bloßer Rechtsund Staatsprogramme umfassende Menschheitsprogramme in dem hier gemeinten Sinne von da oder dort in die Menschheit gebracht worden wären.

Man kann nicht einmal sagen, daß solche Dinge nicht ein gewisses theoretisches Verständnis gefunden hätten. Was ich in diesen Vorträgen ausgeführt habe, hat manchen sogar recht sympathisch geschienen. Aber die Brücke zu schlagen zwischen dem Verstehen einer solchen Sache und dem Willen, nun wirklich alles zu tun, um diese Dinge im Leben entsprechend zu verwirklichen, jeder an seinem Orte, diese Brücke zu schlagen, das ist noch eine andere Sache. Das wirkt vielfach unbequem. Daher betäubt sich mancher gerne und sagt: Mir scheint das Ganze träumerisch, unpraktisch. — Er betäubt sich nur, weil er nicht den Willen hat, wirklich einzugreifen in den Gang der Ereignisse. Nicht ein revolutionärer Gang der Ereignisse ist hier gemeint, nicht etwas was von heute auf morgen geschehen soll, sondern an die Richtung ist gedacht, in welche alle einzelnen Maßnahmen des öffentlichen und privaten Lebens gebracht werden müssen, wenn eine Gesundung des sozialen Organismus eintreten soll. Das, was ich schon vorgestern gesagt habe, das habe ich in anderer Form manchem Menschen, auf den man rechnen wollte in dieser schwierigen Zeit, mit folgenden Worten gesagt: Heute, sagte ich zum Beispiel, stehen wir in dem furchtbarsten der Kriege. Spräche man aus diesem furchtbarsten der Kriege das, was der Menschheit sozial notwendig ist, so aus, daßß man sagt: man bekenne sich dazu, diesem oder jenem Reiche einen menschenwürdigen Inhalt dadurch zu geben, daß man so etwas für die Menschheit verwirklichen will, dann würde man dem furchtbaren Gang der Ereignisse eine ganz andere, heilsamere Richtung geben als durch das bloße Schwert, durch die bloßen Kanonen und dergleichen, oder durch eine bloße, eigentlich auf gewissen Gebieten gar nicht vorhandene Politik. Ich sagte: Sie haben die Wahl, entweder das, was hier vorgelegt wird, was erkannt wird aus den Entwickelungsbedingungen und Entwickelungskräften der Menschheit heraus, durch Vernunft zu verwirklichen, oder vor etwas anderes gestellt zu sein.

Heute stehen wir, weil die Menschheit in den letzten Jahrzehnten gewissermaßen versäumt hat, das zu erkennen, was in diesen Dingen liegt, heute stehen wir vor der furchtbarsten Katastrophe, die hereingebrochen ist wie eine Krankheit, wie eine Krankheit, die einen Organismus befällt, der nicht naturgemäß seinen Gesetzen nachlebt. Diese Kriegskatastrophe soll gerade zeigen, deutlich zeigen, was man vor ihr auch schon hätte erkennen können, aber weil es nicht so deutlich war, eben nicht erkannt hat, die soll zeigen, was notwendig ist für die Gesundung des sozialen Organismus der Menschheit. Und manchem habe ich gesagt: Sie haben in diesen Andeutungen über die menschliche Entwickelung in sozialer Beziehung gegeben, was sich in den nächsten zwanzig bis dreißig Jahren in der zivilisierten Welt verwirklichen will. Es ist nicht ein Programm, nicht ein Ideal, von dem ich spreche, sondern es ist das Ergebnis der Beobachtung desjenigen, was sich in den nächsten zehn, zwanzig, dreißig Jahren durch das, was in der Menschheit keimhaft heute schon veranlagt ist, verwirklichen will. Und Sie haben nur die Wahl, sagte ich, entweder durch die Vernunft an der Verwirklichung zu arbeiten, oder sich gegenübergestellt zu sehen Revolutionen und sozialen Kataklysmen, sozialen furchtbaren Umwälzungen. Nichts drittes gibt es daneben. Der Krieg wird vielleicht die Zeit sein — so sagte ich zu manchem -, wo noch Vernunft anzunehmen ist. Nachher könnte es zu spät sein. Denn es handelt sich nicht um ein Programm, das man ausführen oder unterlassen kann, sondern es handelt sich darum, daß das erkannt werden muß, was sich verwirklichen will, und was der Mensch deshalb verwirklichen muß, weil es in seinen notwendigen geschichtlichen Wachstumskräften für die Gegenwart und die nächste Zukunft liegt.

Was sich auch noch als ein besonderes Hindernis des Verständnisses ergab, das war, daß der eine oder andere immer wieder glaubte, solche Dinge bezögen sich nur auf das innere Gefüge irgendeines Staates oder irgendeines Menschheitsterritoriums. Nein, solches soziale Denken ist zu gleicher Zeit die Grundlage für die wirklich notwendige Gestaltung der äußeren Politik der Staaten untereinander. Geradeso wie der menschliche Organismus jedes seiner Systeme durch besondere Organe der Außenwelt zuwendet, so kann auch nur der Staat, wenn ich nun diesen Gesamtausdruck gebrauchen darf, als sozialer Organismus seine drei Glieder nach außen in Tätigkeit versetzen. Ganz anders stellen sich die Verhältnisse von Einzelstaat zu Einzelstaat heraus, wenn nicht mehr zentralisierte Regierungen und Verwaltungen miteinander in Beziehung treten, sondern wenn von dem einen sozialen Gebilde die Vertreter des geistigen Lebens mit den Vertretern des geistigen Lebens des anderen sozialen Staatsgebildes in Beziehung treten, wiederum die Vertreter des Wirtschaftsgebietes, des politischen Gebietes, mit der entsprechenden Vertretung der anderen. Während das Zusammenfügen, das Durcheinanderwirren der drei Gebiete nach außen hin so wirkt, daß immer, wenn ich so sagen darf, an den Grenzen notwendig Konflikte entstehen müssen durch das Chaos, das in dem Durcheinanderwirren der drei Gebiete liegt, würde, wenn über die Grenzen der einzelnen Staaten hinüber die Vertretungen der drei Glieder in ihrer Selbständigkeit wirkten, das Wirken des einen Gliedes in internationaler Beziehung durch das Wirken des anderen nicht nur nicht gestört, sondern im Gegenteil korrigiert und ausgeglichen werden.

Das ist es, was ich heute nur, ich möchte sagen, wiederum skizzenweise hinstellen möchte zur Bekräftigung dessen, daß es sich hier nicht bloß handelt um Geltendmachung gewissermaßen einer inneren sozialen Staatsstruktur, sondern um internationales und soziales Leben der Menschheit. Alle diese Dinge versuchte ich schon klatzumachen, während wir in den furchtbaren katastrophalen Ereignissen drinnenstanden. Jetzt ist für viele Menschen Mittel- und Osteuropas furchtbares Unglück hereingebrochen, furchtbares Unglück, das für jeden einzelnen, für jeden Einsichtigen sich als ein auch die übrige Welt bedrohliches Unglück zeigt. Das muß Platz greifen mit Bezug auf ein wirkliches Verständnis der Menschheit für ihre Aufgaben in der Gegenwart und Zukunft: daß diejenigen, welche also aus den wahren wirklichen Entwikkelungsbedingungen der Menschheit heraus das Leben in seine Gesundung überführen wollen, nicht für unpraktische Idealisten, sondern für die wirklichen Lebenspraktiker endlich genommen werden. Der selbstverständlichen Gestaltung des modernen Lebens aus Technik und Kapitalismus heraus muß sich gegenüberstellen die durchaus auf innerster menschlicher Initiative beruhende Gestaltung der geistigen, selbständigen geistigen Kultur und der selbständigen Staatskultur, welche die wahre Gleichheit von Mensch zu Mensch begründet und welche auch, wie wir demnächst sehen werden, die Arbeits- und Lohnverhältnisse erst in einer für das Proletariat wünschenswerten Weise regeln können.

Die Frage nach der Gestaltung der menschlichen Arbeit, nach der Befreiung der menschlichen Arbeit von der Ware, die wird erst lösbar, wenn die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus eintritt. Das, was die modernen Sozialisten wollen, ist als Wollen gewiß berechtigt; was sie selbst als die Heilmittel ansehen, das würde am allerwenigsten als Heilmittel wirken, wenn es in äußere Realität so übergeführt würde, wie sie wollen.

Das aber möchte ich immer wieder und wiederum betonen: Hier versuche ich nicht aus irgendeiner einseitigen Klassen- oder Parteistellung heraus, sondern aus der Beobachtung der menschlichen Entwickelungskräfte heraus über dasjenige zu sprechen, was die einen Sozialisierung, die anderen Gesundung des sozialen Lebens, wieder andere Wiedererwachen eines gesunden politischen Sinnes und so weiter nennen. Daß man es aber mit etwas zu tun hat, was nicht ein willkürliches Programm ist, sondern was der tiefste Wirklichkeitsimpuls der nächsten Jahrzehnte der Menschheitsentwickelung ist, das ist es, was eigentlich zugrunde liegt der ganzen Meinung und Intention, die ich mit diesen Vorträgen verwirklichen will; daß man es nicht zu tun hat mit der Meinung eines Menschen aus diesem oder jenem Stande heraus, sondern daß man es zu tun hat mit dem, was da spricht die tiefere Wollensgrundlage der Menschheit für die nächsten Jahrzehnte. Das möchte ich nun im einzelnen begründen und ausführen und beweisen durch die beiden Vorträge der nächsten Woche.

Second Lecture

Realistic attempts to solve social issues and needs based on a spiritual understanding of life, as demanded by life itself

With regard to my remarks, I would like to ask you to consider these four lectures as a whole, so that what is presented in one of the lectures cannot be fully assessed on its own. The topic under consideration is so comprehensive that it can really only be dealt with in a series of lectures.

In today's lecture, I would like to sketch out some of the attempts at solutions that can arise from a real understanding of the nature of the social organism, those possible solutions to the social question that do not arise one-sidedly from the demands of this or that class of people, this or that class, but which arise from a realistic, objective observation of the forces of development in humanity, especially those forces of development in humanity that are most pronounced in the present and the near future of this humanity. If one attempts to find a solution to what is today called the social question based on the aspirations and demands of a particular class or social group, or indeed of any part of the social organism, one cannot help but cause, through one's actions, effects on other classes, on other factors of the social organism, which in some way inhibit development or undermine the health of living conditions.

What I am suggesting here as truth, and which I intend to substantiate in the course of these lectures, applies to our time: that modern life as a whole, or one might also say the modern social organism, has been shaped in a very specific way by what is often described as the characteristic feature of modern life, namely modern technology, the technical operation of economic life and everything associated with it, and the capitalist way of organizing this economic activity. Not only have people's observant eyes been directed toward what modern technology and modern capitalism have brought into life, but the more or less conscious or more or less instinctive organizing forces within the social structure of human society have also been directed toward it.

One can now express the characteristic feature that has led to the particular form of the social question in modern times by saying that economic life, supported by technology, and modern capitalism have acted with a certain natural self-evidence and brought modern society into a certain internal order. In addition to the human attention being focused on what technology and capitalism have brought, attention has been diverted from other branches, other areas of the social organism, which must be just as effective if the social organism is to be as healthy as the economic sphere.

In order to communicate what I believe I have just recognized as the nerve center of a comprehensive, all-round observation of the social question, I may perhaps start from a comparison. But please bear in mind that I mean nothing more than a comparison, something that can support human understanding in order to steer it in the direction that is necessary for forming ideas about the recovery of the social organism. Anyone who has to consider the most complex natural organism in this respect, the human organism, must focus their attention on the fact that the whole essence of this human organism is based on the fact that it has three systems working side by side in an internal structure. These three systems working side by side can be characterized in the following way. One could say that the human organism contains a system that encompasses the nervous and sensory life. One could also call it the head organism, after the most important part of the organism, where the nervous and sensory life is, so to speak, centralized.

If one wants to gain a real understanding of the human organism, one must recognize as its second member what I would call the rhythmic system, which is connected with breathing, blood circulation, and everything that is expressed in the rhythmic processes of the human organism.

The third system must then be recognized as everything that is connected as organs and activities with the actual metabolism. These three systems contain everything that, when organized in a healthy way, sustains the overall process that takes place in the human organism.

In full agreement with everything that scientific research can already say today, I have attempted to characterize this threefold structure of the human natural organism, at least in outline, in my book “Von Seelenrätseln” (Mysteries of the Soul). I am aware that everything that biology, physiology, and natural science will produce in the very near future with regard to human beings will lead precisely to such a view of the human organism, which sees how these three parts — the head system, the circulatory or chest system, and the metabolic system — maintain the overall functioning of the human organism precisely because these members act with a certain independence, because there is no absolute centralization of the human organism, because each of these systems also has a special, independent relationship to the outside world: the head system through the senses, the circulatory or rhythmic system through breathing, and the metabolic system through the organs of nutrition.

With regard to scientific methods, we are not yet quite ready to bring what I have indicated here, what I have sought to utilize for science from spiritual-scientific foundations, to general recognition within scientific circles themselves, as might appear desirable for the advancement of knowledge. This means, however, that our habits of thinking, our entire way of imagining the world, are not yet fully adequate to what, for example, presents itself in the human organism as the inner essence of nature's workings. In a certain sense, one could say: Well, natural science can wait; it will gradually catch up with its ideals and come to recognize such a way of looking at things as its own. But with regard to the observation and, in particular, the functioning of the social organism, we cannot wait. Not only must there be some experts, but there must also be at least an instinctive awareness in every human soul — for every human soul participates in the functioning of the social organism — of what is necessary for this social organism. Healthy thinking and feeling, healthy will and desire with regard to the formation of the social organism can only develop if one is clear, even if only more or less instinctively, that this social organism, if it is to be healthy, must be as tripartite as the natural organism.

At this point, I must take particular care not to be misunderstood. Ever since Schäffle wrote his book on the structure of the social organism, attempts have been made again and again to establish analogies between the organization of a natural being, say the organization of the human being, and human society as such. What attempts have been made to determine what the cell is in the social organism, what cell structures are, what tissues are, and so on! Just recently, a book by Meray, “Weltmutation” (World Mutation), was published in which certain scientific facts and laws are simply transferred to what is believed to be the human social organism. All these things, all these analogies, have absolutely nothing to do with what is meant here. And anyone who, at the end of these lectures, says: “Aha, here again we are dealing with such an analogy between the natural organism and the social organism” will only prove that they have not penetrated the actual spirit of what is meant here. For that is not what I want: to transplant some truth that is appropriate for scientific facts onto the social organism. Rather, what I want is for human thinking and human feeling to learn from the observation of the natural organism so that it can then apply its method, its way of feeling, to the social organism. If one simply transfers what one believes to have learned from the natural organism to the social organism, as Schäffle did, as others have done, as is done again in the book on “Weltmutation,” one only shows that one does not want to acquire the ability to view the social organism just as independently, just as for itself, to investigate it according to its own laws, as one does for the natural organism. So, just to make myself clear, I have drawn the comparison with the natural organism. For the moment one really proceeds in such a way that one objectively, like the natural scientist, confronts the natural organism, confronts the social organism in its independence in order to recognize its own laws, at that moment every play of analogy ceases in the face of the seriousness of the observation.

I would like to point out right away how this analogy must cease. The observation of the social organism — admittedly, we are dealing here with something that is in the process of becoming, something that is actually only just emerging — insofar as it is to be healthy, also leads to three members of this social organism; but one recognizes both independently of each other if one can take things objectively. On the one hand, one recognizes the three parts of the human organism, and on the other hand, objectively, the three parts of the social organism. If one were to look for analogies, one might proceed in the following way. One would say: The human head or nervous sensory system is connected with human mental life, with mental abilities; the circulatory system regulates the connection between this spiritual system and the coarsest system, the material system, the metabolic system. The metabolic system is then regarded as the coarsest system of the human organism, based on certain feelings that one already has from certain underlying factors. What would be the most obvious analogy? The most obvious would be to say: Well, the social organism is also divided into three parts. Human spiritual life unfolds within it. That would be one part. Actual political life unfolds within it — we will talk about this division in a moment — but economic life also unfolds within it. Now, if one wanted to play with analogies, one might believe that what is subject to certain laws as spiritual life, as spiritual culture in the social organism, has laws that can be compared with the laws of the spiritual system, the nervous and sensory system. The system that is regarded as the coarsest, the most material in human beings, namely the metabolic system, would probably be compared, by mere analogy, with what is called coarse, material economic life. Those who can now consider things for themselves, who reject mere analogy, know that what is real is precisely the opposite of what emerges from mere analogy. For the social organism, the laws underlying life are as fundamental to economic production and consumption, to the economic circulation of goods, as laws are fundamental to the nervous and sensory life of the human natural organism, to its very mental system. However, what constitutes the life of public law, actual political life, the life that is often thought of as far too comprehensive, which can be described as the actual life of the state, can now be compared to the rhythmic system, the regulatory system, the respiratory and cardiac systems, which lie between the two natural systems, the metabolic system and the nervous-sensory system. But it can only be compared in this way because, just as in the human organism the circulatory or rhythmic system lies between the metabolic and nervous systems, so the system of public law lies between the economic system and the actual life of spiritual culture. And this life of spiritual culture, this life of the spirit in the social organism, does not have laws that can be thought of as analogous to the laws of human talents, the laws of human sensory and nervous life, but rather, what spiritual life is in the social organism has laws that can only be compared to the laws of the coarsest human system, the metabolic system.

This is what an objective observation of the social organism leads to. However, this must also be assumed so that no misunderstanding arises with regard to these points, so that one does not believe that physiological or biological aspects are simply transferred to the social organism. However, the social organism must be considered independently if anything beneficial to its prosperity and recovery is to be achieved.

The word “socialization” echoes here from various parts of Central and Eastern Europe. This socialization will not be a healing process, but rather a process of quackery on the social organism, perhaps even a process of destruction, if at least the instinctive recognition of the necessity of the threefold social organism does not enter into human hearts, into the human soul. This social organism does indeed have three such members within it if it is to function healthily.

The first of these members, if one begins on one side — one could of course also begin with spiritual life, but we want to begin with economic life, because this has quite obviously dominated all other life in human society through modern technology and modern capitalism — so, as the first member of the social organism, we must consider economic life. This economic life, as we will see in part today and in part in the further course of these lectures, must be an independent link within the social organism, as relatively independent as the nervous-sensory system is relatively independent in the human organism. This economic life has to do with everything that is commodity production, commodity circulation, and commodity consumption. Economic life has to do with everything related to these three things. We will discuss its peculiarities in more detail shortly.

The second link in the social organism is the life of public law, the actual political life, the life that could be described as the actual life of the state in the sense of the old constitutional state. While economic life has to do with everything that humans need from nature and from their own production, while economic life has to do with goods, the circulation of goods, and the consumption of goods, this second link in the social organism can only have to do with everything that relates to the relationship between humans on a purely human basis. I ask you to take this into account, because it is essential for understanding the links in the social organism to know the difference between the system of public law, which can only deal with the relationship between human beings on the basis of human foundations, and the economic system, which only deals with the production, circulation, and consumption of goods. One must know this just as one must know how to distinguish in the human natural system the relationship of the lungs to the outside air, to the processing of this outside air, just as one must know how to distinguish this from the way in which the food taken in is transformed by the third natural system in humans and used for humans.

As a third link, which in turn must stand independently alongside the other two links, one must distinguish in the social organism everything that relates to the spiritual life. More precisely, because the term “spiritual culture” or everything related to spiritual life is perhaps not entirely accurate, one could say: everything that is based on the natural talents of the individual human being, which must enter into the social organism on the basis of the natural talents, spiritual and physical talents of the individual. Just as the first system, the economic system, has to do with everything that must be there so that human beings can regulate their material relationship to the outside world, while the second system has to do with everything that must be present in the social organism because of the relationship between people, the third system, the system that I call, just for the sake of having a name, the spiritual system, has to do with everything that must spring forth and be integrated into the social organism from the individual human personality.

Just as it is true that modern technology and modern capitalism have actually shaped our social life in recent times, it is equally necessary that the wounds that have necessarily been inflicted on human society by this side be healed by bringing human beings and human society itself into a proper relationship with what I have characterized here as the three members of this social organism. Economic life has simply taken on very specific forms in recent times. It has, so to speak, forced its own laws upon human life. The other two members of the social organism are in a position to integrate themselves into the social organism in the right way, according to their own laws, with the same self-evidence. For them, it is necessary that human beings undertake social organization out of independence and consciousness, each in their own place, where they stand. For in the sense of the attempts to solve social questions that are meant here, each individual human being has their social task in the present and in the near future.

The first link in the social organism, economic life, is based primarily on nature. Just as the individual human being, in terms of what he can become through learning, education, and life, is based on the talents of his mental and physical organism, on the gifts and talents he has been given, so all economic life is based on a certain natural foundation. This natural basis simply leaves its mark on economic life and thus on the entire social organism. But this natural basis is simply there, without it being possible to influence it in any original way through any social organization or socialization. It must be taken into account. Just as in the education of human beings, their talents in various fields and their natural physical and mental abilities must be taken into account, so too must the natural basis be taken into account in all socialization, in every attempt to give human coexistence an economic form. For all the circulation of goods, all human work, and all intellectual cultural life are based on something fundamental and original that chains human beings to a particular piece of nature. We really need to think about the connection between the social organism and the natural basis, just as we need to think about the individual human being in relation to learning, education, and their talents. This can be illustrated by extreme cases. One need only consider, for example, that in certain areas of the world where bananas are an obvious food source for humans, the work that must be expended to transport the bananas from their place of origin to a specific destination where they can be consumed must be taken into account in human coexistence. If we compare the human labor that must be expended to make bananas consumable for human society with the labor that must be expended in our part of Central Europe to make wheat consumable, the labor required for bananas is, conservatively estimated, three hundred times less. The labor required to make wheat consumable is, conservatively estimated, three hundred times greater.

Admittedly, this is an extreme case. But such differences in the amount of labor required in relation to the natural resources are also present in our branches of production, among the branches of production represented in any social organism in Europe. Not in such a radical difference as between bananas and wheat, but these differences do exist. It is therefore entirely justified in the economic organism that, due to the relationship between humans, their consumption and nature, the amount of work capacity depends essentially on the natural basis, just as the nature of a human being depends on his natural physical or mental abilities. And one need only compare, for example: In Germany, in areas with average yields, the yield of wheat cultivation is such that approximately seven to eight times the amount sown is returned through the harvest. In Chile, the yield is twelve times the amount sown, in northern Mexico it is seventeen times, in Peru twenty times, and in southern Mexico twenty-five to thirty-five times. Here you have the yield of wheat cultivation in relation to the soil and the yield of the soil for different regions of the world. However, this essentially affects the amount of work that must be expended to integrate wheat into economic life as a commodity in the appropriate manner.

Just as one can provide such information about the amount of labor necessary to make wheat consumable in different regions, one can also distinguish between the amount of labor necessary to make the most diverse branches of production, raw products of the most diverse branches of production, consumable within the economic life of a social organism. This whole interconnected entity, which runs through processes that begin in the relationship between humans and nature and continue with everything that humans have to do to transform natural products and make them consumable for humans, all these processes that lie within these overall processes from the natural basis to consumability, all these processes, and only these, are incorporated into the pure economic element of the social organization for a healthy social organism. This economic element of the social organization would now have to be integrated into the entire social organism with the same independence as the human head system is integrated into the entire human organism.

And independent of this economic system, there must be another system that deals only with the relationship between people. What lives in the purely economic system has to do with the need for this or that, which determines man's relationship to objective goods. What must develop as the second element in the social organism if a healthy social life is to awaken is everything that regulates the relationship between human beings.

People have failed to acquire the correct perspective for distinguishing between these two links in the social organism because, as if hypnotized by modern economic life and ancient habits of thought, they believed in recent times that economic forces and processes could necessarily be transferred either to individual areas or, in the socialist sense, radically to the whole of economic life, to what I have to describe here as the second link, as the actual state sphere in the narrower sense, as the sphere of public law, as the sphere of human relationships.

This state domain will only be able to develop healthily if it takes the opposite developmental path, which is considered by some to be the correct one. While many people today believe that a recovery of the social organism is only possible if as much as possible is nationalized, if as much as possible is socialized, it is rather a matter of recognizing and applying to all individual branches of life that there must be a thorough independence between economic life on the one hand, with its own laws, and the narrower sphere of state life on the other, which again has its own laws.

I can well imagine how many people there are who say: For God's sake, why should things be so complicated! What we now want to bring together out of the necessities of recent developments is to be broken down into different systems! Those who say that this is too complicated for them, that they cannot imagine that what is natural can come about in this way, are like those who do not want to know that the human organism can only live by concentrating and centralizing the rhythmic life, the respiratory and cardiac life, in the chest, in the respiratory and cardiac system, with relative independence. The whole of the human organism is based on the fact that each such system life is self-contained and that they then interact with each other. The health of the social organism is based on the fact that economic life obeys its own laws, that legal life, the life of public law, public security, everything that can be described as political in the narrower sense, in turn obeys its own laws and has its own institutions. Then the two areas of the social organism will interact in the right way. And even if it may cause some people to shudder, who believe that they have finally come to the right conclusion based on certain assumptions, it must be said: there will be no recovery of the social organism as long as economic life and political life are administered centrally in one party, in one administration. We will then see that this also applies to the third area. It is necessary that, just as the circulatory system has its own lungs and the nervous and sensory system has its own brain system, there should be a separate administrative organism, an independent administrative and representative organism, i.e., a party or other representative body, for economic life, for political life or public legal life, and for the third area, again independently, for intellectual life.

These three areas have a certain sovereignty within a healthy social organism and negotiate with each other through their independent representatives in order to establish a mutual relationship between the three members of the social organism. This corresponds to the relationship between the three members of the human natural organism, which is also established independently. It will become apparent that, essentially, those representations and administrations that emerge from the economic member of the organism will have to work toward ensuring that this economic organism is built on an associative basis, cooperatives, trade unions, but higher cooperatives, trade unions, such cooperatives and trade unions that are concerned only with the laws of commodity production, commodity circulation, and commodity consumption. This is what will form the basis, what will form the content of the economic member of the social organism. It will be based on associative life. It will be based on what compensates for the necessary inequalities that are given by the natural basis. I have pointed out how different the human labor input is, depending on the relationship to the natural basis of a branch of production. All this enters into an unnatural social organization when nature, human labor, and capital work together as they have done up to now. Nature, human labor, and capital have been confused in the most chaotic way in the unified state or have remained anarchically outside this unified state. It must be recognized that both the life of intellectual culture, which is based on the physical and mental abilities of human beings and their education, and public, political, and legal life have the task of separating out and bringing to life on its own what the system of the economic organism is.

To make myself understood, insofar as this is necessary today, I can resort to the following. Although based on foundations other than those in which we now live, a call for a reorganization of the social organism arose from the depths of human nature, and the motto of this reorganization was expressed in three words: brotherhood, equality, freedom. Now, anyone who approaches everything truly human with an open mind and a healthy sense of humanity cannot help but feel the deepest sympathy and understanding for everything that lies in the words brotherhood, equality, and freedom. Nevertheless, I know of excellent thinkers, profound and astute thinkers, who repeatedly throughout the 19th century endeavored to show how it is impossible to realize the ideas of brotherhood, equality, and freedom in a unified social organism. For example, an astute Hungarian sought to prove that these three things, if they are to be realized, if they are to penetrate the human social structure, contradict each other. He astutely demonstrated, for example, how it is impossible, if equality is implemented in social life alone, for the freedom that is necessarily inherent in every human being to also come into its own. He found these three ideals to be contradictory. Strangely enough, one cannot help but agree with those who find this contradiction, and one cannot help but sympathize with each of these three ideals out of a general human feeling! Why is this so?

Well, precisely because one can only understand the true meaning of these three ideals when one recognizes the necessary threefold structure of the social organism. The three members should not be joined together and centralized in an abstract, theoretical Reichstag or other unity; they should be a living reality and, through their living interaction, bring unity together. When these three members are independent, they contradict each other in a certain way, just as the metabolic system contradicts the head system and the rhythmic system. But in life, these contradictions work together to create unity. Therefore, one will come to understand the life of the social organism when one is able to see through the realistic structure of this social organism. Then one will recognize that in the interaction of people in economic life, where they have to regulate themselves in their own particular field, this first social link, that in this field, in what people do, brotherhood must be at work. In the second link, in the system of public law, where one has to deal with the relationship of human beings to one another, only insofar as one is human at all, one has to deal with the realization of the idea of equality. And in the spiritual sphere, which in turn must stand in relative independence within the social organism, one has to deal with the idea of freedom. Suddenly, these three golden ideals only gain their real value when one knows that they must not be realized in a chaotic jumble, but in what is a social threefold organism oriented toward laws that correspond to reality, in which each of the three members can realize for itself the ideal of liberty, equality, and fraternity that belongs to it.

Today, I can only sketch the structure of the social organism. In the next lectures, I will explain and prove all this in detail. But what I have to add to what has been said is that the third member of a healthy social organism must be everything that comes into it from human individuality, everything that must be based on freedom, everything that is based on the physical and mental talents of the individual human being. Here we touch on an area which, when correctly characterized, still causes a slight shudder in many people today. What must be enclosed within this third area of the healthy social organism is everything that relates to the religious life of human beings, to schooling and education in the broadest sense, and to intellectual life, the arts, and so on. And, today I will only mention it, in the next lectures I will also explain it in detail: everything that belongs to this third sphere is not related to public law, which belongs to the second sphere, but to private law and criminal law. I have found many people to whom I could explain this threefold social organism, and they understood many things — they could not understand that public law, the law that relates to the security and equality of all people, must be separated from what is right in relation to a violation of the law, or in relation to what are precisely the private circumstances of people, that this must be separated from each other, and that private law and criminal law must be counted as part of the third, the spiritual member of the social organism.

Unfortunately, modern life has so far completely turned away from taking these three members of the social organism into account. Just as the economic body with its interests has penetrated state, or rather political, life, bringing its interests into the representative bodies of political life, thereby clouding the possibility of truly shaping this second member of the social organism in such a way that the equality of all people is realized within it, so too have economic and state life absorbed that which can only develop in a free form. Out of a certain instinct, albeit a misguided one, modern social democracy has attempted to separate religious life from public state life: “Religion is a private matter”; but unfortunately not out of a special respect for religion, out of a special appreciation of what religious life gives to human beings, but precisely out of a disregard, an indifference towards religious life, which is connected with the things I explained in my previous lecture the day before yesterday. But what is correct about this demand is the separation of religious life from the other two areas, from the organization of economic life and from the organization of political life. But it is equally necessary to separate the entire lower and higher education system, as well as intellectual life in general, from the other two branches. And only then will a truly healthy life of the social organism come about, when within those bodies that are responsible for ensuring the equality of all people before the law, when these bodies ensure that schools, religious and other spiritual life can develop from free human individualities, when care is taken to ensure that this life develops in freedom, when no claim is made to regulate school, educational, and spiritual life on one's own initiative, from the economy or from the state.

That seems radical today. However, such radical ideas must be expressed as soon as they are recognized. Spiritual life, including education and the administration of justice in civil and criminal matters, is so very much subject to what flows from the individuality of human beings in complete freedom that the other two members of the social organism must not be allowed to influence the configuration, the shaping of this life.

Today, I have only given you a sketch of the line of thought that must guide attempts to solve the social question, attempts that are based on the real necessities of life, not on the abstract demands of a single party or class, but on the developmental forces of modern humanity as a whole.

I would like to say: I can understand every objection that is made, but I would ask you to wait with your objections until you have heard what I have to say in the next lectures to elaborate on this general outline. Today in particular, I could understand objections, since I have only attempted to characterize where the evidence is not yet available. But I would like to say: I can understand every objection based on the various experiences I have had with the ideas that I also want to represent here and that I believe to be the basis of reality in life, which I have gained from the often misunderstood spiritual science.

We have left behind us the most terrible catastrophe in human history. In the life one had to lead during this catastrophic time, one would not have had one's heart in the right place if one had not looked ahead to the best of one's ability: Where can we find help to escape the terrible chaos into which we were driven? I told you the day before yesterday that I would talk about the special circumstances of this war, its causes and its course in connection with the social question in the next two lectures. Today I would like to say that it was clear to me, even when we were still deep in the events that have now entered a crisis which some short-sighted people believe to be already over, that among the things that can lead out of the chaos, out of the terrible catastrophe in one or other area of the so-called civilized world, is also correct thinking, a correct conception of true, realistic impulses for the human social organism. I have presented to many personalities who have been active and advisory in recent years in what has happened in such a terrible way within the development of modern humanity, what is also the nerve center of my remarks here today; I have tried to make clear to many personalities who apparently mattered how different events would be if authoritative, decisive voices in the world were to say: We want to strive toward a healthy human social goal. The whole relationship between states would have had to be different if, instead of mere legal and state programs, comprehensive human programs in the sense meant here had been brought to humanity from here or there.

One cannot even say that such things have not found a certain theoretical understanding. What I have explained in these lectures has even seemed quite appealing to some. But to build a bridge between understanding such a thing and the will to really do everything to realize these things in life, each in his own place, to build this bridge, that is another matter. In many cases, this seems uncomfortable. Therefore, some people like to numb themselves and say: The whole thing seems dreamy and impractical to me. — They numb themselves only because they do not have the will to really intervene in the course of events. This does not mean a revolutionary course of events, not something that should happen overnight, but rather the direction in which all individual measures of public and private life must be taken if the social organism is to be restored to health. What I said the day before yesterday, I said in a different form to some people on whom one would want to rely in these difficult times, with the following words: Today, I said, for example, we are in the most terrible of wars. If one were to express what is socially necessary for humanity in this most terrible of wars, one would say: we commit ourselves to giving this or that empire a humane content by wanting to realize something like this for humanity, then we would give the terrible course of events a completely different, more salutary direction than through the mere sword, through mere cannons and the like, or through mere politics, which in certain areas do not even exist. I said: You have the choice either to realize through reason what is presented here, what is recognized from the conditions and forces of human development, or to be faced with something else.

Today, because humanity has, in a sense, failed to recognize what lies in these things in recent decades, we are facing the most terrible catastrophe that has befallen us like a disease, like a disease that attacks an organism that does not live according to its natural laws. This catastrophe of war is intended to show, to show clearly, what could have been recognized before it happened, but because it was not so clear, it was not recognized. It is intended to show what is necessary for the recovery of the social organism of humanity. And I have said to some people: In these hints about human development in social relations, you have given what will come to pass in the civilized world in the next twenty to thirty years. I am not talking about a program or an ideal, but rather the result of observing what will come to pass in the next ten, twenty, thirty years through what is already germinating in humanity today. And you have only one choice, I said, either to work toward this realization through reason, or to face revolutions and social cataclysms, terrible social upheavals. There is no third option. War may be the time—I said to many—when reason can still be accepted. After that, it may be too late. For this is not a program that can be carried out or abandoned, but rather a matter of recognizing what wants to be realized and what humanity must therefore realize because it lies within its necessary historical forces of growth for the present and the near future.

Another particular obstacle to understanding was that some people repeatedly believed that such things only related to the internal structure of a particular state or territory of humanity. No, such social thinking is at the same time the basis for the truly necessary shaping of the external politics of states among themselves. Just as the human organism directs each of its systems toward the outside world through special organs, so too can only the state, if I may use this overall expression, as a social organism, set its three limbs in motion outwardly. The relationships between individual states turn out to be quite different when it is no longer centralized governments and administrations that interact with each other, but when the representatives of intellectual life in one social entity interact with the representatives of intellectual life in another social entity, and likewise the representatives of the economic sphere and the political sphere interact with their counterparts in the other entity. While the merging and intermingling of the three areas has the outward effect that, if I may say so, conflicts are bound to arise at the borders due to the chaos inherent in the intermingling of the three areas, if the representatives of the three branches were to act independently across the borders of the individual states, the action of one member in international relations would not only not be disturbed by the action of the other, but on the contrary would be corrected and balanced.

That is what I would like to outline again today, I would say, in order to reinforce the point that this is not merely a matter of asserting a certain internal social structure of the state, but of the international and social life of humanity. I already tried to make all these things clear while we were in the midst of the terrible catastrophic events. Now, terrible misfortune has befallen many people in Central and Eastern Europe, terrible misfortune that for every individual, for every discerning person, is also a misfortune that threatens the rest of the world. This must take hold with regard to a real understanding of humanity for its tasks in the present and future: that those who want to transform life into its recovery based on the true, real conditions of humanity's development are finally taken not as impractical idealists, but as real practitioners of life. The self-evident shaping of modern life out of technology and capitalism must be countered by the shaping of spiritual, independent spiritual culture and independent state culture, based entirely on innermost human initiative, which establishes true equality between human beings and which, as we shall see shortly, can also regulate working and wage conditions in a way that is desirable for the proletariat.

The question of the organization of human labor, of the liberation of human labor from commodities, can only be solved when the threefold social organism comes into being. What modern socialists want is certainly justified as a desire; what they themselves regard as the remedy would be the least effective remedy if it were implemented in external reality as they want it to be.

But I would like to emphasize this again and again: I am not trying here to speak from any one-sided class or party position, but from the observation of human developmental forces about what some call socialization, others the healing of social life, and still others the reawakening of a healthy political sense, and so on. But the fact that we are dealing with something that is not an arbitrary program, but rather the deepest impulse of reality for the next decades of human development, is what actually underlies the whole opinion and intention that I want to realize with these lectures; that we are not dealing with the opinion of one person from this or that position, but with what speaks from the deeper basis of humanity's will for the coming decades. I would now like to justify, explain, and prove this in detail through the two lectures next week.