Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Problems of Our Time
GA 333

15 September 1919, Berlin

The Main Features of the Social Question and the Threefold Nature of the Social Organism

It is beyond doubt that the War and all its terrible accompaniments have given the social question a new aspect for men to-day. True, this change is not recognized by a sufficient number of people in the way one could wish; but it is there and will become more and more significant.

The members of the classes hitherto accustomed to lead and rule will find themselves compelled by force of circumstances, in dealing with the social question, to abandon limited ideas and measures which deal with it piecemeal. They will be forced to turn their thoughts and direct their will to the social problem as the most important in the life of mankind, both to-day and in the immediate future. While they will only understand their times by adopting a wholly new conception of their problem in all their thinking, feeling and willing, on the other hand it will be necessary for the masses, the proletariat, to achieve an essentially different attitude to it.

For more than fifty years the mass of the people have been acquiring social and socialist ideas. Unless we have gone through the last ten years with our eyes shut we must have noticed what changes have come about inside the ranks of the proletariat with regard to the social question. We saw what form it took at the moment of the outbreak of the appalling catastrophe we know as the World War. Then came the end of that fearful disaster. The proletariat found itself in a new position, no longer confined by a social order dominated, at least in Central and Eastern Europe, by the old ruling powers. It was itself called upon, to a considerable extent, to set its hand to building a new form of social organization. And just in face of this fact, wholly new in history, we experienced something extraordinarily tragic.

The ideas to which for years the proletariat had devoted itself with its heart's blood proved inadequate when realization became possible, and at this point occurred a great historical opposition, even a conflict. The facts of world-history taking place about us might have become the great instructors of mankind. They showed that the hitherto ruling classes had, during the last three or four hundred years, developed no ideas which can, or could, be any guide for all that was forcing its way out in the economic and other social facts of human experience. The remarkable thing was that those who had power to act in the world of affairs had arrived at the state of letting them take their own course. Their thoughts and ideas had become so restricted that they could not stretch them to include the facts, which had grown above their heads, out of reach. This had been evident for some time, especially in the economic life, in which protection and similar ideas had been superseded by competition for a free market as the only motive for regulation; in which ideas were active, not moulding the economic life solely with regard to production, distribution and consumption of goods, but unfailingly leading to continual crises owing to the hazard of the "free market." He who will is able to see that since the social impetus of these ungovernable facts had spread over the great imperial states, the affairs of these states had acquired their movement, susceptible to control neither by thought nor by any efforts towards adjustment.

Man should consider such things to-day, should be able to keep before his spiritual eye to-day's necessity of looking more deeply into human activities and of grasping such a thing as the "Social Question " with more intensity of purpose than is customary. It is, after all, obvious that ideas have become inadequate for the developing facts, yet men will not see it. Three or four hundred years of routine in business and public affairs have accustomed them to account it practical life and to regard anyone who sees a little further and can judge of things through longer vision, as Utopian or unpractical. I give you an illustration of this; for to-day, when the destiny of the individual is so closely bound up with the destiny of mankind, only examples drawn from personal experience and honestly meant can be sufficient illustration of the impulse and motives to be found in public life—therefore I may be pardoned if I give you one of my own. It is not intended in a personal sense. In the spring of 1914, in a series of lectures I gave in Vienna on spiritual-scientific subjects, I was forced, months before the outbreak of the so called World War, in the presence of a small audience (a bigger one might have laughed me to scorn) to sum up what seemed to me the view we ought to hold about the social development of the present conditions. I then said that for anyone looking with open eyes at what was going on in the public life of the civilized world, it appeared as infected by a social tumour, a malignant social illness or cancer; and this illness within our economic and. social life must express itself in a terrific disaster.

Now how was one regarded who, in the early spring of 1914, spoke of an imminent catastrophe, from his observation of events going on under the surface? He was "an unpractical idealist," not to say a fool. What I was then obliged to say was a great contrast to what at that time, and indeed even later, the so-called practical men were giving out—those men who were not practical at all, only revolutionists who scorned anyone who tried to comprehend the history of the time from some knowledge of its underlying idea. What did these "practical" men say? One such person, a Foreign Minister of one of the Central European States, announced to the enlightened representatives of the people that the general relaxation of tension in the political situation was making pleasing progress, so that they could be assured of peaceful conditions - in Europe in the near future. He added that the relations with St. Petersburg were the most friendly possible. Thanks to the Government's efforts the Russian Cabinet took no heed of the publications of the Press, and our relations with St. Petersburg would continue friendly, as before. Negotiations with England were expected to be concluded in the near future on such a basis as to produce the best possible relationships. What a difference between "practical outlook " and "gloomy theory”!

Many more examples might be given to illustrate the view of, or rather the insight into, the facts at the beginning of the period which held such terrible things for humanity. It is very instructive to let the facts speak: these practical men spoke of peace and the next months brought a peace in which the civilized world occupied itself for several years in killing, at a low estimate, ten to twelve million men and crippling three times as many. I am not saying this to re-new a sensation: it must be mentioned because we can see by this how inadequate men's thoughts have become, that they are no longer far-reaching enough to master facts. We shall only see these events in the right light when we recognize in facts the strongest indication that for the healing of our social conditions what we need is not a small change in this or that arrangement, but a vast alteration in thinking and learning: not a trivial but a tremendous settling up with the old which is too foul and decayed, to be allowed to mingle with what the future may bring.

We might say the same thing about the life of rights or the economic life in detail as about the wider institutions of mankind. Everywhere men's words betray that their thoughts are inadequate to master facts. We may say that the former leading and dominant class has the practical experience but lacks the effective ideas necessary to the practice of life. Opposed to these circles stands the great mass of the proletariat which has educated itself in a rigorous school of Marxian thought for half a century. It is not enough to-day merely. to look round on the proletariat to find out how they are thinking. It is comparatively extraordinarily easy to refute logically what the masses and their leaders think about economic institutions. That does not much matter: what does matter is the historical fact that in their heart and soul lies a sort of precipitate, formed out of the intensely active thoughts which have been converted into a "proletarian theory." This theory, which might, after the break-down of the old order have proved itself much more effective than it has in actual practice, shows a peculiarity which is quite comprehensible. For as a result of the way in which the social evolution of mankind has moved under the influence of the capitalist order and modern technical science during the last three to four hundred years—especially during the nineteenth century—the masses have been more and more closely confined within the economic system, so confined that each man was restricted to one small, limited piece of work. This strictly limited piece of work was fundamentally all he saw of the reality of the increasingly extending economic life.

What wonder that the workman experienced, in the effect on body and soul, that under the influence of technical science and private capital, developed by the new life of economics, he could not see the mainsprings which moved it. He might be the "worker" in this life, but his social position prevented him from looking rightly into its ordering, into the way in which it was controlled. It is quite comprehensible that as a result of such facts something grew up of which the fruits are before us; certain subconscious impulses and demands of the masses became a far-reaching socialist theory, really fundamentally alien to economic and other social facts, since the proletariat could gain no insight into the actual driving forces behind the facts and simply had to accept the one-sided ideas derived from Marx. So we find that in the course of years, various things have eaten into the feelings of the masses which may in reality be ever so deeply justified but which, all the same, miss the facts. I should like to, give as an example the enormous effect of one slogan, amongst others poured out over the proletariat by its leaders. "In future no production for the sake of producing—production only, for consumption." Certainly a remark to the purpose, with the merit (rare in slogans) of being absolutely true; but becoming an unreal abstraction, elusive, when carried to its logical conclusion with practical sense and real insight into economic conditions. The chief thing in practice is "how things are made"—there is no meaning in the clamour" produce only for consumption" from a practical point of view. It calls up in the soul the idea of how beautiful the economic life could be if profit were ignored and consumption only were of consequence! But there is no indication whatever in this phrase as to how the structure of the economic life could be arranged so as to give effect to what is expressed in these words. Many other catchwords (of which we shall touch on some) have the same defect. They often have their origin in deep truths yet, when adopted as party slogans of the proletariat, have become abstractions, just Utopian pointers to an indefinite future. If we would be honest with the proletariat, we must say that this unfortunate proletariat which is raising its just claims lives as in a cloud of views which are theory, it is true, but remote from the facts of life, because they have no contact with the facts and are placed in an isolation from whence they can survey only a single corner of life.

That is the conflict to which I would draw your attention—on the one side the attitude of the ruling classes who have power over the facts, but no idea how to use it to control them: on the other, the proletariat with its acquired, abstract ideas which have no correspondence with the facts.

If we try to describe the genesis of all this in a few words, taking note of active forces and impulses, more essentially important than anything that has occurred hitherto in the course of human history, we can only rightly estimate expressions like "the lack of ideas in the practice of our leaders " and "the unpractical theory of the proletariat" if we have a feeling of the torrent pouring in the present-day development of humanity with such vigour and mutually destructive force. The existence of such a contrast between the attitude of soul of the dominant classes and that of the proletariat leads, and has led, to a deep cleavage between the thinking, feeling, willing and actions of the former and all the longings, wishes and impulses of the latter. We do not even understand adequately what is the demand of our age, of which we hear the first faint tone from the proletariat. We may understand the form of the words when they mention the theory of surplus-value, i.e., the theory that we should produce only for consumption, or that of transformation of private ownership into common property; but what are they in reality as expression of their wishes and ideas? Can they be regarded merely as a subject for logical criticism by the leaders of the well-to-do? It is hard to find a more naïve response than that of a director of some company who hears the "surplus value” theory from his work-people and answers that the surplus, made up of banknotes, etc., is so small that, divided among them, there would be no share for each worth having. I repeat, it is hopelessly naïve to deal in this way with the theory of "surplus value." The "calculation " of the directors is obvious and incontrovertible, but that is not the real point. To try to refute what are the actual words of the proletarian theory is just like having a thermometer in a room to indicate the temperature and applying a flame to the tube because it registers too low a temperature to please us. By this temporary expedient of tampering with the thermometer we do not occupy ourselves with the root-cause of the trouble. To take proletarian theory to-day and try to refute it is simple-minded, for such theories are nothing really but to use a classroom word—"indices" of something lying much deeper. Just as a thermometer indicates the temperature of a room, but does not produce it, so proletarian theories are a sort of instrument by which we can recognize the forces active in the social question from this aspect, now and in the immediate future. In this we are much too easy-going. The question has been regarded as purely economic because it first meets us in the economic sphere, based on the demands of the proletariat, hitherto entangled in economic life during the epoch of private capitalism and technical science: we have not seen lying behind the theories all that is betokened by them concerning capital, labour and goods. The workman experiences the whole sphere of human life in the economic field; therefore the social question appears to him entirely in an economic perspective.

Anybody who has the opportunity to acquire wider views is bound to see how clearly three spheres of life are to be distinguished, in which three fundamental aspects of the social question present themselves. To have learnt through his life's destiny not only to think about the masses or have feelings concerning them, but to think and feel with them, will have taught him to observe what is seething in the soul-depths of their best members, even in the phrases which run through all socialist theories - as their keywords. What are these?

First we have the phrase "surplus value," of which I have already spoken. Association as man to man with the proletariat is enough to show how deeply this phrase has sunk into their hearts. It is this sinking-in that matters, not the verification of any theory. Anyone who, like myself, has worked in Berlin at the ‘Workers' School founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht, while decisive events were taking place within the social movements of the new era, will know more about this question that I have, touched upon, through practical life, than perhaps some captain of industry does, especially if the latter should be—how shall I phrase it inoffensively—a revolution-profiteer, a superficial chatterer about revolution, even as we had war-profiteers. "Surplus value" was generally taken to mean something of this sort: the proletariat works productively and produces goods of some kind: the capitalist puts them on the market and gives the worker just sufficient wage to keep him alive, in order that he may continue to produce. Anything over and above this is "surplus value." As Walter Rathenau says—although in social questions he falls into great errors—it is true that this surplus value, divided, would not improve the condition of the masses at all; but through processes of calculation which float in space we do not arrive at the facts; we must deal with this surplus value correctly as to its social significance. Can it have as little, real existence as Rathenau, for instance, “accurately" reckons? In that case there would be in Berlin no theatres, no high schools, no public school, nothing of what we call cultural life, the life dealing with the human spirit; since that, for the most part, is really contained in the "surplus value." It does not really matter how this value is forced to the surf ace as "goods" or "cash in circulation": it is in this catchword itself that we find expressed the whole relation of our modern cultural life to the wide masses of the people who cannot directly participate in it.

Anyone who has taught for years amongst the workers and has taken the trouble to teach directly out of our common human feelings, speaking as man to man, will know what a spiritual education must be like if it is to be universally human and, further, how the form of education will differ from our present one, which has grown up during the last three or four hundred years under the influence of an economic order based on private capital and technical organization. If I may once again speak personally, to illustrate the general fact—I was well aware when I spoke to the workers, in lecturing or teaching, that in their souls kindred strings were sounding and that they were receiving a knowledge which they could absorb. But a time came when the proletariat had to follow the fashion and share in "education"—that education which was, from a spiritual point of view, the outcome of the dominant culture. They had to be taken to the museums and shown what had developed out of the experience of the ruling middle classes. Then if men were honest they must have known (if not, they invented all sorts of phrases about "popular education " and the like) that there was no bridge between the spiritual culture and education of the ruling classes and the spiritual needs and longings of the proletariat. Art, science, religion can only be understood if they issue from circles with which one has some common social ground, so that one can share their social feelings and attitude: not where there is an abyss between those who are supposed to enjoy culture, and those who can actually enjoy it. Here there was a vast cultural lie, and nowadays no benevolent mask must be spread over these things, but they must be brought into clear daylight. The lie consisted in setting up "People’s High Schools" or “Educational Schools" in which an education was to be shared by the masses without any possible bridge over which it could pass to them. The proletariat stood on one side of the abyss, looked over it at the art, science, religion, ethics, which had been produced by the leading classes, did not understand them, and took them to be something which only concerned those classes, a sort of luxury. There they saw the practical application of the "surplus value" which they had talked about, but they actually felt quite different from what was spoken in this "thermometer" language about surplus value. They felt: here is a spiritual life created by what we produce, by our labour, from which, however, we are excluded!

This is the way in which we must approach the question of the surplus-value, not theoretically, but as it really and vitally exists in life. Then, too, we can see the essential problem of the social question taken as a whole—its spiritual side. We can see that, side by side with the rise of the new technical science and new capitalist economics, arose an intellectual life only capable of living within the souls of men who were divided by a deep golf from the great masses to whose ,education they gave inadequate attention and from which they held aloof. The tragedy of it! The ruling classes discuss these problems in well-warmed, mirrored rooms, speaking of their brotherly love for all men, our duty to love all men, or of the Christian virtues, while a fire warms them which is fed with coals from the mines into which children of nine, eleven, thirteen years of age are sent down. In the middle of the nineteenth century this was literally so (things have improved since then, not, through any merit of the ruling classes but through the demands of the proletariat); these children went down before sunrise and only came up again after sunset, so that they actually never saw the sun the whole week through.

We are assumed to be agitating nowadays if we talk like this. Not at all! We have to say these things to show how the cultural life of the last few hundred years is separated from the real life of men. People have talked in abstractions about morality, virtue, religion, while their real practical life was in no way touched by the talk of brotherliness, love of one's neighbour, Christianity and so forth. Here, then, confronts us, as a distinct aspect of the social question, the spiritual problem. We stand before the whole sweep of the spiritual life especially as it relates to men of the present age and the immediate future in the realm of teaching and education. As a result of the way in which the territories of dukes or princes have been formed into single state-economics, the intellectual life in its wider form has been absorbed by the State organization. It is to-day a source of pride. that education has torn itself away, as regards science, as regards intellectual life generally, from its medieval association with religion and theology. Proudly it is asserted and repeated: "In the Middle Ages the intellectual and scientific life were in leading-strings to religion and theology." Of course we do not want to have these times back; we must move forward, not backward. We are living in different times: we must not simply point in pride to the way in which intellectual life was train-bearer to the Church in the Middle Ages. Something different is demanded. Let us take an example not so very far away.

A very distinguished scientist, for whom I have great respect (I do not mention these things in order to disparage people)—the Secretary of the Berlin Academy of Sciences—was speaking of the relation of this Academy to the State. He said, in a well-considered speech, that the members of this Academy regarded it as one of their highest distinctions to be "the scientific bodyguard of the Hohenzollerns." That is only one example of what might be repeated a thousand fold, bringing to our lips the question: "What nowadays has taken the place of the Church which formerly used intellectual life as its train-bearer?” Nor were things so bad in the recent past as they must become, if such State regulations were to be made as would favour the growth of that appalling State-regulation of teaching which has arisen in Eastern Europe and which has conclusively proved that it would bring about the death of all culture. We must look not only into the past, but above all into the future and assert that the time has come when intellectual and spiritual life must exist as a self-dependent part of the social organism and must be under its own control.

When a thing like this is mentioned, we are met by all sorts of prejudices, and we are reckoned mad if we cannot appreciate the enormous blessings to be found in State-control of education. But healthy conditions will never be found until education and everything connected with instruction, including , the teachers from the lowest form to the highest grade in the public schools, passes from the control of the State into its own control. That is one of the great objectives we must specially aim at to-day.

The men who first showed me any friendliness when it came actually to fitting the idea of the threefold organization into the present age are those to whom we owe the first really free Einheitsschule in Stuttgart. In connection with the Waldorf-Astoria Factory, we are establishing the first model Einheitsschule, based on the science of pedagogy and teaching which has its origin in the true and real knowledge of the growing human being. Social class and rank make no real difference to him between the seventh and fifteenth years—all human beings are at the same stage. But to be able to teach and educate him means learning first to understand him. As it fell to me to give the preliminary course to the teachers working at the school, there came under my notice certain things which are nowadays taken as a matter of course. The serious significance of such an acceptation is not realized. It has only developed fully in the last decades. Since these things are the subject of practical life-work and must form its experience, I may remark, on such an occasion as this, that my comments on them arise from no irresponsible youthful mind, I speak as one who has already reached the sixties. I can remember how in days gone by the syllabus was short: the subject of teaching was presented by means of lectures, books and the experiences of men who had living ideas of education, who were creative spiritually. But to-day we have no short syllabus; instead, we have thick books which not only direct us to take one subject in one year, another in another, but tell us how to teach it. What should be the subject of free instruction is to be—indeed is—a matter of regulations. Unless we have a clear, adequate feeling of how unsocial all this is, we shall not be ready to collaborate in the real healing of mankind. Therefore, in the establishment of a spiritual, intellectual life which is free and independent of the State lies the first, central problem of the social question. This is the first of the three self-dependent members of the threefold organism which we have to set up. If we represent these facts, pointing out how healthy it may be to have no authority within the spiritual part of the social organism save that of those who take some active part in it, then the teaching of the future will be seen to have little kinship with that of the present-day unitary State. The whole of life will resemble a model republic. Teaching will be created out of the spirit, to satisfy the demands of education, not given according to the claims of regulations. We shall not merely enquire what standard shall be set in the socialized State for a pupil of thirteen or seventeen, but what lies deeply in man himself, which we can draw out of him in such a way that when these forces, liberated from the depths of his being, are at his disposal, he will not be weak-willed or crushed, as so many men are to-day, but will be equal to his destiny and able to direct his forces with determination to the tasks of his life. This points us to the first member of the threefold social order.

To give utterance to such thoughts as these brings questions, objections, like the one I had to meet in a South German city. I was answered in the discussion at the end of a lecture by a secondary school teacher, somewhat in this wise: "We Germans shall be a poor nation in the future, and here is a man who wants to make the spiritual and intellectual life independent: a poor people cannot pay for that, there will be no money, therefore we shall have to draw on the national exchequer and pay for education out of the taxes. What becomes of independence then? How can we refuse the right of the State to inspect, when the State is the source of income? " I could only reply that it seemed strange to me for the teacher to believe that what was drawn from the Treasury as taxes grew there somehow or other, and would not in future come out of the pockets of the "poor nation." What strikes me most is the lack of thought everywhere. We need to develop a real practical thinking which sees into the facts of life. That will give us practical suggestions which can be carried out.

Further, just as on the one hand the spiritual life, in education, etc., must become independent, so on the other hand must the economic life. Now, two demands, rather remarkably, have lately arisen from the depths of human nature, the one for Democracy, the other for Socialism. They contradict one another. Before the War the two contradictory impulses were thrust into each other's company and a party was even founded with the title "Social Democratic." You might as well talk of "wooden iron." They are contradictory, yet both are noble and honest demands of our times. Since then, the catastrophe of the War has passed over us, with all its consequences, and now there is a new form for the social demands and a "democratic Parliament " is rejected. When such a theoretical demand, entirely unaccompanied by knowledge of the facts, with its catchwords of an abstract kind, like " the seizure of political power " or " the dictatorship of the proletariat " and the like, is pushed forward, this originates in the depths of socialist feeling, but it shows that people have come to realize the contradiction between that attitude and the democratic one. In future, we shall have to take into account the realities of life, not be content with catchwords: we shall realize that a socialist is quite right when he feels there is something repellent about democracy. And the democrat is right when he finds "the dictatorship of the proletariat " an alarming prospect. What are the real facts in this sphere?

We must observe the economic life in its connection with the State in the same way as we did the life of the mind and spirit. A common idea of modern times, especially amongst people who consider themselves advanced thinkers, is that the State should more and more participate in industry. Post office, railways, should be under State control, and its authority should be even more widely extended. This is a very comprehensive subject to touch upon in a few words; and since I must limit myself to a short lecture, I must risk being charged with superficiality in making these remarks, which are, however, really to the point, and can be supported by countless instances from modern history. They are far from being superficial. This idea of the "advanced" thinkers will reveal itself in its true form if we take socialism seriously. Moreover, we can ascertain that true form if we so regard a remark made by Friedrich Engels in one of his most brilliant moments, in his book The Development of Socialism from Utopianism to Science. There he says "If we survey the State, in its present development, we find that it includes management of branches of production and control of the distribution of goods; but, inasmuch as it has undertaken economic management, at the same time it controls men." The State laid down the laws according to which men who stand within the economic life must act whether within or outside of their economic activities. In future this must become different.

Engels was quite right. It was his opinion that within the sphere of economic production itself there should be no more control of men: control should be limited to the production and distribution of goods. A right view, but only half or one-quarter of the truth: because the laws effective within the economic sphere have hitherto coincided with the life of the State, and if the State is removed as controller and manager of economics, the economic sphere must have a place of its own, not one from which men shall be ruled from a centre, but where they will rule themselves democratically.

That means that these two impulses, democracy and socialism, point to the fact that by the side of the independent spiritual member of the social organism there must be two other separate spheres, covering what remains of the function of the former type of State. These two spheres are the control of economic life and the domain of public rights, this latter including everything on which a man is entitled to give judgment when he is of age. What is the meaning of the demand for democracy? It means that, as a matter of history, humanity is becoming capable of deciding, in the sphere of the free State and public rights, everything in which all men are equal, every question on which any man who is of age can pronounce, whether directly through a referendum, or indirectly by representation. In future, therefore, we must have an independent sphere of rights, which will take the place of the old State built up of power and might. We can never have a proper State based on law and right, unless the sphere of law is limited to those matters on which every adult human being is capable of judgment. There has been a good deal of talk on this subject among the workers, though, once again, we can only take their words as a social thermometer. There is a remark of Karl Marx which has sunk deeply into their feelings: "It is an existence unworthy of a human being when a worker must sell his labour-power in the market, as if it were a commodity: we pay for a commodity at its market price and we pay for labour-power by means of wages which are the price of this commodity, labour-power."

This is a remark which has been significant in the development of modern humanity, not so much through its actual content as through the electrical effect it has had on the proletariat, an effect of which the ruling classes can hardly form any idea. What is at the bottom of it all? In the economic circuit, i.e., in the production, distribution and consumption of goods, which alone belong to this circuit, the regulation of labour, according to amount, time and character, etc., has been placed. We shall never have a healthy condition of things in this sphere until the character, amount and time of human work has been taken out of the economic circuit, whether the work be physical or intellectual. The actual regulation of labour-power does not belong to the economic life, in which the economically stronger can impose the type of work upon the economically weaker. The regulation of work as between man and man, what one man does for another, should belong to the sphere of law and right, where each adult human being is on a level with every other. How much work one human being has to do for another ought never to be decided on economic grounds, but solely on principles which will develop in the State of the future, the State of Rights as opposed to the present State of Might.

Here again we meet with a mass of prejudices. It is a commonplace nowadays to maintain that so long as the economic order is settled by the conditions of a free market, so long will it be natural for labour to depend on production and the price of commodities. But if we imagine that things must always go on as they do now, we are shutting our eyes to the different demands which are growing up as history unrolls. In future we shall see, for instance, how foolish it would be for men in control of some industry to meet and, examining their accounts for a certain year, to say: "We produced so much last year. This year, to equal that total we shall need so many days of rain, so many of sunshine, etc." We cannot dictate to Nature to accommodate herself to our prices; prices must be subject to Nature-conditions. On the one side economic life is bounded by natural conditions, on the other by the State of Law or Rights, through which, as we have seen, labour has to be regulated. Hours of work must be settled on purely democratic grounds and prices will follow them, regulated according to natural conditions, as is the case in agriculture. We have not to consider alteration in a few minor details of the system: we must change our whole way of thinking and learning. The unrest created at present in our industrial life will never disappear until labour-power is judged on an independent democratic basis, when one adult human being stands over against his fellow as equal and can, as free man, bring his work into the independent economic life, in which agreements about production will be made, not about work. This must be understood.

I can but touch on these things in the short time at my disposal. I would gladly give a whole course of lectures to deal with them, but that is impossible. I must just indicate what form this third member, the economic life, must take in the threefold social organism of the future.

In this economic sphere there must not be, as in the past, control of capital, of land, of means of production (which incidently is control of capital) and of labour: we may only admit control of the production, distribution and consumption of goods. And how is the essential fact of an economic life which is to be based only on knowledge of facts and on practical ability—this "settling of prices"—to be achieved? It must not be decided by the chances of a free market as has been the case hitherto in both national-economy and world- economy. By means of the Associations which will come into being to suit the circumstances existing between the various branches of production and consumption—Associations which will be composed of men whose position is justified by their knowledge of facts and practical ability—we shall obtain organically and rationally what is nowadays attained through crises in the chances of a free market. In the future, when a decision as to the kind and character, of human labour has to be made in the Rights State, it will happen in the economic life that a man will receive in return for his product enough exchange-values to supply his needs until he can produce another such product. To give a rough superficial example, I might explain that, supposing I produce a pair of boots, I must be able, through the mutually-fixed values, to get as much goods in exchange for my boots as I shall require for my needs until I have made another pair. There will have to be arrangements within the society for supplying the needs of widows, orphans, the sick, of education, etc., but the actual regulation of prices in this way—and that alone will be the task of the economic organization—will depend on the formation of Corporations (whether elected, or nominated from the Associations formed among the various branches of production combined with the Associations of consumers) whose business it will be to get at true prices in real life.

This can only be achieved if the whole economic life (not planned after a Möllendorff scheme, but in a living fashion) is so ordered that, for instance, notice is taken of actual conditions. Say that some particular article shows a tendency to become too expensive: that means that it is too scarce. Workmen must be diverted to that branch of production, through some form of agreement, in order to produce more of it. If some article is too cheap, factories must close down and the workers be transferred to other factories. “It is all very difficult," people reply when we mention this sort of thing to-day: but they should realize that to reject it as difficult, and to prefer to play about with minor improvements in social conditions, means to preserve present conditions as they are. What I have said shows you that, as a result of the Associations created simply out of the economic life, economic life can be made self-dependent, controlled only by the economic forces themselves instead of being under the aegis of the State: and in such a way that within this self-dependent control the initiative of the individual will be maintained as much as possible. This cannot be done by a planned economy, by the establishment of a common organization of the means of production, but only by the Associations belonging to such free branches of production and their agreement with the consumers' Associations.

It would be a terrible mistake to push to extremes the State control which has hitherto been under the direction of the ruling classes, and extend "Corporations" over the whole life of the State, using the framework of the State for the purpose, a procedure which could but undermine all connection between such a planned economy and the economic forces outside it. The Associations, on the other hand, as part of the Threefold Organization, would aim particularly at maintaining the free initiative of those engaged in industry and at keeping open everything which unites a closed economic circuit with other economic circuits without.

Many things would look very different—for example, something I can only indicate by an analogy. Socialist doctrine demands "the abolition of private property " and "transformation of private possessions into communal, property "—mere unmeaning words, which can signify nothing to a man with practical knowledge of affairs. Yet they might have a meaning—which I can describe to you in pictorial fashion. We are very proud nowadays, for instance, of our philosophers, and in one way they do think fairly accurately, that is, where intellectual or spiritual work is concerned. In the material sphere they do not manage to think in the same healthy way. In the matter of intellectual possessions it is realized that what is produced in that realm by anyone is his own work, he has to be present. Nobody talks of its being produced by some common economy or corporate industry. Everything here must be left to the individual, for we get the best result when he is present with his faculties and talents at the work, not when he is cut off from it; but from a social aspect we think that thirty years or less after his death the spiritual product should no longer be the property of his heirs, but of any person who can best make it accessible to the community. That seems natural to us, because we do not value spiritual product as anything peculiar. But we make no effort, in the case of material property, to treat it in the same way, and see that it should only remain private as long as a man is in contact with it with all his faculties. When this is no longer the case it should pass over—not to the community (which has no real being) bringing fearful corruption in its train, but to the man who could in his turn by use of his faculties put it to the best use for the community.

It is easy enough to see clearly if we think impartially. We have undertaken to found a school for Spiritual Science, the Goetheanum, at Dornach, near Basel, in Switzerland. This has been its title ever since the world became "Woodrow-Wilsonized" and it became necessary for Germany's spiritual life-treasure to be boldly displayed before the world. A very different thing, this, from ordinary Chauvinism—a Goetheanum in a foreign country as the representative of German spiritual life. Further, it is being built, and it will be controlled, by those who have the capacities to call it into being; but to whom will it belong when these people are no longer among the living? It will not pass by inheritance to anyone, but to those who can control it best in the service of humanity. Actually it belongs to nobody. Social thought in economics will bring into being the things which are necessary for health in the future. I have dealt more fully with the circulation of private property in my Three fold Commonwealth, where I have shown how the social organism must be divided into three members, separate but co-operating as such:

(a) The spiritual organization with control of itself on the basis of a free spiritual life.

(b) The organisation of the State with political rights and with democratic control based on the judgment of every grown-up person.

(c) An economic life placed under the control only of individuals, who have shown themselves expert and competent, and their Associations and Corporations.

All this seems so new that once when I was talking of it in Germany, someone objected that, I was dividing the State (which must be a unity) into three parts. I could only ask in reply whether I should be dividing a horse into parts if I said it must stand on its four legs? Or is a horse a unity only if it stands on one leg? Just as little can one expect that the social life should be an abstract unity, if such a unity could exist at all. We must not in the future allow ourselves to be hypnotized by the abstract idea of the "unitary State"; we must see that it must be divided into three members on which it can be supported—into a free spiritual sphere controlling itself, an organization of rights with democratic legislation, and an economic organization with expert and competent economic control.

One-half of a great truth was uttered more than a hundred years ago in Western Europe, in the words: "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity," three ideals which were capable of being graven deep into the hearts and souls of men: but it was not fools or madmen who maintained in the nineteenth century that these ideals were really contradictory, that where absolute equality rules, neither freedom nor fraternity can exist. These objections were sound, but only because they were made at a time when men were obsessed by the idea of the so-called "unitary State." Directly we free ourselves from the hypnotism of this idea and can understand the necessity for the threefold social organism we shall speak otherwise.

I hope you will allow me in closing, to sum up in a comparison what I fain would discuss at greater, length. I have only been able to give an outline sketch of what I meant: I know I have but hinted at what needs a comprehensive description to be understood; but in conclusion I should like to point out what a hypnotic effect the "unitary State " idea has had on men, and how they have let the unitary State be dominated by the three great ideals of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." We shall have to change that idea. At present people look on the Unitary State as a sort of divinity. In this, their attitude is like Faust's attitude towards the sixteen-year-old Gretchen. It is like the lessons which Faust gave to the child Gretchen, suited to her years, but usually regarded by philosophers as something highly philosophical. There Faust says, "The All-enfolding, the All-upholding, folds and upholds he not thee, me, Himself? " (Faust, Part I, Scene XVI) This is almost the same view as of the Unitary State. Men are hypnotized by it as by an idol of unity and cannot see that this unitary picture must become threefold for the health of mankind in the future. Many a manufacturer would be only too glad to speak to his work-people about the State as Faust speaks to Gretchen: "The all-enfolding, all-upholding State, does it not enfold and uphold you, myself, itself? "—only he would have to clap his hand over his mouth lest he should say "myself " too loudly! The necessity of the threefold ordering must be realized, especially amongst the workers, but that will only be when their eyes are opened to the need. In future it will not be the cry of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," with all the contradictions involved in these ideals. They will hold sway, but the independent spiritual life will be the domain of "Liberty " for there it is justified. "Equality" will be the rule in the democratic State, where all grown men will be equal in rights; finally, "Fraternity " will hold dominion in the economic life, independently controlled, supporting and sustaining every one. Thus applied to the three divisions of the social organism the three ideals no longer contradict each other.

And now, though we look in agony at what has happened at Versailles, seeing in it the starting-point of much misery, poverty and pain, yet we can still hope. Things external can be taken from us, yet if we have the vigour to reach back over the years in which we were false to our own past to the Goetheanism of the period at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when Lessing, Herder, Schiller, Goethe and others were active in other spheres: if we have the vigour to reach back in our time of need, in the strength of our own inner being, to the great glories of Central Europe, then, in spite of the stress of our times, will peal forth from Central Europe the complement to the halftruth of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity " which rang out a hundred years ago, the other half—perhaps in external dependence, but certainly in inner freedom and independence.

Liberty in the Life of the Spirit.
Equality in the democratic Life of Rights.
Fraternity in the Economic Life.

In these words we can sum tap what men must think and say and feel if they are to comprehend the Social Question in its entirety. May it be received and grasped by many, many minds, so that what is only a question to-day may be the practice of tomorrow.

3. Die Verwirklichung der Ideale Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit durch Soziale Dreigliederung

Das ist ja zweifellos, daß durch die Weltkriegskatastrophe und alles, was mit derselben in schreckvoller Weise zusammenhängt, die soziale Frage für die Menschheit der Gegenwart ein neues Gesicht angenommen hat. Freilich sehen noch keineswegs Kreise, die weit genug sind, in wünschenswerter Art diese Veränderung des Antlitzes der sozialen Frage. Aber sie ist da, und sie wird sich immer mehr und mehr geltend machen.

Diejenigen Menschen, welche den herrschenden, den führenden Kreisen bis in unsere Gegenwart herein angehörten, werden durch die Macht der Tatsachen sich gezwungen sehen, nicht mehr gegenüber der sozialen Frage stehenzubleiben bei der Ausgestaltung einzelner Gedanken und Maßnahmen, die durch dasjenige herausgefordert sind, was gerade auf dem einen oder anderen Betriebsgebiete, innerhalb des einen oder anderen Kreises des Proletariats sich abspielt. Diese Kreise werden gezwungen werden, in umfassender Art ihre Gedanken und die Richtungen ihres Wollens auf die soziale, als die bedeutungsvollste Frage im Leben der gegenwärtigen Menschen und im Leben der nächsten Zukunft zu wenden. Wird so der Mensch der bisher führenden Klassen nur dann seine Zeit verstehen, wenn er in dem eben angedeuteten Sinne in sein ganzes Denken, Fühlen und Wollen eine neue Gestalt der sozialen Frage aufzunehmen in der Lage sein wird, so wird es auf der anderen Seite aber auch für die breiten Massen des Proletariats notwendig sein, eine wesentliche Änderung ihrer Einstellung zur sozialen Frage zu bewirken.

Durch mehr als ein halbes Jahrhundert haben die breitesten Massen des Proletariats soziale und sozialistische Ideen ergriffen. Wir haben gesehen — wenigstens diejenigen Menschen, die nicht schlafend die letzten Jahrzehnte miterlebt haben -, welche Wandlungen die soziale Frage innerhalb der Reihen des Proletariats durchgemacht hat. Man hat sehen können, welche Gestalt sie indem Augenblick angenommen hatte, als die Schreckenskatastrophe, die man einen «Weltkrieg» nennt, ausgebrochen ist. Dann kam das vorläufige Ende dieser furchtbaren Katastrophe. Das Proletariat sah sich in einer neuen Lage. Es sah sich jetzt nicht mehr wie früher bloß in eine gesellschaftliche Ordnung eingespannt, welche, wenigstens für Mittel- und Osteuropa, von den alten regierenden Mächten beherrscht wurde. Dieses Proletariat selber war in einem weitgehenden Maße aufgerufen, nunmehr an der Neugestaltung der sozialen Einrichtung der Menschheit zu arbeiten. Und gerade dieser Tatsache, dieser völlig neuen geschichtlichen Tatsache gegenüber erlebten wir etwas ungemein Tragisches.

Die Ideen, denen sich das Proletariat durch Jahrzehnte, man darf sagen, mit seinem Herzblut hingegeben hatte, erwiesen sich als nicht tragfähig jetzt, da sie in ihre Verwirklichung eintreten sollten! Und jetzt erlebten wir einen großen geschichtlichen Widerspruch, eigentlich Widerstreit. Wir erlebten, wie die Tatsachen selber, die weltgeschichtlichen Tatsachen, die sich um uns herum abspielten, zum großen Lehrmeister der Menschheit werden konnten. Wir erlebten, wie diese Tatsachen auf der einen Seite zeigten, daß die bisher führenden leitenden Kreise im Laufe der letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderte keine Ideen entwickelt hatten, welche richtunggebend sein können und konnten für das, was sich namentlich in wirtschaftlichen, aber auch in anderen sozialen Tatsachen des menschlichen Erlebens abspielte. Das Merkwürdige erlebte man, daß diejenigen, welche innerhalb der Tatsachenwelt die Macht hatten zu handeln, zu wirken, sich dazu gebracht hatten, die Tatsachen wie von selbst sich ablaufen zu lassen. Die Gedanken, die Ideen waren zu kurzmaschig geworden, um noch die Tatsachen in sich einbeziehen zu können. Die Tatsachen des Lebens waren den Menschen über den Kopf gewachsen. Dies zeigte sich ganz besonders schon durch lange Zeiten hindurch im Wirtschaftsleben, wo der Wettstreit auf dem sogenannten «freien Wirtschaftsmarkt» als einzigen Antrieb in der Regelung der Wirtschaft «Profit» und ähnliches zurückgelassen hatte, wo nicht die Ideen wirkten, die das Wirtschaftsleben einzig und allein nach den Fragen der Gütererzeugung, des Güterumlaufs und des Güterverbrauchs gestalteten, sondern dasjenige, was aus dem Zufall des freien Marktes fortwährend in Krisen hineinführen konnte. Und sehen kann, wer nur sehen will, wie zuletzt dadurch, daß der soziale Betrieb dieser gedankenlos abrollenden Tatsachen sich über die großen Staatsimperien ausgedehnt hatte, auch die Angelegenheiten dieser großen Staatsimperien ins Rollen kamen, ohne daß die Menschen durch ihre Gedanken imstande waren, die rollenden Tatsachen irgendwie zu meistern oder zu ihrer Orientierung irgend etwas zu tun.

Gerade solchen Dingen gegenüber sollte der Mensch der Gegenwart nachdenklich werden. Er sollte sich vor die geistigen Augen führen können, daß es heute in der Tat notwendig ist, tiefer in das Menschengetriebe hineinzuschauen, um so etwas wie die soziale Frage anders zu begreifen, als es gewöhnlich geschieht. Es ist ja handgreiflich, wie die Gedanken gegenüber den rollenden Tatsachen zu kurz geworden sind. Aber die Menschen wollen solche Dinge nicht sehen. Sie haben sich im Laufe der letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderte angewöhnt, Geschäftsroutine, öffentliche Routine für «Lebenspraxis» zu nehmen. Sie haben sich angewöhnt, jeden, der etwas hinausschaut und aus einem Überblick über die Dinge urteilen kann, für einen Utopisten oder unpraktischen Idealisten zu halten. Ich darf, um das, was ich eben gesagt habe, nur etwas zu illustrieren, von einer scheinbar persönlichen Bemerkung ausgehen. Aber diese persönliche Bemerkung ist nicht persönlich gemeint. Denn heute, wo das Schicksal des Einzelnen so eng mit dem allgemeinen Schicksal der Menschheit verstrickt ist, können nur ehrlich gemeinte Tatsachen, die selbst beobachtet sind, hinreichend illustrativ wirken für das, was im Öffentlichen Leben die Impulse, die Antriebe sind.

Im Frühfrühling des Jahres 1914 war ich in einer Vortragsserie, die ich in Wien über geisteswissenschaftliche Gegenstände gehalten habe, damals, Monate vor dem Ausbruch des sogenannten Weltkrieges, genötigt, vor einer kleinen Versammlung — hätte ich dasselbe vor einer größeren gesagt, sie hätte mich selbstverständlich ausgelacht — dasjenige zusammenzufassen, was sich mir als Ansicht über das soziale Werden der gegenwärtigen Verhältnisse bilden mußte. Ich sagte damals: Für den, der mit wachem Seelenauge überblickt, was in unserem öffentlichen Leben innerhalb der zivilisierten Welt geschieht, zeige sich dies durchsetzt wie von einer sozialen Geschwürbildung, einer schweren sozialen Krankheit, einer Art sozialer Krebsbildung. Und was so schleichende Krankheit innerhalb unseres Wirtschaftslebens, aber auch innerhalb unseres ganzen sozialen Lebens ist, das müsse in der nächsten Zeit in einer furchtbaren Katastrophe zum Ausdruck kommen.

Nun, was war man im Frühfrühling 1914, wenn man von einer bevorstehenden Katastrophe sprach aus den Ereignissen heraus, die sich gewissermaßen unter der Oberfläche der Dinge abspielten? Man war ein «unpraktischer Idealist » — wenn einem die Leute nicht sagen wollten, daß man ein Narr ist. Was ich damals sagen mußte, kontrastiert allerdings mit dem, was in jener Zeit und sogar noch etwas später die sogenannten «Praktiker » sagten, jene verantwortlichen Praktiker, die Routiniers waren, statt Praktiker zu sein, die aber hochmütig auf jeden herunterschauten, der aus irgendeiner Ideenerkenntnis die Zeitgeschichte zu erfassen versuchte. Was sagten jene Praktiker über die damalige Zeit? Einer jener Praktiker, der sogar Außenminister eines mitteleuropäischen Staates war, verkündete den erleuchteten Vertretern seines Volkes kurz darauf, die allgemeine Entspannung der politischen Lage mache erfreuliche Fortschritte, so daß man sich in der nächsten Zeit auf einen friedlichen Zustand innerhalb der europäischen Völker gefaßt machen dürfe. Er fügte hinzu: Unsere freundnachbarlichen Verhältnisse zu Petersburg stehen aufs allerbeste, denn dank der Bemühungen der Regierungen kümmert sich das Petersburger Kabinett nicht um die Auslassungen der Pressemeute, und unsere freundschaftlichen Beziehungen zu Petersburg werden sich auch für die Zukunft so gestalten, wie sie bisher waren. Und unsere Unterhandlungen mit England hoffen wir zu einem solchen Abschluß zu bringen, daß auch zu England in der nächsten Zeit schon die aller besten Beziehungen vorhanden sein werden. - Der das sagte, war ein «Praktiker». Was der andere sagte, war «graue 'Theorie »!

An unzähligen Beispielen könnte man die Anschauungen, besser gesagt, die Einsichten in die Tatsachen von seiten der Praktiker im Beginne jener Zeit, die so schreckensvoll für die Menschheit geworden ist, charakterisieren. Es ist ja in der Tat sehr lehrreich, die Tatsachen sprechen deutlich, wenn man sieht, daß solche Praktiker von dem Frieden redeten - und die nächsten Monate diesen Frieden so brachten, daß durch einige Jahre hindurch die zivilisierten Völker sich damit beschäftigten, zehn bis zwölf Millionen Menschen, gering gerechnet, totzuschlagen und dreimal soviel zu Krüppeln zu machen. Ich will diese Dinge nicht der Aufwärmung von Sensationen willen erwähnen. Ich muß sie erwähnen, weil sich daran zeigt, wiedieGedanken der Menschen kurzmaschig geworden sind und nicht mehr ausreichen, um die Tatsachen zu meistern. Man wird diese Vorgänge erst dann im richtigen Lichte sehen, wenn man in den Tatsachen den großen Lehrmeister dafür anerkennen wird, daß wir nötig haben, um zur Wiedergesundung unserer sozialen Verhältnisse zu kommen, nicht an kleine Umwandlungen von diesen oder jenen Einrichtungen zu denken, sondern an ein großes Umlernen und Umdenken, nicht an eine kleine Abrechnung, sondern an eine große Abrechnung mit dem Alten, das morsch und faul ist und nicht mehr hineinmünden darf in das, was für die Zukunft geschehen soll.

Was man so für die großen Angelegenheiten der Menschheit sagen kann, könnte man auch für das Rechts- oder Wirtschaftsleben im einzelnen sagen. Überall wird so geredet, daß die Gedanken nicht ausreichen, um die Tatsachen zu meistern. Daher kann man sagen, die bisher leitenden führenden Kreise haben die Praxis, ihnen fehlen aber für diese Praxis die nötigen wirksamen lebenspraktischen Ideen und Gedanken. Und diesen führenden Kreisen steht gegenüber die große Masse des Proletariats. Dieses Proletariat hat sich in einer, man darf sagen, strammen Schulung der marxistischen Gedanken herangebildet durch mehr als ein halbes Jahrhundert. Aber heute ist es nicht etwa richtig, herumzuschauen bei den proletarischen Massen, um sich zu informieren, wie sie denken. Es ist verhältnismäßig leicht, sogar manchmal recht, recht leicht, sachgemäß dasjenige zu widerlegen, was die proletarischen Massen und ihre Führer über wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten denken. Aber darauf kommt es nicht an. Sondern darauf kommt es an, daß es eine geschichtliche Tatsache ist, daß durch die Seelen, durch die Herzen der proletarischen Massen die Niederschläge von dem gegangen sind, was aus intensiv wirkenden Gedanken sich herausgebildet hat, man möchte schon sagen, als eine proletarische Theorie. Aber diese Theorie, die jetzt, nachdem das Alte zusammengebrochen wat, sich wahrhaftig schon mehr hätte bewähren können, als sie sich gegenüber der Lebenspraxis bewährt hat, diese Theorie zeigt eine ganz besondere Eigentümlichkeit, die begreiflich ist. Denn so wie die Dinge in der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung der Menschheit durch den Einfluß der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsordnung und der neueren Technik im Laufe der drei bis vier letzten Jahrhunderte, insbesondere aber des neunzehnten, sich herausgebildet haben, wurde das Proletariat immer mehr und mehr eingespannt bloß in das wirtschaftliche Leben; aber so eingespannt, daß jeder einzelne Angehörige dieses Proletariats eine sehr eng umgrenzte Arbeit zu leisten hatte. Diese eng umgrenzte Arbeit war im Grunde genommen alles, was er von dem immer umfassender werdenden Wirtschaftsleben real sah. Was Wunder, daß der Proletarier erlebte - erlebte an dem Schicksal seines Leibes und seiner Seele —, wie sich das neuere Wirtschaftsleben unter dem Einfluß von Technik und Privatkapital entwickelte, daß er aber die Triebräder und Triebfedern, die in diesem Wirtschaftsleben wirkten, nicht überschauen konnte! Er war sozusagen der Arbeitende an diesem Wirtschaftsleben, aber er war durch seine soziale Position verhindert, sachgemäß hineinzuschauen in die Ordnung dieses Wirtschaftslebens, in die Art, wie dieses Wirtschaftsleben verwaltet wird. Und nur allzu begreiflich ist es, daß sich durch solche Tatsachen etwas herausbildete, dessen Früchte nun eben da sind. Es bildete sich wie aus unterbewußten, instinktiven Trieben und Forderungen des Proletariats eine weitgehende proletarische sozialistische Theorie heraus, die aber im Grunde genommen sowohl von den wirtschaftlichen wie von den anderen sozialen Tatsachen sehr, sehr weit entfernt ist, weil ja der Proletarier keinen Einblick in die eigentlichen Triebräder und Triebfedern der wirtschaftlichen und anderen sozialen Tatsachen gewinnen konnte und daher hinnehmen mußte, was ihm auch in einseitiger Weise durch den Marxismus gebracht wurde. Und so finden wir, daß im Laufe von Jahrzehnten Dinge sich tief einfraßen in das Gemüt der proletarischen Menschen, Dinge, die im Grunde genommen, im wesentlichen, so tief wie nur möglich berechtigt sind, die aber an den Tatsachen völlig vorbeigehen.

Ich möchte ein Beispiel nennen. Wie stark hat in der Agitation, die sich über das Proletariat aus den theoretischen Anschauungen seiner Führer heraus ergossen hat, zum Beispiel das Wort gewirkt: Es darf in der Zukunft nicht mehr produziert werden, um zu produzieren. Es darf nur produziert werden, um zu konsumieren! - Gewiß, ein treffendes Wort, ein Wort, das — was nicht von vielen Schlagworten der Gegenwart gesagt werden kann — sogar «wahr» ist, aber ein Wort, das ein wesenloses Abstraktum wird und einem entschlüpft, wenn man es mit praktischem Sinn, mit wirklicher Einsicht in die Wirtschaftsverhältnisse durchdenkt. Denn der Praxis kommt es darauf an: Wie macht man die Dinge? Der Praxis gegenüber ist nichts getan, wenn man bloß die Forderung erhebt: man solle nur produzieren, um zu konsumieren. Das ist etwas, was die Vorstellung vor die Seele ruft, wie schön das Wirtschaftsleben sein könnte, wenn nicht mehr der Profit herrschte, sondern stets nur der Ausblick auf den Konsum. Aber es liegt gar nichts in diesem Satz, was irgendwie darauf hinwiese, »ze nun die Struktur des Wirtschaftslebens gestaltet werden solle, damit die Empfindung, die in diesen Worten sich ausdrückt, wirklich Platz greifen könne. Und so verhält es sich mit vielen der Worte —- wir werden noch mancherlei berühren ‚die manchmal tiefen Wahrheiten entstammen, die aber Agitation- sund Parteischlagworte des Proletariats geworden sind. Sie sind Abstraktionen geworden und nehmen sich wie utopistische Hinweisungen auf eine unbestimmte Zukunft aus. Und wer es mit dem Proletariat ganz ehrlich meint, muß sich sagen: So lebt dieses arme Proletariat, das heute seine berechtigten Forderungen erhebt, in solchen Anschauungen, von denen zu sagen ist, daß sie zwar eine Theorie sind, aber fernstehen den Tatsachen des Lebens — weil der Proletarier aus diesen Tatsachen herausgerissen und an einen abgesonderten Ort hingestellt worden ist, wo er immer nur eine ganz einzelne Ecke des Lebens übersah.

Das ist der Widerstreit, auf den ich habe hinweisen wollen, der sich ausdrückt auf der einen Seite in der Verfassung der leitenden führenden Kreise, welche die Macht über die Tatsachen haben, aber keine Ideen, um diese Tatsachen zu beherrschen, — und auf der anderen Seite in dem Proletariat, welches Ideen bekommen hat, aber mit diesen Ideen als ganz abstrakten Ideen ferne den Tatsachen steht, fremd den Tatsachen gegenübersteht.

Wenn man so etwas, wie ich es jetzt gesagt habe, durch einige Worte charakterisiert, weist man auf in der Geschichte wirkende Kräfte und Impulse hin, die im Grunde genommen bedeutungsvoller sind als irgend etwas, was sich bisher im geschichtlichen Ablauf der Menschheit vollzogen hat. Worte wie die von der «ideenlosen Praxis der führenden Kreise» und der «unpraktischen Theorie des Proletariats » wägt man nur richtig, wenn man ein Gefühl hat für das, was so furchtbar lebendig, so einander zerstörend durch die gegenwärtigen Entwicklungsströmungen der Menschheit flutet. Die Tatsache, daß ein solcher Gegensatz zwischen der Seelenverfassung der leitenden führenden Kreise und derjenigen des Proletariats vorhanden ist, führt dazu und führte dazu, daß heute eine tiefe Kluft besteht zwischen allem, was Denken, Empfinden, Wollen und Handeln der leitenden führenden Kreise ist, und zwischen dem, was Sehnsuchten, Wünsche, Willensimpulse des Proletariats sind. Man versteht nicht einmal richtig, was eigentlich heute aus den Tiefen werden sollte, was aus dem Proletariat als die Forderung der Zeit einem entgegentönt! Wenn einem aus proletarischen Kreisen die Lehre vom Mehrwert, die eben angedeutete Lehre, man solle nur produzieren, um zu konsumieren, die Lehre von der Umwandlung des Privateigentums in Gemeineigentum entgegenklingt, so versteht man diese Dinge gewiß dem Wortlaute nach. Aber dieser Wortlaut der proletarischen Wünsche und Anschauungen — was ist er denn eigentlich? Ist er das, was den bürgerlich führenden leitenden Kreisen Veranlassung geben sollte, diese proletarischen Theorien, wenn sie ausgesprochen werden, logisch zu kritisieren? Es gibt nichts Naiveres in der Gegenwart, als wenn von proletarischer Seite her die Lehre vom Mehrwert ertönt und dann irgendein Syndikus oder Direktor einer Aktiengesellschaft das Selbstverständliche sagt, daß der Mehrwert, aus den Banknoten und so weiter zusammengerechnet, so niedrig ist, daß, wenn man ihn aufteilen wollte, für den Einzelnen nichts herauskommen würde. Es ist das Allernaivste, so sich zu verhalten zum Beispiel der Theorie des Mehrwertes gegenüber. Denn was da die Herren an «Rechnung» leisten, ist ja ganz selbstverständlich, dagegen ist durchaus nichts einzuwenden. Aber um diese Dinge handelt es sich gar nicht. Denn wenn man das, was unmittelbar in den Worten der proletarischen Theorien gesagt wird, in dieser Weise «widerlegen» will, dann ist das gerade so, als wenn man in einem Zimmer am Thermometer sieht, es zeigt so und so viele Grade, und dann, wenn einem die Anzahl der Grade nicht paßt, wenn sie zu niedrig oder zu hoch sind, etwa mit einer kleinen Flamme das Thermometer höhersteigen lassen wollte. Dadurch, daß man sich damit beschäftigt, das Thermometer zu korrigieren, beschäftigt man sich wahrhaftig nicht mit dem, was da wohl als Ursachen zugrunde liegt. Was heute proletarische Theorien sind, wörtlich zu nehmen und zu widerlegen, das ist naiv. Denn die proletarischen Theorien sind nichts weiter als - wollte ich gelehrt sprechen, so würde ich sagen - ein Exponent von etwas, das viel tiefer liegt, als dort, wo man es jetzt sucht. Ebenso wie das Thermometer die Temperatur eines Zimmers anzeigt, aber sie nicht selbst macht, so sind die proletarischen Theorien etwas, um wie an einem Instrument, an einem Zeichen zu erkennen, was in dieser Weise in der sozialen Frage in der Gegenwart und in der nächsten Zukunft lebt. Und da macht man es sich in der Regel allzu bequem. Da betrachtet man diese Frage bloß als eine Wirtschaftsfrage, weil sie einem zuerst entgegengetreten ist als eine wirtschaftliche aus den Forderungen des Proletariats heraus, das eben eingeschnürt war in das Wirtschaftsleben in der Zeit des Privatkapitalismus und der Technik. Und man sah nicht, was eigentlich hinter all den Auffassungen steckt, die sich bei den proletarischen Theorien auf Kapital, auf Arbeit und auf Ware beziehen. Der Proletarier erlebt das gesamte Gebiet des menschlichen Lebens auf dem Felde des Wirtschaftlichen. Daher rückt sich ihm die soziale Frage ganz in eine wirtschaftliche Perspektive.

Wer Gelegenheit hat, sich einen weiteren Blick anzueignen, sollte sehen, wie deutlich voneinander zu unterscheiden sind drei Lebensgebiete, auf denen sich uns drei der Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage zeigen. Wer gelernt hat, nicht nur über das Proletariat zu denken - vielleicht erst jetzt zu denken, nachdem die Revolution gekommen ist -, wer gelernt hat durch sein Lebensschicksal, nicht bloß über das Proletariat zu denken und über dasselbe zu empfinden, sondern mit demselben zu denken und zu empfinden, der kann von dem, was in den Worten liegt, die, ich möchte sagen, als Kernworte durch alle sozialistischen Theorien ziehen, auf das hinschauen, was in den Tiefen der Besten der Proletarier vorgeht. Was sind denn solche Kernworte?

Da haben wir erstens das Kernwort vom Mehrwert, auf das ich schon hingewiesen habe. Man muß nur mit vielen Proletariern als Mensch zu Mensch verkehrt haben, und man muß gesehen haben, wie in die Gemüter der Proletarier dieses Wort vom Mehrwert eingeschlagen hat. Und auf dieses Einschlagen kommt es an, nicht auf die theoretische Bewahrheitung. Wer, gleich mir, in den Jahren, in welchen sich gerade einschneidend Dinge abspielten innerhalb der sozialen Bewegung der neueren Zeit, hier in Berlin gewirkt hat an der von Wähelm Liebknecht, dem alten Liebknecht begründeten Arbeiterbildungsschule, der weiß einiges mehr über diese Frage, die eben angedeutet worden ist, mehr aus der Lebenspraxis heraus als vielleicht Gewerkschaftsführer und namentlich als - wie soll ich mich nun aussprechen, damit ich nicht verletze? Man hat mit Recht gesagt: es gab «Kriegsgewinnler» und nach dem Kriege «Revolutionsgewinnler »; mir ist es immer so vorgekommen: es gab «Kriegsschwätzer» und nach dem Kriege — «Revolutionsschwätzer»! Aber was man unter Mehrwert verstand, das war, daß man sagte: Der Proletarier arbeitet werktätig, er bringt diese oder jene Produkte hervor. Der Unternehmer dagegen bringt diese Produkte auf den Markt, und er gibt dem Arbeiter so viel als nötig ist, damit der Arbeiter sein Leben erhalten kann, denn sonst könnte er auch nicht für den Unternehmer arbeiten, — das übrige ist Mehrwert. Gewiß, mit diesem Mehrwert verhält es sich durchaus so, wie heute etwa Walther Rathenau darüber spricht — ich will gar nichts über diesen viel verleumdeten Mann sagen -, aber in bezug auf die soziale Frage befindet er sich in den größten Irrtümern. Es ist durchaus so, daß dieser Mehrwert, wenn man ihn verteilen würde, den Angehörigen der breiten proletarischen Massen keine Aufbesserung bringen würde. Aber durch Rechnungsoperationen, die etwa in der Luft herumschwirren, kommt man den Dingen auch nicht bei. Man muß vielmehr diesen Mehrwert in der richtigen Weise in bezug auf seine soziale Bedeutung abfangen. Sollte dieser Mehrwert denn wirklich so wenig vorhanden sein, wie zum Beispiel Rathenau «richtig » errechnet? Nein! Denn dann gäbe es in Berlin keine "Theater, keine Hochschulen, keine Gymnasien, alles das nicht, was man Kulturleben, was man Geistesleben der Menschheit nennt. Das alles ist ja in Wahrheit zum größten Teile von dem sogenannten Mehrwert erhalten. Darum handelt es sich aber gar nicht, wie dieser Mehrwert in der Ware und in der Geldzirkulation an die Oberfläche getrieben wird, sondern darum, daß in dem, was nur mitdemSchlagworte Mehrwertbesprochen wird, sich ausdrückt die ganze Beziehung des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens zu der breiten Masse des nicht an diesem Geistesleben unmittelbar teilnehmen könnenden Volkes.

Wer jahrelang unter Arbeitern gelehrt hat und sich bemüht hat, vor ihnen das zu lehren, was unmittelbar aus der allgemeinen menschlichen Empfindung herausdrängt, was gesprochen ist von Mensch zu Mensch, der weiß, was für einen Charakter eine Geistesbildung haben muß, die allgemein menschlich sein soll, und wie sich diese Geistesbildung von derjenigen unterscheidet, die sich im Laufe der letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderte gerade unter dem Einfluß der privatkapitalistischen und der technischen Wirtschaftsordnung herausgebildet hat. Wenn ich wieder persönlich reden darf — das Persönliche illustriert das Allgemeine -, so darf ich vielleicht sagen: Ich wußte, wenn ich in Wochen, Stunden, vor den Proletariern sprach, da spreche ich so, daß in den Seelen verwandte Saiten erklingen; da empfangen diese Menschen ein Wissen, eine Erkenntnis, mit der sie gehen können, die sie aufnehmen können. Aber dann kamen auch diejenigen Zeiten, in denen auch der Proletarier die Mode erfüllen mußte, an der «Bildung » teilzunehmen - an derjenigen Bildung, welche in geistiger Beziehung das Ergebnis der herrschenden, führenden Kultur war. Da mußte man diese Proletarier in die Museen führen, mußte ihnen zeigen, was aus der Empfindungsweise der herrschenden, bürgerlich fühlenden Menschenklasse hervorgegangen ist. Ja, da wußte man — wenn man ehrlich war, wußte man das, wenn man nicht ehrlich war, sagte man sich allerlei Phrasen von Volksbildung und dergleichen vor -: Das alles ergibt keine Brücke zwischen der Geisteskultur und der Geistesbildung der leitenden führenden Kreise und dem, was Geistessehnsucht und Geistesbedürfnis des Proletariats ist. Denn Kunst, Wissenschaft, Religion kann man nur verstehen, wenn sie aus Menschenkreisen hervorgehen, mit denen man auf gleichem sozialen Boden steht, so daß man mit ihnen die gleichen sozialen Empfindungen und Gefühle teilen kann -, nicht wenn ein Riß geht zwischen denjenigen, welche die Bildung genießen sollen, und denjenigen, welche diese Bildung wirklich genießen können. Da empfand man eine tiefe Kulturlüge. Und heute darf wahrhaftig nicht wohlwollend Dunkel über diese Dinge verbreitet werden, sondern heute müssen sie klar gesehen werden. Da empfand man diese tiefe Kulturlüge, die darin bestand, daß man allerlei Volkshochschulen oder Bildungsschulen errichtete und den Leuten eine Bildung mitteilen wollte, die über keine Brücke zu ihnen gehen konnte. Da stand dann der Proletarier auf der einen Seite des Abgrundes, sah hinüber auf das, was an Kunst, an Sitte, Religion, Wissenschaft erzeugt wurde von den leitenden führenden Kreisen, verstand es nicht, hielt es für etwas, was nur — wie ein Luxus — diese leitenden führenden Kreise angeht. Da sah dann das Proletariat die Verwendung, die Verwirklichung des Mehrwertes, indem es das Wort vom Mehrwert aussprach. Dieses Proletariat fühlte etwas ganz anderes, als was in dieser Thermometersprache vom Mehrwert gesagt wurde. Es fühlte: Da ist ein Geistesleben, das erzeugt wird durch unsere Hervorbringungen, durch unsere Arbeit; das produzieren wir, von dem sind wir aber ausgeschlossen!

So muß die Sache vom Mehrwert angesehen werden, wenn sie nicht theoretisch — wenn sie lebensvoll, wenn sie so angesehen wird, wie sie wirklich im Leben darin steht. Da sehen wir dann auch das, was die erste Kernfrage der umfassenden sozialen Frage ist: da sehen wir den geistigen Teil der sozialen Frage. Da sehen wir, wie in derselben Zeit, in welcher in den letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderten neuere Technik, neuere Wissenschaft und zugleich privatkapitalistische Wirtschaftsform heraufkamen, auch ein Geistesleben heraufgekommen ist, das immer mehr und mehr nur dasjenige wird, was in den Seelen jener Menschen leben soll, die durch eine tiefe Kluft getrennt sind von den großen breiten Massen, für deren Bildung sie in unzulänglicher Weise sorgen, von deren Bildung sie sich abtrennen. Daher sieht man mit so blutendem Herzen darauf hin, wenn man erfährt, wie man gut meinend und gutwillig in diesen leitenden führenden Kreisen sich in gut geheizten Spiegelzimmern unterhielt über die Art, wie man brüderlich ist mit allen Menschen, über die Art, wie man alle Menschen lieben solle, wie man sich unterhielt von allen christlichen Tugenden - bei einer Ofenwärme, die erzeugt war durch diejenigen Kohlen, welche heraufbefördert wurden aus den Kohlenschächten, in die hinuntergelassen wurden neunjährige, elfjährige, dreizehnjährige Kinder, welche buchstäblich - für die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts war es buchstäblich so; später ist es nicht durch das Verdienst der herrschenden leitenden Kreise besser geworden, sondern durch die Forderungen des Proletariats - vor dem Aufgange der Sonne in die Schächte hinunterwandern mußten und erst nach dem Untergange der Sonne wieder heraufkommen konnten, so daß diese armen Kinder die ganze Woche hindurch das Sonnenlicht nicht sahen.

Man glaubt heute, diese Dinge werden gesagt, um aufzuhetzen. Nein! Sie müssen gesagt werden, um darauf hinzuweisen, wie sehr sich das, was Geistesleben der letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderte ist, abgetrennt hat von dem wirklichen Leben der Menschen. Man hat reden können - abstrakt — von Moral, von Tugend, von Religion, ohne daß das wirkliche tätige praktische Leben irgendwie berührt wurde von diesem Gerede von Brüderlichkeit und Nächstenliebe, von Christentum und so weiter. Das ist es denn, was vor uns hinstellt als einen abgesonderten Kernpunkt der sozialen Frage die Geistesfrage. Wir blicken da auf den ganzen Umfang des Geisteslebens, insbesondere des Geisteslebens mit Bezug auf den Menschen der Gegenwart und der nächsten Zukunft, das sich abspielt auf dem Gebiete der Erziehung und des Unterrichtswesens. Es ist einmal so gekommen, daß im Laufe der letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderte durch die Art, wie die einzelnen fürstlichen Territorien sich zu den einzelnen Wirtschafts-Nationalstaaten gestaltet haben, das Geistesleben in seinen wichtigeren öffentlicheren Teilen von der Staatsordnung aufgenommen worden ist. Und heute ist man stolz darauf, daß man von seiten der Wissenschaft, von seiten des Geisteslebens überhaupt, das Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesen — gewiß mit Recht — der mittelalterlichen Zugehörigkeit zur Religion, zur Theologie entrissen hat. Man ist recht stolz darauf und hat es immer wieder wiederholt: Im Mittelalter war es so, daß das Geistesleben, das Wissenschaftsleben der Theologie, der Kirche die Schleppe nachgetragen hat. Gewiß, diese Zeiten sollen nicht wieder zurückgewünscht werden; wir wollen nicht rückwärts, wir wollen vorwärts. Aber heute ist schon wieder eine andere Zeit. Heute darf nicht bloß in Hochmut darauf hingewiesen werden, wie im Mittelalter das Geistesleben der Kirche die Schleppe nachgetragen hat. Heute muß auf etwas anderes hingewiesen werden. Nehmen wir ein Beispiel zur Illustration, das uns hier nicht so ferne liegt.

Ein sehr bedeutender naturforschender Gelehrter, den ich sehr achte - durchaus werden diese Dinge nicht zur Verkleinerung der Menschen gesagt —, der zugleich Sekretär der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften war, er sprach darüber, wie diese Berliner Akademie zu dem öffentlichen Staatswesen stand. Der Herr sagte damals in einer wohlgefügten Rede: die Mitglieder dieser gelehrten Akademie rechneten es sich zu ihrer ganz besonderen Ehre, die wissenschaftliche Schutztruppe der Hohenzollern zu sein. Das ist nur ein Beispiel von solchen, die man nicht hundertfältig, sondern tausend- und aber tausendfältig anführen könnte, welches die Frage auf die Lippen bringt: Was ist heute an der Stelle dessen, wo in alten Zeiten das Geistesleben der Kirche die Schleppe nachgetragen hat? Wem trägt heute das Geistesleben die Schleppe nach? Das war nicht einmal so schlimm in der jüngsten Vergangenheit, wie es werden müßte, wenn wahrhaftig staatliche Ordnungen eintreten würden, unter denen das furchtbare Unterrichtsregiment sich auftun könnte, welches im Osten Europas sich aufgetan hat, und was hinlänglich beweist, daß es den Tod aller Kultur bringen würde. Sie müssen nicht nur in die Vergangenheit, sondern vor allem in die Zukunft schauen und müssen sagen: Es ist die Zeit herangerückt, wo das Geistesleben als ein selbständiges Glied des sozialen Organismus wird auftreten müssen, wo es auf Selbstverwaltung wird gestellt werden müssen.

Man begegnet, indem man so etwas ausspricht, heute unzähligen Vorurteilen. Man wird geradezu als ein verrückter Mensch angesehen, wenn man heute nicht hinweisen kann auf den großen Segen, der in der Verstaatlichung des Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesens liegt. Aber das Heil, das gesucht werden muß, es wird erst gefunden werden, wenn vom Lehrer der untersten Schulstufen an bis hinauf zu dem Unterrichtenden an den Hochschulen das gesamte Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesen und das mit ihm zusammenhängende Geistesleben in Selbstverwaltung gestellt ist — nicht in die Verwaltung des Staates! Das gehört zu den großen Abrechnungen, die heute gepflogen werden müssen.

Der Kreis von Menschen, der mir zuerst Freundlichkeit erwiesen hat, als es sich darum handelte, den Impuls der Dreigliederung der Gegenwart einzuverleiben, dieser Kreis ist derjenige, dem jetzt auch in Stuttgart die erste wirkliche freie Einheitsschule entsptingt. An die WaldorfAstoria-Fabrik soll sich angliedern zunächst eine Muster-Einheitsschule, die gestellt sein soll auf jene Pädagogik und Didaktik, auf jene Erziehlehre, welche aus nichts anderem entspringt als aus der wirklichen und wahren Erkenntnis des werdenden Menschen. Der ist zwischen dem siebenten und fünfzehnten Lebensjahre kein anderer, welcher Klasse und welchem Stande er auch angehört. Aber ihn muß man erst kennenlernen, wenn man ihn unterrichten und erziehen will.

Da ich derjenige war, der in Stuttgart den vorbereitenden Kursus für die an dieser Waldorf-Schule wirkende Lehrerschaft zu halten hatte, so kamen mir auch diejenigen Dinge in die Hand, die heute wie eine Selbstverständlichkeit hingenommen werden. Man ahnt gar nicht, was darin liegt, daß diese Dinge wie eine Selbstverständlichkeit hingenommen werden! Aber sie haben sich eigentlich erst in den letzten Jahrzehnten herausgebildet. Man darf bei einer solchen Gelegenheit — da die Dinge, die Gegenstand der Lebenspraxis sind, zugleich Gegenstand der Lebenserfahrung sein müssen — darauf hinweisen, daß man das, was man sagt, nicht aus dem Leichtsinn eines Jugendlebens sagt, sondern es sich erst auszusprechen getraut, wenn man, wie ich, ein sechstes Lebensjahrzehnt fast vollendet hat. Da erinnert man sich daran, wie die Lehrpläne früher noch kurz waren und wie das, was Gegenstand des Unterrichtes sein sollte, vertreten wurde durch die Vorträge, durch die Bücher und Erfahrungen derjenigen, die im lebendigen Erziehungswesen darin standen, die aus dem Geiste herausschöpften. Heute aber hat man nicht einen kurzen Lehrplan — heute hat man dicke Bücher, in denen nicht nur steht, man solle in dem einen Schuljahr dieses, in dem andern Schuljahr jenes durchnehmen, sondern in denen auch vorgeschrieben ist, wie man die Dinge behandeln soll. Was Gegenstand der freien Lehre sein sollte, das soll Gegenstand werden und ist schon Gegenstand geworden des «Verordnungsblattes». Ehe man nicht ein deutliches, hinlängliches Gefühl von dem haben wird, was an Unsozialem in diesen Dingen steckt, eher wird man nicht reif sein, mitzuarbeiten an der wirklichen Gesundung der Menschheit. In der Aufrichtung des freien, vom Staate unabhängigen Geisteslebens liegt daher der erste Kernpunkt der sozialen Frage. Da ist das erste der drei selbständigen Glieder des dreigliederigen sozialen Organismus zu errichten. Wenn man heute diese Dinge vertritt, wenn man darauf hinweist, wie es wohl sein kann, daß zukünftig niemand innerhalb des geistigen Gliedes des sozialen Organismus verwalten wird als der, welcher auch tätigen Anteil am geistigen Leben nimmt, dann wird das mit Bezug auf den Unterricht wenig verwandt sein mit dem Unterricht im heutigen Einheitsstaat. Das ganze Leben wird wie in einer Musterrepublik dastehen. Jeder wird nicht bloß nach den Forderungen einer Verordnung unterrichten, sondern aus dem Geiste schöpfen, was dem Unterricht und der Erziehung frommt. Man wird nicht bloß zu fragen haben, was die Berechtigungen des Menschen für den Sozialismus im dreizehnten oder siebzehnten Jahre sind, wohl aber: Was liegt im Wesen des Menschen selbst begründet, damit es herausgeholt werden kann aus dem werdenden Menschen, so daß er, wenn er diese Kräfte losgelöst erhalten hat aus der Tiefe seines Wesens, nicht als willensschwacher, gebrochener Mensch dasteht, wie heute so viele, sondern so dasteht, daß er seinem Schicksal gewachsen ist und auch mitarbeiten kann an dem, was seine Aufgaben im Leben sind. Das weist auf das erste Glied in der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus hin.

Man wird allerdings, wenn man diese Gedanken ausspricht, zuerst mit einer Frage, mit einem Einwand abgefunden, wie ich es in einer süddeutschen Stadt erlebte. Da antwortete mir nach einem Vortrage, in der Diskussion, ein Hochschulprofessor ungefähr in folgender Weise: Wir Deutschen werden in der Zukunft ein armes Volk sein. Der Mann dort will das Geistesleben selbständig machen. Das arme Volk wird das selbständige Geistesleben nicht bezahlen können, denn es wird kein Geld haben. Man wird also nach dem Staatssäckel greifen müssen, wird doch aus den Steuern das Unterrichtswesen bezahlen müssen, und wie soll es dann selbständig werden, wie soll es da nicht das Aufsichtsrecht des Staates über sich gestellt haben müssen, da es vom Staate erhalten werden muß ?-Ich konnte darauf nur erwidern, daß es mir sehr sonderbar vorkomme, wenn der Professor glaube, daß das, was man als Steuern aus der Staatskasse nimmt, irgendwie da herauswächst, und daß es in Zukunft nicht von dem «armen Volke» genommen wird. Aber was einem am meisten begegnet, das ist die Gedankenlosigkeit auf allen Gebieten. Dem muß entgegengestellt werden ein wirkliches, in die Tatsachen des Lebens hineinschauendes, praktisches Denken. Das wird auch praktische Lebensprogramme bringen können, die zu verwirklichen sind.

Und wie das Geistesleben, das Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesen verselbständigt werden muß, so auf der anderen Seite das Wirtschaftsleben. Es ist sehr merkwürdig, wie in der neueren Zeit aus der Tiefe der Menschennatur heraus zwei Forderungen aufgestiegen sind: die nach Demokratie und die nach Sozialismus. Beide, Demokratie und Sozialismus, widersprechen einander. Vor der Weltkriegskatastrophe hat man diese zwei widersprechenden Impulse zusammengeschweißt und sogar eine Partei, die Sozialdemokratie, danach benannt. Hölzernes Eisen ist ungefähr dasselbe. Beide, Sozialismus und Demokratie, widersprechen sich, beide sind aber ganz aufrichtige und ehrliche Forderungen der neueren Zeit. Nun ist die Weltkriegskatastrophe an uns vorübergezogen, hat ihre Ergebnisse gebracht, und nun hören wir, wie die soziale Forderung auftritt und nichts wissen will von einem demokratischen Parlament. Wie die soziale Forderung wiederum theoretisch, ohne eine Ahnung zu haben, wie die Tatsachen eigentlich sind, mit Schlagworten ganz abstrakter Art auftritt wie «Erringung der politischen Macht», «Diktatur des Proletariats» und dergleichen, das kommt allerdings aus den Untergründen des sozialistischen Empfindens hervor, beweist aber, daß man jetzt darauf gekommen ist, daß auch das sozialistische Empfinden dem demokratischen Empfinden widerspricht. Die Zukunft, die den Wirklichkeiten des Lebens, nicht den Schlagworten Rechnung zu tragen hat, sie wird erkennen müssen, wie der sozialistisch Fühlende Recht hat, wenn er sozusagen etwas Unheimliches bei «Demokratie» empfindet, und wie anderseits der demokratisch Fühlende Recht hat, wenn er das Furchtbarste empfindet bei den Worten «Diktatur des Proletariats ».

Wie liegen auf diesem Gebiete eigentlich die Tatsachen? Da brauchen wir nur das Wirtschaftsleben im Zusammenhange mit dem Staatsleben gerade so zu betrachten, wie wir eben vorher das Geistesleben im Zusammenhange mit dem Staatsleben betrachtet haben. Es war wiederum das Vorurteil der Menschen der neueren Zeit, insbesondere derjenigen, die glaubten, recht fortschrittlich zu denken, daß der Staat immer mehr und mehr zum Wirtschafter werden sollte. Post, Telegraph, Eisenbahn und so weiter wurden in Staatsverwaltung gestellt, und bald wollte man über immer weitere Wirtschaftsgebiete die Staatsverwaltung ausdehnen. Das ist eine weite und umfassende Sache, die ich jetzt mit einigen Worten berühre, und ich muß mich leider — weilich angewiesen bin, diese Dinge in einem kurzen Vortrage zu entwickeln - der Gefahr aussetzen, daß das, was in sehr sachlichen Worten dargelegt wird und mit unzähligen Beispielen aus der neueren Geschichte belegt werden könnte, als Dilettantismus hingestellt würde. Das ist es aber durchaus nicht. Aber was hier wie ein Vorurteil der Fortgeschrittensten ist, das wird sich gerade dann, wenn man den Sozialismus ernst nimmt, in seiner wahren Gestalt zeigen. Und es wird sich in seiner wahren Gestalt zeigen, wenn man ferner ernst nehmen wird ein Wort, welches aus seinen lichtesten Augenblicken heraus ‚Friedrich Engels in seiner Schrift «Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft », ausgesprochen hat. Er sagt ungefähr: Überschaut man das Staatsleben, wie es sich in die Gegenwart herein entwickelt hat, so findet man, daß es die Bewirtschaftung der Produktionszweige, die Leitung der Warenzirkulation, umfaßt. Aber indem der Staat gewirtschaftet hat, hat er zugleich über Menschen regiert. Er gab die Gesetze, nach denen sich zu verhalten haben — ob in ihren wirtschaftlichen Handlungen oder außerhalb derselben — diejenigen Menschen, die im Wirtschaftsleben drinnen stehen. Dieselbe Instanz wirtschaftete — und gab die Gesetze für das Verhalten der Menschen, die im Wirtschaftsleben drinnen stehen. Das muß in Zukunft anders werden.

Dies hat Engels ganz richtig erkannt. In Zukunft darf auf dem Boden, auf dem gewirtschaftet wird, nicht mehr regiert werden über Menschen, meinte Engels; sondern es darf auf diesem Boden nur verwaltet werden, was Produktion ist, und es darf auf ihm nur geleitet werden, was Warenzirkulation ist. Das war eine richtige Anschauung - aber eine halbe Wahrheit oder eigentlich nur eine Viertelswahrheit. Denn wenn das, was an Gesetzen verwirklicht ist auf diesem Wirtschaftsgebiete, das bisher mit dem Staatsleben zusammenfiel, herausgenommen wird aus der Wirtschaftsverwaltung und Wirtschaftsleitung, muß es seinen eigenen Platz erhalten - allerdings nicht einen Platz, von dem aus die Menschen zentralistisch regiert werden, sondern den Platz, wo sie sich selber demokratisch regieren.

Das heißt: Die beiden Impulse, Demokratie und Sozialismus, weisen darauf hin, daß zwei voneinander getrennte Gebiete neben dem selbständigen Geistesglied des sozialen Organismus noch dastehen müssen in dem gesamten sozialen Organismus, nämlich das, was bleibt von dem ehemaligen Staate. Es ist das die Verwaltung des Wirtschaftlichen und die des öffentlichen Rechtes oder mit anderen Worten alles dessen, worüber jeder Mensch urteilsfähig ist, wenn er mündig geworden ist. Denn was liegt in der Forderung nach Demokratie? Es liegt darin, daß die neuere Menschheit geschichtlich reif werden will dafür, auf dem freien Staatsboden, auf dem freien Rechtsboden gesetzmäßig dasjenige zu verwalten, worin alle Menschen einander gleich sind, worüber also jeder mündig gewordene Mensch neben jedem anderen mündig gewordenen Menschen mittelbar oder unmittelbar — mittelbar durch Vertretung, unmittelbar durch irgendein Referendum - entscheiden kann. So müssen wir in Zukunft einen selbständigen Rechtsboden haben, der die Fortsetzung des alten Macht- und Gewaltstaates sein wird, und der erst der wahre Rechtsstaat sein wird. Niemals wird ein wahrer Rechtsstaat anders entstehen, als daß in ihm nur diejenigen Angelegenheiten durch Gesetze geregelt werden, über die jeder mündig gewordene Mensch urteilsfähig ist, und zu diesen Angelegenheiten gehört wieder etwas, worüber das Proletariat viel gesprochen hat, wo aber seine Worte wieder genommen werden müssen als das soziale Thermometer. Denn wieder hat in das Gemüt des Proletariats tief eingeschlagen ein Wort von Karl Marx: Es gibt ein menschenunwürdiges Dasein, wenn der Arbeiter auf dem Arbeitsmarkt seine Arbeitskraft wie eine Ware verkaufen muß. Denn wie man eine Ware bezahlt mit dem Warenpreis, so bezahlt man die Arbeitskraft wie gleichwertig mit der Ware durch den Lohn, durch den Preis für die Ware Arbeitskraft!

Das war ein Wort, nicht so sehr bedeutungsvoll in der Entwicklung der neueren Menschheit durch seinen sachlichen Inhalt, als durch das blitzartige Einschlagen in das Proletariat, jenes blitzartige Einschlagen, von dem sich die führenden Kreise eigentlich keine Vorstellung machen. Und woher rührt dies Ganze? Es rührt davon her, daß in den Wirtschaftskreislauf, das heißt in die Warenerzeugung, in die Warenzirkulation und Warenkonsumation, die einzig in den Wirtschaftskreislauf hineingehören, in chaotischer, in unorganischer Weise auch hineingestellt ist die Regelung der Arbeit nach Maß, nach Zeit, nach Charakter usw. Und nicht eher wird Heil auf diesem Gebiete, bis aus dem Wirtschaftskreislauf Charakter, Maß und Zeit der menschlichen Arbeit herausgehoben ist, ob sie geistige, ob sie physische Arbeit ist. Denn die Regelung der Arbeitskraft gehört nicht in das Wirtschaftsleben hinein, wo derjenige, welcher der wirtschaftlich Mächtigere ist, eben auch die Macht hat, die Art der Arbeit dem wirtschaftlich Schwachen aufzudrängen. Die Regelung der Arbeit von Mensch zu Mensch, was ein Mensch für den anderen arbeitet, das gehört geregelt auf dem Rechtsboden, da, wo jeder mündig gewordene Mensch jedem andern mündig gewordenen Menschen als gleicher gegenübersteht. Wieviel ich für den andern zu arbeiten habe, darüber dürfen nicht wirtschaftliche Voraussetzungen entscheiden, sondern einzig und allein das, was in dem zukünftigen Staate, der der Rechtsstaat ist, gegenüber dem heutigen Machtstaat, sich entwickeln wird.

Auch da begegnet man wieder einem Bündel von Vorurteilen, indem man dergleichen ausspricht. Heute ist es billig, wenn die Leute sagen: Solange die Wirtschaftsordnung durch die Verhältnisse des freien Marktes gegeben ist, solange wird es selbstverständlich sein, daß die Arbeit von der Produktion abhängt, davon, wie die Waren bezahlt werden. Wer aber glaubt, daß es so bleiben müsse, sieht nicht ein, wie geschichtlich ganz andere Forderungen heraufziehen. In Zukunft wird man sagen müssen: Wie töricht wäre es, wenn die Menschen, die irgend einen Betriebszweig zu verwalten haben, sich zusammensetzten und die Kontobücher des Jahres 1918 nähmen und sagten: Da haben wit so und soviel erzeugt, wir müssen in diesem Jahre auch soviel erzielen. Jetzt ist es September, wir brauchen also, um das zu erreichen, noch so und so viele Tage, wo es regnet, und so und so viele, wo Sonnenschein sein muß, und so weiter. - Man kann nicht der Naturgrundlage vorschreiben, daß sie sich nach den Preisen richten soll, sondern man muß die Preise nach der Naturgrundlage einrichten. Auf der einen Seite wird das Wirtschaftsleben an die Naturgrundlage grenzen, auf der anderen Seite an den Rechtsstaat, wo auch die Arbeit geregelt werden wird. Da wird aus rein demokratischen Grundlagen heraus festzustellen sein, wie lange der Mensch zu arbeiten habe, und danach werden sich die Preise bestimmen — das heißt nach den Naturgrundlagen, so wie heute nach den Naturgrundlagen die Preise in der Landwirtschaft bestimmt werden. Es handelt sich nicht darum, daß man über die Verbesserung kleiner Einrichtungen nachdenkt; es handelt sich darum, daß man umdenken und umlernen muß. Erst wenn auf dem selbständig demokratischen Gemeinboden, wo der eine Mensch dem andern als Mündiggewordener, als Gleicher dem Gleichen gegenübersteht, über die Arbeitskraft geurteilt wird, und wenn der Mensch als freier Mensch diese Arbeit in das selbständige Wirtschaftsleben hineinträgt, wo nicht Arbeitsverträge, sondern Verträge über die Erzeugung geschlossen werden, erst dann wird aus dem Wirtschaftsleben weichen, was heute Unruhe erzeugend darin ist. Das muß durchschaut werden.

In der Kürze dieser Zeit kann ich diese Dinge nur andeuten. Ich würde sehr gern einen Zyklus von Vorträgen halten, aber das geht diesmal nicht. Ich muß aber noch darauf hinweisen, wie sich das dritte Glied, das Wirtschaftsleben, in dem dreigliederigen sozialen Organismus gestaltet, wie es in die Zukunft hineinragen soll.

In diesem Wirtschaftsleben darf nicht, wie bisher, darin sein: Kapitalverwaltung, Bodenverwaltung, Produktionsmittelverwaltung — das ist übrigens Kapitalverwaltung —, Arbeitsverwaltung, sondern lediglich darf in ihm sein Verwaltung der Warenerzeugung, des Warenumlaufs und des Warenverbrauchs. Und gleichsam die Urzelle dieses Wirtschaftslebens, das nur auf Sachkenntnis und Fachtüchtigkeit gegründet sein soll, die Preisbildung, wie wird sie sich vollziehen müssen ? Nicht durch den Zufall des sogenannten freien Marktes, wie es bisher in der Volkswirtschaft und in der Weltwirtschaft der Fall war! So wird sie sich vollziehen müssen, daß auf dem Boden von Assoziationen, die sachgemäß zwischen den einzelnen Produktionszweigen und den Konsumgenossenschaften entstehen, durch Menschen, die sachkundig und fachtüchtig aus diesen Genossenschaften hervorgehen, organisch das erreicht werde, vernünftig erreicht werde, was heute krisenhaft der Zufall des Marktes hervorbringt. Es wird in der Zukunft, wenn die Feststellung von Art und Charakter der menschlichen Arbeitskraft in den Rechtsstaat fällt, ungefähr innerhalb des Wirtschaftslebens sich zutragen müssen, daß der Mensch für irgend etwas, was er arbeitend vollbringt, so vielan Austauschwerten erhält, daß er seine Bedürfnisse dadurch befriedigen kann, bis er ein gleiches Produkt wieder hervorgebracht hat.

Grob, dilettantisch, oberflächlich gesprochen, wäre das eben Gesagte durch folgendes Beispiel erläutert, aber diese Erläuterung wird heute genügen: Wenn ich ein Paar Stiefel hervorbringe, so muß ich durch den gegenseitig fixierten Wert in der Lage sein, durch die Herstellung dieses Paares Stiefel so viele Güter einzutauschen, als ich brauche, um damit meine Bedürfnisse zu befriedigen, bis ich wieder ein Paar Stiefel hervorgebracht haben werde. Und Einrichtungen müssen vorhanden sein, welche innerhalb der Gesellschaft zu regeln haben die Bedürfnisse für Witwen, Waisen, für Invalide und Kranke, für die Erziehung und dergleichen. Daß aber solche Regulierung der Preisbildung, was einzig und allein Sache einer wirtschaftlichen Sozialisierung sein wird, stattfinden kann, das wird davon abhängen, daß sich Körperschaften bilden - seien sie gewählt, seien sie designiert aus den Assoziationen der Produktionszweige in Verbindung mit den Konsumentengenossenschaften -, welche berufen sind, im lebendigen Leben die gerechten Preise zu vermitteln.

Das kann nur dadurch geschehen, daß das ganze Wirtschaftsleben — allerdings nicht in Form einer Moellendorffischen Planwirtschaft, sondern in einer lebendigen Form — so geordnet wird, daß zum Beispiel folgendes berücksichtigt wird: Nehmen wir an, irgendein Artikel habe die Tendenz, zu teuer zu werden. Was bedeutet das? Es wird zu wenig von diesem Artikel erzeugt; es müssen nach den Produktionszweigen Arbeiter durch Verträge hingeleitet werden, welche diesen Artikel erzeugen können. Wird andererseits ein Artikel zu billig, so müssen Betriebe stillgelegt werden und die Arbeiter davon abgezogen werden und durch Regelung in andere Betriebe hineinkommen. Wenn so etwas ausgesprochen wird, dann bezeichnen das die Leute heute als schwierig. Wer das aber als schwierig ablehnt, um bei kleinen Verbesserungen der sozialen Verhältnisse stehen zu bleiben, der sollte auch wissen, daß er damit auch bei den heutigen Verhältnissen bleiben wird.

Das zeigt Ihnen, wie durch Assoziationen, die rein aus den Wirtschaftskräften selbst gebildet sind, das Wirtschaftsleben auf sich selbst gestellt werden soll, wie das Wirtschaftsleben, über welches heute der Staat seine Fittiche ausgedehnt hat, in der Tat nur von den wirtschaftenden Kräften selbst verwaltet werden soll, und zwar so, daß innerhalb dieser Verwaltung des Wirtschaftslebens die Initiative des Einzelnen möglichst gewahrt werde. Das kann nicht durch eine Planwirtschaft, nicht durch Aufrichtung einer Gemeinbewirtschaftung der Produktionsmittel, sondern einzig und allein durch Assoziationen der freien Produktionszweige und durch Übereinkommen dieser Assoziationen mit den Konsumgenossenschaften geschehen.

Das ist der furchtbare Irrtum, daß die Verstaatlichung, die bisher von den führenden, leitenden Kreisen in die Wege geleitet worden ist, bis zum Extrem getrieben werden soll, daß über das ganze Staatsleben, den Rahmen dieses Staatslebens benutzend, Genossenschaften sich ausdehnen sollen, wodurch man allen Zusammenhang einer solchen Planwirtschaft mit den äußeren Wirtschaftskräften untergraben würde; während jene Assoziationen, die von der Dreigliederung gemeint sind, gerade darauf ausgehen, die volle freie Initiative des Wirtschaftenden festzuhalten, offenzuhalten alles, was einen geschlossenen Wirtschaftskörper mit dem äußeren Wirtschaftskörper verbindet.

Allerdings wird manches auch recht sehr anders ausschauen, zum Beispiel etwas, worauf ich durch ein Gleichnis nur hindeuten kann. Es verlangt die sozialistische Theorie die Aufhebung des Privateigentums, wie man sagt - lauter Worte, unter denen sich ein sachkundiger Mensch nichts vorstellen kann - und Überführung des Privateigentums in Gemeineigentum. Aber das heißt ja gar nichts. Was etwas heißen kann, das kann ich Ihnen in folgender Weise im Bilde sagen. Heute sind die Menschen beispielsweise sehr stolz auf ihre Philosophen. Aber über eines denken die Menschen ziemlich richtig, wenigstens sobald es sich um geistige Hervorbringungen handelt; während sie es auf dem Gebiete des Materiellen nicht dazu bringen, in gleicher Weise gesund zu denken. Denn wie denkt man über das geistige Eigentum? So denkt man, daß man bei dem, was man geistig erwirbt, dabei sein muß. Man kann nicht gut sagen: Was ich als geistiges Eigentum hervorbringe, das solle dutch Gemeinwirtschaft oder dutch genossenschaftliches Bewirtschaften hervorgebracht werden. Das wird man schon dem Einzelnen überlassen müssen. Denn es wird am besten dadurch hervorgebracht, daß der Einzelne mit seinen Fähigkeiten und Talenten dabei ist, und nicht, wenn er davon getrennt wird. Aber man denkt doch sozial, indem das, was man geistig hervorbringt, dreißig Jahre nach dem Tode des Schaffenden - es könnte vielleicht die Zeit viel verkürzt werden — nicht mehr den Erben gehört, sondern demjenigen, der es wieder am besten der Allgemeinheit zugänglich machen kann. Das findet man selbstverständlich, weil die Menschen heute das, was sie als Geistiges empfinden, nicht als etwas Besonderes schätzen. Aber die Menschen machen keinen Versuch, darauf einzugehen, wenn man davon spricht, daß das physische Privateigentum in derselben Weise behandelt werden sollte, daß es nur solange im Privatbesitz sein sollte, als man mit seinen Fähigkeiten dabei sein kann, dann aber übergehen sollte - jetzt nicht an diese wesenlose Allgemeinheit, die Korruptionen und so weiter furchtbarster Art hervorbringen würde, sondern an denjenigen, der wieder seinerseits die besten Fähigkeiten hat und die Sache in den Dienst der Allgemeinheit stellen würde.

Wo man unbefangen denkt, zeigen sich solche Dinge schon. Wir haben es unternommen, eine Hochschule für Geisteswissenschaft, das Goetheanum, in Dornach bei Basel in der Schweiz zu begründen. Wir nennen es Goetheanum seit dem Zeitpunkt, wo die Welt «verwoodrowwilsont» wird, wo es nötig wird, daß der Deutsche zeige, daß er ein Geistesleben vor den ganzen Erdkreis kühn hinstellen wird. Goetheanum im Auslande als Vertreter des deutschen Geisteslebens — anders als es der Chauvinismus macht! Aber ich will jetzt etwas anderes hervorheben. Sie wird gebaut, diese Hochschule der Geisteswissenschaft, und sie wird jetzt verwaltet von denjenigen Menschen, welche die Fähigkeiten dazu haben, diese Sache ins Leben zu rufen. Wem wird sie gehören, wenn diese jetzigen Menschen nicht mehr unter den Lebenden sind? Durch Erbschaft wird sie an niemanden übergehen, sondern sie wird an den übergehen, der sie wieder am besten im Dienste der Menschheit verwalten kann. Sie gehört eigentlich niemandem.

Denkt man wirtschaftlich sozial, so entstehen schon diejenigen Dinge, die entstehen müssen, wenn Heilsames in der Zukunft geschehen soll. Das Weitere über die Zirkulation des Privateigentums habe ich ausgeführt in der Schrift «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage», wo ich gezeigt habe, wie der soziale Organismus gegliedert werden muß in seine selbständigen und als solche zusammenwirkenden drei Glieder: in die geistige Organisation mit Selbstverwaltung aus den Untergründen eines freien Geisteslebens heraus, in die staatlich-politisch-rechtliche Organisation mit demokratischer Verwaltung, gestellt auf das Urteilen eines jeden mündig gewordenen Menschen, und in ein Wirtschaftsleben, das lediglich gestellt sein soll in das Urteil der sachkundigen und fachtüchtigen einzelnen Personen und Korporationen und ihren Assoziationen.

Das scheint so neu zu sein, daß mir, seit ich diese Sachen in Deutschland vertrete, auch einmal von jemandem folgendes unterbreitet worden ist: Du zerteilst da den Staat, der ein Einheitliches sein muß, in drei Teile. - Ich konnte darauf nur erwidern, ob ich denn den Gaul in drei oder vier Teile zerteile, wenn ich sage: er muß auf seinen vier Beinen stehen. Oder wird jemand behaupten, daß ein Gaul nur eine Einheit ist, wenn er auf einem Bein steht? Ebenso wenig wird jemand behaupten dürfen, daß das soziale Leben, wenn es eine Einheit sein soll, zusammenfließen muß in einer abstrakten Einheit. Man wird sich in Zukunft nicht mehr hypnotisieren lassen müssen von dem abstrakten Einheitsstaat, man wird wissen müssen, daß er dreigegliedert werden muß, in drei Glieder, auf denen er stehen kann: in ein sich selbstverwaltendes freies Geistesgebiet, in eine Rechtsorganisation mit demokratischer Gesetzgebung, in eine Wirtschaftsorganisation mit rein sachkundiger und fachtüchtiger Wirtschaftsverwaltung.

Die Hälfte von großen Wahrheiten wurde vor mehr als hundert Jahren im Westen Europas gesprochen in den Worten, die damals fielen als eine halbe Wahrheit: Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit, drei Ideale, die den Menschen wahrhaftig tief genug in die Herzen und Seelen geschrieben sein könnten. Aber es waren gewiß nicht dumme und törichte Menschen, die im Laufe des i9. Jahrhunderts erklärt haben, daß diese drei Ideale sich eigentlich widersprächen: daß Freiheit nicht sein kann, wo absolute Gleichheit herrscht; daß wieder Brüderlichkeit nicht sein kann, wo absolute Gleichheit sein soll. Diese Einwendungen waren richtig, aber nur deshalb, weil sie in einer Zeit aufgetreten sind, wo man hypnotisiert war von dem sogenannten Einheitsstaat. In dem Augenblick, wo man von diesem nicht mehr hypnotisiert sein wird, wo man die notwendige Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus begreifen wird, da wird man anders sprechen.

Gestatten Sie, daß ich am Schlusse in einen Vergleich zusammenfasse, was ich gerne noch länger ausführen würde. Ich konnte nur gleichsam Fäden zeichnen, in einer Skizze das darstellen, was ich sagen wollte; ich weiß, wie ich lediglich andeuten konnte, was nur bei ausführlicher Darstellung durchschaut und eingesehen werden kann. Aber ich möchte am Schlusse darauf hinweisen, wie der Einheitsstaat wie etwas Hypnotisierendes vor den Menschen stand und sie diesen Einheitsstaat beherrscht sein lassen wollten von den drei großen Idealen Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit. Man wird lernen müssen, daß es anders werden muß. In der Gegenwart sind die Menschen gewohnt, wie einen Gott diesen Einheitsstaat anzuschauen. In der Beziehung ist ihr Verhalten schon so, wie das des Faust dem sechzehnjährigen Gretchen gegenüber. Da erlebt man auch Dinge, die sich ausnehmen wie die Lehren, welche der Faust dem Kinde Gretchen gibt, die angemessen sind dem sechzehnjährigen Gretchen, und die von den Philosophen gewöhnlich als etwas Hochphilosophisches angesehen werden. Da sagt der Faust: «Der Allumfasser, der Allerhalter, faßt und erhält er nicht dich, mich, sich selbst?» Fast ist es so gegenüber dem Einheitsstaate, daß die Menschen auch hypnotisiert sind von diesem Einheitsgötzenbilde und nicht einsehen können, wie dieses Einheitsgebilde dreigliedtig werden muß zum Heile der Menschen in der Zukunft. Und mancher Fabrikant wird ganz gerne mit Bezug auf den Staat zu seinen Arbeitern so reden wie Faust dem Gretchen gegenüber, indem er sagt: Der Staat, der Allerhalter, der Allumfasser, faßt und erhält er nicht sich, dich, mich selbst? - Er müßte sich dann aber rasch die Hand vor den Mund halten und das «mich selbst» nicht zu laut sagen!

Die Notwendigkeit der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus muß eingesehen werden, besonders auch in den proletarischen Kreisen. Man wird sie erst einsehen, wenn man wissen wird: die Dreigliederung ist notwendig. Denn nicht geradezu darf in der Zukunft herrschen der Ruf «Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit» mit den Widersprüchen, die diese drei Ideale gegenseitig enthalten, sondern herrschen wird müssen in der Zukunft im selbständigen Geistesleben Freiheit des Geistes, denn da wird sie berechtigt sein; herrschen wird müssen Gleichheit gegenüber einem jeden mündig gewordenen Menschen im demokratischen Staatswesen, und herrschen wird müssen Brüderlichkeit in dem selbständig verwalteten, die Menschen nährenden und erhaltenden Wirtschaftsleben. In dem Augenblicke wo man diese drei Ideale so auf den dreigliederigen Organismus anwenden wird, werden sie einander nicht mehr widersprechen.

Möge die Zeit kommen, da man wird folgendermaßen charakterisieren können: Wir in Mitteleuropa blicken wahrhaftig mit Schmerzen hin auf das, was durch Versailles geschehen ist. Wir blicken darauf erst als auf einen Ausgangspunkt hin und auf viel Not und viel Elend und Schmerzen, die uns bevorstehen. Möge aber das sich erfüllen, daß man sagen kann: Äußeres können sie uns nehmen, denn Äußeres kann man den Menschen abnehmen. Sind wir aber imstande, zurückzugreifen auf die Jahre, in denen wir unsere Vergangenheit verleugnet haben, zu dem Goetheanismus jener Zeit von der Wende des i8., 19. Jahrhunderts, als die Lessing, Herder, Schiller, Goethe und so weiter für ein anderes Gebiet wirkten - sind wir imstande, zurückzugreifen in unserer Not aus unserer Innerlichkeit heraus zu den großen mitteleuropäischen Gütern, dann wird in der Not der Zeit aus diesem Mitteleuropa heraus der vor einem Jahrhundert in «Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit» nur halb ertönenden Wahrheit die andere Hälfte entgegentönen; vielleicht in äußerer Abhängigkeit — aber in innerer Freiheit und Unabhängigkeit könnten von Mitteleuropa dann in die Welt hinaustönen die Worte:

Freiheit für das Geistesleben,
Gleichheit für das demokratische Rechtsleben der Menschen,
Brüderlichkeit für das Wirtschaftsleben!

In diese Worte kann man zusammenfassen, wie in einem Signum, was man heute sagen, empfinden und denken muß im Sinne eines umfassenden Ergreifens der sozialen Frage in ihrer Ganzheit. Mögen recht viele Menschen dies erfassen und begreifen; dann wird praktisch sein können, was heute eben eine Frage ist!

3. Realizing the ideals of freedom, equality, and brotherhood through social threefolding

There is no doubt that the catastrophe of the World War and everything horribly connected with it has given the social question a new face for the people of today. Of course, not all circles are yet sufficiently broad-minded to see this change in the face of the social question in a desirable light. But it is there, and it will become more and more apparent.

Those people who have belonged to the ruling, leading circles up to the present day will be forced by the power of facts to no longer stand still on the social question with the formulation of individual ideas and measures that are challenged by what is happening in one or another area of business, within one or another circle of the proletariat. These circles will be forced to turn their thoughts and the direction of their will in a comprehensive manner to the social question, as the most significant question in the lives of people today and in the life of the near future. If the people of the hitherto leading classes will only understand their time when they are able to incorporate a new form of the social question into their entire thinking, feeling, and willing in the sense just indicated, then it will also be necessary for the broad masses of the proletariat to bring about a fundamental change in their attitude toward the social question.

For more than half a century, the broadest masses of the proletariat have embraced social and socialist ideas. We have seen — at least those of us who have not been asleep during the last few decades — the changes that the social question has undergone within the ranks of the proletariat. We have seen what form it had taken at the moment when the terrible catastrophe known as the “world war” broke out. Then came the provisional end of this terrible catastrophe. The proletariat found itself in a new situation. It no longer saw itself, as it had in the past, merely bound into a social order which, at least in Central and Eastern Europe, was dominated by the old ruling powers. This proletariat itself was now called upon, to a large extent, to work on the restructuring of the social institutions of humanity. And it was precisely in the face of this fact, this completely new historical fact, that we experienced something immensely tragic.

The ideas to which the proletariat had devoted itself for decades, one might say with its heart and soul, proved to be untenable now that they were to be put into practice! And now we experienced a great historical contradiction, actually a conflict. We witnessed how the facts themselves, the world-historical facts that were unfolding around us, could become the great teacher of humanity. We witnessed how these facts showed, on the one hand, that the leading circles of the past three to four centuries had not developed any ideas that could and were capable of guiding what was happening, particularly in economic terms, but also in other social aspects of human experience. It was remarkable to see that those who had the power to act and influence within the world of facts had allowed the facts to run their course as if by themselves. Thoughts and ideas had become too narrow-minded to be able to take the facts into account. The realities of life had become too much for people to handle. This was particularly evident over long periods of time in economic life, where competition in the so-called “free market” was the sole driving force in the regulation of the economy, leaving behind “profit” and similar concepts, where it was not ideas that shaped economic life solely according to the questions of goods production, goods circulation, and goods consumption, but rather that which, due to the vagaries of the free market, could continually lead to crises. And anyone who wants to see can see how, ultimately, because the social operation of these thoughtlessly unfolding facts had spread across the great state empires, the affairs of these great state empires also began to unfold, without people being able to master the unfolding facts in any way through their thoughts or do anything to orient themselves.

It is precisely such things that people today should reflect on. They should be able to visualize that it is indeed necessary today to look more deeply into human activity in order to understand something like the social question differently than is usually the case. It is obvious how thoughts have fallen short in the face of rolling facts. But people do not want to see such things. Over the last three or four centuries, they have become accustomed to taking business routine and public routine as “life practice.” They have become accustomed to considering anyone who looks beyond the immediate and can judge things from an overview to be a utopian or an impractical idealist. To illustrate what I have just said, I will start with a seemingly personal remark. But this personal remark is not meant to be personal. For today, when the fate of the individual is so closely intertwined with the general fate of humanity, only honestly meant facts that have been observed firsthand can sufficiently illustrate what the impulses and drives are in public life.

In the early spring of 1914, I was giving a series of lectures on spiritual science subjects in Vienna, months before the outbreak of the so-called World War, and I felt compelled to summarize before a small gathering — had I said the same thing before a larger audience, they would of course have laughed at me — to summarize what I had come to see as the social development of the present circumstances. I said at the time: For those who observe with an alert spiritual eye what is happening in our public life within the civilized world, this appears to be permeated by a kind of social ulceration, a serious social disease, a kind of social cancer. And this insidious disease within our economic life, but also within our entire social life, must manifest itself in a terrible catastrophe in the near future."

Well, what were you in early spring 1914 if you spoke of an impending catastrophe based on events that were, in a sense, taking place beneath the surface? You were an “impractical idealist” — if people didn't want to tell you that you were a fool. What I had to say at the time, however, contrasts with what the so-called “practitioners” said at that time and even somewhat later, those responsible practitioners who were routine workers rather than practitioners, but who arrogantly looked down on anyone who tried to grasp contemporary history from some insight into ideas. What did those practitioners say about the time? One of those practitioners, who was even foreign minister of a Central European state, announced to the enlightened representatives of his people shortly thereafter that the general détente in the political situation was making encouraging progress, so that one could expect a peaceful state of affairs among the European peoples in the near future. He added: Our friendly relations with Petersburg are at their best, because thanks to the efforts of the governments, the Petersburg cabinet is not concerned with the omissions of the press mob, and our friendly relations with Petersburg will continue to be as they have been in the past. And we hope to bring our negotiations with England to such a conclusion that we will also have the very best relations with England in the near future. The one who said this was a “practitioner.” What the other said was “gray theory”!

Countless examples could be used to characterize the views, or rather the insights into the facts, of the practitioners at the beginning of that period, which became so terrible for humanity. It is indeed very instructive to see the facts speak for themselves when one considers that such practitioners spoke of peace—and that the following months brought about this peace in such a way that, over a period of several years, civilized nations were engaged in killing ten to twelve million people, at a conservative estimate, and crippling three times as many. I do not mention these things for the sake of sensationalism. I must mention them because they show how short-sighted people's thinking has become and how it is no longer sufficient to master the facts. These events will only be seen in their proper light when we recognize in the facts the great teacher that we need, in order to restore our social conditions to health, not to think of small changes to this or that institution, but of a great re-learning and rethinking, not of a small reckoning, but of a great reckoning with the old, which is rotten and decayed and must no longer be allowed to influence what is to happen in the future.

What can be said about the great affairs of humanity can also be said about legal and economic life in particular. Everywhere, people talk as if thoughts were not enough to master the facts. Therefore, it can be said that the leading circles have the practice, but they lack the necessary effective practical ideas and thoughts for this practice. And these leading circles are opposed by the great mass of the proletariat. This proletariat has been trained in Marxist thought for more than half a century, and one can say that it has been trained rigorously. But today it is not right to look around among the proletarian masses to find out how they think. It is relatively easy, sometimes even very, very easy, to refute what the proletarian masses and their leaders think about economic matters. But that is not the point. The point is that it is a historical fact that the souls and hearts of the proletarian masses have been influenced by what has emerged from intensely effective ideas, one might even say as a proletarian theory. But this theory, which now, after the collapse of the old order, could truly have proven itself more than it has proven itself in practice, this theory shows a very special characteristic that is understandable. For as things have developed in the social evolution of mankind under the influence of the capitalist economic system and modern technology over the last three or four centuries, but especially in the nineteenth century, the proletariat has become more and more harnessed to economic life alone; but harnessed in such a way that each individual member of this proletariat had to perform a very narrowly defined job. This narrowly defined work was basically all that he saw of the ever-expanding economic life. No wonder that the proletarian experienced—experienced in the fate of his body and soul—how the newer economic life developed under the influence of technology and private capital, but that he could not see the driving forces and springs that were at work in this economic life! He was, so to speak, the worker in this economic life, but his social position prevented him from properly seeing into the order of this economic life, into the way in which this economic life was administered. And it is only too understandable that such facts gave rise to something whose fruits are now evident. A far-reaching proletarian socialist theory emerged, as it were, from the subconscious, instinctive drives and demands of the proletariat, but one which was, in fact, very far removed from both economic and other social realities, because the proletarian could not gain any insight into the actual driving forces and motives behind economic and other social facts and therefore had to accept what was presented to him in a one-sided manner by Marxism. And so we find that over the course of decades, things have become deeply ingrained in the minds of proletarian people, things that are, in essence, as justified as possible, but which completely ignore the facts.

I would like to give an example. How powerful has been the effect of the slogan, for example, in the agitation that has poured out over the proletariat from the theoretical views of its leaders: In the future, production for the sake of production must cease. Production must only be for consumption! Certainly, this is an apt phrase, one that—unlike many of today's slogans—is even “true,” but it is a phrase that becomes an insubstantial abstraction and slips away when one thinks it through with practical sense and real insight into economic conditions. For in practice, what matters is: How do you do things? In practice, nothing is achieved by merely demanding that production should only be for consumption. This is something that conjures up the idea of how wonderful economic life could be if profit no longer ruled, but only the prospect of consumption. But there is nothing in this sentence that in any way indicates how the structure of economic life should be shaped so that the sentiment expressed in these words can really take hold. And so it is with many of the words—we will touch on many of them—that sometimes stem from profound truths, but have become slogans of agitation and party politics for the proletariat. They have become abstractions and seem like utopian references to an uncertain future. And anyone who is completely honest with the proletariat must say to themselves: So this poor proletariat, which today raises its justified demands, lives in such views that can be said to be a theory, but are far removed from the facts of life — because the proletarian has been torn from these facts and placed in a separate place, where he has always only seen a very small corner of life.

This is the conflict I wanted to point out, which is expressed on the one hand in the constitution of the leading circles, which have power over the facts but no ideas to master these facts, — and on the other hand in the proletariat, which has acquired ideas, but with these ideas as completely abstract ideas stands distant from the facts, alien to the facts.

When one characterizes something like what I have just said in a few words, one points to forces and impulses at work in history that are, in essence, more significant than anything that has happened in the course of human history to date. Words such as “the uninspired practice of the ruling circles” and “the impractical theory of the proletariat” can only be properly weighed if one has a feeling for what is so terribly alive, so destructive to each other, flooding through the current trends in human development. The fact that such a contrast exists between the state of mind of the leading circles and that of the proletariat leads and has led to a deep gulf between everything that is the thinking, feeling, willing, and acting of the leading circles and the longings, desires, and impulses of the proletariat. People do not even really understand what should actually come out of the depths today, what the proletariat is calling for as the demand of the times! When one hears from proletarian circles the doctrine of surplus value, the doctrine just mentioned that one should only produce in order to consume, the doctrine of the transformation of private property into common property, one certainly understands these things according to their literal meaning. But what is the actual meaning of these proletarian desires and views? Is it something that should prompt the bourgeois leadership to logically criticize these proletarian theories when they are expressed? There is nothing more naive at present than when the doctrine of surplus value is voiced from the proletarian side and then some legal advisor or director of a joint-stock company states the obvious, that the surplus value, calculated from banknotes and so on, is so low that if it were to be divided up, the individual would get nothing. It is the most naive thing to do, for example, with regard to the theory of surplus value. For what these gentlemen are doing in terms of “calculation” is quite obvious, and there is nothing wrong with that. But that is not what these things are about. For if one wants to “refute” what is said directly in the words of proletarian theories in this way, it is just as if one sees a thermometer in a room showing a certain number of degrees, and then, if one does not like the number of degrees, if they are too low or too high, one wants to make the thermometer rise higher with a small flame. By preoccupying oneself with correcting the thermometer, one is not really concerned with what might be the underlying causes. It is naive to take today's proletarian theories literally and refute them. For proletarian theories are nothing more than—if I wanted to speak learnedly, I would say—an exponent of something that lies much deeper than where one is now looking for it. Just as the thermometer shows the temperature of a room but does not create it itself, so proletarian theories are something that can be used, like an instrument or a sign, to recognize what is alive in this way in the social question in the present and in the near future. And as a rule, people make it too easy for themselves. This question is viewed merely as an economic one, because it first arose as an economic issue from the demands of the proletariat, which was constrained by economic life in the era of private capitalism and technology. And people did not see what actually lies behind all the ideas in proletarian theories relating to capital, labor, and commodities. The proletarian experiences the entire realm of human life in the field of economics. Therefore, the social question takes on an entirely economic perspective for him.

Those who have the opportunity to take a broader view should see how clearly three areas of life can be distinguished from one another, in which three of the core issues of the social question are revealed to us. Those who have learned not only to think about the proletariat—perhaps only now, after the revolution has come—those who have learned through their life experiences not merely to think and feel about the proletariat, but to think and feel with it, can see what lies in the words that, I would say, run through all socialist theories as key words, look at what is going on in the depths of the best of the proletarians. What are these key words?

First, we have the key word of surplus value, which I have already pointed out. One only has to have interacted with many proletarians as one human being to another, and one must have seen how this word “surplus value” has struck a chord in the minds of the proletarians. And it is this impact that matters, not the theoretical verification. Anyone who, like me, has worked here in Berlin during the years in which decisive events took place within the social movement of recent times, here in Berlin at the workers' educational school founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht, the old Liebknecht, knows a little more about this question that has just been raised, more from practical experience than perhaps trade union leaders and, in particular, as—how should I put this so as not to cause offense? It has been rightly said that there were “war profiteers” and, after the war, “revolution profiteers”; it has always seemed to me that there were “war windbags” and, after the war, “revolution windbags”! But what was meant by surplus value was that the proletarian works hard and produces this or that product. The entrepreneur, on the other hand, brings these products to market and gives the worker as much as is necessary for the worker to sustain his life, because otherwise he would not be able to work for the entrepreneur — the rest is surplus value. Certainly, this surplus value is exactly as Walther Rathenau describes it today — I don't want to say anything about this much-maligned man — but when it comes to social issues, he is completely mistaken. It is certainly true that if this surplus value were distributed, it would not bring any improvement to the members of the broad proletarian masses. But one cannot get to the bottom of things by means of mathematical operations that are floating around in the air. Rather, one must intercept this surplus value in the right way in relation to its social significance. Is this surplus value really as small as Rathenau, for example, has “correctly” calculated? No! For then there would be no theaters, no universities, no high schools in Berlin, none of what we call cultural life, the intellectual life of humanity. In truth, all of this is largely sustained by the so-called surplus value. But that is not the point at all. The point is not how this surplus value is brought to the surface in commodities and in the circulation of money, but rather that what is discussed only under the slogan of surplus value expresses the entire relationship of modern intellectual life to the broad masses of the people who cannot participate directly in this intellectual life.

Anyone who has taught among workers for years and has endeavored to teach them what springs directly from general human feeling, what is spoken from person to person, knows what character a spiritual education must have if it is to be universally human, and how this spiritual education differs from that which has developed over the last three to four centuries, precisely under the influence of the private capitalist and technical economic order. If I may speak personally again—the personal illustrates the general—then perhaps I may say: I knew that when I spoke to the proletarians in weeks, in hours, I spoke in such a way that kindred strings were struck in their souls; that these people received knowledge, insight, with which they could go, which they could absorb. But then came the times when even the proletarian had to follow the fashion of participating in “education” — the education that was, in intellectual terms, the result of the dominant, leading culture. These proletarians had to be taken to museums, had to be shown what had emerged from the sensibility of the dominant, bourgeois class. Yes, one knew—if one was honest, one knew this; if one was not honest, one told oneself all sorts of phrases about public education and the like—that all this did not bridge the gap between the intellectual culture and education of the leading circles and the intellectual longings and needs of the proletariat. For art, science, and religion can only be understood if they emerge from circles of people with whom one stands on equal social ground, so that one can share the same social sensibilities and feelings with them—not when there is a rift between those who are supposed to enjoy education and those who can actually enjoy it. There was a sense of a profound cultural lie. And today, these things must not be covered up with benevolent silence, but must be seen clearly. People sensed this profound cultural lie, which consisted in establishing all kinds of adult education centers or educational schools and trying to impart an education to people that could not reach them. The proletariat stood on one side of the abyss, looked across at what was being produced in art, customs, religion, and science by the leading circles, did not understand it, and considered it something that only concerned these leading circles, like a luxury. The proletariat then saw the use, the realization of surplus value, by uttering the word “surplus value.” This proletariat felt something completely different from what was said in this thermometer language of surplus value. It felt: There is a spiritual life that is created by our productions, by our work; we produce it, but we are excluded from it!

This is how the issue of surplus value must be viewed, not theoretically — but vividly, as it really exists in life. Then we also see what is the first core issue of the comprehensive social question: we see the spiritual part of the social question. We see how, at the same time as newer technology, new science, and at the same time a private capitalist economic system have emerged, a spiritual life has also emerged that is increasingly becoming only that which is to live in the souls of those people who are separated by a deep chasm from the large broad masses, whose education they provide for in an inadequate manner, from whose education they separate themselves. That is why it is so heartbreaking to learn how, with good intentions and goodwill, these leading circles conversed in well-heated mirrored rooms about how to be brotherly to all people, about how to love all people, how to converse about all Christian virtues - in the warmth of a stove heated by coal brought up from the coal shafts, into which nine-year-old, eleven-year-old, thirteen-year-old children were lowered, who literally - in the mid-19th century, this was literally the case; later it did not improve through the efforts of the ruling elite, but through the demands of the proletariat – had to descend into the shafts before sunrise and could only come back up after sunset, so that these poor children did not see sunlight all week long.

Today, people believe that these things are said to incite unrest. No! They must be said to point out how much the intellectual life of the last three to four centuries has become separated from the real lives of people. People have been able to talk — abstractly — about morality, virtue, religion, without real active practical life being affected in any way by this talk of brotherhood and charity, of Christianity and so on. This is what presents itself to us as a separate core issue of the social question: the spiritual question. We look at the whole scope of spiritual life, especially spiritual life as it relates to people of the present and the near future, which takes place in the field of education and teaching. Over the course of the last three to four centuries, the way in which the individual princely territories developed into individual economic nation states meant that spiritual life, in its more important public aspects, was absorbed into the state order. And today we are proud that science, and spiritual life in general, has wrested education and teaching — quite rightly, of course — from its medieval affiliation with religion and theology. People are quite proud of this and have repeated it time and again: in the Middle Ages, intellectual life, the scientific life of theology, followed in the wake of the Church. Certainly, we should not wish for those times to return; we do not want to go backwards, we want to move forwards. But today is a different time. Today, we must not merely point out with arrogance how intellectual life in the Middle Ages trailed behind the Church. Today, we must point out something else. Let us take an example to illustrate this, one that is not so far removed from us.

A very important natural scientist whom I hold in high esteem—these things are by no means said to belittle people—who was also secretary of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, spoke about how this Berlin academy related to the public state system. In a well-crafted speech, he said at the time that the members of this learned academy considered it a special honor to be the scientific protective force of the Hohenzollerns. This is just one example of many, thousands upon thousands of examples, which begs the question: What has replaced the spiritual life of the church in the old days? To whom does spiritual life follow in its wake today? This was not even as bad in the recent past as it would become if truly state-controlled systems were to emerge, under which the terrible educational regime that has emerged in Eastern Europe could arise, and which sufficiently proves that it would bring about the death of all culture. You must look not only to the past, but above all to the future, and say: The time has come when spiritual life must emerge as an independent member of the social organism, where it must be placed under self-administration.

Expressing such views today is met with countless prejudices. One is regarded as downright crazy if one cannot point to the great blessings that lie in the nationalization of the teaching and education system. But the salvation that must be sought will only be found when the entire education system and the spiritual life associated with it, from the lowest school levels up to the university lecturers, is placed under self-administration — not under the administration of the state! This is one of the great reckonings that must be made today.

The circle of people who first showed me kindness when it came to incorporating the impulse of the threefold social order into the present is the same circle that is now giving rise to the first truly free comprehensive school in Stuttgart. The WaldorfAstoria factory is to be affiliated with a model Waldorf school, which is to be based on that pedagogy and didactics, on that educational theory, which springs from nothing other than the real and true knowledge of the developing human being. Between the ages of seven and fifteen, there is no other human being, regardless of class or status. But one must first get to know them if one wants to teach and educate them.

Since I was the one who had to hold the preparatory course in Stuttgart for the teachers working at this Waldorf school, I also came across things that are taken for granted today. One has no idea what it means that these things are taken for granted! But they have actually only developed in the last few decades. On such an occasion — since the things that are the subject of practical life must also be the subject of life experience — it is worth pointing out that what one says is not said out of the recklessness of youth, but that one only dares to say it when, like me, one has almost completed a sixth decade of life. One remembers how short the curricula used to be and how what was to be taught was represented by the lectures, books, and experiences of those who were involved in the living educational system, who drew from the spirit. Today, however, we do not have a short curriculum—today we have thick books that not only tell us what should be covered in one school year and what in another, but also prescribe how things should be taught. What should be the subject of free teaching is to become the subject of the “regulation sheet” and has already become so. Until we have a clear and sufficient sense of what is antisocial in these things, we will not be ready to work toward the real healing of humanity. The first key point of the social question therefore lies in the establishment of a free spiritual life independent of the state. This is where the first of the three independent members of the threefold social organism must be established. If one advocates these things today, if one points out how it may well be that in the future no one will administer within the spiritual member of the social organism except those who also take an active part in spiritual life, then this will have little to do with education in today's unitary state. The whole of life will be like a model republic. Everyone will not merely teach according to the requirements of a regulation, but will draw from the spirit what is beneficial to teaching and education. One will not merely have to ask what the rights of human beings are for socialism at the age of thirteen or seventeen, but rather: What is inherent in the nature of human beings themselves, so that it can be brought out in the developing human being, so that when he has received these powers detached from the depths of his being, he does not stand there as a weak-willed, broken human being, as so many do today, but stands there in such a way that he is equal to his destiny and can also cooperate in what his tasks in life are. This points to the first link in the threefold social organism.

However, when one expresses these thoughts, one is first confronted with a question, an objection, as I experienced in a city in southern Germany. After a lecture, during the discussion, a university professor replied to me in approximately the following manner: We Germans will be a poor people in the future. The man there wants to make intellectual life independent. The poor people will not be able to pay for independent intellectual life because they will have no money. So we will have to dip into the state coffers, because the education system will have to be paid for out of taxes, and how can it then become independent, how can it not have the state's supervisory authority imposed on it, since it must be maintained by the state? I could only reply that it seemed very strange to me that the professor believed that what is taken from the state treasury as taxes somehow grows out of it and that in the future it will not be taken from the “poor people.” But what one encounters most often is thoughtlessness in all areas. This must be countered with real, practical thinking that looks into the facts of life. This will also be able to produce practical life programs that can be realized.

And just as intellectual life, teaching, and education must become independent, so too must economic life. It is very strange how two demands have arisen from the depths of human nature in recent times: the demand for democracy and the demand for socialism. Democracy and socialism contradict each other. Before the catastrophe of the World War, these two contradictory impulses were welded together and even a party, social democracy, was named after them. Wooden iron is roughly the same thing. Both socialism and democracy contradict each other, but both are quite sincere and honest demands of modern times. Now the catastrophe of the world war has passed us by, has brought its results, and now we hear how the social demand arises and wants nothing to do with a democratic parliament. How the social demand, again theoretically, without having any idea what the facts actually are, arises with slogans of a completely abstract nature such as “gaining political power,” “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and the like, which certainly arise from the underground of socialist sentiment, but prove that it has now been realized that socialist sentiment also contradicts democratic sentiment. The future, which must take into account the realities of life, not slogans, will have to recognize how those with socialist sentiments are right when they feel something uncanny about “democracy,” and how, on the other hand, those with democratic sentiments are right when they feel the most terrible thing about the words “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

What are the facts in this area? We need only consider economic life in connection with state life in the same way that we have just considered intellectual life in connection with state life. It was again the prejudice of people in modern times, especially those who believed themselves to be quite progressive in their thinking, that the state should become more and more of an economic manager. The postal service, telegraph, railways, and so on were placed under state administration, and soon there were calls to extend state administration to more and more areas of the economy. This is a broad and comprehensive subject, which I will now touch on briefly, and I must unfortunately — because I am required to develop these ideas in a short lecture — run the risk that what is presented in very factual terms and could be substantiated with countless examples from recent history will be dismissed as amateurism. But that is certainly not the case. But what appears here to be a prejudice of the most advanced will reveal its true nature precisely when socialism is taken seriously. And it will reveal its true nature when we take seriously a statement made by Friedrich Engels in his work “The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science” during one of his most lucid moments. He says, roughly: If one surveys the life of the state as it has developed to the present, one finds that it encompasses the management of the branches of production and the direction of the circulation of commodities. But in managing the economy, the state has at the same time ruled over people. It laid down the laws according to which those involved in economic life must behave, whether in their economic activities or outside them. The same authority managed the economy and laid down the laws governing the behavior of those involved in economic life. This must change in the future.

Engels recognized this quite correctly. In the future, Engels believed, people should no longer be ruled on the basis of economic activity; rather, only production should be administered on this basis, and only the circulation of goods should be managed. This was a correct view—but only half the truth, or rather only a quarter of the truth. For if what has been realized in terms of laws in this economic sphere, which until now has coincided with state life, is removed from economic administration and economic management, it must be given its own place—not, however, a place from which people are ruled centrally, but a place where they govern themselves democratically.

In other words, the two impulses, democracy and socialism, indicate that two separate areas must still exist alongside the independent spiritual member of the social organism in the entire social organism, namely what remains of the former state. This is the administration of economic affairs and public law, or in other words, everything that every human being is capable of judging once they have reached the age of majority. For what lies behind the demand for democracy? It lies in the fact that modern humanity wants to become historically mature enough to administer, on the basis of free statehood and free law, that in which all people are equal, that on which every person who has come of age can decide, directly or indirectly—indirectly through representation, directly through some kind of referendum—alongside every other person who has come of age. So in the future, we must have an independent legal system that will be the continuation of the old power and authority state, and that will be the true constitutional state. A true constitutional state will never come into being unless it regulates by law only those matters about which every adult human being is capable of judgment, and these matters include something that the proletariat has talked about a lot, but where its words must again be taken as the social thermometer. For once again, a word from Karl Marx has struck a deep chord in the mind of the proletariat: there is an inhuman existence when the worker has to sell his labor power like a commodity on the labor market. For just as one pays for a commodity with the price of the commodity, so one pays for labor power as equivalent to the commodity through wages, through the price of the commodity labor power!

This was a statement that was not so much significant in the development of modern humanity because of its factual content, but because of its lightning-fast impact on the proletariat, an impact that the leading circles cannot really imagine. And where does all this come from? It comes from the fact that the regulation of labor according to measure, time, character, etc., is also placed in a chaotic, inorganic way into the economic cycle, that is, into the production, circulation, and consumption of goods, which are the only things that belong in the economic cycle. And there will be no remedy in this area until the nature, measure, and time of human labor, whether mental or physical, are removed from the economic cycle. For the regulation of labor does not belong in economic life, where those who are economically more powerful also have the power to impose the type of work on those who are economically weaker. The regulation of work from person to person, what one person works for another, must be regulated on the basis of law, where every person who has come of age stands as an equal before every other person who has come of age. How much I have to work for others should not be determined by economic conditions, but solely by what will develop in the future state, which is the constitutional state, as opposed to today's power state.

Here, too, one encounters a bundle of prejudices when one expresses such views. Today, it is common for people to say: as long as the economic order is determined by the conditions of the free market, it will be self-evident that work depends on production, on how goods are paid for. But those who believe that this must remain so fail to see how historically quite different demands are emerging. In the future, we will have to say: How foolish it would be if the people who have to manage any branch of industry sat down together, took the account books for 1918, and said: We produced this much then, so we must achieve the same this year. Now it is September, so in order to achieve this, we still need so many days of rain and so many days of sunshine, and so on. You cannot dictate to nature that it should conform to prices; rather, you must adjust prices to nature. On the one hand, economic life will be limited by nature, and on the other hand, by the rule of law, which will also regulate labor. On the basis of purely democratic principles, it will be necessary to determine how long people have to work, and prices will be determined accordingly — that is, according to natural principles, just as prices in agriculture are determined today according to natural principles. It is not a question of thinking about improving small institutions; it is a question of rethinking and relearning. Only when labor is judged on the basis of independent democratic common ground, where one person stands before another as an adult, as an equal before an equal, and when people as free individuals bring this labor into independent economic life, where contracts are concluded not for work but for production, only then will what is currently causing unrest in economic life disappear. This must be understood.

In the short time available, I can only hint at these things. I would very much like to give a series of lectures, but that is not possible this time. However, I must point out how the third member, economic life, is structured in the threefold social organism, how it should extend into the future.

This economic life must not, as it has been up to now, consist of capital management, land management, management of the means of production — which, incidentally, is capital management — and labor management, but must consist solely of the management of the production, circulation, and consumption of goods. And how should pricing, which is, as it were, the primordial cell of this economic life, which should be based solely on expertise and professional competence, be carried out? Not by the chance of the so-called free market, as has been the case in the national economy and the global economy up to now! It will have to take place in such a way that, on the basis of associations that arise appropriately between the individual branches of production and the consumer cooperatives, people who are knowledgeable and skilled from these cooperatives will organically achieve, reasonably achieve, what today is produced by the crisis-ridden chance of the market. In the future, when the determination of the nature and character of human labor falls within the rule of law, it will have to happen within economic life that people receive so much in exchange value for anything they accomplish through their work that they can satisfy their needs until they have produced an equal product again.

Roughly, amateurishly, and superficially speaking, what has just been said could be explained by the following example, but this explanation will suffice for today: If I produce a pair of boots, I must be able, through the mutually fixed value, to exchange the production of this pair of boots for as many goods as I need to satisfy my needs until I have produced another pair of boots. And there must be institutions within society to regulate the needs of widows, orphans, the disabled and the sick, education and the like. However, whether such regulation of price formation, which will be solely a matter of economic socialization, can take place will depend on the formation of bodies—whether elected or appointed from the associations of the branches of production in conjunction with the consumer cooperatives—which are called upon to mediate fair prices in real life.

This can only happen if the whole of economic life—not in the form of a Moellendorffian planned economy, of course, but in a living form—is organized in such a way that, for example, the following is taken into account: Let us assume that a certain article has a tendency to become too expensive. What does that mean? Too little of this item is being produced; workers must be directed to the branches of production that can produce this item through contracts. On the other hand, if an item becomes too cheap, businesses must be shut down and the workers withdrawn from them and brought into other businesses through regulation. When something like this is said, people today describe it as difficult. But those who reject this as difficult in order to remain with minor improvements in social conditions should also know that they will remain with today's conditions.

This shows you how, through associations formed purely from economic forces themselves, economic life should be left to its own devices, how economic life, over which the state has extended its wings today, should in fact be administered only by the economic forces themselves, and in such a way that the initiative of the individual is preserved as far as possible within this administration of economic life. This cannot be achieved through a planned economy, nor through the establishment of a communal management of the means of production, but solely through associations of the free branches of production and through agreements between these associations and the consumer cooperatives.

It is a terrible mistake to think that the nationalization that has been initiated by the leading circles should be taken to the extreme, that cooperatives should expand throughout the entire life of the state, using the framework of this state life, thereby undermining any connection between such a planned economy and external economic forces. whereas the associations referred to by the threefold social order are aimed precisely at preserving the full free initiative of the economic actor, at keeping open everything that connects a closed economic entity with the external economic entity.

However, some things will also look very different, for example something that I can only hint at through a parable. Socialist theory demands the abolition of private property, as they say—empty words that mean nothing to anyone knowledgeable—and the transfer of private property into common ownership. But that means nothing. I can explain what it might mean in the following way. Today, for example, people are very proud of their philosophers. But people think quite correctly about one thing, at least when it comes to intellectual achievements, whereas in the material realm they are unable to think in the same healthy way. For how does one think about intellectual property? One thinks that one must be present when one acquires intellectual property. It is difficult to say that what I produce as intellectual property should be produced by a communal economy or cooperative management. This must be left to the individual. For it is best produced when the individual is present with his abilities and talents, and not when he is separated from them. But one does think socially when one considers that, thirty years after the death of the creator—the time could perhaps be shortened considerably—what one produces intellectually no longer belongs to the heirs, but to those who can best make it accessible to the general public. This is considered natural because people today do not value what they perceive as intellectual property as something special. But people make no attempt to respond when it is suggested that physical private property should be treated in the same way, that it should only remain in private ownership as long as one can be involved with one's abilities, but then should be transferred—not to this insubstantial general public, which would produce corruption and so on of the most terrible kind, but to those who in turn have the best abilities and would put the matter at the service of the community.

Where one thinks impartially, such things already become apparent. We have undertaken to establish a school of spiritual science, the Goetheanum, in Dornach near Basel in Switzerland. We have called it the Goetheanum since the time when the world became “verwoodrowwilsont,” when it became necessary for Germans to show that they would boldly present a spiritual life to the whole world. The Goetheanum abroad as a representative of German spiritual life — unlike what chauvinism does! But I want to emphasize something else now. This university of spiritual science is being built, and it is now being administered by those people who have the ability to bring this project to life. To whom will it belong when these people are no longer among the living? It will not be passed on to anyone by inheritance, but will pass to those who can best administer it in the service of humanity. It actually belongs to no one.

If one thinks economically and socially, then the things that must come into being if healing is to take place in the future will come into being. I have elaborated further on the circulation of private property in the writing “The Key Points of the Social Question,” where I have shown how the social organism must be structured into its three independent and, as such, cooperating members: the spiritual organization with self-administration based on a free spiritual life, the state-political-legal organization with democratic administration based on the judgment of every mature individual, and economic life, which should be based solely on the judgment of knowledgeable and competent individuals and corporations and their associations.

This seems so new that, since I have been advocating these ideas in Germany, someone once said to me: You are dividing the state, which must be a unified entity, into three parts. I could only reply by asking whether I am dividing the horse into three or four parts when I say that it must stand on its four legs. Or will anyone claim that a horse is only a unity when it stands on one leg? Nor can anyone claim that social life, if it is to be a unity, must converge into an abstract unity. In the future, we will no longer have to be hypnotized by the abstract unitary state; we will have to know that it must be divided into three parts on which it can stand: a self-governing free intellectual sphere, a legal organization with democratic legislation, and an economic organization with purely competent and professional economic administration.

Half of the great truths were spoken more than a hundred years ago in Western Europe in words that were then considered half-truths: liberty, equality, fraternity, three ideals that could truly be written deep enough in the hearts and souls of human beings. But it was certainly not stupid and foolish people who declared in the course of the 19th century that these three ideals actually contradicted each other: that there can be no freedom where absolute equality reigns; that, again, there can be no fraternity where absolute equality is supposed to exist. These objections were correct, but only because they arose at a time when people were hypnotized by the so-called unitary state. The moment people are no longer hypnotized by this, the moment they understand the necessary threefold structure of the social organism, they will speak differently.

Allow me to conclude with a comparison that summarizes what I would like to elaborate on further. I could only sketch out what I wanted to say; I know that I could only hint at what can only be understood and appreciated through a detailed explanation. But I would like to point out in conclusion how the unified state stood before people like something hypnotic, and how they wanted this unified state to be ruled by the three great ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. People will have to learn that things must be different. At present, people are accustomed to viewing this unified state as a god. In this respect, their behavior is already like that of Faust toward the sixteen-year-old Gretchen. There, too, one experiences things that resemble the teachings that Faust gives to the child Gretchen, which are appropriate for the sixteen-year-old Gretchen and are usually regarded by philosophers as something highly philosophical. Faust says: "The all-encompassing, the all-sustaining, does he not embrace and sustain you, me, himself?" It is almost as if, in relation to the unified state, people are also hypnotized by this unified idol and cannot see how this unified structure must become threefold for the salvation of humanity in the future. And many a manufacturer will gladly speak to his workers about the state in the same way as Faust speaks to Gretchen, saying: Does not the state, the sustainer of all, the all-encompassing one, encompass and sustain itself, you, and myself? But then he would have to quickly cover his mouth and not say “myself” too loudly!

The necessity of the threefold social order must be recognized, especially in proletarian circles. It will only be understood when people realize that threefoldness is necessary. For in the future, it is not the cry of “liberty, equality, fraternity” with the contradictions that these three ideals contain within themselves that must prevail, but rather, in the future, freedom of spirit must prevail in independent spiritual life, for there it will be justified; Equality must prevail in relation to every person who has come of age in a democratic state, and brotherhood must prevail in an independently administered economic life that nourishes and sustains people. The moment these three ideals are applied to the threefold organism in this way, they will no longer contradict each other.

May the time come when we will be able to say: We in Central Europe truly look with pain at what has happened through Versailles. We look at it first as a starting point and at the much hardship and misery and pain that lie ahead of us. But may it come to pass that we can say: They can take away our external possessions, for external possessions can be taken away from people. But if we are able to fall back on the years in which we denied our past, on the Goetheanism of that time at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, when Lessing, Herder, Schiller, Goethe, and so on, were working in a different field — if we are able to draw back in our need from our innermost being to the great Central European assets, then in the need of the time, from this Central Europe, the other half of the truth that only half resounded a century ago in “liberty, equality, fraternity” will resound; perhaps in external dependence — but in inner freedom and independence, the words could then resound from Central Europe to the world:

Freedom for intellectual life,
Equality for the democratic legal life of human beings,
Brotherhood for economic life!

These words can be summarized, as in a sign, what one must say, feel, and think today in the sense of a comprehensive grasp of the social question in its entirety. May many people grasp and understand this; then what is today just a question will be possible in practice!