The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Rudolf Steiner opens the meeting by saying that it was no longer possible for him to attend the works council meeting in person; however, he asks that everything that is deemed necessary be brought forward at this moment.

[The question of the rights and duties of the works councils within the “coming day” is raised and Rudolf Steiner is asked to clarify this.]

Rudolf Steiner remarks that it is indeed very important and very good to bring about such discussions, and it will always be very good. He would also be willing, as far as possible, to accept such invitations to discuss, only it would be necessary to be able to determine what the subject of the discussion actually is.

He says: I believe you are still suffering to a great extent from the assumption that the “Coming Day” could somehow be a realization of what was expressed as an idea in the lectures back then. I can only say that the idea that was expressed has, of course, not been realized in the slightest today. Just consider what would have been needed to realize this idea: in those days, it would have taken a united labor force – without that, nothing could have been done – and that did not materialize. And one can only say: the idea that was expressed has basically been dropped for the time being. And today, we must be particularly sorry about that, because in reality, we are now in a position in German economic life that we can say: what is present in German economic life today is actually only an illusion, a sham.

The world today can no longer exist as anything other than a unified economic entity. There must be unified economic entities that combine to form a distinct world economy. The artificial borders of national and state economies today make it all the more clear that it is no longer possible to manage without a world economy. In today's world economy, which nevertheless exists, the situation is such that basically the whole of economic life today is based on appearances. Take the following: we still have a wage economy today; it finds its opposite pole, as does the capitalist economy in general, in that idea which I tried to propagate at the time. As long as we have a pure wage economy, the whole economy is dependent on the wage economy. Wages are, so to speak, a barometer of what is happening in the economy as a whole.

You see, the working class is pretty much the largest number of people on earth, as far as economic life is concerned. If you convert today, for example – and somehow you have to convert – if you convert wages today according to the value of the Swedish krona, the American worker receives a daily wage of about 120 to 123 Swedish kronor, the German worker 19 to 21 Swedish kronor. This is roughly true, even though some small changes have occurred in recent weeks. The workers of all other countries or states fall between these two limits. Now, I ask you: the American worker receives a wage six times higher than the German worker, although it has been proven that he does not produce more than the German worker if he works accordingly.

In this way, it is impossible to speak of being within economic life; all this is conceived under the assumption that we have a world economy, because the fact that we still have a country or state economy should mean nothing at all, since a large part of the available values circulates throughout the world. It is clear that major disruptions must occur as a result.

We are living today in impossible economic conditions, in Central Europe in the most impossible of all. And one can feel sorry when one considers that our ideas were propagated at that time out of this realization. These ideas have actually fallen by the wayside to this day, because, as you will understand, the “Coming Day” cannot be much different from any other undertaking, as capitalist as all other undertakings are. We can only plan to be there for a future where something can perhaps be done, to intervene, so that a number of people are together who can intervene. As long as conditions remain as they are now, the economic principle itself will not allow the “Day to Come” to bring about many changes.

The whole world is curious to see how the “Day to Come” will cope with the very idea of how the working class can work in the “Day to Come”. Basically, no information can be given yet, nothing essential can be shown. And so I thought we could very well talk about what your individual complaints are, what could be different in detail. Realized what was propagated as ideas back then – I would not want this misunderstanding to arise, as if it were said of me that the “Coming Day” [had] realized something of the ideas of threefolding: That is nonsense! We should talk about what is bothering you, because there seem to be some pressing shoes that could cause discomfort. But if we talk about what is bothering you, then I also want everything to come out and nothing to remain closed. And so, before I say anything, I would like the gentlemen to speak freely.

[They do not want to raise complaints, but to discuss whether “statutory” works councils should be elected, since the existing works councils had been elected from the threefold social order movement before the Works Councils Act came into force. If these do not work to satisfaction, new ones would have to be elected.

Rudolf Steiner means the same. The question is whether the employees of Waldorf-Astoria at the time the law came into force agreed to the continued existence of the old, previously elected works council. But this was the case here.

[Further comments on this.]

Rudolf Steiner: Today it is certainly difficult to ask the question of whether statutory works councils should be introduced or not, because the Works Councils Act simply prescribes works councils that are elected in accordance with the law. As long as this law is not changed, no works councils as envisaged by the idea of threefolding can actually be considered, because this would then only be a corporate body that exists alongside a statutory corporate body. We would then have to resume the whole threefolding movement in the first place, because basically we no longer have an actual threefolding movement. If we want to elect works councils based on the idea of threefolding, then we also have to assign them a task, because in the current economic life these works councils have or would have no task to fulfill.

[Further discussion and expressions of dissatisfaction to the effect that the works councils are not taken seriously enough by the plant managers.

Rudolf Steiner points out that it depends on the degree to which the employees are convinced that things can go better with the “Coming Day” than with any other undertaking, and says: I myself am not an entrepreneur myself and therefore cannot take the entrepreneurial point of view in my personality, but on the other hand, when questions arise, I have to take a position on them so that what is said is really meaningful. What I mean is that if you are arguing, if you are arguing about something, then you have to know what you are arguing about, because for me it is not the argument that is important, but what we are arguing about. If I am to speak about the rights and duties of the workers' councils, I cannot do so in general terms, about any workers' councils that may be on the moon. I would have to do it for the workers' councils that are in the 'coming day'. And I can only do that based on very real circumstances. And here it is urgently necessary that we talk about it today, because you will have been informed about how you feel that the “dawning day” cannot do anything in the coming economic struggles and that the workers in our individual companies will therefore be forced to proceed with the rest of the working class. Then you will get a real character. Before that, it is of course something that cannot be said one way or the other – I will tell you later why I think so, one can look at it that way. We can talk about it today in such a way that none of the labor-friendly ideas of the “Coming Day” have been realized, even though the general attitude is benevolent. But as long as we don't go into individual things, nothing comes of it. And I would therefore like to see it as a condition for me to speak, that you present very specific, concrete complaints, which I will then address. Without knowing what your concerns are, I will not be able to say anything about them.

[Further comments to the effect that people wonder whether the “coming day” could give the working class a secure existence, that the works council is not trusted enough, that one is only seen as a worker, not as an equal human being.

Rudolf Steiner: Yes, my dear friends, that is the feeling I meant; I wanted to be aware of it before I go into the question raised in more detail.

[Further discussion about this and about trade union issues.]

Rudolf Steiner: So you meant that we should establish tangible, fixed sentences about the rights and duties of the works councils. This would certainly not be so difficult if we just had the good will to draft such a paragraph, in which we say that these are the rights and these are the duties of our works councils. Unfortunately, however, that is not the case. I believe that if we really managed to create such an ideal paragraph, all employees would agree with it – and not only that, they would also be highly satisfied with it. But in such a short time, conditions will not have changed and the mood will not have changed either. The point is not to take measures, one should have these and these rights and duties. But the point is to achieve something at such meetings that also corresponds to the conditions outside. To give you an idea of my way of thinking, I would like to share the following with you.

Since we last met here, I myself had to initiate a matter that arose from the needs in Dornach. I have also spoken here about lectures, and these have been given in Dornach [to the workers on the Goetheanum building site] by a prominent person. Not much has come of this, except that after we held works council meetings, we realized that the people in Dornach have a strong need to hear something about economic life. I then decided that I would give these myself. You have to bear in mind the circumstances, as I have already described them, at the Dornach building. The Dornach building is not what an economic-capitalist enterprise is. The Dornach building is a prime example of a non-capitalist enterprise and cannot be compared as such with the 'Kommenden Tag' or the 'Futurum AG' in Basel or with any other similar association. The Dornach Building belongs to no one; there is no entrepreneur there. Therefore, everything that is processed in it is transformed into wages for those who work there. Is it not the case that what still comes into consideration at the Dornach Building is that present-day economic life reaches into it from two sides; but there it is “refracted”. On the one hand, it is this: It has to be built with the capital that is made available. If the Dornach building exploits anyone, it is the capitalists, because they have to provide the capital. I would almost like to say that a large part of it goes 'perdu', as a large part of it never gets returned. In any case, the workers can see clearly there, and that is the one side where capital shines in and refracts: capital ceases to be capital as soon as it comes to Dornach.

Secondly, our workers belong to trade unions. And you will admit that, for example, if you yourself have the sense to give our workers 2/3 more wages by exploiting capital even more, it would make no sense in the economy as a whole and would be most strongly opposed by the trade unions. They would then say: There is the Dornach building, it does not want to be characterized as a capitalist enterprise, it wants to realize something of what is present in the idea of threefold social order. So you can see that this cannot be a question of wages or capital, but rather the question of price, as the conditions here protrude from two sides. People would think we were crazy if we paid wages that we were not forced to pay.

But what makes things easier, especially during the lectures, is something that is of course child's play to see: this is not a capitalist enterprise. This kind of mistrust that you have towards the “Kommenden Tag” – and that cannot be denied – cannot exist in the Dornach building. It makes no sense for the workers there to be mistrustful, and the workers there speak out in good faith. Some who are not entirely objective would like to think differently, but this trust is already there; it makes it possible to speak freely. That is why I have – the lectures have only been given recently, in the meantime I also had the trip to Norway, and something like that cannot be done very quickly if you want to achieve something – but the main emphasis is on the workers in Dornach learning about the reality of economic life. I must confess that it gives me the greatest satisfaction to see how more and more people are beginning to understand that we have all been misjudging economic life.

When faced with the task of educating laypeople, one is aware of the current situation. Let us assume, and it would be very interesting if later on a person would like to touch on this point by asking a question, let us assume we have the workers of some company, they draw up some guidelines about the rights and duties of the workers of this company, the management can approve the question or not. I say it is right, and I believe that any honest person must say this: Whatever the employers say, it has no value at all; they can say, 'We agree to everything', or 'We agree to nothing' – the way today's economic life is, the economic structure is nonsense. No entrepreneur today knows how profitable his business is or how it is doing; he does not know what he can promise and what not if he wants to be honest. That is the situation, and if economic struggles are imminent today, then an entrepreneur cannot say whether or not he can offer his workers a guarantee, because he cannot know, because economic life has been ridden into the dirt.

As soon as someone concretely tackles economic life as it is today and addresses such things, something comes out that is tremendously instructive. Imagine someone thinking about calculation and writing an essay about it, which in and of itself is extremely instructive. The content of this essay must, of course, be to assess economic life, but at the end of this essay, there is the very significant question, the conclusion to which he has come by thinking about calculation: Can we calculate or can we not? Does something come of it? — We cannot cope with today's conditions. That is what can be read in the essay, and it is the confirmation of what I have observed for ten years: that we have arrived at a complete deadlock in economic life. In this context, it seems to me to be of little importance whether one can say today that we must reach an agreement with the eight million organized workers if we do not want to be marginalized, or because we cannot reach an agreement and be left hanging in the air.

I tell you that when you understand the nonsense of today's economy, you can say: When the next economic struggles come and go as they will, the eight million organized workers are united, then nothing will happen but that our economic life will be led or pushed even further down its slippery slope and that all the bankrupt enterprises will collapse as a house of cards. The organizations, which comprise eight million people, cannot believe that under the present conditions they can achieve anything at all that needs to be achieved; there is no question of that. Economic life will be destroyed even more.

What is needed first today is to be able to do business at all, because in the business itself, one has really come to the “non-sense” today: There is really no sense to what is being done in economic life, because nothing is in context: we are faced with a brick wall. This can be seen, and the Dornach workers have also seen this; they have gained an appreciation that we have entered into 'non-sense' in economic life. If you look at a business enterprise today, do you think you will find anyone who has any sense of the word when you talk sensibly about economic life? If you take an economist with whom you want to talk about a company, he will point you to the bookkeeping, because everything is in there. In reality, however, nothing is in it; it is nonsense to believe that anything can be seen from the accounting about the course of a business.

These things have become very clear to me through my observations over the last few years, and it is not so easy to talk about them. Take a balance sheet, the result is nonsense. It is similar to that famous Prussian privy councillor who calculated that if you invested the actually small amount of 300,000 marks for three hundred years in interest and compound interest, you could then pay off the entire debt of the Prussian state. You can do the math if you want, but the reality is that after three hundred years you won't find a button made out of the money. Because it is not enough to believe that you can keep adding interest to the accumulated capital; after all, the money cannot come from anywhere other than from economic life, from production, from working with capital, and by then not only the banks that are entrusted with the safekeeping of the money, but also the money itself will have perished. Reality is therefore quite different from the calculation.

Today, the will to such nonsense is present in the whole of economic life; reality wears it down and shatters it. What goes on in a factory today is something completely different in economic life than what is written in the books. No one wants to go into it, no one wants to be bothered with a real insight into economic life, which is needed today. That was also why the idea of the works council had not been maintained at the time. You just have to start from the beginning, but I don't want to talk about how the matter was settled back then. I actually presented it as the most important question.

But now we should talk about the rights and duties of the workers' councils. The important thing here is the standpoint that arises from the circumstances. That is precisely the one that says: the way things are going now, they cannot go on like this anyway. The workers will therefore have to remain in the organizations; you cannot tell them to leave because you cannot help them if they leave; the circumstances are not there for that. You cannot look at the movement that has been there for about 25 years, because you won't get anywhere; but you have to look at it that way, and that is what I have to keep drawing your attention to.

Once, as a very young boy, I was standing at the window of our apartment in Neudörfl, near Wiener Neustadt, when a small group of Lassalleans, who at that time still held their meetings in relative secrecy, , because we have to bear in mind that this was at a time when there was nothing of the trade union life that exists today; so there were only a few people. Meanwhile, however, everything that is in this movement in Austria and Germany today has come about. We can say that it has progressed relatively slowly from this small group. We cannot say that the conditions were against our movement, as they were then. It was not that the conditions were against it; the conditions were in favor of it, in that large masses were open to the threefold order. What was against it was the slight deception practised by the labor leaders, and it is certain that the eight million will not do anything either – they cannot do anything. My opinion is this: Regardless of whether we are in the unions or not, it is not a matter of leaving the union, but rather of uniting, however small, in a reasonable way within all those who participate in the “Kommenden Tag”. It would set an example, and we must work towards such examples. I believe that there is something positive in this idea, and this can best be shown if, quite independently of the union principle, the workers of all the companies that belong to “The Coming Day” can do something sensible on their own initiative. But for that, unity is necessary, as well as a real insight into the “non-sense” of the current economic system. A reasonable economic life must be rebuilt, because nothing can be made out of today's economic life.

And so I think – no, I would like to say – you say: Rights and duties of the works councils should be established. If I now say: No, rights and duties can only be granted by someone who has rights and duties to do so. If you were to ask me what rights and duties I have in the “coming day,” I would have to say that I know nothing about it, any more than you do; it also depends entirely on the circumstances. Actually, everyone should have as many rights and duties as they can assert, and that would indeed come about. But if you want to set up paragraphs, if you want to have insights into the course of production, that doesn't have much content, and not much comes of it either. Isn't it true that the point of the course of production is that the person who regulates it also knows how the wind blows – not to keep some secret. First of all, it must be made possible for all those who want to work together to know something about economic life.

You see, if I disregard the “day after tomorrow”, where the most insightful people are – we cannot take our examples from the “day after tomorrow”, but you can take any other company. There you just have to have the insight to be able to have a say in production. I am convinced that if you wanted to ask questions in your way, the people concerned would not be able to provide any insight because they don't have any themselves. Today's economic life is a game of chance, and that is precisely what makes it difficult. Here we come to realize that it is much more important to discuss with the workers, so that we can understand what we are supposed to do in economic life, which is so dependent on the state.

I would also like to remind you of something: [the entrepreneur] Stinnes. When we started the threefold order, Stinnes was not yet there. I did not make light of the threefold order. Stinnes only came about because the threefold order fell through; the whole Stinnes movement is based on that. Stinnes is a really ingenious fellow. I wouldn't want to say that he is a crook; he is just a “seedling” of entrepreneurship, but in any case he has much greater insight than others. Stinnes once said: Yes, we can manage things that way. But if you want to do things the way German workers want to do them, you won't get anywhere. He knows that the workers cannot manage, and this should create insight. They debate all sorts of things, but not production. And so he continued: We can wait until the workers are at our doors begging for work. Stinnes is counting on the workers being at the doors begging for work.

With regard to the rights and duties of works councils, it is certainly true that they can have the most extensive rights; and as soon as something really positive can be put forward here, we can always express ourselves here when the opportunity arises; it can be discussed here. But to set a paragraph about this, in my opinion, is of no use at all, because we are doing it in an economic life in which we have arrived at “positive nonsense”. We live from hand to mouth today; after all, no one can do more than is already being done. But that will soon burst. What the employers are counting on today is the disunity of the workers, and the employers will always have ways and means to maintain the disunity of the workers and ensure its continued existence. Even if there were no economic chaos, the German labor force could only hope to achieve partial success by acting in unison, but something substantial could still be done. However, if things continue as they have done so far – strikes here and there – it will only weaken the labor force, not strengthen it. This non-uniform approach is something that significantly worsens the position of the workers. I don't think much of the fact that there could be fear of the eight million.

Something that could have prospects is if the workers of our companies in Stuttgart really came together, that they could come together and talk sensibly about economic life for once. In my opinion, this is the greatest task that needs to be accomplished. And it cannot be done by finding the lectures a little better or a little worse. Because anyone who wants to talk about economic life today really has to be an experienced person who can see into the circumstances. Today, this experience cannot be drawn from all kinds of writings, because of all the sciences that are practiced today, the one that is presented as political economy is the most “mindless”.

Mr. Leinhas, in his lecture at our anthroposophical congress, did an exemplary job of 'killing off' Robert Wilbrandt, at least in scientific terms. But Wilbrandt is still a perfectly decent guy. If we were to name just one of our other clients, however, we would come up with something much worse. And this is only because we have no economics, no knowledge, and today it must necessarily be formed out of experience. Almost nothing that is said in this field is useful; apart from the individual flashes of light that appear on the basis of the threefold social order. But the possibility should be created for a large number of people to see how things actually are in economic life.

When I gave my lectures here at the beginning, the wife of a socialist minister told me that she could not understand why so many people came to my lectures, that I did not promise people anything and only ever told them what they had to do. And that is how it is, dear attendees. You cannot define the rights and duties of the workers' councils if the circumstances are simply not right. If we really want to start from a center to determine what is worth doing, then this is it: that all of you can help to achieve something from here, how best to operate, by preparing the ground. We can promise ourselves that the matter may have an immense practical value in a year's time, if the working class unites in unity, independently of the trade union question, in order to achieve something. We have seen that in Dornach, for example, it is necessary to first agree on insights. If one were to examine the conditions of economic life independently of whether one is a worker or an entrepreneur, then one would be able to make progress. Then one might also be able to cut Stinnes off at the source. It will depend on whether you come to an agreement with 'Der Kommende Tag'; then perhaps the day will come for 'Der Kommende Tag' when Stinnes takes it over. Such are the circumstances. If you can create something positive by joining forces, then we can talk about the question, then there must be agreement. The managers of our operations are striving to make progress in social relations. The managers of the individual operations are also sighing. But if the workers of the individual operations join forces, then there is a core that can make progress.

[In the following comments, reference is made to the difficult situation that also makes it difficult for the plant managers to gain insight into production. Reference is made to the efforts to set up a company health insurance fund and a pension fund and to provide food from the agricultural enterprises of “The Coming Day” to the workers.

Rudolf Steiner: The question of setting up a pension fund and of utilizing the agricultural operations for the workforce is very interesting and can certainly be fruitfully discussed, but it must be ensured that the right people are put in charge.

[It is reported that the company health insurance fund is as good as certain thanks to the benevolent support of the government. With regard to the deliveries of agricultural produce, it should be borne in mind that such things can drive people apart.

Rudolf Steiner expresses his hope that these institutions, which are in preparation and have often been beneficial in other companies, will be well developed here as well. He also mentions, with regard to the company health insurance fund, that it is very desirable in our efforts to achieve a rational art of healing that something be done in this area in particular. With regard to agricultural enterprises and their utilization for the workforce, he points to an example that occurred in the Anthroposophical Society.

He was the owner of a mill and also a baker who baked excellent bread. The circumstances forced the man to make his bread more expensive, and it was clear that no one had the will to make just a small sacrifice to help the cause. On the contrary, they said, “Yes, the bread is so good, you eat so much of it.” And if I take the other bread, you don't use nearly as much.” Now, of course, precisely this bread distribution had to be stopped due to the war conditions; otherwise, however, the attitude would have been the same.

Rudolf Steiner continues by saying that an article had recently appeared in an English newspaper about a businessman who owned a large farm and wanted to prove that it was no longer possible to make a profit. He calculated all the profits that the business could bring him in a year and then came to the conclusion that only 17 pence would remain for him at the end of the year.

[Emil Leinhas adds another example. It is hoped that the works councils will now be able to work productively after these explanations, which Rudolf Steiner confirms.

Rudolf Steiner: You see, Mr. Biehler was right to speak of the tax issue, which the workers must oppose. But now, you have woven in a small sentence, to which I must actually attach a little significance. You said: If the workers unite, then the eight million organized people will achieve something from the government. I must say that today the government basically does not care what it taxes; it just wants to have taxes. Only through this senselessness has the entire economy come to where it is today, by simply caring about how something is done. As long as this government lasts, it is also out of the question that the working class will achieve even a fraction of what it really needs.

The most important question today is the question of unemployment, and a lot has been said about it, but ultimately no one has yet considered that unemployment as it exists today cannot exist at all in a regulated economic life. Isn't it true that people who work for each other, everyone works for the other. So if unemployment were justified, so many people would no longer need anything at once. On the other hand, there is no correction at all from the current circumstances; one cannot say that unemployment exists to the extent that it exists in Switzerland, at the Entente and so on for this and that reason. The atrocious conditions we are facing can only be appreciated when you consider that so many people have been killed by the terrible war. But unemployment cannot be a consequence of this war, because if so many people are dead, it should only lead to unemployment becoming less and less.

Recently there was an economic meeting; there was talk that there are a number of recipes for remedies that are available to us. Isn't it true that the utilization of these remedies will one day be productive, but today they are just a thought. And then someone came up with the idea that you could simply copy the recipes and include them in the assets of a company. This item would be honestly meant under certain circumstances, because you could really bring it out. On the other hand, however, if no one can be found to support the matter, it is of no value at all.

But there is a way in which it can be safely included in the books, and that is to take out patents for it and pay for them, and then you can put it in the books at that value. After all, that is not what happened here with the recipes for the remedies, and yet a way is provided to exploit the value of the recipes. When someone earns a lot or a little money, they don't want to distribute profits right away, so they make write-offs or set aside reserves. With us, what can be raised under certain circumstances goes into real reserves, which can then, at a time when many of the things being produced today will have collapsed, can then support many things again.

[Words of thanks to Rudolf Steiner for his remarks and emphasis on the will of the workers' council to penetrate the economy.

Rudolf Steiner once again briefly refers to the already mentioned desirable union of all workers in the “coming day” and that something truly valuable for economic life could certainly arise from it in the not too distant future, if everyone has the will to work together in the right way. We must always be mindful of the “non-sense” of our present economic life; this would provide the right incentive for the right work. He would be happy to accept the invitation of the workers again as soon as the opportunity arose, in order to support them with any advice.

Rudolf Steiner: Regarding the 1919 appeal: On the one hand, it was very appropriate, but on the other hand, it had to be clear that it was a challenge to the professors and lecturers. Of course you can do that, but you also have to try to get through to them. It wasn't quite as bad as that, but it was similar to the cultural appeal in May 1919.

I don't think I can say that the positive outcome was what everyone had hoped for. This is not due to any carelessness or lack of activity within the student body, but to our current circumstances, which are really very difficult to overcome. It is all too easy to be seen as a rabble-rouser when characterizing today's conditions. But burying our heads in the sand is not helpful either. We have to be clear about one thing: the world needs anthroposophical will. We have to get through to it. The forms in which this anthroposophical will appears today may need to be replaced by others, and in this respect too, no stone may remain as it is; a breakthrough in this direction is necessary.

On the one hand, we have to admit this to ourselves. On the other hand, we will always be surprised to see the older generation today is afflicted with such indolence, with such a lack of interest in what is actually going on. There is such a terrible blindness, more a blindness of will than of the other powers of the soul. Say what you will about earlier times, but in terms of lack of willpower, our time is the most terrible that has been experienced in the history of humanity. One can only say that some people do not have good will, but good opinions; one experiences it again and again, one does not need to accuse anyone. For example, I spoke about the idea of threefolding in the political science association in Kristiania. You couldn't say that people didn't understand anything about it; it was clear from what was said: the professors, both theorists and practitioners, talked about the issues, but it didn't occur to them that something could follow from what they had absorbed that would be more than reading an interesting essay. People no longer grasp that something must be done in the world. That is the bleak part. It is, after all, the repelling of everything that actually means action. The younger generations, in particular, must feel this, must recognize it. We have a terrible selection process when it comes to leadership positions. I don't care whether someone speaks pro or contra in relation to anthroposophy. But what matters is the spiritual level of the speaker, as was demonstrated this morning by Dr. Tillich. That is why I said before that one looks like a rabble-rouser when one characterizes the times. Such personalities, who are blinded by blinkers, can become associate professors and licentiates. Such [note breaks off].

The prevailing circumstances and the opposition of various circles with a vested interest in the economy are forcing the “Coming Day” to renounce a broader socio-economic program for the immediate present and to keep its activities within narrower limits. In the near future, it will consist of the association of several economic enterprises with spiritual undertakings that support each other. The spiritual undertakings: Waldorf School, Clinical-Therapeutic Institute, Biological and Physical Research Institute, are intended to serve scientific-spiritual and moral-social progress in a way that meets the demands of the present and the near future. The purely economic enterprises are intended to provide the material basis for the overall enterprise. They are to support those enterprises that can only bear economic fruit and financial returns in the future, because the spiritual seed that is now to be poured into them can only bear fruit after some time.

The shareholders will continue to receive the promised dividend from this narrower range of activities. If possible, the program can be expanded to include this transformed program. Although the program, originally developed for the further development of economic life in connection with the cultivation of spiritual values, is a necessity of our time, its comprehensive realization is currently impossible due to the little cooperation of the contemporary world involved in economic life. So what is possible in the short term must take precedence over what is necessary. Those personalities who show understanding for the idea of the “Coming Day” will find themselves all the better in it with their interests. Serving them will be the duty of its leadership.

The Coming Day
Stock Corporation for the Promotion of Economic and Intellectual
Values
signed Leinhas

[After discussing the first three agenda items (annual report, annual accounts and discharge of the management, resolution on the appropriation of the annual result) and a break, agenda item 4: supplementary elections to the board of directors is to be discussed.

Rudolf Steiner: Certain events have occurred in the last few days that make it necessary for you to have a precise insight into the circumstances before debating agenda item 4. You will best get a picture of the situation if I read two documents to you that will provide you with background information for dealing with this topic.

Rudolf Steiner first reads out Director Arnold Ich's letter of resignation. A copy of this letter is attached to these minutes and belongs to them.

Rudolf Steiner: I would just like to comment that the meeting mentioned here was brought about by the fact that Mr. Storrer and Mr. Day came to see me in Berlin on Monday, March 13, and at that time presented the result of discussions they had had with the management of ' Futurum” and expressed the view that they had to think of the intellectual leadership of ‘Futurum’ in a completely different way than it had been before, and that measures should be taken to do justice to the idea of ‘Futurum’ in accordance with the original program. I would like to make it explicitly clear that what Mr. Storrer and Mr. Day presented was the result of discussions that had taken place at the Futurum management and about which I had been informed. Storrer and Day implied that they had held meetings with other personalities and wanted to hear my opinion about them. I said: “Of course, everyone is free to hold such meetings; but no decisive action can be taken regarding the affairs of Futurum before I am present in Dornach.”

When I came to Dornach and was informed that meetings had taken place in which the directors Ith and Oesch, i.e. the entire management, had also participated, I naturally had no objection to attending these meetings - not as president of the board of directors, but as a private individual - in order to know what had been presented. Immediately after Mr. Storrer had raised the point about the management of 'Futurum', Director Ith declared that he wished to leave the meeting. I pointed out that I was also a guest and was not in charge of this meeting. That is the first point about the resignation of the first director.

Rudolf Steiner reads out Director Dr. Oesch's letter of resignation, a copy of which is attached to the protocol and which is to be regarded as part of this protocol.

Rudolf Steiner: As you can see from this, the board of directors is initially without management. I should perhaps add that the following members of the board, as it has always met, were present at its meetings: Etienne, Gimmi, Hirter and I. Three board members resigned from the board due to illness and other reasons. So there were only five board members left, one of whom does not usually come, so the board has shrunk considerably.

It goes without saying that the circumstances just presented to you have an extremely profound impact on all of Futurum's affairs. As for myself, I would like to make the following comment: the various foundations, be it the Waldorf School, the “Kommende Tag”, the “Futurum” and many others, had taken up an extraordinary amount of my time and energy, and it was quite natural that during this time the much livelier activity for the anthroposophical movement as such had to take a back seat. But now circumstances make it necessary for anthroposophical activity itself to be expanded to a greater extent. If one takes the view that if one bears nominal responsibility, one must also bear it in fact, that is, one must know that one is responsible for every individual matter, then it is basically not possible, in addition to a very demanding anthroposophical movement, to also devote oneself to the economic foundations as intensively as is absolutely necessary according to my own views.

The resignation of the two previous directors has created an entirely new situation for me. Since you are mostly anthroposophical members, you will see it as a necessity that the anthroposophical movement be continued to a much greater extent than has been possible in recent times.

If things go so far as to cause the resignation of the entire management, you can understand that it is no longer possible for me to conduct the business in the responsible manner that I believe it should be conducted. Therefore, I cannot do other than tell you that if the possibility arises from within this assembly that “Futurum” can continue without the old management, whose resignation seems irreversible, I would resign. As you will understand, I have no intention of somehow getting involved with a new management. That would necessitate my having to give up every other activity in the next few weeks. Among other things, it would mean that I would have to give up the already planned trips to the Netherlands and England. So if the anthroposophical movement is not to be harmed, something must be done; I can only tell you what that something is as a definite decision when the debate on the circumstances described continues. But this decision will be: if the possibility arises from the shareholders' circle that “Futurum” can be continued in the sense of its program, I will resign from my post as chairman of the board of directors because of the work I have to do for the anthroposophical movement.

I open the discussion on item 4.

[Willy Stokar and Willy Storrer, as representatives of a group of shareholders, are highly critical of the work of “Futurum” to date, saying that the spiritual goals of forming an association in the sense of the threefold social order have not been achieved at all. They therefore believe that Rudolf Steiner should be discharged of his duties as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Willy Stokar proposes a new board of directors, which should consist of

Ernst Gimmi (so far),

Consul Krebs (so far),

Willy Stokar,

Edgar Dürler,

Karl Day,

Willy Storrer, who are all willing to take on the responsibility.

In the assembly, this is perceived as an outrage.

Rudolf Steiner: One would have to examine the criticism that has been expressed about “Futurum” to see if it is valid. On the other hand, the meeting will have to be clear about how it takes a stand on the question as such.

[Further comments on this matter. Mistakes are admitted, but the meeting is warned against hasty decisions.

Rudolf Steiner: In order to avoid getting into unfruitful digressions in the discussion, please take into account that the first discussions, which created the basis for what followed, took place in the “Futurum” Directorate itself. This is very important. After all, you have an attempt at forming an opinion about “Futurum”. I explained to you how difficult, indeed how impossible it would be for me to continue as chairman under the changed circumstances. Now the question is whether I should say that I would resign as chairman if the meeting were to find a way of continuing the Futurum, and from this point of view I ask you to consider the matter. We should remain objective and consider the possibility of how the “Futurum” can be continued. It is not possible for me to work with a rump board of directors.

There is also something else. I would never have agreed to become president of the board of directors of Futurum AG here in Switzerland if Mr. Hirter had not agreed to become vice president at the request of Mr. Molt and Dr. Boos. As you can see, my presidency essentially depended on having someone like Mr. Hirter at my side, who is so successful and well respected in Swiss business circles. But now Mr. Hirter is also resigning from the board of directors. Mr. Etienne also informed me today that he is forced to resign. Mr. Gimmi has explained to you that he asks you to make a genuine attempt to work constructively with the individuals who have criticized the management of “Futurum”. Mr. Gimmi himself has resigned from the previous board of directors in favor of the new proposal. So I would be a chairman of the board without a board of directors and without a management. I must ask you to provide advice here, either to make positive counter-proposals for the election of board members and for the election of directors or to enter into a factual discussion to see if you can accept the proposals made by one side. Ultimately, whether or not the gentlemen can do this, they will have to show. At least they have shown the goodwill to become members of the board. And I also ask you to show this goodwill if necessary. If you cannot propose other members of the board and get them approved, then you are obliged to respond to the gentlemen's proposals in some way.

The discussion is becoming disorderly.

Rudolf Steiner: We must continue the discussion in an orderly fashion.

[Further contributions. Johann Hirter expressly declares that he is no longer available. Question about the separation of the spiritual activities.

Rudolf Steiner: For the clinic and laboratories and for everything that is grouped around the journal 'Das Goetheanum', and for everything that is grouped around the school, it would be a matter of ensuring that I can continue to do for them in the future what I have done for them so far, just as I have done it so far. After the exclusion of the above-mentioned enterprises, to which I will gladly stand as I have stood so far, the purely economic enterprises remain: These are the knitwear factory, the office A.G., the cold glue factory, the cardboard factory Gelterkinden, the umbrella handle and stick factory Bönigen and the trading department. There is a new fact for this. If I am to tell you exactly the point at which this became an issue for me, it is that, albeit indirectly, I was approached about negotiations that took place within the management. It is impossible for me to have someone come to me and, as it were, stand between me and the management. That is possible under the one condition that he is right. This is clear, isn't it? Otherwise such a meeting could not have taken place at all within the Futurum management. The moment the management stopped going along with me, that was that for me. You must look at things impartially. Now the case is on hand - I have read to you: “In order to create the basis for a development of ‘Futurum AG’ in line with the founding tendencies, decisions will be unavoidable that make a reorganization of the personnel necessary. I would like to contribute my share to this,” and so on (from Dr. Oesch's resignation letter). Dr. Oesch has therefore formally resigned. You have heard that he has already been designated by those prominent figures who have declared their willingness to continue the matter. This group has a director, while I am left without management and a board of directors. You have a group of prominent figures, including Mr. Gimmi and Mr. Krebs from the old board of directors and Dr. Oesch from the old management. This group can start by laying the names of leading personalities on the table of the house, quite apart from the fact that they themselves will be leading personalities. They will not expect me to continue without a board of directors and management.

[Further comments. Someone would rather make their money available for spiritual values.

Rudolf Steiner: It is of course out of the question for the shareholders to start a run on the funds invested with “Futurum”. It is not easy to get money today because the money market is completely inflexible.

[Several proposals for election to the board of directors. Since some of the proposed candidates refuse, only the candidates already proposed by Willy Stokar remain for election.

The vote confirms the removal of the previous directors, including the Rudolf Steiners, with the exception of Gimmi and Krebs, and the election of the new board of directors. After the vote, the remaining agenda items are dealt with. The meeting ends at 7:30 pm.

My dear friends, I believe I have given you a very important insight into anthroposophical [spiritual] science. I will develop this further tomorrow.

I would just like to ask you one thing now. I am obliged to tell you something more mundane, and since I don't have another opportunity to say this more mundane thing, I would like to ask you not to underestimate what I said “sub specie aeternitatis” alongside what I now have to say as something mundane.

I would like to draw your attention to a newspaper report that has already appeared in a wide variety of Swiss newspapers about the events at the “Futurum” general assembly and what emerged from it. Now, as I said, I cannot take another opportunity, I do not want to call you together specially. I ask you all very much to make a distinction between the important matters that we have just discussed and what I have to say now. I do not want the first to be wiped out by the second.

But I would like to note a few things here before taking the opportunity to speak about them in public, and that must be done. I will read you the relevant sentences from this report, which are:

The report was received with satisfaction.

However, as far as the impact of the ideas of the threefold social order and associative economics emerging from the anthroposophical movement is concerned, several shareholders stated that expectations have not been met. It has proved impossible during the financial year to realize the idea of an associative economic system within such a small group of associated economic enterprises. This would only be possible if a corresponding reorganization of economic life could be undertaken on a larger scale. It was therefore demanded that the company abandon the offensive against the current economic system and initially turn its main focus to the greatest possible economic efficiency. As this direction had the majority of votes, there was a need for personnel changes in the administration and for the company to break away from its previous close connection with the anthroposophical movement of Dr. Rudolf Steiner. There were no differences with the spiritual movement, but there was a decision to separate it from “Futurum AG” in order to ensure that the latter would have full development opportunities as an economic enterprise. This has the consequence that the spiritual-economic enterprises such as the clinic, laboratories, publishing house and so on are to be separated from “Futurum” in the near future and remain with the anthroposophical movement.

My dear friends, I believe that if you reflect on the content of these sentences, you will have to say to yourselves: The worst enemy that could arise against the anthroposophical movement in Switzerland could not write worse sentences than those written here. For here, above all, the silliness is written that the reproach that can be made to the “Futurum” is that it has not fulfilled its expectations because it has not fulfilled what is demanded of the anthroposophical movement by the “Futurum”. And then it is said – as I said, putting these things together is nothing more than a huge, capital absurdity – then it is said: So the Futurum must separate itself from the anthroposophical movement, must give up the offensive against today's economic system.

My dear friends, I myself must naturally regard this form of expression as one of the worst attacks on my own personality. You will feel this when you consider the matter. Because here nothing less is said than: Dr. Steiner, with his anthroposophical movement, is becoming very dangerous because he is taking action against the modern economic system; so we have to do it differently, we have to move away from him.

My dear friends! This is the very way to completely destroy the Anthroposophical movement. But besides, anyone who understands what I myself have been dealing with in terms of economics in recent years will find that it is an unscrupulous untruth to say that, because one does not want to be offensive, one has to move away from the Anthroposophical movement and then from me.

As if this offensive had come from me! It was completely different people who took this offensive approach!

My dear friends! When I read this at first, I thought that some inept editors had written it who are not familiar with the anthroposophical movement as such. But today I was presented with the original, the original letter to the editorial offices, and this original letter to the editorial offices for these acts, which are already hostile to anthroposophy, comes from the current management of “Futurum”.

This is what has been sent to all Swiss editorial offices by the current management of “Futurum”, that is, by the side that has actually always conducted this so-called offensive in an outrageous manner. If they were to write in a reasonable way, they would actually have to admit to themselves that they have spoiled things in the most stupid way possible by proceeding in this way and constantly throwing the most stupid things at people's heads in public lectures.

This, my dear friends, is what is happening today. And actually, no worse insult has been made to the anthroposophical movement than here by the present management of “Futurum”. As I said, I only received it today that this has been issued by the current management of “Futurum”.

I must emphasize here, and this cannot be emphasized enough, that I consider it a dishonest, lying attack when it is said that one has to turn against the offensive that has been driven against today's economic system in order to get by. It is a falsehood that, if it were not done out of stupidity but out of intention, could have no other purpose than to finally culminate in the entire anthroposophical movement being shaped in such a way that I am thrown out of it in order to have it for oneself. I am not saying that this must be the intention, but if one wanted to achieve this intention, one could not do it more subtly than through such writings.

This, my dear friends, is necessary to say, after it became clear to me today that this writing originated from the current management of “Futurum”. Of course, I do not mean what I have discussed in relation to the current composition of the board of directors of “Futurum” and so on, which was somehow said in a still benevolent way. But the present management of Futurum has begun its activities by taking the most urgent steps to undermine the anthroposophical movement in Switzerland. You can imagine what consequences such a thing must have in the near future.

There we have it: this anthroposophical movement is a dangerous movement, it undermines today's economic system; one's own “Futurum” must break away so as not to be in these dangerous waters!

I don't know if it has been read in the right way. It must have been read, even by anthroposophists. But if it is read and felt in the right way, then it must also be felt as I have just expressed it. But then it cannot be allowed to go without informing the public that this is a thoroughly untruthful, objectively untruthful, unworthy attack against the Anthroposophical Society by the present management of “Futurum”. I cannot characterize the matter otherwise.

I now ask you to really consider the matter, because the situation is such that it is no longer possible to put up with everything that is being said and done to us from all sides. It is no longer possible. I am only giving this to you all for consideration for now, but for careful consideration.

Tomorrow at 5 p.m. there will be a eurythmy performance and at 8 a.m. we will continue today's reflection here.

It is necessary to explicitly point out that it was not the anthroposophical movement that trumpeted these crazy things out into the world, but the same side that is now blaming it on the anthroposophical movement.

To the members of the Anthroposophical and the Free Anthroposophical Society in Germany:

May 1923

My dear friends! The development and reception of anthroposophical endeavors in the present makes it necessary for me to change the way I work. Anthroposophy has revealed itself as a soul need for an ever-increasing number of people; on the other hand, it is increasingly confronted with misunderstandings and misjudgments by many.

This requires that I meet the increased demands for the cultivation of the anthroposophical need more than has been the case since the time when practical institutions of various kinds were formed by the objectives of the friends of our cause. These institutions have arisen in a thoroughly justified way from the intentions of these friends on the basis of the anthroposophical movement. And it was also understandable that when these friends strove for the realization of such practical ideas, the wish arose for me to be involved in the administration of the corresponding institutions. I accommodated this wish, although I was aware that this accommodation, which was a natural obligation, would draw me away from my actual task of caring for the center of anthroposophical work for some time.

For a relatively short period of time, I had to comply with the wishes of my friends. But now I must also take the position that I may continue to work only within this center of anthroposophical life with its artistic and educational implications. I must belong entirely to anthroposophy as such, as well as to its artistic and educational endeavors and the like, and to institutions such as “Kommender Tag” etc. only to the extent that the spiritual impulses of anthroposophy flow into them. In the interest of the anthroposophical cause, I must withdraw from all administrative matters of these institutions. Only in this way will it be possible for me to work as intensively as is necessary in view of their own demands and the rapidly growing opposition.

These are the reasons that move me to resign from the office of chairman of the supervisory board of “Kommenden Tages” now. I ask the friends of the anthroposophical cause not to take this as a sign that the intensive, appropriate and ideal work of “Kommenden Tages” will change. This work is in good hands; and I ask that no degree of trust be withdrawn from it in the future. I am convinced that everything will go better if I now formally place this work in the hands of those who will do it well, and devote myself to the cause to which I have been assigned by fate. Whatever intellectual stimulus I can give to the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute, the Coming-Day Publishing House, the research institutes, the journals, etc., will flow better to them if I am removed from the actual administration. Practically speaking, nothing essential will change within the same, since I have been obliged, even in recent times, to grow into the situation described as necessary for the future through the circumstances I have explained. So it is only the situation that has actually arisen that is being officially established.

I therefore hope that my resignation from the supervisory board of the “Day to Come” will be seen as an expression of my trust in its leadership and that it will become such among the members of the Anthroposophical Societies as well. It should strengthen that trust, not weaken it. If there were any reason to weaken it, I would have to stay. However, the situation is such that I am unnecessarily dependent on the knowledgeable and prudent leadership, and therefore obliged, to return to the anthroposophical cause in the narrower sense.

I ask you to take this as the reason for the step that is now necessary.

Rudolf Steiner

Address by Rudolf Steiner regarding point 4 of the agenda [Election of the Supervisory Board]:

I myself will have something to say regarding this point, ladies and gentlemen. It concerns the fact that the affairs of the Anthroposophical Movement have recently taken on such a form that In the future, it will be impossible for me to take on other activities of this kind, such as the position of chairman of the supervisory board of “Kommenden Tages”, in addition to my work for the Anthroposophical Movement in the narrower sense. The esteemed attendees – and they are, of course, the more numerous – who are members of the Anthroposophical Society, know that the circumstances of the Anthroposophical Movement have changed a great deal, especially in recent years. On the one hand, it is absolutely clear that a spiritual movement such as anthroposophy – and I do not want to say specifically anthroposophical, but a spiritual movement such as anthroposophy – lies at the lies at the very bottom of the innermost needs of an ever-greater number of people, and that therefore the Anthroposophical Movement, which has existed for more than 20 years now as a partial movement, so to speak, in this great stream, that the Anthroposophical Movement makes, one might say, more demands on those who have already been destined by fate to care for it and it has been clear for some time that, in addition to everything that is incumbent upon me for the anthroposophical movement, it is no longer possible to engage fruitfully in other activities without the tasks that I already have for the anthroposophical movement being disturbed or compromised. The latter must not happen under any circumstances, on the one hand because of the increasing demands on the Anthroposophical Movement and because of the ever-widening interest, which demands an expansion of my work precisely in this regard, in this direction. On the other hand, this Anthroposophical Movement, through countless things that can only be described as misleading, has to reckon with an opposition today that, well, I would say, if it is to be countered in the right way, will cause work and, above all, worry and the like.

So, taking all these things into account, I had no choice, esteemed attendees, but to recently decide to resign from my position as chairman of the supervisory board of “The Coming Day” and from the supervisory board in general, which I hereby do in a very official manner. The situation is such that, in practical terms, I have recently had to limit my work for the “Coming Day” to that which - precisely because of the other demands - will have to remain so in the coming period. If I am to do the work for the “Day to Come” that is to flow into its various institutions, and if I am to do the work for the Waldorf School, in which the “Day to Come” is also extremely interested in a certain respect, if I am to do this work , which will have to be provided in a positive and substantial way in the form of my advice to 'Der Kommende Tag', then I will have to admit to myself that I will withdraw all the more from the activity, which will be able to take place in the future without me and perhaps better without me than with me.

The supervisory board and the board of directors of “Tomorrow” are, after all, an absolutely sure guarantee for all those who, as shareholders and otherwise, have an interest in “Tomorrow” , that this Coming Day will continue to work in this direction even after my resignation, in the fruitful way it has set itself, and in the way it is in the interest of the shareholders and the world in general. I must say that the situation of the “Kommende Tag” is such that today I can only ask those shareholders whose trust in the “Kommende Tag” is perhaps somewhat connected with the fact that I took over the position of chairman of the supervisory board years ago, I can only urgently ask those whose trust is connected with this fact not to lose an ounce of that trust, but on the contrary to continue to place it in a greatly increased measure in the excellent management of “The Coming Day”. I would like to say that it was clear to me from the very beginning, when I took over the position of Chairman of the Supervisory Board three years ago, that this could only be for a relatively short time.

For the situation that now exists was entirely foreseeable, and although it was of course clear to me at the time that a large part of my work for the Anthroposophical Movement would be affected, ... I did it anyway.

Isn't it true that “Der Kommende Tag” came about because a number of personalities who had emerged from the Anthroposophical Movement wanted to support an undertaking that was designed to be socially sustainable in the future. The “Kommende Tag” was to be founded as a kind of model example of what should be done by combining enterprises, in particular combining personalities who are interested in social issues in economic life. Through this union, the “Kommende Tag” was to be established as a kind of model example. The personalities who founded it turned to me for advice at the time. We hammered out the preliminary details, the intentions and the principles together, and in the early days we tried to steer the “Coming Day” in the direction in which it should be steered.

The actual initiative did not come from me. From the very beginning, I was, so to speak, in the role of an advisor. At the time, I found it quite natural that friends approached me and wanted me to take over the position of Chairman of the Supervisory Board, and for me to be on the Supervisory Board at all. But what made it desirable for the first period of time, even if it was entirely decisive for the decisions at the time, cannot be decisive for continued membership of the Supervisory Board. And all this together with the fact that I am quite certain of the excellent management - I can tell you that I would not resign if “Der Kommende Tag” did not stand on absolutely secure feet and was in a future-proof situation - since that is the case is the case, because you can have full confidence in the “Day to Come”, even if I withdraw, perhaps even more so, as I have already mentioned, then, my dear attendees, you will not withdraw your confidence in the “Day to Come”. So you will understand that the reasons for my resignation are decisive, and I ask you to accept this resignation in the sense in which it has just been characterized.

Above all, it is my duty at this moment to express my heartfelt thanks to the other members of the supervisory board for their dedicated work, for the extraordinarily difficult work that had to be done in the early years, for the work that, I would say, suffered from ever-increasing opposition and caused serious concern.

I would also like to thank these members of the supervisory board in a special way for the warm way in which this collaboration has taken place; both those members of the supervisory board who are the originators of the original ideas of “The Day to Come” and those who, as members of the works council, have joined the supervisory board in accordance with the law. Those who have worked on the organization and further implementation of the ideas and affairs of “The Day to Come” over the last three years know just how much dedicated work is needed to accomplish things in an appropriate and proper manner. But I believe that more and more people will feel how grateful we are to the members of the supervisory board for their dedication, and it will therefore be understandable that I express my heartfelt thanks to the supervisory board and wish that its work in the near and distant future will be rewarded with the most beautiful fruits.

Secondly, I would like to express my warmest thanks to the board of directors, above all to the prudent, dedicated and extremely objective director of the board, Mr. Emil Leinhas, and to the other members of the board as a whole for their dedicated work. It has not exactly become easier for social and economic enterprises to carry out their management activities in recent times. It requires not only an extremely exhausting amount of work, but above all, constant thoughtfulness and constant prudence, which it is neither necessary nor even possible to describe in detail here. But if you have seen all this, if you have had to go through all this, so to speak, if you have had to see from day to day how things have actually been worked on, especially by the management of our board in recent times and since the beginning, it will also be understood that, out of a very special inner satisfaction and heartfelt feeling, I would also like to express my warmest thanks to the members of the board, above all to the director, Mr. Emil Leinhas, when I leave. In doing so, I would also like to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who, from the inner circle of the Anthroposophical Movement and from further afield, have turned their interest and attention to the endeavors of “Der Kommende Tag” and have simply given “Der Kommende Tag” the opportunity to survive through their sympathy and participation within the circle of shareholders. I would like to express my most sincere thanks to all of you on my resignation! I now ask you to take note of my resignation from the position of Chairman of the Supervisory Board and from the Supervisory Board in general. This brings us to the fourth item on the agenda. Since I have now resigned and no longer bear responsibility, I ask the Deputy Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Dr. Unger, to take over the chairmanship of this Annual General Meeting.

Erwin Hahl: Emphasizes that the reconstruction [of the Goetheanum] is absolutely necessary; raising money is an urgent necessity. Suggestions to get money through factory enterprises, such as machine factories.

Rudolf Steiner: I would ask you to remain in your seats for just a few more moments. I do, however, have something to say about the two points Mr. Hahl has discussed.

My dear friends, at the same moment that I decided with a heavy heart to take over the chairmanship of the Anthroposophical Society myself, I said to myself: Certain things that have taken place among us in recent years must not be allowed to happen again. And among these things is the fact that industries or the like are to be established or taken over by us, through which one strives to get money, to give money. This must not happen again. We have had the very worst experiences with this principle in recent years. You will remember, at least many of you, my dear friends, that when here, from about the same place, just a few steps to the right, years ago, the proposal was made to proceed with such foundations, I asserted that it cannot be expected that the appropriate personalities can be found in the present to stand behind these foundations and represent them to the end in such a way that the result is that money is given in order to get money back. Another experience has emerged – which is much more in line with my warning at the time – which is that we have given money, good money that we could use for our good cause, to lose. We don't want to do that again, my dear friends. Today we want to be very clear about the fact that we only want to work our way out of the good hearts of our friends, so that our friends know: we are not striving for this or that and promising this or that, but we are doing this or that with this money.

And so I would like to make it a condition for taking over the chairmanship from me that those financial experiments in connection with all kinds of industries, which have brought us such difficult experiences in recent years, are not repeated. It has been shown that the personalities who have been involved in a large number of experiments have not taken further care of them, and that they are now being continued by those who have something better to do now. There are, in fact, even better things.

Now, my dear friends, that prevents me from advising you in any way in this direction. Those things that have already been inaugurated in this direction must be continued with all energy, that is self-evident; but to get involved in something new of the same kind does not befit us for the next few years, when we must take every care not to let this ideal good that we have be influenced by such side currents. In the future, every friend must know that what he gives is used for the ideal endeavors as it is; it is not used somewhere first to be transformed into the form where it should then be more. - That will be something we, as I said, will not do again.

As for the second point, I found what Mr. Hahl said extremely gratifying; but that has already happened, especially during the summer, and Mr. Hahl only needs, in a very amiable way, to pay his dues where the collection has already been introduced for the construction of the Goetheanum. We do not always need to create new funds for what already exists. This could only be discussed in terms of how to make the existing fund quite substantial. 'But we do not need new funds, otherwise we will ultimately no longer know our way around because of all the funds.

This is the matter that I would still like to recommend to you. I have said it in this dryness because it really seems necessary to me that it be said today in this dry and clear way. I have spoken many times recently about the failure of these things, as they are also being conducted again with an industrial society. If something like this is to be done, then it should be done purely for itself, quite apart from the Anthroposophical Society. If they then want me to give purely practical advice, for my sake, on the production of machines and the like, then they may do so. But you will never see me, after the experiences I have had, offer my hand and enter such enterprises myself as a member of the board of directors or similar councils.

Before Dr. Steiner's address, it was announced that the resolution passed at the Annual General Meeting of ["Futurum"] on 4 April 1923 to liquidate ["Futurum AG"] by merging it with ["Internationale Laboratorien und Klinisch-Therapeutisches Institut Arlesheim AG/ILAG"] klinisch-therapeutisches Institut Arlesheim AG /ILAG] cannot be implemented in the planned manner, namely to acquire the Futurum share capital of 2 million francs at the written-down value of 1 million francs. On the contrary, as a result of the general deterioration of the European economic situation, the assets of Futurum AG have to be reduced even further, to 450,000 francs. In order to raise this amount, however, the International Laboratories A.G. is obliged to increase its share capital from 500,000 francs to 950,000 francs.

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to return to the point that was just mentioned by the chairman and which refers to the fact that, as a result of the recent write-down from 1 million francs to 450,000 francs in assets of ” Futurum AG in liquidation, those shareholders who cannot bear a further write-down due to their financial circumstances should not suffer any more damage than they already have as a result of the fact that a write-down of 2 to 1 million has taken place. So the write-down that has taken place today means that those shareholders who cannot bear a further write-down will not suffer. This could be made possible in the following way: We tried to persuade those shareholders who are willing to make a sacrifice to transfer their shares to the Goetheanum as a gift. As a result of shareholders donating their shares to the value of around 550,000 francs to the Goetheanum, there is no longer any need to pay a dividend for these 550,000 francs. This means that the dividend that 1 ILAG share receives can be paid for 2 “Futurum” shares. This can be achieved in the following way:

You have to bear in mind that the number of shares is not reduced as a result; ILAG has to pay the dividend on all the shares that exist. Of these shares, 550,000 francs in capital is owned by the Goetheanum. The Goetheanum waives the dividend on these shares. As a result, the dividend share corresponding to these gifted shares is allocated to the shareholders who own the 450,000 francs of remaining shares. They do not lose anything because the dividend is increased by the gifted shares. The purpose of this action is to ensure that those shareholders who cannot bear further write-downs can rest assured that they will receive 1 ILAG share and its yield for every 2 “Futurum” shares. This could only be achieved by those who can do without donating their shares to the Goetheanum, which in turn compensates the shareholders who cannot do without. I believe that this has now become clear to everyone. There is thus no possibility of any formality. Legally, everything has been taken care of and this whole action would fall through if further promises were attached to it. They would have made no sense if the shareholders who can no longer lose out could not be supported. This is a private matter that can be taken care of alongside the formalities, and I would ask you to include it in the discussion.

Question: Would the shareholders like to have something tangible as security, perhaps the shares that have actually been made available?

Rudolf Steiner: The demand for a guarantee is something that frankly I do not like very much. I think it is sufficient that this guarantee is provided by the shares themselves, and I do not think that a formal declaration would make the matter any more secure. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the donors most sincerely for their wonderful willingness to make sacrifices in the public interest. Emil Leinhas: It should be noted that the explanation that Dr. Steiner has just given has real content. He was able to make it because of the donations that were made available to him. It is thanks to his drive alone that the action has become possible.

Rudolf Steiner: We want to base the matter on reality. The matter will be arranged for ILAG in such a way that the future board of directors will have the auditors, who would otherwise only be present as cash auditors, as a real entity alongside them. We will propose that in the future the ILAG will have Dr. Wegman and me as auditors. We will ensure that this is done in the future by holding shares worth 550,000 francs. I believe it is better to base the matter on this personal relationship, which is just as real as a written declaration.

Once the proposed solution has been adopted by the General Meeting, the task of the liquidation committee is essentially complete, so that its members, Mr. Leinhas, Mr. Padrutt and Mr. Day, resign. It is considered sufficient that Futurum AG in liquidation is represented by the non-resigning member of the liquidation, Mr. Edgar Dürler, with sole signing authority, since Mr. Dürler is also being considered for the ILAG Board of Directors, “which is why, even in the current situation, he is the person who can properly supervise the separate administration.” At the end of the meeting, those present are invited to attend tomorrow's ILAG general assembly as guests.

From the minutes of the extraordinary general meeting of the International Laboratories and Clinical-Therapeutic Institute Arlesheim AG.

The meeting is opened by Dr. Ita Wegman. She proposes that Dr. Steiner be elected as president for the day. He provides information about the reasons for the new write-off of the “Futurum” assets in accordance with the meeting of March 24, 1924 [see page 425] and proposes:

1. To approve a contract between the Internationale Laboratorien und Klinisch-Therapeutisches Institut Arlesheim A.G. and 'Futurum A.G. in Lig.', by which the takeover of 'Futurum' can be undertaken for 450,000 francs.

2. To this end, the share capital of the International Laboratories and Clinical-Therapeutic Institute Arlesheim A.G. is to be increased from 500,000 francs to 950,000 francs. Both proposals are unanimously adopted.

Rudolf Steiner: As you know, we are striving to make a clear distinction between the spiritual and commercial interests of our members. This is particularly necessary for the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, which is to be separated from the International Laboratories by uniting with the Goetheanum Association. Furthermore, an experimental laboratory is to be affiliated to it, while the actual laboratories are to continue to be operated as a commercial enterprise under the title “Internationale Laboratorien Arlesheim A. G. Arlesheim” with a share capital of 950,000 francs. This independence will make it possible to put the business on a healthy and profitable footing.

Dr. Wegman and Dr. Steiner will remain closely connected with the clinic, which is now to become an integral part of the Goetheanum, especially with regard to the production of the remedies. In a meeting preceding today's general assembly, the board of directors decided to submit the following proposal for approval:

The International Laboratories and the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute Arlesheim A.G. in Arlesheim sell the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute to the Verein des Goetheanum. The exact purchase price will be determined by the Board of Directors after the annual balance sheet as of December 31, 1923, has been prepared. The company name is changed to “Internationale Laboratorien Arlesheim A.G. in Arlesheim”.

This proposal is unanimously approved. Since these resolutions also require a reorganization of the Board of Directors, Mrs. G. Ricardo, who is staying in America for an extended period, is recalled as a member of the Board of Directors, and Dr. Ita Wegman resigns. Mr. Emanuel Joseph van Leer and Mr. Edgar Dürler are newly elected to the remaining member of the Board of Directors, Mr. Geering-Christ.

The auditors must be replaced due to the resignation of the previous members, Ms. M. Viehoff and Mr. Karl Day. The following are proposed as replacements: Dr. Rudolf Steiner in Dornach, Dr. Ita Wegman in Arlesheim.

The chairman of the meeting (Dr. Steiner) emphasized that this would establish the necessary contact between the Goetheanum Association, which is purely spiritual, and the international laboratories, which are commercial. This solution guarantees the necessary cooperation.

The vote is unanimous in favor of the proposed candidates.

At the end of the meeting, the chairman notes that the resolutions passed today annul those of the Annual General Meeting of April 5, 1923.