The Rudolf Steiner Archive

As in other places in Württemberg and Switzerland, I will take the liberty of speaking here about the most important and most pressing question of the present, the social question, and I will do so by referring to what has appeared in the appeal that went through the German lands some time ago, “To the German People and to the Cultural World”. The appeal, which advocates the threefold social order, may have come before most of you. The further explanations of what could only be briefly hinted at in such an appeal are given in my book 'The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life'. Allow me to outline some of the things that need to be said about this appeal this evening.

The social question – this is clear to every human soul that is alert to current events – is that which has emerged in a completely new form from the tremendous, harrowing events of the world war catastrophe. The so-called social question or social movement, as we speak of it today, is at least more than half a century old. But anyone who considers what is announced today as a mighty historical wave and compares these things with each other may nevertheless say: this social question has taken on a completely new form in our present time, a form that no one should pass by.

How often have we heard the words in the last four to five years: This terrible world war catastrophe is something that people have not experienced since the beginning of what we call history. But still little, truly very little, is said today, when this world war catastrophe has entered into a crisis, about the necessity that completely new impulses are now also needed to restore life; that a complete rethinking and relearning is necessary - although actually the necessity for this rethinking and relearning is already outwardly apparent. For the old thoughts have led us straight into that terrible human catastrophe. New thoughts and new impulses must lead us out again. And where these impulses are to be found can be seen from a truly penetrating observation of the social demands that are emerging from more and more people's minds, and which can only be ignored by those who sleep through the times and wait for events to unfold until the old structure, as it were, collapses without substance.

Today, social issues are often seen as something highly obvious, sometimes as something highly simple. Anyone who judges not from gray theories, nor from individual personal demands, but from a truly broadened experience of the necessities of life in the present and the future, must see in this social question something into which many forces flow that have developed in the course of human development and, one can already say, have in a certain way been led towards their own destruction. To anyone who has an overview of these living conditions, the social question appears in three forms. It appears to him as a question of spiritual life, secondly as a question of legal life, and thirdly as a question of economic life. Now the last few centuries, and in particular the 19th century, and also the past two decades of the 20th century, have led to the belief that almost everything that belongs to the social question has to be sought in the economic sphere. The reasons why people see so little clearly are precisely because they think that they only have to find their way in the economic sphere and then all the others will follow by themselves. It will be necessary for the first parts of my reflection today to be devoted to an area of life that people do not want to talk about as a socially important area, even now, from either the left or the right, namely the area of spiritual life.

The demands that are called social come from the broad masses of the proletariat, who have undergone the threefold ordeal to the conditions of the present, which we will discuss later. And this proletariat has been almost entirely pushed into the mere economic life by the emergence of new technology and soul-destroying capitalism, as well as by the other cultural conditions. The demands of the proletariat arose out of economic life. Therefore, the social question of the present takes on an economic form because it arises first of all from the proletariat. But it is not just an economic question. The mere observation that traditional ideas are inadequate in the face of today's loud facts can teach us that within the social movement we are dealing not only with an economic and legal question, but above all with a question of the mind.

We are faced with a loud social fact across a large part of the civilized world. We have had party opinions and party programs, we have produced them. All thoughts, all party opinions now prove inadequate when faced with the facts. Today it is not a matter of continuing old party opinions, but of facing the facts directly and with complete seriousness and a sense of reality.

Let us first see how human life has developed in recent times, and then ran into disaster. Above all, we have to look at the deep, seemingly unbridgeable gulf that exists between the proletariat and the non-proletariat. If we look at the cultural life of this non-proletariat, what do we encounter? Certainly, this cultural life has been abundantly praised as a tremendous advance in the course of modern times. Again and again we have heard how, in this modern age, means of transport have brought people together across vast areas of the earth, which in older times, if prophetically described, would have been decried as utopian. Thought, it was always preached and praised, flies like lightning across distant lands and seas and so on. No one has grown tired of praising progress over and over again. But today it is necessary to add a different consideration to all of this. Today it is necessary to ask: Under what conditions did this progress come about? It could only come about by building on a foundation of the broad masses of humanity who could not participate in all that this culture has been so praised for, built on the foundation of broad masses of people who had to do their work for this culture of a few, which, in the form in which it was “created”, could only exist because these masses had no part in it. Now these broad masses have grown up, have come into their own, and are rightly demanding their share. Their demands are at the same time the great historical demands of the present for everyone who really understands the times. And when today the call for socialization of economic life is heard, he who understands the times recognizes in this call not merely the demands of one class of people, but at the same time an historical demand of human life in the present.

One peculiarity of the leading classes, who were the participants in the much-praised culture, is that in recent times they have missed almost every opportunity to somehow bridge the gap between them and the masses of the proletariat, who are increasingly coming forward with their legitimate demands. What was needed to bridge this gap was ideas that should have been incorporated into human, social life. It is a peculiarity of this newer intellectual life, which has been so widely praised, that it has become increasingly alien to real, true life. Individuals pursue only that life that directly encompasses them. For the broad masses of the people, no comprehensive ideas from our intellectual life, from our school education, could be found. Here is an example that, from the most diverse points of view, could be multiplied not tenfold but a hundredfold or more.

At the beginning of the century, a certain government councilor by the name of Kolb took a remarkable turn in his destiny. I am happy to mention this government councilor Kolb because the way he took his destiny into his own hands is worthy of honor, and because I have no need to say anything detrimental about it, which I do not do willingly. At one point in his life, Kolb did something that not many other government officials do. Most of them retire when they no longer want to do their duty; but he left his office, went to America, and got a job as an ordinary worker, first in a brewery and then in a bicycle factory. Based on the experiences that this government official had, he then wrote a book: “Als Arbeiter in Amerika” (As a Worker in America).

The book contains a remarkable sentence. It reads, for example: “When I used to meet someone on the street who wasn't working, I would say, ‘Why isn't the bum working?’ Now I knew differently: And now I know something else about many things as well; now I know that even the most terrible affairs of life still look quite good in the study.” That is a confession that deeply characterizes the social conditions of the time. A man who has emerged from our intellectual life, who has been entrusted with human destiny for many years — for as many years as are necessary to bring it to the government act — knows nothing of human labor, that is, he knows nothing of human life. He must first create a destiny for himself in order to know something of the life he is to govern, in which he is to be active from the leading classes. He must first, in order to know something of this life, get himself hired as a laborer and then come to completely different views of life.

Does this example, which could truly be multiplied, not indicate how our intellectual life, from which the leading people emerge, has become alien to the lives of the broad masses? The broad masses have seen, in the necessities of their bodies and souls, how the leading classes conduct economic life. They have seen that something is wrong, that these leading classes do not have the necessary spirit to guide economic life. Today the question arises: what needs to be different?

And in many other respects, one can still see how alien the leading class has become over the last few centuries from what should have been done to avoid drifting into a catastrophe. In the most serious and dignified manner, the leading circles discussed all kinds of beautiful things, such as charity, brotherhood among men, the way man must be good in general, and the like. But they had no connection with real life. At most, they would bring up the subject for discussion. Such an enquiry from the mid-19th century is not so insignificant today. It was initiated by the English government at the time among mine managers. The people who talked about human existence in their well-heated rooms should have experienced the coal they were talking about. They should have realized that the coal they were discussing their advanced morality and advanced intellectual life with had been brought up through mine shafts into which children of nine, eleven, thirteen years of age were sent underground before day, before the rising of the sun, and only came up again at night, so that the poor children almost never saw the light of day. It was easy to talk about human goodness and neighborly love in the context of the coals that were mined in this way. And many similar stories could be told. And the question must be asked: Did such events inspire the leading circles of humanity to really intervene in social life? Some people will reply today: Yes, but many things have improved. But to that I would say: What has improved has improved not because of the initiative of the ruling class, but because of the hard struggle of those who have suffered under these conditions.

These are the things that need to be brought to our attention today. We need to focus on what the worker, who works from morning till evening, can see at most from the outside when he passes our universities, our secondary schools. He is only familiar with what goes on in primary schools, and even there only what he can experience. He does not know how the objectives of primary education are determined from above, he only sees that those who cannot lead today's economic life emerge from these institutions.

This is the first aspect of the social question. Despite all the praise of our intellectual life, we have no intellectual life that is up to the great tasks of the time.

Let us look at economic life. When the social movement arose, we often heard the leading circles dismiss this social movement with the words: They want to divide. But what comes out of the division? Then everyone gets very little. — Then this objection fell silent; because on the one hand it is very true, but on the other hand it is very stupid. Recently, however, it has been cropping up again and again. But these things are not the point. Anyone who looks into the particular structure of our economic life today knows that the physical and mental misery of the broad masses of the proletariat has arisen from completely different causes. He knows that the inadequate development of intellectual life has not been understood in terms of bringing an ever-increasing technical activity in economic life into such a form that every person can have a dignified existence in it.

Of course, it has often been rightly pointed out that the modern social movement has emerged through modern technology, through machines, through soul-destroying capitalism. But it has been forgotten that all that has emerged could not be mastered by the spiritual life as it developed.

Why is that so? With the advent of the machine, industrialism and capitalism, a certain tendency took hold of humanity, which expressed itself in the fact that it was considered progress to have the state absorb the spiritual life as far as possible. Nationalization of the spiritual life was seen as great progress. And today you still meet with the sharpest prejudices if you object to this nationalization of the spiritual life. Those who have their sympathies in today's intellectual life point out with a certain pride how much further one has come with the spirit than in the old, dark Middle Ages. Well, we certainly do not want the Middle Ages back. Not back, but forward we want to go. But another question must be raised. It is said that in the Middle Ages intellectual life, especially science, followed in the train of theology or the Church. Today we have to ask: Whose train does present-day intellectual life follow – or perhaps something else? Here is another example, which could be multiplied not only a hundredfold but a thousandfold. Again, I may speak of a person whom I hold in high esteem because I am convinced that he was an important naturalist. At the same time, he was the Secretary General of a learned society that is at the forefront of German intellectual life. In one of his well-delivered speeches, he wanted to express what these German scholars, who have the great honor of being members of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, consider their highest honor. When something like this is described, one would naturally like to point out an historical fact that is not insignificant. This Berlin Academy was always something that could, in a sense, intellectually express the impulses of the Hohenzollerns. A Hohenzollern of the 18th century was once faced with the necessity of appointing a president to his Academy of Sciences – I am not telling you a fairy tale, but an historical fact – and he believed he was honouring this Academy of Sciences most by giving it his court jester as president. But the great scholar of the late 19th century says that the learned gentlemen of the Berlin Academy consider it a great honor to be the scientific protection force of the Hohenzollerns.

We must look at such things as symptoms of the times. We must look at what intellectual life has become in its dependence on state power and the capitalist power associated with it. For if one can grasp inner impulses not out of some prejudice but out of the necessities of life, out of reality, then one will say, contrary to all the prejudices of the time, that intellectual life can only regain its strength if it is detached from state life, if it is left to its own devices. Everything that lives in spiritual life, especially the school system, must be handed over to its self-administration, from the highest level of the administration of spiritual life to the teacher of the lowest school level. In the administration of spiritual life, nothing but the forces of this spiritual life itself can be decisive. Those who are active in this spiritual life and experience it inwardly must form the body that administers this spiritual life and puts it completely on its own feet.

This is the first point of what is here called the threefold social organism. Such a spiritual life will be able to relate to life in a completely different way than the antisocial spiritual life in which we have gradually found ourselves, and from which it seems we have no desire to escape.

Someone who really has experience in this field is well placed to speak about it from that experience. For many years I taught at the Workers' Educational School in Berlin, founded by Liebknecht. So I know how to find the sources of a spiritual life that is not the preserve of a privileged class and represents a luxury spiritual life, but from which one can speak to all people who have the urge to achieve a dignified existence for soul and body. And I know something else from this practice of my life. I know how the workers understood me, always understood me better when I spoke to them from a free spiritual life that is there for all people, not for a privileged class. Because the workers believed that they had to go along with this or that, there were also times when I was led to guide the workers through museums or similar institutions, through sites where the evidence of a culture could be seen that existed only for a few, that did not represent a folk culture, a folk spiritual life. There I saw how the gulf also existed in the spiritual and mental life and how people basically could not really take in inwardly what had been created on the soil of a culture for a few. This is a misconception that many people still subscribe to today. They believe that they are promoting the education of the people when they throw chunks of what has been created at universities, secondary schools and other educational institutions from our culture, which is only born out of the social sentiments of a few. What has been done to promote such popular education! Public libraries, adult education colleges, public theaters, and so on. But we shall never get rid of the error which consists in believing that what is intellectually demanded by the emotional life of a secluding minority can be transplanted into the broad masses of the people. No, the time demands a spiritual life which embraces everybody in a social way. But this can only come into being when those who are to take part in it, with all their feelings, with all their social foundations, form a unity with those who create this spiritual life; when they are not thrown scraps, but when the whole mass of the people works uniformly in a spiritual way. But for this to happen, the spiritual life must be freed from state and capitalist constraints. Naturally, in a short lecture I cannot present all the arguments – not even all that is contained in my book on these key points of the social question – that could be adduced in favor of the necessity of detaching intellectual life, especially the school system, from the state and economic life and placing it on its own feet. But this is the first requirement for the threefold social order: a spiritual life that develops out of itself.

There is no need to fear such a spiritual life. There is no need to fear even if one has a low opinion of people, perhaps to the effect that they will fall back into the old illiterate state, or the like, if parents are free to send their children to school or leave them out without state coercion. No, the proletariat in particular will become more and more aware of what it owes to school education. And it will not leave its children out of school, even if it is not forced to send its children to school, but has to send them there of its own free will. And in particular, the advocate of the comprehensive school need not fear that a free spiritual life will be disturbed by the school. Nothing else can arise than the unified school if the free spiritual life is promoted.

That is what needs to be said first about the separation of spiritual life from state and economic life.

The second area of life that needs to be considered when studying today's social question is the legal life. People have developed the most diverse views about this legal life. But anyone who is able to observe and feel this legal life from reality says to himself: to give definitions or scholarly explanations of the law is just as absurd as trying to give scholarly instructions about what blue and red colors are. One can talk about blue and red colors with anyone who has a healthy eye. But about the sense of right, about the right that every human being has because he is a human being, one can talk to every awakened human soul. And with awakened human souls, with ever more awakened human souls, one is dealing with the modern proletariat.

With regard to this legal basis of life, however, modern humanity, insofar as it belongs to the ruling circles, has had a strange experience. These ruling circles could not help but spread a certain democracy over life. They needed a skillful proletariat to stage their capitalist interests, a proletariat that received certain soul forces. The old patriarchal life was of no use in the modern capitalist economy. But now something extremely unpleasant turned up for such a one-sided, capitalist democracy. You see, the human soul has the peculiarity that when you develop individual abilities and powers in it, then others will automatically come to the fore. Thus, the leading mankind wanted to develop only those soul powers that make workers able to work in factories. But it turned out that the souls awoke from the old patriarchal conditions, and that in them especially the awareness of human rights awoke. And then they looked into the modern state, which was supposed to embody the law. They asked themselves: Is this the soil in which the law really flourishes? And what did they find? Instead of human rights, class privileges and class disadvantages. And from this arose what is called the modern class struggle of the proletariat, which is nothing more or less than the great, justified demand for a dignified existence for all people.

This is the second aspect of the social question, the legal question. Its true significance cannot be recognized without also considering the third aspect, the economic question. Two things have seeped into economic life that simply do not belong there. These are capital and human labor, whereas economic life should only include what takes place on the goods market. I think that recent years, and especially the present, could teach people very clearly that the most important thing in the proletarian social movement is the proletarian himself. But today, as things are, the proletarian man cannot be judged by someone who, because the times suggest it, deigns to talk about the proletariat based on a variety of ideas. No, only someone whose destiny has led him to think with the proletariat and feel with the proletariat can judge these things. You have to have seen for yourself how, over decades, the proletarian world came together in the hours that could be wrested from the evening after hard work to educate itself about the economic movement of the new era, about the meaning of labor, of capital, about the meaning of commodity consumption and production; you have to have seen what an enormous need for education developed in the proletarian people, while, on the other side of the divide, within the higher classes, people visited their theaters and devoted themselves to many other activities, and at most managed to look down from the stage at the proletarian misery. Then the proletarian developed; he developed out of his spiritual life. And anyone who says today that the proletarian question is merely a question of bread and stomach must be given the answer: It is a shame that it has come to this, that the proletarian question has become a bread-and-butter question, that people did not look at something else earlier, namely, that the proletarian's entire striving has given rise to the demand for a dignified existence, for an existence in which he does not have to allow his body and soul to wither. For all proletarian demands have ultimately emerged from this, not from a mere bread-and-stomach issue. But while the proletarian was trying to come to his senses, while he was dealing with the economic systems of modern times, he developed an awareness of his own position as a human being in this human life. From his point of view, he was able to look at the way of life of the leading circles. He was told that history was a divine world order, or a moral world order, or the world order of the idea. He saw only that the ruling circles, within their world order, lived as the surplus value that he had to produce allowed them to live. That is why the words of the Communist Manifesto struck so deeply into the minds of the proletarians and made them aware of their situation. Despite all the progress of modern times, despite all the so-called newer freedoms, the proletarian is condemned to sell his labor power like a commodity on the labor market and to have it bought. This gave rise to the demand: The days are over when a person can sell or buy a part of himself. His feelings, which he perhaps could not always express clearly, led the proletarian back to ancient times, to the times of serfdom. And he saw how the purchase of his labor power has remained from those ancient times. For nothing else but this lies in the wage relationship. He said to himself: Goods belong on the market. You take the goods to the market, sell them and go back with the proceeds. I must sell my labor power to the employer, but I cannot go to him and say, “There is my labor power for so and so much money, and then I will go away.” I must deliver myself! — You see, as a human being, you must go with your labor power. That is what the proletarian perceives as an existence unworthy of a human being. |

The big question arises: What has to happen so that labor can no longer be a commodity? People today, insofar as they belong to the leading and guiding circles, basically give little thought to labor. These people open their wallets and pay with banknotes of a certain denomination. Whether they ever stop to consider that in the bills they give, or perhaps cut up into coupons, there is a decision to appropriate so many laborers from the proletariat, that is the big question. In any case, they do not give in to thoughts strong enough to intervene in social life.

The point is that human labor cannot be compared in price to any other commodity; that human labor is something quite different from a commodity. Human labor must be removed from the economic process. And it cannot be removed unless economic life is regarded as a part of the social organism, separate from the actual legal or state organism, from the political organism. Then what I would like to make clear to you by means of a comparison can occur. Economic life borders on the natural foundation on the one hand. You cannot manage a closed economic area in any way you like. You can use the soil by technical means or the like. But within certain limits you have to submit to the natural foundation. Imagine a number of large landowners, i.e. capitalists in their own right, who would say: If we are to achieve this balance, or even a better one, we need a hundred rainy days in summer, with sunny days in between, and so on. This is a complete plate, of course, but it does draw our attention to the fact that, on the one hand, we cannot change the natural foundations; we cannot demand, through our economic life, that the forces of nature in the ground prepare the wheat grain in a particular way. We must submit to the forces of nature; they stand beside economic life. On the other hand, economic life must be limited by the life of the law, that is to say, just as little as the forces of nature depend on the economic situation on the goods market, so little must human labor depend on the economic situation on the goods market. Human labor must be taken out of economic life like a force of nature and placed on the ground of the law. When it is placed on the legal ground, then everything in which one person is equal to another, in which only real human rights develop, in which labor law can also develop, can develop on this legal ground. The measure, type and time of work will be determined before the worker enters the economic process. Then he will face the one who, as we shall see in a moment, will not be the capitalist but the labor manager, the spiritual co-worker, as a free human being.

No matter how good the words may be about the so-called employment contract, as long as it is a wage contract, it can only lead to the dissatisfaction of the worker. Only when contracts can no longer be concluded for labor, but only for the joint production of the labor manager and the manual laborer, when a contract can only be concluded for the joint product, will a dignified existence for all parties arise from it. Then the worker will stand vis-à-vis the labor manager as a free partner. That is what the worker is basically striving for, even if he still cannot form a clear idea of it today. This is the real economic issue for the proletariat, the real economic demand: the liberation of labor power from the economic cycle, the establishment of the right of labor power within the second link of the three-part social organism, the legal basis.

And on this legal basis, another thing must be given a new form. This is precisely the thing that, when it comes to its reorganization, still makes today's people look very, very puzzled, namely the reorganization of capital. With regard to private property, people today think socially at least to a certain extent, and in fact in the area that seems to them to be the least difficult, in the spiritual area. For in the intellectual field, at least in principle, something social applies in relation to ownership. No matter how clever or talented a person is, he certainly brings his abilities with him through birth, but what we achieve that is socially valuable, intellectually as well, we achieve it by being within society, through society. In the intellectual field this is recognized by the fact that, at least in principle, nothing of what one produces intellectually, and from which one also receives the benefit, belongs to the heirs for thirty years after death. The time could be shorter, but at least it is recognized in principle that what is intellectual property must become the property of the general public at the moment when the individual with his individual abilities is no longer there to administer it. Intellectual property must not be transferred in an arbitrary manner to those who then have nothing more to do with its creation.

Now you say today that it is an historical requirement that it must become similar to material capital in the future! Tell that today to people who are within the capitalist education, then you will see what kind of perplexed faces they make! Nevertheless, one of the most important demands of the present is that capital should no longer be placed in the social process in the same way as it is today. The point is that in the future, everyone must be able to manage the means of production in a particular field based on their individual abilities. And the capital is actually the means of production. It is in the worker's own interest to have a good spiritual leader as a manager; because this is the best way to apply one's work. The capitalist is then just a fifth wheel on the car, he is not necessary at all. That is what must be realized. It is therefore necessary that in the future the means of production in a particular economic sector or for a cultural purpose are raised; but since the individual abilities of the person or group of people who have raised the means of production no longer justify personal ownership, these means of production , as I have shown in my book The Essential Points of the Social Question, must now pass to quite different people, not to the heirs, but to quite different people who now have the greatest ability to manage these means of production only in the service of the general public.

Just as blood circulates in the human body, so in the future the means of production, that is, capital, will circulate in the community of the social organism. Just as blood must not accumulate in a healthy organism, but must flow through the entire body, fertilizing everything, so in the future capital must not accumulate in any one place as private property. Rather, when it has served its purpose in one place, it must pass to whoever can manage it best. In this way, capital is divested of the function that has led to the greatest social damage today.

But the very clever people who speak from a capitalist point of view rightly say: All economic activity consists in giving up existing goods so that goods can be obtained in the future. That is quite right; but if we are to manage in this way – that is, by means of the past, the seeds are laid for the economy of the future, so that the economy does not die – then capital must participate in what the properties of goods are. Again, today there are extremely puzzled faces when one speaks of these demands of the future. Real goods, however, have the peculiarity that they are consumed. In consumption, they gradually follow the path of all living things. Our present economic order has brought capital to the point where it does not follow the path of living things. All one needs to do is to have capital, and then this capital is torn out of the fate of everything else that is involved in the economic process. Aristotle already said that capital should not have any young, but not only does it have young, but the young grow up until they are large; one can state the number of years until the capital doubles if it is only left to itself. Other goods, for which capital is only a representative example, have the peculiarity that they either wear out or can no longer be used if they are not put to use at the right time. Capital must be forced to share the fate of all other goods, insofar as it is monetary capital. While our current economic life aims to double capital in a certain period of time, a healthy economic life would make mere monetary capital disappear in the same period of time, so that it would no longer be there. Today it is still considered terrible to tell people that after a reasonable period of time, rather than doubling in fifteen years, monetary capital should no longer exist, because what is contained in this capital must participate in the process of wear and tear. Of course, some of what is involved in saving or the like can be taken into account.

So today we are not faced with small accounts, but with large accounts. And we must have the courage to admit to these large accounts. Otherwise the social order, or rather the social disorder, the social chaos, will descend on us. People today are little concerned about the fact that they are basically dancing on a volcano. It is more in their interest to continue with the old as lightly as possible, while time demands of us not only to change some institutions, but to rethink and relearn right down to our very habits of thought.

When labor and capital are removed from the economic process, with capital flowing to the community and labor being returned to the right of the free human being, then the economic process consists only of the consumption, circulation, and production of goods. Then the economic process has only to do with the value of goods. And then, within this economic process, which as a member of the healthy social organism is now left to its own devices, something may come into being of which one can then say: production is not merely for the sake of production, but for the sake of consumption. Then those cooperatives and associations will arise that are formed from the professional guilds, but that are formed in particular from the consumers, together with the producers. Out of these corporations will arise what is today entrusted to the chance of the goods market. Today, something decides on the goods market that is completely removed from human thought and judgment: supply and demand. In the future, the corporation must decide what conditions the formation of prices and the value of goods from the goods market. In this way alone will a person produce so much that what is produced has the value of all the goods he needs for his needs until he has produced an equal amount of goods again. That will be a just economic life. That will be an economic life in which the price of one type of goods does not disproportionately outweigh the prices of the other types of goods. Today, when wages are still included in the economic process and the worker is not the free partner of the spiritual leader, today the situation still exists that within the economic process the worker, on the one hand, must repeatedly fight for an increase in his wages; on the other hand, the fact that a hole is closed opens another: wages increase, food becomes more expensive, and so on. This only happens in an economic process that is polluted by capital and wage relationships. In an economic process in which corporations, cooperatives, determine the value of goods, and not according to supply and demand, which are subject to chance, but rather based on reason. In such an economic process alone can every human being find a dignified existence. The masses of proletarians basically long for such an economic process; that is their true demand in economic life.

In some areas, this demand is already being more clearly recognized. Take, for example, the question of works councils, which has now been so distorted by legislation. If the works councils are to become what the proletarian really demands, they must not be allowed to trail behind the state in every direction, just as intellectual life used to, but must be able to develop a truly beneficial social activity within economic life. For this, however, economic life must be placed on its own ground; for this, something other than these works councils must come into being; for this, transport councils and other councils must come into being; these must arise out of economic life, and they will create constitutions out of economic experience.

I know that many people today say: Education does not yet prevail in economic life to achieve what we want to achieve. Such are the words of people who always speak of ideals so that they do not have to implement what is possible in reality. That is the talk of people for whom ideals are something that should not be aspired to, so that they do not need to strive for what is most immediate. He who knows that the knowledge that comes from experience, from practice, is infinitely more valuable than anything that can be carried down from above, also knows that such a works council should not be set up only for individual companies, but must be inter-company. The works councils must connect the individual companies with the very different companies, mediate the connection, they must develop into a works council, a transport council and an economic council. If this grows out of the economic life, then one will come to the fact that these councils are not there for mere decoration, but that they become the human factor, the figures of economic life itself. But that is what is needed.

What I call the threefold social order did not arise out of some clever idea, out of a grey theory, but out of a real observation of the necessities of life in the present and the future. And it is truly a pity that today there are so few people who are able to turn their eyes to this vital necessity, to reality itself, out of the spiritual life that has developed up to now. People today slander what is most practical by saying: it is ideology, it is utopia. What is actually at the root of this? Some say: the socialization of the means of production is necessary. I agree. But I also say: it is necessary to know the way to get there. Today I have only sketched out what I mean. We need not only goals today, but also the paths and the courage to take them. Many people tell me that what I say is difficult to understand. Well, to understand what I am saying, more is needed than what people are usually willing to expend for understanding. It is necessary to look into real life, not to judge life from some subjective demands. It is necessary to also rise up, to summon the inner courage to think radically in certain things, as our time demands of every alert human being.

However, in the last four to five years, I have seen that people have understood things that I have not understood. They have even put things that they claimed to understand, when they came from certain places, into beautiful frames so that they could always look at them. Things that came from the great headquarters and the like, but understanding had to be commanded first. No one can be ordered to understand what should be understood out of an inner courage to live. Now the time has come when people should no longer allow themselves to be ordered to understand, but must be able to gain a real judgment from their life experiences, from their unprejudiced observation of life, about what is necessary before it is too late.

But today, strange things are happening. I do not like to talk about personal matters, but today it is these personal matters that dominate life. In April 1914, I was obliged to express my judgment on the social situation in a small gathering in Vienna (and intentionally in Vienna; as you know, the catastrophe of the world war originated in Austria). At that time, it was not only the social situation of the proletariat, but the social question of the whole of Europe. I pointed out that the social situation in Europe was tending towards a malignant growth, and indeed the world war then arose from it. — I was obliged to summarize my judgment about this in the words — in April 1914, note the date: anyone who looks into our social conditions, how they have gradually developed can only come to a great cultural concern, because he sees how a carcinoma is developing in social life, a kind of cancer disease that must break out in the most terrible way in the near future.

So at that time I had to point out what world capitalism was driving people into in the near future. Anyone who said this at the time was, of course, denounced as an impractical idealist, a utopian, an ideologue, because the practitioners spoke quite differently at the time. What did the practitioners say about the general world situation? They did not speak of a cancer disease. They spoke much as the German Foreign Minister did to the enlightened gentlemen of the German Reichstag in the spring of 1914 – they must have been enlightened, because they had been appointed, after all: We are heading for peaceful times, because the general relaxation is making gratifying progress. We have the best relationship with Russia; the St. Petersburg cabinet is not listening to the press pack. Promising negotiations have been initiated with England, which will probably be concluded in the near future in favor of world peace. The two governments are in such a state that relations will become ever closer and more intimate. – Thus spoke the practitioner, who was not scolded for being an idealist. And the general relaxation of tensions progressed to such an extent that what followed was something we have all experienced so painfully. It can be quite a shock to hear something like what was said recently at the League of Nations conference, where people talked about all sorts of things out of old habits of thinking. The only thing they did not talk about in a way that was somehow appropriate was the greatest movement of the present, the social movement, which is the only one capable of founding a real league of nations.

Then, sometimes, out of old habits of thinking, very clever people give very particular answers. Recently in Bern, a very clever gentleman answered me - I never want to underestimate people's cleverness -: I cannot imagine that something special comes out of a threefold structure, everything must be a unity. Law cannot arise only on the political plane, and so on. What is necessary is that the law develops on the basis of the law, then economic life also has the law, then spiritual life has the law. And if you say that the unity of the social organism is being cut, then I say: that is not the issue for me! The issue is not to cut the horse in two, but to put the horse on its four legs. The point is not to cut up the social organism, but to put it on its three healthy legs, on a healthy legal life, a healthy economic life and a healthy spiritual life. Then this unity, which is worshipped today as an idol as a unified state, but which must be abandoned if socialism is wanted.

For more than a century, people have repeatedly spoken of humanity's great social ideal, of the greatest social impulses: equality, freedom, fraternity. Of course, very clever people of the 19th century have repeatedly proved that these ideals cannot be realized because they were only seen under the hypnosis of the unitary state; hence the contradiction. But today is the time when these ideals must be realized, when these three impulses of social life must be grasped. And they can only be realized in the threefold social organism. In the spiritual life, which should stand on its own ground, individual abilities must be developed as they do on the ground of freedom. In the field of law, that which makes every human being equal to every other human being must prevail, and by means of this law every adult person can, through himself or through his representative, regulate his relationship with other people, including his working relationship. And in the field of economic life, that true brotherhood must prevail which can only flourish in cooperatives, whether they be consumer or producer cooperatives.

In the tripartite social organism, freedom, equality and fraternity will prevail because it has three parts: freedom in the realm of spiritual life, equality in the democratic realm of legal life, and fraternity in the realm of economic life.

Today I have only been able to hint to you from individual points of view what needs to be considered in today's very serious times; what is most necessary to consider if one seriously wants to help to get out of confusion and chaos, so as not to get deeper into confusion and chaos. What is necessary today is not to think only of small changes, but to have the courage to admit to ourselves that today great reckonings are due. Anyone who can truly look with an alert soul at what is only just beginning today must say to himself: We will not have long to deliberate. Therefore, we had better take a path that can be embarked upon every day. And what is given by the threefold social organism can be taken up every day. Only those who want to delve deeper into the practice that brought us the world catastrophe will want to call what is truly practical an impractical idealism.

If healing is to occur in social life, it will be necessary to thoroughly abandon the superstitious idolization of practice, which is nothing more than brutal human egoism. We must commit ourselves to an idealism that is not a one-sided idealism, but a true practice of life. Those who are sincere about our time will ask themselves today: how do I get on the path to a remedy for what we face as social damage? And it would be desirable for more and more people to come to this path before it is too late. And it could be too late very soon.

Closing words

After a discussion in which mainly party and trade union officials had spoken, Rudolf Steiner took the floor again:

I would have preferred it if the speakers had addressed the issues I had raised. Then we could have made the discussion fruitful. But that did not happen. So I will just point out a few things and draw attention to them.

Some speakers have said that nothing new has been presented in my considerations. Well, I know very well the development of the social movement. And anyone who claims that the essentials of what has been presented today from the experiences of the whole reorganization of the social situation through the world catastrophe is not something new should realize that they are saying something absolutely untrue. In reality, the situation is quite different: The speakers have not heard the new thing. They have limited themselves to hearing the few things that were taken for granted because they were correct when they were put forward as a critique of the usual social order. They have been accustomed for many years to hearing this and that as a slogan: that is what they heard. But what was said in between, about the threefold social order, about what can be achieved in every respect through this threefold social order, about that the speakers have heard absolutely nothing. And that is probably why they remained silent in their discussions about what they had not heard. I understand that. But I also understand that a fruitful discussion cannot actually come out of such a thing.

For example, we heard a speaker who, as if he had not experienced the last five to six years, talked at length about the old theories that have been discussed so many times before this catastrophe. He dutifully repeated all the theories about surplus value and so on, which are certainly correct but have been advanced countless times. He just forgot that we live in a completely, completely different time today. He forgot that, for example, only a few months before the German surrender, highly respected socialist leaders were still saying: When this world catastrophe is over, the German government will have to take a completely different position towards the proletariat than before. The German rulers will have to take the proletariat into account in all government actions and in all legislation in a completely different way than before. But the Socialists also said: the Socialist parties will have to be taken into account.

Well, things turned out differently. Those in power were plunged into the abyss, and the parties were there. Today they face a completely different world situation. In the face of this new world situation, however, one should not simply ignore new ideas and only listen to the parties that are naturally heard because they have always been considered as long as there has been a social movement. Instead, one should acquire the ability to respond to what is most urgently needed in the present day. Otherwise we face the great danger that basically has always existed in the old, customary world order: when something came along that looked at facts, that was taken from reality, it was declared to be ideology; it was declared to be philosophy, that it had nothing to do with reality, and that it paved the way for reaction. It would be the worst if the Socialist Party were to fall into a kind of reactionary paralysis, if it were unable to move forward with the facts speaking so loudly.

That is what matters today. Marx coined a nice phrase after he got to know the Marxists – it happens to many people who strive to bring something truly new into the world: As for me, I am not a Marxist. And Marx always showed – I am just reminding you of the events of 70/71 – how he learned from these events. He always showed that he was able to keep pace with the times. Today, when the time is ripe, he would certainly find the possibility of recognizing the real solution to the social question in the threefold social order. There is constant talk of new paths, and when a new path is shown, which admittedly takes real courage, it is said: No path is shown, only a goal is shown. One would like to ask: Has anyone already thought of this way, which makes it necessary for a kind of liquidation government to come into being? That is what is in fact very unusual for people, given their habits of thinking. The old governments, including the Socialist government, think of nothing but that they will be the beautiful, brave continuation of what the government used to be. What we need is for this government to keep only the initiative in the center, the supervision of the security service, hygiene and the like, and for it to become a liquidation government on the left and right: namely, by leaving intellectual life free, so that it passes into independent administration, and by putting economic life on its own feet.

This is not a theory, not a philosophy, this is a pointer to something that must be done. And for this to be done, it is first necessary to understand its necessity. This means gradually abandoning the old habit of only wanting to listen to what one likes and not wanting to listen to what is unknown.

When speakers appear who get tangled up in strange practical contradictions and don't even realize it, they show how actually impossible it is to find a practical way. One speaker managed to say today: Real political power still rests on economic foundations today. And then, after adding something – it is no longer so noticeable – he said: The first thing is that we gain political power in order to conquer economic power. So on the one hand, he declaimed: He who has economic power also has political power. And immediately afterwards, after a few sentences, they say: We must first have political power, then we will also get economic power. With such speakers, however, it will not be possible to take practical action. You can only take a practical path if you are able to think straight and not confuse the paths of thought.

You will not get anywhere by rigidly adhering to any objections, such as: The tendency towards laziness makes it necessary to force people into a unified school. All those who were in power in the past have put forward similar arguments. We have seen people in government who were truly no smarter than those they governed. But they still managed to put it this way: if we don't force people to do this or that, they won't do it voluntarily.

It is a strange phenomenon that such things are now also coming to light on socialist soil. What is really needed is the very thing that is at issue here: the opportunity to develop an understanding of what is necessary, not to stick to long-established theories and the like. That is what is always called for. When people say: the power must be seized!, they mean a gray 'theory'. Because once you have seized power, you also have to know what to do with that power. You can't get ahead any other way. Seize power – if you are in power and you don't know what to do, then all that power is for nothing. The point is that just before you come to power, you know clearly and distinctly what you are going to do with that power.

If, on the one hand, it has been said that the revolution of November 9 was a success, then it might just as well have been a failure. And if, on the other hand, it is said that foreign countries view the revolution as a fraud, this is precisely because power has been seized and those in power do not know what to do with it. But now it must finally be known what is to be done with power. But if everyone sticks to the old party opinions, then they may call for unity. There is one method of calling for unity, and that is to really see where the damage is. In this way, the threefolding impulse seeks to bring about unity. It is simply objectively defamatory to say that a new party or a new sect should be founded. It is nonsense. And if the resolution has been adopted by numerous assemblies, I am completely reassured that this resolution will never be complied with. If it were complied with, the result would be that the current rulers would very soon be shown the door. There is no need to fear that some kind of unity might be disturbed. But there is another way to destroy unity: to insist on one's principles and then to say: if you don't follow me, then we are not united. That is also a way of preaching unity when you actually mean: we can only be united if you follow me. Quite a few people actually think that today.

As I said, I am sorry that I cannot go into details, because actually not a single speaker in the discussion really touched on the issues that were raised in my lecture. It was even said at the end that I had philosophized. With such philosophizing, as this speaker did, one can indeed call everything a fruitless philosophy. But whether one can really arrive at something that can help with such philosophizing, as developed by the last speaker, is very much in question.

What is given in this threefold social organism was first given as an impulse during the terrible catastrophe of the war, when I believed that the right time had come. At that time, when we were still far from the monster of the Brest-Litovsk Peace, it seemed to me to be just the right thing to do, in contrast to what actually happened, to seek a balance in the East, starting from this impulse of threefolding. Nobody understood this. That is why what was subsequently triggered by the Brest-Litovsk Peace happened. Today it is really important that people are found who do not do it the way all those to whom this threefold social order was spoken about during the war, at that time of course with reference to foreign policy.

In the next few days, a brochure will be published about the guilt for the war. The world will learn what actually happened in Germany in the last days of July and the first days of August 1914. It will then be seen how the great misfortune befell us because we did not think for ourselves, because we let the authorities think for us, because we were satisfied to let the authorities do the thinking for us. That is what led to the fact that on July 26, instead of leading to a reasonable policy, politics had reached the zero point of its development. The world must learn about these things one day. It will learn about them in the next few days through the memoirs of the most important person who was active in those days, in July/August 1914. Then we will see what has been missed because only some people in authority thought in their own way, and that the others basically had their convictions dictated to them.

Now, we have heard the matter many times. The war profiteers were followed by the revolution profiteers. But there was also another consequence. The war talkers were followed by the revolution talkers. And the ratio of revolution talkers to war talkers is roughly the same as that of revolution profiteers to war profiteers.

We have to get beyond the chatter. And we have to get beyond the fact that we cannot be guided politically by any authority, whether they are socialist or other personalities. We have to become discerning people. We cannot become discerning people if we sweep aside everything that can really be based on the demands of the day.

I do not go into such things that have been brought up and that are nothing more than absolute distortions of what has permeated my considerations. The fact that I want to bridge the contradictions with goodwill is an objective slander. I certainly did not speak of bridging the contradictions with goodwill. I spoke of the institutions that are to be brought about. What does the independence of intellectual life, economic life, and legal life have to do with goodwill? It has to do with the objective description of what is to come.

I agree with anyone who says that first of all people want power, but I am also quite clear about the fact that whoever has the power must know how to use it. And if we just want to rush forward and leave the unenlightened masses behind, then we will not only end up in the same conditions, but in much worse conditions than those that already existed.

You can find something else philosophically and feel tremendously practical when you say: The French are exhausted, they can't give us bread, England is also emaciated by the war and can't give us bread, America is too expensive for us. But we can get bread from Russia! —- Well, for the time being the English have much more bread than the Russians themselves, despite all the false reports. The claim that we can expect bread from Russia is one that is not based on fact.

What is important is that we now truly understand the situation as it is. That we say to ourselves: we were unable to socialize with the old intellectual life, we need a new intellectual life. But that can only be the intellectual life detached from the constitutional state. We need a foundation on which labor is withdrawn from the struggles. That can only be the independent state under the rule of law. And we need a balancing of the value of goods, and that can only happen on the basis of an independent economic life. These are things that one can really want. These are things that are not just revolutionary phrases. These are things that, if one has the courage to bring them about, truly want to bring about a very different state of the world than it is now.

I believe that if you think about it long enough, you will come to understand what is contained in the threefold social order. And it can be introduced in a relatively short time. Now, when this healthy threefold organism is in place, our circumstances will be very much revolutionized. When the world moves towards the introduction of the threefold social organism, then we shall have no need to 'thunder' about world revolution, for it will then take place in an objective way. Thunder is not what it is about. What it is about is finding germinal thoughts that can develop into real social fruits.

Today, however, we do not need a lot of talk, but we do need to agree on what needs to be done. We are not dealing with ideologies, utopias or philosophies in the threefold social organism, but with something that can be done, that is a plan for real action, not a description of a future state, but a plan for work. We need a plan for every house, we need it for social reorganization. Those who are always cutting back, be they socialists or other people, will not lead to this, but only those who are inclined to really move forward. I fear that those who have heard “nothing new, only old” today will not lead us out of chaos, but into it.

We want to take a serious approach today to the acceptance of that which is so unusual, so new, that it is not even heard when it is said, but rather find its own phrases. Today, new habits of thought are necessary, a change in thinking is necessary. Humanity must appeal to new habits of thought, to new ways of thinking, before it is too late. And I say it again: if humanity does not have this inner courage, it could very easily soon be too late.

after the lecture by Friedrich Husemann on “Nervousness, Worldview and Anthroposophy”

Preliminary note: Nothing is known about Friedrich Husemann's lecture because no notes were taken. However, it may be assumed that some of his remarks were also addressed in his lectures on “Questions of Contemporary Psychiatry from the Point of View of Anthroposophy”, which he gave at the first Anthroposophical College in September 1920. A summary of these lectures was published in the collection “Aenigmatisches aus Kunst und Wissenschaft”, volume I, Stuttgart 1922.

After Dr. Husemann's lecture, a question was asked about the possibilities of studying psychiatry in the future.

Rudolf Steiner: It is of course impossible to speak about this subject today, which would require an exhaustive treatment if one wanted to go into it at all, in any other way than with a few hints at most, because the study of psychiatry, especially in our time, certainly requires the most far-reaching reforms. If we consider how it is actually impossible today to formulate the questions that must be asked in psychiatry, we will realize how necessary

70 such a reform of the study of psychiatry is. However, such a reform will not be able to take place – this seemed clear to me from Dr. Husemann's lecture itself – if the individual specialist subjects are not first truly fertilized by spiritual science. For the development that Dr. Husemann has so beautifully described today, which began around the time of Galileo and culminated in the 19th century, has actually driven the whole of human thought life apart into two sharply opposing currents of thought. On the one hand, there are the ideas we have about material things and their processes; on the other hand, there is the life of thought itself, which has increasingly taken on a purely abstract character, so that – since abstractions cannot be forces in the world , and thus cannot be a force in man either that can bring about something - so there is no possibility for man either to understand the material, the physical, from the soul, to build some kind of bridge from the psychic to the material.

Today, at most, man has an idea of a sum of abstractions or even of abstract feelings and the like when he speaks of the soul. This sum of abstractions cannot, of course, set an organism in motion, cannot somehow build a bridge to the organism. Therefore, on the one hand, one cannot speak of being able to influence the external physical, real organism by acting on the soul life, which is, after all, only a sum of abstractions. On the other hand, there is what has been gained through science about the physical organism, because it has been invented that soul phenomena are only parallel phenomena or even effects of the physical organism. What is formed in the way of concrete ideas about this physical organism is not conducive to squeezing anything out of these ideas about the psychic. And so today, regardless of whether one is more or less of a materialist, there coexist an outlook on the soul life that only looks at abstractions, and an outlook on the material life, including the organic life, from which nothing spiritual can be extracted.

It is therefore quite understandable that it is not easy to find a method that can be used for psychiatry. That is why, in recent times, people have stopped talking about the connection between the physical and organic in humans and the psychological, which takes place as a process in consciousness. And since one is in reality constantly in danger of falling on one's face between these two stools, between the physical-material and the abstract-psychological, it is necessary to invent a quite unconscious world, a strange and unconscious world. And that has now been amply done in psychoanalysis, in analytical psychology, a scientific object that is actually extremely interesting. For once there has been a reform of psychiatry, so that we will again have a proper psychiatry, then this scientific object will have to be properly examined from this new psychiatric point of view, because it is actually [itself] an object for psychiatry.

So they tried to imagine an unconscious world so that they would not be completely cut off from the ground between these two chairs. Of course I am not saying anything against the unconscious world, but it must be investigated, it must be really recognized through that which spiritual science introduces as vision; it cannot be fantasized in the way that the Freudians or similar people fantasize it.

Spiritual science will bring about a reform of psychiatry in that it will lead from mere abstract concepts, which have no inner life, to concepts that are in line with reality, to concepts that already live in the world as concepts, that have been gained by immersing oneself in reality with their methods. Then, when one ascends to such spiritual methods, which in turn provide realistic concepts, one will find the transition from such concepts, which are mere abstractions, to that which is now not mere abstraction but reality. That means that it will be possible to build a bridge between the psychic and the physical in man. The psychic and the physical must appear differently in our minds if we seriously desire to have a psychiatry.

The sum of abstractions today, including those that comprise the abstract laws of nature – these laws are becoming more and more filtered – is not capable of being immersed in a real process. Just imagine how, with the abstractions that figure in science today, one could find something like the two important facts — for they are facts — that I mentioned in the first lecture of this series: the spiritual-scientific heart teaching and the spiritual-scientific teaching of the reverse biogenetic law for the historical course of earthly events. From such examples you can see that spiritual scientific methods are capable of finding the way out of the inner life of the soul and into the world of facts, of building a bridge between the so-called spiritual and the so-called physical.

Above all, this is necessary for psychiatry, because only when we are able to properly observe the corresponding facts will we make headway. And the facts of psychiatry are fundamentally even more difficult to observe – because they require greater impartiality – than the facts of the laws of physics. Because in human life, as soon as one moves from the so-called healthy, from the relatively healthy to the relatively sick, there is actually almost no possibility of observing the person in complete isolation. The human being certainly develops into a complete individuality, into an isolated life; he does this precisely through his psyche. But what deviates in the psyche from a linear development, from a linear, so-called normal development, cannot be observed in isolation. I can only hint at this, of course; otherwise one would have to make lengthy explanations if one wanted to prove it in detail. Man is much more of a social being, even in the deeper sense, than is usually thought, and in particular, mental illnesses can actually only rarely be assessed on the basis of the biography of the individual, the isolated individual. That is almost completely impossible.

I would rather use a hypothetical example than theories to suggest what I actually mean. You see, it is possible, for example, that in any community, be it a family or any other community, two people live side by side. After some time, one of them has the misfortune to have an attack, which means that they are transferred to a psychiatric institution. Of course, this person can be treated in isolation. But if you do that, especially if you form an opinion based on an isolated examination of this person, then in many cases you will actually only fall prey to a thought pattern. For the case may be, and in many cases is, that another person, who lives with the person who has become ill, or who has become mentally ill, in a family or in some other community, actually has within himself, let us say, a complex of forces that has led to the mental illness of his fellow human being. So we start with these two people: one person, A, has the attack, from a psychiatric point of view; person B has a complex of forces within him, of a psychically organic nature, which, if you were to look at it in this way, perhaps shows to a much greater extent what is called the cause of the illness in individual A. That is to say, B, who is not mentally ill at all, actually has this cause of mental illness within him to a much greater extent than A, who had to be taken to a sanatorium.

This is something that lies entirely within the realm of reality, not merely of possibility. For it rests on the fact that man A, apart from the complex of forces which is designated as the cause of his mental illness, has a weak constitution and therefore cannot bear this complex of forces. The other, B, who also has the complex of forces within him, perhaps even more strongly, has - apart from this complex of forces - a considerably stronger constitution than the other; it does not harm him. B can bear it, A cannot. But A would not have contracted the disease at all if he had not been continually psychically influenced by B, the person living next to him – an influence that can be extraordinarily significant in this case because B is more robust than A.

There you have an example that is quite common in reality, from which you can see how important the psychiatric approach is if it seriously wants to be based on reality, if it does not play games as it often is in this field today. The point is really not to look at the person in isolation, but to look at them in their entire social environment. Of course, what I mean here will have to be put on a fairly broad basis. After all, it is also the case for the rest of the disease that it makes a big difference whether a weak individual is affected by some complex or a strong, robust individual. Let us assume that two people live next to each other from a certain age onwards and have dealings with each other. One of them still has a robust, rural nature from his youth and background, while the other has been descended from city dwellers for three generations. The person who has a healthy, rural nature and can tolerate some internal damage may carry a much stronger complex, but he can tolerate it and does not become ill. The other, who actually only has it through a psychic infection, through an imitation, through whatever is present from person to person, he does not tolerate the effect.

Here you can see what comes into consideration when you want to talk about psychiatry not from theories and programs, but from reality; you see how, in fact, today one is already turning to the serious that arises from the insight that, basically, especially since the time of Galileo, our scientists have become so one-sided, and you see how necessary it is to take in new ideas in a fruitful way in all fields. Otherwise, human knowledge, especially in those fields that are supposed to lead into practice, into the practice of life, must come to complete decadence. I could say: basically, the same applies to psychiatry as we say about the art of education when we talk about Waldorf schools, namely that one should not just come up with some new formulations of a theoretical nature, but that one should bring the living spiritual science itself into this field. What we have to say about education also applies to psychiatry. We can never approach the matter one-sidedly by saying that this or that can be improved in the field of psychiatry, but we must familiarize ourselves with the idea that Either one accepts the spiritual-scientific basis in the field of knowledge in general, then this spiritual-scientific basis will already transform psychiatry, then it will make something out of psychiatry in particular, which is actually longed for by numerous people today, but which cannot be there at all through the latest natural scientific methods, which have of course been sufficiently explained to you yesterday and today, or... [gap in the transcript].

You see, what must come out of the popularization of spiritual science, to use a trivial word, is that, above all, people will have a much, much better knowledge of human nature than they have today. People today are so out of touch with each other that there can be no question of any knowledge of human nature. People pass each other by, each living only in himself. Spiritual science will open people up to each other. And then, above all, much of what is perhaps still believed today to lie in the field of psychic pathology will be carried over into the field of psychic hygiene. For it is absolutely the case that, I would say, straight lines can be drawn from the symptom complexes of disturbed psychic life to the ideas that are currently widespread in public life and which are not at all considered pathological, but which are generally accepted. And if one were to follow up some of the very generally accepted concepts, one would find that, although more slowly, the same path is taken after all that can be seen in the pursuit of a psychologically abnormal symptom complex, which, however, happens quickly in the case of someone who is found to be mentally abnormal today.

All these things show that ultimately all the talk about details in the reforms of the individual sciences does not lead to much, but that if one decides – although today souls, many souls, are too sleepy – to look for a fertilization of scientific life in the sense of spiritual science, then the most diverse fields of science, but especially that field of science that deals with the various deviations from normal psychic life, psychiatric medicine, will undergo a necessary, I would say self-evident, reform as a result. Even if these cases go as far as the most extreme rebellion, such as raving madness, or feeble-mindedness, and so on – only then will it be found what these psychic aberrations actually mean for normal life in the whole of normal development. And in many respects we shall find that the more and more healthy our world view becomes, the more that will be healed which shines out from public error into the pathological aberrations of the mentally ill.

For it is indeed quite remarkable how difficult it is to draw a correct line between so-called normal life and mentally abnormal life. For example, it is difficult to say whether a person is mentally normal in the case of, say, an event that occurred not too long ago in Basel, not far from here, in which a man left a large sum of money in his will for someone to lock themselves away in complete solitude until such time as they had succeeded in truly proving the immortality of the soul. That is what a man in Basel did in his will, and I don't know what happened to it after that. I believe the heirs objected and tried to decide, not psychiatrically but legally, to what extent it was related to psychiatry or not. But if you now really set out, each and every one of you, to examine whether it should be assessed psychiatrically or whether it is a mental illness or whether it is really an oversized religiosity or whatever, you will hardly be able to manage with complete accuracy.

The point is that our concepts have gradually become weak in the face of reality; they must become strong again. But they will only become strong through spiritual science. And among many other things, psychiatry in particular will feel the effects of this.

Roman Boos: How can the principle of establishing legal norms through codification develop in the future? How can the legal effect be exercised from the parliamentary centers without the codification principle being paralyzed or dying, as is the case today?

Rudolf Steiner: The vitalization of the legal life, of which Dr. Boos spoke, will, it seems to me, be brought about in a very natural way in the threefold social organism. How should we think of this formation of the threefold social organism in concrete terms? Truly in a similar way - it is not intended to express a mere analogy - truly in a similar way as one has to think of the organic threefoldness in the natural human organism.

The view, which Dr. Boos also criticized today, that the heart is a kind of pump that drives blood to all possible parts of the organism, this view must be overcome for physiology. It must be recognized that the activity of the heart is the result of the balanced interaction of the other two activities of the human organism: metabolic activity and nerve-sense activity. If a physiologist who is grounded in reality now wants to describe this human organism and its functioning, then in general it is only necessary to describe the metabolic activity on the one hand and the nerve-sense activity on the other in a truly objective way, for it is through their polar interaction and interpenetration that the balancing rhythmic activity arises; this is already formally present. This is something that must be taken into account if we want to imagine life in the threefolded social organism. This life in the threefolded social organism can only be truly imagined if one still has a sense of the practice of life.

When I had published a few things and spoken about threefolding in a variety of ways, I was met with the objection that it is indeed difficult to imagine how the law can acquire content when it is to be separated in life from the spiritual part of the social organism on the one hand and the economic part on the other. Especially people like Stammler, for example, who has been mentioned often today, they understand the law in such a way that they only recognize a kind of formalism on the one hand. On the other hand, they believe that this [formal system] acquires its material content from the economic needs of the social organism. On the basis of such views, I was told that law cannot be separated from economic life for the simple reason that the forces of economic life must produce the legal statutes by themselves. When one includes something in one's concepts, one constantly thinks of something inanimate, of something that just amounts to making statements, for example, from economic forces, which are then codified and can be used as a guide. One mainly thinks of the fact that such codified statements exist and that one can look them up.

In the natural, living threefold organism, we are dealing, I might say, with two polar opposites: on the one hand, with spiritual life and, on the other, with economic life. Spiritual life, which arises when people are born and develop into existence through their own actions, represents a reality through its own content. The fruitful side of intellectual life will develop if no restrictions are imposed by any standards that limit what one can do. The fruitful side will develop quite naturally simply because it is in the interest of people that those who can do more and have greater abilities can also achieve more. It will be a matter of course that, let us say, a person is taken on as a teacher for a number of children, and those who are looking for a teacher can be sure that he can achieve the desired results in his sphere. If intellectual life is truly free, the whole structure of intellectual life arises out of the nature of the matter itself; the people who are part of it work in this intellectual life. On the other hand, we have the economic part of the threefold social organism. Here the structure of economic life arises out of the needs of consumption and the possibilities of production, out of the various interrelations, out of the relationships that arise. Of course, I can only briefly hint at this in this answer to the question. But the various relationships that can play between people and people or between groups of people and individuals or between different groups of people also play a role. All of this will move economic life. And in these two areas, what is called “law” is actually out of the question, insofar as these two areas take care of their own affairs. If we think in real terms – of course people today do not think in real terms but in theoretical terms, proceeding from what already exists, and so they confuse the legal ideas that the spiritual realm already has with the legal ideas of the economic realm – if we think in real, practical terms, then in the free spiritual life we do not consider legal impulses at all, but we consider impulses of trust, impulses of ability. It is simply absurd to speak in the free spiritual life of the fact that someone who is able has a right to work. There can be no question of speaking of such a right, but one must speak of the fact that one needs him, that he should work. The one who can teach children will naturally be taught, and there will be no question of whether or not there is an entitlement; it is not somehow a question of right as such. It is the same in economic life. Written or oral contracts will play a part, and confidence in the observance of contracts will have to play a part. If economic life is left to its own devices, the fact that contracts are being observed will be seen in the simple fact that economic life cannot function if contracts are not observed.

I am well aware that when such practical matters are discussed today, they are considered by some to be highly impractical because they bring in highly impractical matters from all sides and then believe that what they have brought in and what is supposed to have an effect is practical, whereas what has been described here is impractical. But now we must bear in mind that in these two spheres, in these organs, in the economic sphere and in the spiritual sphere of the threefolded social organism, these things live side by side. If we now honestly consider how this coexistence can be organized democratically, with people living side by side in the two areas - in the economic structure and in the spiritual structure - then the necessity arises for the relationships to be defined from person to person. Here the living necessity simply arises that the one who, let us say, stands at some post of spiritual life, has to establish his relationship to many other personalities and so on. These living relationships must arise between all mature people, and the relationships between mature people and non-mature people arise precisely from the relationship of trust in the field of spiritual life. But all the relationships that arise from the living forces on the one hand of economic life and on the other of spiritual life, all these relationships require that, to a certain extent, people who have come of age begin to define their relationships in their spheres of life among themselves. And this gives rise to a living interaction, which will, however, have the peculiarity that these determinations - because life is alive and cannot be constrained by norms - must be flexible.

An absolutely codified law would appear to be something that contradicts development. If you had a rigidly codified law, it would be basically the same as having a seven-year-old child whose organic life forces you would now determine and, when the child has reached the age of forty, would demand that it still live by them. The same applies to the social organism, which is indeed a living organism and will not be the same in 1940 as it was in 1920. For example, in the case of land, it is not a matter of laying down such codified law, but rather it is a living interrelationship between the soil and the personalities who stand in the other two characterized areas - the spiritual and the economic - and work in such a way that everything can be kept in flux, in order to be able to also change and metamorphose the true democratic soil on which all people live their present relationships. This is what needs to be said with regard to the establishment of public legal relationships. Criminal relationships arise only as a secondary matter when individual personalities act in an anti-social way against what has been established as the right relationship between people who have come of age. However, when considering criminal law in the context of the threefold social organism, it becomes clear that it is necessary to take a closer look at the justification of punishment in a more practical and realistic way. I must say that the much-vaunted legal science has not even managed to develop a clear legal concept in this area. There is a now rather old work, “Das Recht in der Strafe” (The Right to Punish) by Ludwig Laistner. In it, the introduction presents a history of all theories about the right to punish: deterrence impulses, educational impulses, and all the rest. Laistner shows, above all, that these theories are actually quite fragile, and then he comes to his own theory, which consists in the fact that one can only derive a right to punish from the fact that the criminal has entered the sphere of the other person through his own free will. Let us assume, then, that one person has created some circle of life for himself, and that is also hypothetical; the other person enters this circle of life by entering his house or his thoughts, for example, and robbing him. Now Ludwig Laistner says: “He has entered my sphere of life, and that is why I have power over him; just as I have power over my money or my own thoughts, so I now also have power over the criminal because he has entered my sphere. This power over him is conceded to me by the criminal himself by entering my sphere. I can now realize this power by punishing him. The punishment is only the equivalent for him entering my circle. That is the only thing that can be found in legal thinking about the justification of punishing a criminal. Whether this happens directly or in a figurative sense, by having it carried out by the state, are secondary questions. But why are these things actually unclear? Why is there something that constantly prevents us from having really clear-cut concepts? Because these concepts are taken out of social conditions that are already full of ambiguities. It presupposes that there is an organism present and that through the organism there is living movement and thus circulation – just as the heart presupposes that other organs are present in order for it to function. The legal institution is, in a sense, the heart of the social organism and presupposes that other things will unfold; it presupposes that other forces are already present. And if there is any lack of clarity in these other circumstances, then it is also quite natural that there can be no clearly defined legal system. But a clearly defined legal system will come about precisely because the other forces that are inherent to the other members of the social organism are allowed to develop in this three-part social organism. Only in this way can the foundations be laid for the development of a true legal system.

Above all, we have not even clearly raised the question today: What is the actual content of the legal system? Yes, you see, in a certain sense, a legal science must be very similar to mathematics, to a living mathematics. But what would we do with all our mathematics if we could not realize it in life? We must be able to apply it. If mathematics were not a living thing and we could not apply it in reality, then all our mathematics would be no science at all. Mathematics as such is, first of all, a formal science. In a certain sense, a properly elaborated jurisprudence would also be a formal science first of all. But this formal science must be such that the object of its application is encountered in reality. And this object of its application in reality is the relationships of people who have come of age and live side by side, who not only seek a balance between their spheres of life here, but are also still within the spiritual and economic links of the social organism.

Thus, only this threefold structure of the social organism will really make it possible for public thought to be formed, and a right that is not publicly thought is not a naturally established right. This would make it possible for such legal concepts to be formed publicly, which would then be flexible, as has rightly been demanded today. Therefore, I believe that it was a good thing that Dr. Boos called for the reform of legal life precisely from the realization of the threefold social organism.

Distinguished Participants! The spiritual-scientific considerations from which we have to start today can be brought to the fore because they can shed light on what follows. At first it will seem as if today's topic has little to do with the intention of establishing a relationship between spiritual-scientific knowledge and practical life. However, if we do not move on to those things that can lead us to the center of scientific considerations, things would remain unresolved. And this central point of scientific observation stands before us today in such a way that it is actually excluded from conventional science. For one must admit: when man looks at nature, he tries to recognize nature from his own point of view, and in so doing he is involved in all these points of view; the process of knowledge flows under his direct participation, he cannot, as it were, exclude himself. And only when we have become familiar with his involvement will we be able to look at what, in today's approach, we would like to separate from the human being, namely those phenomena from which, as they say, we want to build an 'objective picture of the world'. Today, in order to arrive at a physical world view, one wants to disregard the human being altogether; one wants to achieve the ideal that the human being does not bring anything of himself into the physical world view. But in order to fulfill such an ideal, the question must first be decided to what extent the human being is able to observe phenomena completely separately from himself. And on the other hand, the fact that, precisely when man is observed in the spirit of today's scientific view, one cannot avoid applying to man what has now been gained from this view of nature and what is supposed to be quite independent of man. Today, it has almost become the norm to introduce psychological observations, observations about the human soul life, by sending purely scientifically researched results ahead. Indeed, what can be said about the physiological results of psychology is even considered to be the most important. But in doing so, what was intended to be studied independently of the human being in its own right is itself brought back into the studies on humans. And it is no wonder that psychological studies also reach limits that are highly unsatisfactory. This has become customary in scientific observation. But it can also be said that, as a result of these habits of thought, the human being has basically been completely excluded from the observation of the world. We can say, for example, that the ideal of the astronomical approach is to stick as closely as possible to what can be expressed through measuring, counting and the like. The physical ideal has also been transferred to astronomy, and attempts are being made to arrive at ideas about the relationships between the world bodies, in which the Earth is also included, and in doing so, man is completely excluded. This is quite obvious to anyone who today considers the scientific approach in this field. He is not considered at all in any connection with that which is otherwise examined as a law.

In physics, it is quite common and perhaps even taken for granted – we will see in later lectures to what extent – that the human being is excluded. One then comes to the more organic sciences via chemistry, which should then culminate in biology and in special anthropology. But it is precisely here that the 19th-century approach has increasingly endeavored to investigate, using all sorts of methods that are very commendable in this field, how one animal form develops from another evolves from another animal form, how the simplest animal forms perfect themselves – if the term is used in a relative sense, it may well be used – how then, at the top of the animal forms, man can be observed.

But the aim of all this, which has emerged as the history of development, as the theory of descent, is to understand man by first learning to understand the laws of animal life very well, then applying those laws found in animal life to the life of man, and thinking of these laws in a modified way in order to understand man. In a particular field, this has led to a situation in which the findings from animal experiments are considered to be absolutely decisive for human beings as well. No matter how clear it may be that all kinds of theoretical objections have to be raised, what is gained in terms of biological truths from animal experiments is considered to be absolutely binding for human beings as well. In the fundamentals of therapy, what is gained from animal experiments is regarded as decisive, in a certain sense, for what is then to be recognized in man. Especially in this field, it is quite clear how, by believing that one is getting close to the animal organization, one supposes that one can also get close to the human organization, only by a certain modification of the results.

Exactly the same thing, only appropriately modified for a different field, has occurred in the field of political economy. Since the time of Adam Smith, we have theories that do not actually consider the human being as such as a social object. The fact that the human being in his totality stands within the social order is completely ignored, and it is actually not the human being who is considered, but the human being in so far as he is a “possessor”, as a “private owner” and so on. Man is not considered as a free being, in so far as freedom flows from the center of his nature, but only that which is called “economic freedom” is considered. So here, too, we see that man as such is excluded from the point of view. And one can see nothing else in this exclusion of man than a fundamental feature of all modern science.

The question now is whether, if one tends towards such an exclusion of the human being, one can thereby arrive at a somehow significant, somehow satisfying or reality-capturing characteristic of the extra-human world view that presents itself in inorganic natural science, for example. In order to throw light on this in the right way, it is necessary that we do not come to the subject of inorganic natural science directly but indirectly, and that today we familiarize ourselves with the path that can lead to such an unprejudiced discussion.

I will start from an area that is particularly characteristic because it shows anyone grounded in spiritual science the great discrepancy between a realistic view and a view that is constructed from all kinds of theoretical assumptions and yet believes it is a true reflection of reality. As I said, this area is especially characteristic because, on the one hand, it shows this discrepancy and, on the other hand, it shows how far removed today's ordinary view of science is from what spiritual science, as it is meant here, wants to be and how spiritual science wants to fertilize the individual specialized sciences. I am referring to the field of optics, in particular the field of color theory. Today, of course, anyone who points out the question of whether Goethe's theory of colors is justified or the theory of colors that is recognized by physics today is immediately dismissed as a scientific dilettante. Now, the essential thing about this matter is that Goethe never wanted to do any scientific research without placing the human being in the whole structure of the world. He does not want to do a scientific investigation separate from the human being; he therefore also brings all experimentation with colors to the human being itself.

Our present world view, as it is expressed in the sciences - and it is, as we shall see, entirely a world view that expresses itself in the sciences, although this is often denied - the world view that is expressed in the sciences today has strayed far from the paths that Goethe laid out, even though he is considered a dilettante in this field by so-called experts. In my introductions to Goethe's scientific writings in Kürschner's National Literature, I have tried to express the very thing that matters in a scientific appreciation of Goethe: this particular current of scientific work as it was undertaken by Goethe. This particular current has actually dried up at the present time. On the other hand, the scientific approach of the present day – which is particularly strong in the field of inorganic natural science and in all those fields where the inorganic can be transferred into the organic – looks down on the Goethean approach. On the other hand, it is based entirely on what natural science has become through such views as Newton's. Even if Newton's views themselves are outdated in many respects, it must be said that the way of research is entirely dependent on Newton's views. And so, Goethe's theory of colors has not been continued in our accepted science, only in Newton's.

Today, I would like to provide a kind of aphoristic introduction to this topic from various points of view, which may help us to move forward.

In Goethe's view, the theory of colors is all about considering colors in connection with what is happening in the human organism itself. You only need to open Goethe's Theory of Colors to see that Goethe starts out from the physiological colors, from the behavior of the eye, which he, however, basically considers differently, one might say, than it is considered today. Today, we actually look at the eye in such a way that we think of it as being separate from the whole human organism, that we sort of isolate it from this organism, that we look at it as an optical apparatus and then try to get to know how – when this eye is taken out of the organism, when it is looked at as an optical apparatus – how the impressions on the eye, the stimuli on the eye and so on are presented. Just try to visualize how this approach actually works. If you want to clarify something in relation to the eye, if you want to answer the question: How does the eye relate to any visible object? , with this mode of observation one can hardly do otherwise than to draw the eye itself in some average on the board, to lead lines from the object to the eye and so on; then one can still ask: How do the different parts of the eye relate to that which exerts a stimulus there?

It is perhaps difficult for someone who is completely schooled in today's scientific observation to grasp what the difference is between this way of looking at things, which I have just characterized in a somewhat radical way, and the Goethean way of looking at things, and how this way of looking at things relates to the physiological-subjective way in which Goethe does his experiments. He conducts his experiments in such a way that he allows the eye to be part of the living process of the organism; he allows the eye to be, so to speak, a degree of conscious organ in the human organism during his experimentation. Thus, the eye experienced in man, the eye felt to be alive in connection with man, Goethe regarded as the starting point for his physiological-subjective color investigations.

The eye that Goethe exposed to the phenomena during his experiments cannot be drawn on a blackboard. And what Goethe then describes as phenomena in the realm of light and color cannot be drawn on a blackboard either. Goethe is therefore averse to those abstractions which today's physicist draws on the board immediately when he means anything at all in the field of colors or optics. Goethe is reluctant to draw this whole abstract system of lines. He describes what, so to speak, lives in the consciousness of any optical process.

It is only when Goethe passes over from subjective colors to objective colors, when he investigates the external physical color formations, that he actually begins to draw in the sense that today's physicist loves. The whole process of seeing in today's physicist is - at least in thought - separated from human nature, translated into the inorganic, represented in mathematical lines. In Goethe's work, life is not eradicated from the process of seeing; rather, what arises in the modified process of seeing is merely described; at most, it is given form by fixing the phenomena, I would say, with an inner, meaningful symbolism.

It is important to point this out, because it is in this approach, in this overall attitude to appearances, that distinguishes Goethean observation of nature from the way we observe nature today. This Goethean observation of nature is perhaps much less convenient than the present-day approach. For it is generally easier to draw things on the board with mathematical lines than to grasp with the mind's eye what makes strong demands on our imagination and what cannot really be drawn with sharply defined lines.

But at the same time, my dear audience, something else becomes apparent. Goethe starts from the physiological colors; I have already explained this to you when I characterized his way of coming to insights through different methods of investigation than today's methods of investigation. But then his whole approach culminates in the chapter he called 'The Sensual and Moral Effects of Color'. There Goethe goes, as it were, directly from the physical into the soul, and he then characterizes the whole spectrum of colors with extraordinary accuracy. He characterizes the impression that is experienced; it is, after all, something that is experienced quite objectively. Even if it is experienced subjectively, it is something that is experienced objectively in the subject, the impression that, let us say, the colors towards the warm side of the spectrum, red, yellow, make. He describes them in their activity, how they have an exciting or stimulating effect on people. And he describes how the colors on the cold side have a relaxing effect, encouraging devotion; and he describes how the green in the middle has a balancing effect.

He thus describes, so to speak, a spectrum of feelings. And it is interesting to visualize how a psychologically differentiated view immediately emerges from the orderly physical perspective. Anyone who understands such a course of investigation comes to the following conclusions. He says to himself: The individual colors of the spectrum are standing before us, they are experienced as entities that appear quite distinct from man. In our ordinary perception of life, we naturally and justifiably attach the greatest importance to directly observing this objective element, let us say in red, in yellow. But there is an undertone everywhere. If you look at the direct experience, it can only be separated in the abstract from what is, so to speak, an externally isolated experience of the red shade and the blue shade in the objective sense; it is an abstract separation of what is also directly experienced in the act of seeing act, but which is only hinted at, which is, so to speak, experienced in a quiet undertone, but which can never be absent, so that, in this area, one can only observe purely physically if one first abstracts what is experienced in the soul from the physical.

So, first we have the outer spectrum, and on this outer spectrum we have the undertone of the soul experiences. We are thus confronted with the outer world through our senses, through our eyes, and we cannot adjust the eye differently, except that, even if often unconsciously or subconsciously, soul experience is involved. We call what is experienced through the eye a sensation. We are now accustomed, ladies and gentlemen, to calling the sensation experienced something that is experienced by the soul – that is, an impulse that comes from what is objectively spread out and presents itself as a sensation – something subjective. But you can see from the way I have just presented this in reference to Goethe that we can, so to speak, set up a counter-spectrum, a soul counter-spectrum, that can be precisely paralleled with the outer optical spectrum.

We can set up a spectrum of differentiated feelings: exciting, stimulating, balancing, giving and so on. When we look outwards, we see the yellow; we feel the stimulating undertone of it, the active influence from the outside world. What about the experience of the soul? This experience of the soul comes from within us to meet the outer world. But let us assume that we are able to record exactly what we have experienced in relation to the red, the yellow, the green, the blue, the violet. Let us assume that we could record the feelings in such a differentiated way that we have a spectrum of feelings within us, just as we have the ordinary optical spectrum from the outside. If we now imagine that from the outside, the red, yellow, green, blue, violet, i.e. the objective, ignites the undertones of excitement, stimulation, balance, devotion , we could thus see it as something that accompanies external phenomena, so that this external phenomenon is there without us, but the accompanying spectrum of feelings is there through us. Would it be so absurd to assume that the same could happen from within, which otherwise underlies this spectrum of feelings without our intervention from the outside? Would it be so absurd that the spectrum of feelings would now be present within and that the spectrum of colors would jump out of it in the experience of the human being, which is now captured in inner images? Just as the color spectrum is there and the inner emotional experiences are added through our presence, it could also be that the emotional experiences, which can be represented in the differentiated spectrum, would be seen as the objective, the objective that is inwardly situated, and now what can be compared with the objective color spectrum jumps out as an undertone.

Now, spiritual science does not claim anything other than that a method is possible in which what I have presented to you now as a postulate is really experienced [inwardly] in the same way as it is in the outer experience where the objective spectrum is present and, as it were, extends as a veil over the objective spectrum, the subjective spectrum of feeling. In the same way, the spectrum of feeling can now be experienced inwardly, to which the color experience now connects. This can be truly experienced and it underlies what I characterized in more abstract terms yesterday as the imagination. What is an external phenomenon spread out in space can certainly be brought forth from the human being as an inner phenomenon. And just as the external phenomenon becomes more and more diluted in our knowledge, so the inner experience becomes more and more concentrated as it is absorbed by the unconsciously developed consciousness within us, as I indicated yesterday.

You just have to be clear about it, my dear attendees, that what occurs in the spiritual science meant here is by no means nebulous fantasies, as it is mostly the result of some kind of “mystical worldviews” known as reveries. What is meant here as anthroposophical spiritual science is based on experiences that one does not have otherwise, that must first be developed, but that can be grasped and followed in absolutely clear concepts.

Thus we may say that Goethe has described the objective outer world just as a human being would who is half-consciously aware of the fact that there is an inner counterpart to what he is describing outwardly, and that there is an inner vision corresponding to the outer vision. Once we have familiarized ourselves with this train of thought, and if we have made an effort to experience something along the lines I have just suggested, namely to allow our differentiated emotional life to brighten to imaginations, which may then be addressed with the same words with which one designates the external phenomena - when one has risen to these things, then one is offered the prospect of an understanding of the human being, which is precisely what is missing in modern scientific views. How could one possibly arrive at an understanding of the human being if one artificially separates everything that arises in a person's interaction with the world, if one only wants to look outward and not at all inward? That, and nothing else, is ultimately what is raised as an accusation against spiritual science, especially from the scientific side, namely that it does not proceed scientifically. This is a prejudice that has arisen from the fact that from the outset only that which is separate from the human being is accepted as scientific observation, and the undertones that characterize the human element are not considered at all. As a result, one cannot find the transition to what the human being actually experiences within himself. The colors I am thinking of now, which arise from the spectrum of feelings just as the spectrum of feelings arises from the objective external spectrum, these colors are experienced in imaginative contemplation, and they form the mediation for recognizing the spiritual in the same way that the outer spectral colors form the mediation for recognizing the external sensual-physical. One could say that the surfaces of external bodies reveal themselves in the ordinary spectral colors. If I now express myself in a somewhat strange, seemingly paradoxical way, I would have to say: the surfaces of the spiritual - of course every reasonable person will know what I mean, that I do not mean some kind of sphere when I speak of a spiritual -, the surfaces of the spiritual express themselves in those colors that are evoked in the imagination from the spectrum of feelings. Instead of pursuing this thought further and saying to oneself, if outer nature is as it is, then another way of seeing must be possible, then one must try to arrive at this way of seeing – instead of saying this to oneself, and , the opponents devote themselves much more to pouring scorn and ridicule on what is called the human aura, which is nothing more than what has been brought to inner perception in another field, as here in the field of the spectrum of feelings.

But when one has become imbued with this view, my dear audience, then it has all sorts of consequences. For example, it has the consequence that one now also continues the same kind of train of thought, through which one tries to get a picture of the way in which external sensory impressions arise, to the inside of the human being, so that one can say: something is going on that one can indeed then recognize by the human being surrendering to the sensory impressions and making them his own experiences right up to the point of imagining them. But something must also take place in man when he perceives what is within him, when he therefore devotes himself to his inner being. Then something takes place that is directed inwards, just as something takes place when he directs his attention, his perception, outwards. And if you then adjust your method of investigation to this, then from there a light is also thrown on certain physiological facts, which otherwise, when they come to us as in today's science, are quite unsatisfactory for those who seek a real understanding and not just one that has been acquired.

As I said, I will illuminate things aphoristically from different angles; we will come to connections. You know that in today's science, a distinction is made between nerves that spread outwards within the human being and are supposed to mediate perceptions. These nerves are contrasted with another type of nerve, those nerves that are supposed to go from the central organs to the human limbs and so on; these nerves are supposed to have the task of conveying the will, just as the other nerves are supposed to have the task of conveying sensory perceptions. Some very nice constructions have been devised, involving the conduction of sensations to the central organ, their transformation there into volitional impulses, and the innervation of the motor nerves, which are then supposed to mediate what leads from the will to movement and the like. Certainly, the things that are cited to justify the distinction between these two types of nerves are very seductive. I need only recall what one believes, for example, can be studied in a well-known, very painful disease, tabes. One believes that, of course, all the sensitive nerves are intact, that only the motor nerves have suffered damage.

Everything that is said in this direction based on a preconceived notion about things is quite seductive. On the other hand, however, one should be suspicious, firstly, of the anatomical findings, which in no way provide any clues to distinguish these types of nerves, and secondly, of the fact that one type of nerve can be transformed into the other. If you cut one and connect a sensitive nerve and a motor nerve at the point of intersection, then these nerves can certainly be formed into a unified one. One should be perplexed by such things, which are well known, but once you have set the explanation in a certain direction, then you continue to think in that direction, and you can no longer be persuaded to really examine the matter from the beginning.

If one actually pursues what can be observed impartially as sensory and motor processes, one will in fact find no basis for making such a distinction of nerves. But if one starts not from one-sided but from total presuppositions, one will be compelled to assume inward mediation of sensation just as much as one recognizes outward mediation of sensation. Just as one recognizes the transmission of sensation through the nerve from the outside, whereby one becomes inwardly aware of some entity of the external world, so it is necessary that a consciousness be transmitted from what is inwardly located in the human organism; it is necessary that a real sensation occur of that which is inwardly located in the human organism. And if we continue the investigation in this way, we will find in the so-called motor nerves nothing other than those nerves that convey perceptions of the inside of the body in the same way that the so-called sensitive nerves convey perceptions of external entities. On the one hand, we have nerves that connect us to the outside world; on the other hand, we have nerves that connect us to our own inner world. It is quite natural that if our optic nerves are not working and we are blind, we cannot reach for an object; and if the motor - but in truth the sensitive - nerve that is supposed to convey that a limb is to perform a movement is not in us, we simply do not perceive the relevant limb, the relevant processes in the limb, and we cannot perform the movements. A truly consistent train of thought shows us that what are called motor nerves are to be imagined as sensory nerves - only as those that convey inner sensations, the sensations of one's own body, the processes within one's own body. You will see that if you really apply the idea that I have just presented to what are now quite empirically established facts, you will be able to see through everything that these empirical facts represent, without contradiction, and that anyone who really thinks consistently cannot really do anything with the theories, such as those that exist about the difference between the sensitive and motor nerves, because in reality they continually lead to contradictions.

I have hinted at something here, where anthroposophically oriented spiritual science aims at the perception of the human organism. It does not do this out of some kind of prejudice, but rather out of an objective consideration of the facts – only that it transforms the organ that considers these facts in such a way that imaginative perception, in the sense of what we discussed yesterday, is added to ordinary objective perception.

And if we look around again in another field of today's research, we have to say: today we have a strange thing as psychology, for example. Just look at what Theodor Ziehen calls his “physiological psychology”, but look at it with sound judgment. There you are first of all made aware of the fact that we have ideas. Then these ideas are examined in relation to their qualities, as far as the powers of observation of such a researcher go. The chains and associations of ideas are examined and so on. In a sense, then, the faculty of imagination as it exists in empirical reality is grasped. Then this psychological field of imagination, with its various processes, is contrasted with what is given by brain-nerve physiology; and it cannot be denied that to a high degree there are parallels between the structure of the brain and what emerges as the facts of the life of imagination. Now, however, the soul life does not only include representations, it also includes impulses of feeling and of the will. And now let us take a look at what this “physiological psychology” makes of feeling. It is simply stated: feelings as such - which are really a very real experience after all - are not considered at all, only the “emotional emphasis” of the life of representation is considered. It is observed how the emotional emphasis connects with the ideas, which thus connect according to the laws of association - the connection corresponds to a certain structure of the nerves and the brain structure. So these emotional emphases are an appendage of the life of ideas. In a sense, the life of ideas points to something that loses itself in the indefinite. The emotional emphasis of the life of ideas loses itself in the indefinite.

One cannot make any progress if one attempts to parallel the life of the imagination with the structure of the brain and nerves. One is forced not to move from the life of the imagination to the emotional life at all, but to regard the emotional life only as a special emphasis of the life of the imagination. So now we have lost the emotional life in the psychological view. The focus has been placed on the fact that the ideas have emotional emphasis – and then the emotional life disappears into an indeterminate X. We may be living quite intensely in these feelings, but for the modern psychologist they disappear into nothingness. Something that we identify so strongly with our human self as the emotional life is no longer to be grasped by cognition at all.

And the impulses of the will, which actually represent our real starting point for the outside world, the impulses of the will, there is no possibility at all in such a physiological psychology to even begin to consider them. For feelings, one at least begins with the life of ideas and considers them in so far as they are emotional accents of the life of ideas; but the will impulses are considered in such a way that one really only looks at what follows them from the outside. One sees one's arm move when some will impulse is present; one sees the effect of the will impulse. Thus one observes the volitional impulse from the outside. It does not occur to one to seek in any way to really arrive at the way of observing the volitional impulse.

In a certain sense, the life of ideas and the nervous life are still seen as belonging together by the modern psychologist. In a certain sense, more or less materialistically or, as a certain theory would have it, according to the principle of psychophysical parallelism, he still finds a relationship, even if it is as external as in the case of psychophysical parallelism, between the structure of the life of the imagination and the structure of something physical, but then the matter stops, then one absolutely does not go further.

Hence the hopeless theory, which is repeatedly warmed up and always refuted, of the interaction of the soul-spiritual with the physical-bodily. One does not know the real, empirical connection between the soul-spiritual and the physical-bodily. One does not examine this connection in detail, as one examines the connection between oxygen and hydrogen in detail, but one puts forward all kinds of abstract theories about it, which then, of course, can always be refuted. For it is a basic law that what is only theoretically constructed out of concepts always has as much for itself as against itself, that it can be proved as easily as refuted. The secret of much of the scientific discussion of the present time lies in the fact that theories constructed in this way can be affirmed or denied equally well. This is the case with the theory that presents itself as a thoroughly inadequate understanding of the human being. Man has simply been eliminated in the modern scientific spirit.

I have contrasted this with what has emerged for me through the organic threefoldness of the human being. It is the result of more than thirty years of research; and I was able to convince myself that what I will outline to you today - I will come back to it from different angles in the next few days - I can assure you that I have followed up the results of today's scientific research everywhere in order to verify what has emerged from pure spiritual science over the course of decades. And I would not have dared to express what I communicated about these results in my book 'Von Seelenrätseln' (Puzzles of the Soul) a few years ago, until it now appeared to me to be fully verified. One always believes that the spiritual scientist speaks only at random. In truth, spiritual scientific research demands years of work just as much as other scientific research.

What became clear to me is that only human imagination, the human field of imagination, has a structure that is connected to what we can call the nerve-sense life. Because we started from the assumption that the whole life of the soul must be connected with the nerve-sense life, we lost two links in the life of the soul. One can associate nothing with the nerve-sense life except the life of thinking. One cannot bring the life of feeling or the life of the will into direct connection with the nerve-sense life – into an indirect one, however, because feelings and will impulses are also presented; this is how an indirect connection comes about. But one cannot find a direct connection between the life of feeling and the nerve-sense life.

On the other hand, there is a direct connection between the emotional life and the course of all those processes in the human organism that are rhythmic, such as breathing, blood circulation and so on, so that we have to say: just as the life of thinking is connected with the nerve-sense life, so the life of feeling is connected with the rhythmic system.

It is interesting – I have already pointed this out in the book 'Von Seelenrätseln' – to examine the musical experience under these conditions. Anyone who has ever studied the analysis of the musical experience will know how much of this musical experience is thoroughly emotional, but how this emotionality must be related to the life of the imagination. Otherwise we could not bring differentiated melody into the musical experience; we could not even have the individual tone in its objective grasp if the imaginative experience did not come together in some way with the emotional experience in the overall musical experience. But it is emphasized again and again, and rightly so, that the main thing in the musical experience is the emotional experience. And people like Eduard Hanslik, in his book 'On Musical Beauty', go too far when they want to eliminate the emotional experience altogether and see the musical more or less only in the experience of tonal arabesques. But this musical experience must be analyzed further. Then we come to relate this musical experience, which in objectivity corresponds to something rhythmic and related to rhythm, to that which, so to speak, runs musically within us: to the processes of our rhythmic system. One can now follow in a complete way how, through the inhalation process, the cerebral fluid is pushed through the spinal canal towards the brain, how it, as it were, bumps into the brain and how it in turn swings down during the exhalation process. One can follow how the rhythm is now also modified by the modification of the breathing process in this ascending and descending cerebral fluid. And if we approach this view with the same objectivity as we do other objective views of the external world, we will come to examine how, for example, the breathing experience is modified in song. We will find something that is expressed in song as a musical experience in the breathing experience; we will find the breathing experience in the oscillating brain water. We shall then recognize the union of this rhythmic process in the human organism with the nerve-sense process in the brain, and thus recognize the interaction of the rhythmic system and the nerve-sense system. And then we shall be able to separate what corresponds to the emotional experience, which in the human organism is entirely the rhythmic system.

It is necessary to approach these things with careful analysis, then they offer the possibility of finding in the human being itself what now gives a true picture of the human organization.

Thirdly, it turns out that the impulses of the will are connected with the metabolic processes of the human organism. Just as the processes of imagination are connected with the nerve-sense processes and the processes of feeling with the rhythmic processes, so the impulses of will are connected with the metabolic processes. And one can definitely find in detail how the impulse of will, which originates in a muscle, arises from this muscle, is based on a metabolic process that takes place in this muscle.

If we consider these three systems, which represent the entire process of the human organism, in their interaction, we will have the physical-bodily counterpart, but the complete physical-bodily counterpart of the soul. We will find the soul mirrored in the human organism in thinking, feeling and willing. And then people will no longer be inclined to speak merely of an emotional emphasis of the life of the imagination, and to consider the impulses of the will only in terms of their external correspondences in the imagination, and to consider the metabolism only in terms of its material side. It is absolutely necessary to also consider the metabolism in its spiritual aspect. There it is that which corresponds entirely to the will.

You will be able to completely resolve any contradictions that may arise from these statements if you approach them in the right empirical way, because these three systems are not separate, but interpenetrate each other. The nerve is built up organically through metabolism, but is something different in terms of its nervous process than the metabolism. However, the metabolic process also works in the nerve, because the nerve must be built up and broken down organically. When metabolism takes place in the nerve, our life of imagination is permeated with the impulse of the will. And one must be as materialistically sick as John Stuart Mill or those who profess him when one speaks of mere associations of ideas - which do not exist in this abstractness - when one completely separates the element of will from the life of ideas.

From this you can see, honored attendees, how necessary it is to seek the relationship between the soul and the physical in a completely different way than is usually done today. I will give you further evidence of this in the course of the lectures. You can see what it is actually about. This is what it is about: to seek in a truly concrete empirical way the relationships of the spiritual-soul to the physical-bodily in the human being, and not just to talk abstractly about the relationships of soul and spirit, which does not give us much more in the content of the words than the relationships of an abstract soul-spirit to the physical-bodily.

But if we apply a way of looking at things that really does see the soul at work in the physical, that recognizes the soul permeating the body through and through in its configuration, and conversely sees everything that takes place in the physical realm as playing into the soul, then we can have a science that can be the basis for a rational medicine and in turn the basis for rational therapy. Here begins one of the chapters in which spiritual science has immediate practical consequences, where it appears to be called upon to find solutions for what is most unsatisfactory when one wants to have human knowledge as a basis for pathology and therapy based on today's conditions.

I have organized these first two lectures in this way mainly so that you can see that anthroposophical spiritual science is not just about fantastically constructing things, but is about providing a serious world view that includes the human being and can therefore do justice to that which, in practical terms, should proceed from the human being in one way or another, according to the two sides described here yesterday. Ultimately, it is a matter of really recognizing the human being, not just talking about him, but really recognizing him, if we want to gain a basis for what should come from the human being in ethical and social terms. In today's world, we are called upon to use our knowledge of the human being to also gain goals for practical life. That is why the subject of these lectures, which are intended to deal with the fertilization of the specialized sciences by spiritual science, had to be set in this way. And we will also see how fruitful results can be gained from such a consideration of the human being, both in technical and in social-practical respects, not only for science but also for life, because basically, if one only understands it in the right sense, true science must always serve true life.

Dear attendees, When one speaks, as I have done in these lectures, of the relationship between anthroposophical spiritual science and the individual specialized sciences, one is perhaps least inclined to emphasize the necessity of also mentioning the technical sciences as such, which, like the other sciences, are to be fertilized by this spiritual science – of which I have already characterized examples in the last lectures. Even if I can only sketch out these outlines, I would still like to point out how there is an important inner relationship between the spiritual science I am referring to here and what can be called the technical sciences with their practical consequences for modern life. I may refer to this – it is not meant personally, it is entirely relevant – and I already tried to do so in the early 1890s with my Philosophy of Freedom.

This “Philosophy of Freedom” is intended, first of all, as a foundation for ethical and social life. It is intended as such a foundation that is to be thoroughly modern. And if I were to characterize the meaning of this “Philosophy of Freedom,” I would have to point out the way in which it has grown out of contemporary life. It is not built on traditional philosophical presuppositions. It did not come into being in the way that much of this kind of work does, namely by presupposing some philosophical current, by becoming a follower of this or that school of philosophy and then trying to form some kind of direction that is supposed to have a certain validity but what I was trying to develop as the Philosophy of Freedom, as the ethical and social foundation of life, arose out of a very special way of thinking, which was formed first through the contemplation of modern social life. And here I must interject a few personal remarks, because they may more easily characterize what I want to say than a discussion would, and because the time allotted for these four lectures is too short for a discussion, which would otherwise be possible.

My school, my most important school, was the study of modern commercial life, which I faced every day from early childhood as the son of a minor railway official who had been introduced to everything related to railways from a technical point of view, and also to everything that was directly related to such a situation in commercial terms, even if it was perhaps from a narrow perspective at the time. Then again, I was able to continue my studies more than through any school, since for years I had to deal with the sons of people who were essentially involved in important industrial and transport sectors of the present day or the last decades of the 19th century. What I saw there in terms of thinking and feeling, I would say, what was flowing out of the forces that were incorporated into the most modern human endeavor, that demanded a certain grounding in ethical and social views of life.

When you look at life from the points of view that I have just described, you see it in those functions in which it becomes more and more detached from human subjectivity, so to speak, and in which it becomes more and more external, so to speak, technical. I would like to say that in life you are constantly confronted with what is repeatedly and repeatedly demanded as a principle in modern science. In modern science, it is postulated that phenomena should be treated entirely separately from the human being. And if we allow life to take its course, especially when technical achievements are involved, then we are primarily dealing with what takes place through the machine, through traffic and so on, with something that is very distinct from human subjectivity, that is very much only in the objective – so very much only in the objective that we can say: Here man loses his subjectivity, here much of his personality is lost, here man is placed in the objective driving wheels of life.

On the one hand, this emerged in modern scientific life in that one wanted to completely ignore in such sciences as optics or thermodynamics or similar what arises from the interrelation of the human being with the outside world, and wanted to found a science that then leaned in the last third of the 19th century towards atomistic theories, the dominance of which has by no means been overcome today. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, however, we also see that something is underlying the whole development of modern life, something that is separate from life and from the human being, from subjectivity, from the personality of the human being. In such a context, one can either thoughtlessly integrate oneself into the wheels of life, or one can believe that the old traditional beliefs and views could still provide certain ethical forces for this modern life, separated from man, and one can then demand such an objective science from certain subconscious depths, as has just been demanded in atomism, in physics, chemistry and even in biology.

But one can also come to something else. One can look at this life of modern times, which is separate from the human being, from the full, complete human sense of personality. One can feel it and sense it with all the effects it has on the human personality, and one can feel it best when one oneself acquires a technical education, when one goes through precisely those spiritual currents that are effective in technology. If I may add a personal comment: my university education was a purely technical one, not a philosophical one in some way, but a technical-scientific one. When one grows into this life, so to speak, completely separated from the human being, then, in the center of the personality, that which I believed I had to present as the other force of modern social life in the “Philosophy of Freedom” will stir. For the more, on the one hand, this technical life of modern times develops as an historical necessity (and one can certainly have an affirmative attitude towards this), the more man must, as it were, lose himself in external events, and the more must the inner reaction assert itself: to build up ethics, to build up religious feeling, too, on the innermost core of the human personality, on that which can be extracted from the conceivably deepest recess of the inner human being. And one can perhaps imagine how, on the one hand, one can be fully engaged in modern technical life and precisely for this reason say to oneself: Yes, man loses more and more of his personality there; all the more he must resort to the innermost source of his soul life, all the more he must shape out of it that which then brings light into what the personality otherwise completely discards. And from this innermost core of human life there emerged an ethical individualism — an ethical individualism, to be sure, that appeals first to a very significant social force.

Today it is very easy to criticize such ethical individualism, as it is founded in my “Philosophy of Freedom,” to the ground. Of course, one can do so if one clings to old traditions, if one does not want to counter external progress in humanity with inner progress. But on the other hand, one can also say to oneself: the stronger external progress is, the greater and stronger must be the power of inner striving in the human soul. And so one comes to say to oneself: That way of summarizing groups of people, as it was present in the old ethics, is no longer possible within modern human development, because within such summaries, man relies too much on what flows into his soul from the environment and from elsewhere to provide the ethical impulses. In our time, it is necessary for the human being to reach much deeper into his soul life in order to extract ethical impulses. But then it is indeed necessary to appeal to the power that, in the social life of man, we may call trust. This trust must become an ethical power. For only when people are called upon to appeal to the innermost core of their being, when they are called upon to draw their ethical motives from there, only then can they work together socially in freedom, yes, they will work together socially in freedom precisely when one can have confidence in this kind of sincerity, in this kind of uprightness and fertility of the human personality, then one finds, solely and exclusively, the forces that are necessary to make the social life of the present time progress in the right way.

One might say that we would have to wait a long time for people to mature to such ethical individualism. Those who say such a thing usually suffer greatly from personal arrogance, because they consider themselves mature and the others immature. But besides, theoretical consideration stops when these questions begin, because there is only an either-or. Either we go down the path of decline of our ethical and social and thus also of our technical life in the manner of Spengler, or we decide to draw those ethical impulses from the depths of the human soul that are necessary for the further progress of humanity. All the declaiming and theorizing about whether this is possible is of no value; only the will to such ethical individualism has value, because it appeals to the will that is permeated by pure thinking. And so I think that in fact the contemplation of the most modern way of life should evoke this particular kind of ethics. Therefore, I also have the idea that this ethical individualism, this freedom, should basically assert itself precisely there as a science that addresses the human being, the whole human being, who is to engage in social life, just where, on the other hand, it is seen that people are introduced to technical, commercial, modern economic life and to the other branches of life, which, by the way, are all mechanized in a modern way. Such a conception is needed alongside what has emerged from the scientific way of thinking and attitude that has developed to the point of technology. What is needed is the greatest deepening and strengthening of human life, where, on the other hand, what has been separated from the human being has been strengthened.

Therefore, it was necessary to found a philosophy that could not be like the other philosophies. These other philosophies traditionally came more or less from the old science. This old scientific approach had still retained something, one could say, of the perception of inner concepts and ideas and so on. We need only think back a few centuries to see that people did not look at nature the way we do. Whatever you want to call it, for example an “animistic worldview,” it lasted well into the 15th century and was quite common, perhaps much later — but that people always thought of something spiritual when they thought of natural entities; then, from what they thought, they were able to draw fresh principles from the details of inorganic nature and, in turn, ethical impulses from these principles. Until well into the 19th century, and even into the second half of the century, people were not yet dependent on drawing ethical and philosophical impulses entirely from within, because they still associated something spiritual with the observation of the external world and the technical manipulation of the external world, something that was also connected with the human being. The last third of the 19th century has produced a technology that demands ways of thinking that are completely detached from the human being. There is nothing more to be gained from impulses that could become ethical impulses. Therefore, these ethical impulses must be drawn entirely from the human being himself; the whole of individual ethical intuition must be placed at the center of the ethical view of the world. The age of natural science, which has been spoken of so often, demands such a purely scientific basis for ethics.

That, ladies and gentlemen, to shed some light on how there is a very real connection between what modern life is – insofar as this modern life has been shaped by science – and what this modern life makes necessary as an ethic that is strictly based on science. Now, such an ethic is only possible if one develops within oneself what I tried to characterize just yesterday: flexible concepts, concepts that are so flexible that one really does not get stuck in contexts that are completely separate from the human being, but which are capable, I might say, of turning around to embrace that which pulses from the depths of the human being as something real. But in order to make sufficient progress in such a scientific world view, many other obstacles must be overcome. Above all, it is necessary that we also find ideas, scientific laws, which have grown out of a scientific world view on the one hand and an historical, a historical world view on the other.

History, as we understand it today, is a young science. Even in the 18th century, it was something quite different. It is therefore no wonder that what we call the science of history is still poorly developed and has no inner driving force of its own. For example, people talk about the guiding ideas in history. Now, only pure intellectualism can talk about the guiding ideas in history, which believes that thoughts, as people think them, then also materialize as forces of history, that thoughts could somehow be driving forces in history. Thoughts are purely contemplative; thoughts cannot achieve anything. On the one hand, people talk about the driving powers of thought, and when they say “powers of thought”, they are already saying something that is actually a contradiction in terms. And on the other hand, they fall into the other extreme: they actually only represent what happens historically by presenting the external, material transformations of cultural life. One then goes as far as the materialistic conception of history has taken it, or one makes compromises by trying to build history out of the mere pursuit of external cultural phenomena; one then imbues this with some symbolic ideas, as many a historian of the 19th and early 20th centuries has done. But one could not yet arrive at such knowledge about how one should even attempt to arrive at ideas in this science about what actually underlies the historical development of humanity. And if one draws attention to this today – I will be drawing attention to it in a leitmotif – if one draws attention to this, then, yes, today one is still decried as a fantasist, because what is regarded as reality today is far different from what real reality is.

Today, anyone who has done a little research in this field will readily agree when it is said that the human being as a physical being must be understood in his formation by going back to embryology. And in a certain way one will then try – even though much that is unjustified has been introduced into the corresponding sciences – one will nevertheless try with a certain right to compare those forms that arise as the developmental forms of the human embryo with the forms found in the extra-human organic world; and one will then try to find a connection between the animal series and the human form. There is no doubt that much of what was called the “biogenetic law” was unjustified. But there is something in the methodological consideration based on this that is extraordinarily promising for a realistic consideration of human development. It is pointed out that One must consider the beginning of life if one wants to understand the physical form of the human being; one must consider the beginning of human life in order to understand its further development.

At best, one can only use a kind of analogy for the historical approach. This analogy has indeed been used very often. The fanciful interpreters of the biogenetic law, in particular, have also wanted to apply this law to a certain materialistic way of thinking with regard to the historical development of humanity. And so we have seen those strange views that trace back what is the content of our civilization today to the earlier developmental phases of humanity — in a way similar to the approach taken in the formulation of the biogenetic law. They said to themselves: What the child goes through leads back to very early stages of development, to very early cultures; and what is then later experienced in later childhood leads back to the later stages of development, and so on, until man has achieved what he has in the present as his civilization. This is an external analogy; and much more than is usually believed, such external analogies are present in the scientific view when we come up in the historical, because today what is not really close to man is what I would call a faithful observation of reality, an engagement with the conditions of reality. That is why the spiritual science referred to here endeavors to develop pure phenomenalism within inorganic and organic natural science and to present the processes themselves purely, without speculation, without underlying atomic or other hypotheses, as they present themselves.

Phenomenology is the ideal of scientific endeavor that is present in anthroposophy. The aim is not to move from what are basically only modifying sensations to all sorts of wave vibrations and the like, which are hypothetically assumed and speculated upon. The aim is to remain within the pure phenomena, because they mean a great deal. And all the talk about the “thing in itself” is basically unfathomable. For example, people say: Yes, but you can't see the underlying reality from the phenomena; after all, a phenomenon always points to what underlies it, and so you have to go beyond the phenomenon, that is, assume something that the phenomenon causes in interaction with human subjectivity. Those who speak in this way do not realize that they are applying a completely wrong way of thinking. I would like to characterize this wrong way of thinking by means of an analogy: the one who sees individual letters, for example S, I, F, will say that this S or I or F means nothing, they must point to something else. Those who have an overview of a written context, which also consists only of individual letters, will not relate this written context to something that lies behind it – along the lines of the atomic world supposedly lying behind sensual phenomena. will not relate this context of letters to something contrived or to something standing behind it, but he will read the context and know that, when he has the whole context, it points him to the corresponding reality.

It is also a matter of leaving these natural phenomena in their purity within the world of natural phenomena, because by learning to read natural phenomena purely, in a way that corresponds to the inner nature of the phenomena themselves, one learns to look into that which underlies reality – not by speculating about a “thing in itself” or the presupposition of some “thing in itself”, as it always underlies the atomistic theories and hypotheses. By developing the habit of pure observation of phenomena, by breaking the habit of mere speculation, of living in some hypothetical assumptions, by remaining in the inorganic and organic fields with pure observation, one develops the ability to observe in the field of human spiritual development. One then learns to see that one cannot transfer the biogenetic law to historical development by means of an analogy, but one learns to recognize that one must consider the whole human being, the whole human life – just as in natural science, if one wants to recognize something, one should not pick out one thing, but consider the totality of related phenomena. Then one is urged, for the understanding of historical life, not to go to the beginning of individual existence, as one would for the understanding of the natural life of man, but to the end. One must also consider the end. Even if it is a kind of self-contemplation, this self-contemplation is a thoroughly objective one: when one has become accustomed to observing the life of the soul as concretely as one otherwise observes the external natural life, one finds that, when one is past the middle of life has passed the age of thirty-five or forty, this life of soul, quite apart from all external manifestations, shows certain phenomena within itself – phenomena which run their course in such a way that one can truly say one is surprised by them.

The life of the soul itself takes on a certain configuration. That this is so little noticed today is due to the fact that the power of observation is little developed in youth. Therefore, such things are seen by very few people in old age. Very few people are still endowed with such a fresh power of observation in old age that they take these things into account. If you do not disregard them, you will notice how something rises up from the depths of the soul, which can be said to be like a repetition, like an inner repetition of what old cultural epochs of humanity show in terms of mental attitude and mental structure. In doing so, I am pointing to a phenomenon that is eminently important for the historian to observe. It is not necessary to do much outwardly, for it is not necessary that old people should make their signs of aging the basis of life. But it is necessary that life be observed in its entirety, and it shows itself in that we ascend in life, becoming ever older and older, that something wants to enter into consciousness that is initially similar to the way of thinking of immediately preceding cultural epochs. One becomes similar to the Greeks. And if one lives through this entire middle age, as did Goethe, for example, then under certain circumstances one can also have such a longing to live through the Greek age, as Goethe did, in whom this longing became irresistible. And if one then goes further back and observes what arises within the human being, then one comes to even earlier cultural epochs. At that age one notices that one understands all the better the special nature of the views of the even older times. And one is transported back into a prehistory of human development that is no longer recorded in documents when one considers this biogenetic law, which is now polaric. This is not carried over from natural science into human life by analogy, but is borrowed from direct observation.

If we continue to develop this path of research – I can only give guidelines – then we will come to understand an extraordinarily important guiding principle for the historical development of humanity. We come to see that there have been older cultures in which people, by simply developing their physicality, developed their spiritual and soul life right up to an advanced age, so that their spiritual and soul development was, as it were, born out of their physical development. We, in our advanced human civilization, still find ourselves dependent on our physical development in early childhood, even in later adolescence, but not anymore. In the twenties, this dependency ceases. How the child is still dependent on its physical development in its entire soul configuration! How can we observe how intimately the two are connected, and what a profoundly significant effect sexual maturity, the age of sexual maturity, has on a person's mental and spiritual development! And if we go further, we hardly even notice that something is clearly changing again, that, for example, at the beginning of the 1920s, there is a more inward dependence of the mental and spiritual on the physical. But then this connection becomes so unclear that we can say: Today it is the case that until the twenties, and in some people until the thirties, the soul and spirit remain dependent on the development of the body, but then the soul and spirit emancipate themselves, rely more on themselves, and undergo a development that is more or less independent of the physical. This was not the case in earlier ages of human life. We come back to the early ages of human development, when people, after the age of fifty, still felt into the sixties what was taking shape inwardly and spiritually in dependence on external physical development. These were the ages in which people could, as it were, still wrest from their own nature the inner experiences that one has in the declining years of life. What they gained in soul and spirit through their disintegrating bodies, these people still went through.

If I now want to express myself through a law that has yet to be formulated – even if every formulation can be challenged – I would like to say: These people of the oldest cultural ages remained young well into their fifties and sixties. If we follow this thread, we find that in Egyptian and Indian civilization there was an age when people only remained young in this respect until their forties. And the Greek-Latin age, from which we have inherited such remarkable artistic and scientific ways of looking at things, can be understood when we know how these Greeks were still so youthful between the ages of thirty and forty, because in their case the soul and spirit were dependent on their physical development until that age. Then came our age, when this only goes into the twenties. And one must realize that we can only draw on our physical development until the twenties, that at most, contemplatively - as an inverted biogenetic law - the subtle observer of life inwardly perceives what is a repetition of things humanity has gone through before. The way in which the biogenetic law was formulated – even if it is completely disputable – there is a healthy core to it. As formulated, that man in his development from birth briefly passes through what is tribal development, so it must be said that in historical life, man inwardly, spiritually and mentally, repeats the way of thinking that was the actual impulse of history at earlier ages.

Here we have the connection between the observation of spiritual life and the observation of the physical life of humanity. Here we have a science that does not develop one-sided concepts of natural phenomena on the one hand and, on the other, forms concepts about spiritual phenomena that cannot be related to natural phenomena and vice versa. There you have a unified way of thinking that, by not becoming one-sidedly materialistic or one-sidedly spiritualistic, but by encompassing the whole of reality, regards external physicality as the one current of this reality and the spiritual-soul as the other current, but considers both purely phenomenologically.

This also opens up extraordinarily promising perspectives for the individual spiritual scientific research, but one must have the courage to go to real laws in history as well. What is still often discussed today as a historical method is a way of talking around the issue, something that is not based on real ground. One finds a real foundation only when one has grown out of a phenomenalistic, a phenomenological, observation of nature, which then creates such flexible concepts that these concepts are also suitable for penetrating into the phenomena of spiritual life.

What is meant here by anthroposophical spiritual science – I must emphasize this again and again – is not amateurish dabbling. It is a form of research that carries pure observation of phenomena over from the field of natural science into the spiritual, and in this way will find precisely that reconciliation for which the best souls today are longing: the reconciliation of outer life with inner life, the reconciliation of science and art, the reconciliation of science and religious feeling. But if one simply occupies oneself with the continuation of the old, traditional religions, one cannot create what modern man demands for his religious life. Today, we need a science that is capable of penetrating into the realm of the spirit as we otherwise penetrate into the realm of nature. We need people who have the scientific courage to search, even if it is often seen as fantasy, because it is not considered to apply the same strict scientific method that is demanded for the realm of external nature to the realm of spiritual events.

That is one side of it, which follows from a human view of life for the view of historical life. The other side is that the person who gains such a view also develops this view within himself into social impulses. It is only out of such a view that the liveliness of soul life actually arises, which finds ethical impulses, but ethical impulses that are so devoted to human nature that they can also be transformed into social impulses. We cannot make our ideas so vivid with the concepts we draw from science alone that they also work as ideas if they are to underpin social action.

In a very learned contemporary book, there is a remarkable quote, which admittedly comes from a man who was not particularly learned, namely Georg Brandes, but the quote is accepted by a very learned personality. In his work, attention is drawn to why it is so difficult to teach people ethics, to teach them something, for example, about essential necessities, and this difficulty is emphasized to have a spiritual effect on social life. Attention is drawn to the fact – and this is said quite as if one fully agreed with what Brandes says – that the masses of people do not act according to reason, but according to vague instincts. Well, it is very easy to make such a statement. It is very easy to criticize what is living out, not in the life of the individual, but in the field of human interaction. It is very easy to condemn it as mere instinctive living out of some impulses, if one is not able to look at the essence of social life in a truly scientific spirit. If one is able to do the latter, then one knows: however much rationality there may be within the intellectual sphere of man, however clever people may be in the pattern of that cleverness that can be gained in the one-sided natural sciences, social life would still always contain many, many unconscious moments, so that it could still be criticized in the way Brandes does and as is found even in books on the principles of political economy.

But what is the real basis for this? The fact is that reason, which people like to talk about so much, is something that develops within the human personality, something that is suitable for looking at the world, something that is also suitable for evoking certain impulses for action from within the human being, but something that is not at all suitable on its own for bringing about social coexistence. If you believe that this inner rationality is suitable for this, then you end up with those social theories that are so common today and that do not promote life, do not sustain life, but destroy life. And such life-destroying theories, which can only shine as long as they remain criticism, but which immediately show their absurdity when they are to be introduced into real life, they often flow from that attitude that has emerged with the facts of modern scientific life, which are quite rightly perceived as a triumph. The point at issue is this: in human cooperation, even in language, there is something that permeates and warms human action and feeling, but also hates it, and that cannot be reduced to intellectualistic concepts of reason.

And on the other hand, something is asserting itself in economic life itself that appears much more complicated than what must be taken as a basis in the natural sciences. I am merely drawing your attention to everything that has occurred within economic life, everything that has occurred within political economy in the way of definitions of commodity value and commodity price, everything that has occurred in the way of definitions of the functions of value and price in economic life, and so on. In particular, I would like to draw attention to how vague and indeterminate such definitions, such characteristics of the value and price of goods, of other functions in economic life are.

What is the underlying reason for this? The reason is that it is impossible to understand the social being at all with the concepts based on mere intellectuality. What is needed is an inner education of the soul towards those modes of conception which I have described in the course of these lectures as imaginative knowledge, and then in Higher Fields as inspired knowledge. An education in such ways of thinking is necessary in order to grasp that which should now arise not from the individual, but that which should arise in the social interaction of people. And the way in which people interact socially – even if one wants to call it instinct – cannot be seen or influenced with intellectual concepts. One can only influence it with living, meaningful views of social life itself. These substantial views of social life, however, can only be opened up to the life of imagination through the imaginations that I have also described in these lectures about the other reality. Therefore, there will only be a real social science that can be the basis for social work when it is developed from the method of anthroposophical spiritual science.

You must not think that I, who am able to present what I myself can advocate today as anthroposophical spiritual science, somehow regard it as something already perfect that can remain as it is. Rather, I am talking about what is to become of this anthroposophical spiritual science, quite independently of the form it now has. It will certainly be shaped much better than it is now by those who practise it. But it must be pointed out again and again that only it can be that, with its methods, it finds such flexible concepts that these flexible concepts themselves can go, can flow on the waves of social life, can invigorate these waves of social life. And only when one can see through the social structure in this way, in direct contemplation, can it be divided into a spiritual life that needs independence, a legal life, a practical state life that must in turn be self-contained and need independence, and an economic life which must be based on associations, because an economic life can only develop when people think together, while the spiritual life can only develop when the individual is able to contribute to the social organism that which flows from his spiritual impulses.

These three areas, which today are lumped together in the unified, abstract social organism, are clearly distinguishable for a living imagination, a living view. They are lumped together only because today one does not think practically, but theorizes, because one relates to reality more or less hypothetically and, if one wants to shape that reality, one constructs hypotheses instead of pouring real impulses into that reality. Those who are inclined to hypothesize in the theoretical sciences do not come to bring fully real concepts into social life. Therefore, especially those who have ceased to think practically often regard as utopian what is found in my “Key Points of the Social Question”, which has now been republished, and in other books , in everything that is published in our newspaper, the weekly journal “Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus” (Threefold Order of the Social Organism), and in everything that emanates from the Federation for Threefold Order of the Social Organism. It is regarded as utopian because those people who see it that way do not themselves know how utopian they are, how they regard as utopian precisely that which is completely saturated with reality. Today, in the intellectualization of the sciences, one has come so far that one no longer senses or feels when true reality is pulsating somewhere. If we really open ourselves to what comes out of true reality, we will find that we do not need to say that decades are necessary for its realization, but we will see that it can be transferred directly into social life as soon as it is in people's heads.

This is what I wanted to say about how the ideas and impulses that arise from spiritual science can be carried into ethical, historical and social thinking and feeling, and then also into ethical and social volition. And when a person truly recognizes historical laws, when he surveys human life as it is surveyed when the phenomena of spiritual life are considered, not just the external cultural phenomena, then one learns with the character of inner necessity to recognize what has been lived in a particular age. And from this awareness of a connection with one's age, one's task for this age arises. One is imbued with one's inner life task. And today we need people who can be imbued with a real, meaningful life task.

I have been able to share only a little of what is being striven for in the field of spiritual science, and only in outline, in the sense that the individual specialized sciences are to be fertilized. You will hear again and again how individual groups are working to enrich the individual sciences, from astronomy to social insights, and how they are striving to develop this spiritual science for the individual fields in a very specialized way. Such endeavors are still only met with very limited understanding today. And especially when giving lectures like these, when one considers that here in Stuttgart, through the efforts of our Waldorf school teachers and other personalities, an attempt is being made to show how the individual scientific disciplines can be enriched by anthroposophical spiritual science and how absolutely necessary this fertilization is absolutely necessary if we do not want to go into decline but strive for an ascent, then one must also consider how such efforts are met with hostility and rejected, especially by older people who are involved in scientific life today.

And now, in conclusion, I would like to address that part of you to whom I would like to make an initial appeal, particularly in the present situation, for very specific reasons. Especially now, when anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is facing so much hostility, one hears it emphasized again and again: Why does this spiritual science not turn to science itself in a strictly scientific way? Well, a lot could be said about that. Above all, it could be said that those who express such views care little about how this spiritual science actually works in the individual scientific fields. But perhaps something else may be said. What I myself represent today in this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science began in the early 1880s. At the time, I tried to introduce what needed to be said into the scientific currents in an elementary way, using viable scientific methods. I took up Goethe in an interpretation that was taken very seriously and conscientiously. Now, I have not always been met with such hostility as I am now – what I have written in reference to Goethe has often been described as something very good. But how was it received? It was received in such a way that I could not be satisfied with this acceptance. People said: Yes, some of what Goethe meant is being addressed, Goethe is being interpreted in the right way. But they did not notice, or did not want to notice, that something else was meant by it. It was not meant that one merely wanted to interpret the man who died as Johann Wolfgang Goethe in 1832, but rather that one should seek in Goethe, in his world view, what can experience a continuation, what flows out when one regards Goethe as still alive today, when one develops him further. A position was to be taken on the problems of scientific, philosophical and social life.

What is often called “pure science” today was not at all inclined to do so, today when one can read in scientific works statements such as that science does not have the task of forming ethical, political or social life, for example, but only to consider all these branches of life objectively. In an age when people just want to sit down at some seat to observe the world and only accept as science what has arisen from the observation of the world, but not what passes into our soul life to become will, action, and social deed, it may seem understandable that science initially did not take a stand on what was actually meant. Therefore it was necessary that appeals be made to the larger circles of humanity, that thought be given to the larger circles of humanity, because the truth must in some way present itself to humanity. And when, out of certain intuitive perceptions, the larger circles of humanity had found their way to what is here called anthroposophical spiritual science, then people again deigned to say that what was being said was not scientific. They did it, for example, like the Jena professor Rein, who in 1918 characterized the 'Philosophy of Freedom' as a work that could only have been born out of the war period. This man only just got hold of “The Philosophy of Freedom” and found the date 1918, the year of the new edition. In his usual conscientious manner, he characterized this work, which was published in 1893, as a product of wartime thinking.

You can find many examples of such scientific conscientiousness in the present day. I could point out many similar facts to show you why I feel particularly satisfied today to see that there is now some interest coming from the younger generation in the present, even if there is not much interest from those who shine in science because of their venerable age or because they have not yet reached a venerable age. From this side, there is still little engagement with anthroposophical spiritual science, but all the more misunderstanding.

Therefore, from among those gathered here today, I would like to address those who, coming out of their student life, want to turn to this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, which is certainly not to be presented to you authoritatively or dogmatically, which only wants to be taken so that it is examined. Because it is convinced that the more it is examined, the more it will be found to be well-founded. It does not shrink from exact testing; it has only to defend itself against what is truly very far removed from exact testing. If one were fainthearted, one could become discouraged in the field of anthroposophical spiritual science in the face of the inexact tests that are so prevalent in the present day. Those who represent spiritual science, as it is meant here, are not afraid of truly exact testing. It will prove itself all the more the more precisely it is tested, because it knows that it has emerged from the spirit of science.

This is what I wish to say to you today, especially to you, my dear fellow students, who are gathered here today; especially to you I wish to say that the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science that comes from me has arisen from a faithful contemplation of what I myself have gone through. I look back on a student life that took place at the time of the heyday of atomism, the heyday of that world view in which all optics, all thermodynamics, and so on, were based on hypotheses in which one indulged — but hypotheses that led away from the grasp of reality because they based something on mere thought, on something that was merely thought up. In many cases, people have moved away from this; today, we are realistic, especially in the field of natural science. But the fruits of thinking that have been developed there can still be seen in the historical and social sciences, and they are often partly responsible for the misery of our present catastrophic life. During my time as a student, the concepts, ideas and soul impulses were not developed by science that could then swim powerfully on the waves of social life. That is what we lack today: impulses. People get very annoyed when you talk about impulses. But the word 'impulse' should mean nothing other than what lives powerfully in the soul - in contrast to the abstract life of thoughts or ideas. It should be thoughts and ideas that arise from such an anthroposophical spiritual science, but thoughts that are imbued with full life, so that they can become ethical, religious, but especially social reality.

Anyone who has been through what has happened in our scientific development over the decades, who knows the connection between the scientific theories of the 1870s and 1880s and the helplessness of today's ethical and social thinking, truly speaks from the heart to those who are young today, my dear fellow students. He then remembers the reasons why the youth of that time was spoken to in vain. They had not yet been confronted with what has since emerged as a dazzling abundance of life, as it were, that which resounds from all sides with the words “how we have come so gloriously far” in terms of external culture. Today, however, young people see something different around them; today they see material need all around them, and in this material need they also see spiritual need. On the whole, the situation today is quite different from what it was in my youth. In those days, one was quite alone with these thoughts. Today, my dear fellow students, if you really find the way to impulses full of life, today you will perhaps be able to find understanding in quite a number of people who are shaken by the present life. Today life speaks: I need living ideas born out of science that can become ethical and social impulses. Today the world needs such leaders who can work out of the spiritual, because only this spiritual can be meaningful.

My esteemed audience, dear fellow students, those who are touched by what anthroposophical spiritual science actually wants will understand me, each in their own way. This is what fills me with a certain satisfaction when I am allowed to speak today to those to whom I actually feel very close, despite the fact that the age of life that is yours today is long behind me, dear fellow students. But anyone who has lived through these last decades with full consciousness also knows how strongly one must build on those who are still young today and who want to have a powerful effect in their youth today. One can always contribute only very little to that to which one would like to contribute a lot.

I have been able to say little in these few lectures; may this little be further developed by our local colleagues in the university courses. And may this little be valued more for its intention than for what it could become in these four lectures. But I would like to have touched the hearts of today's fellow students, I would like to have spoken to their hearts. Not only – even if in the fullest sense – from the spirit of science would I speak, but to warm hearts would I speak, for when these two things are joined together, the will for true science with the strength of brave hearts, then, my dear fellow students, then we shall make progress. If one is allowed to speak to people from such a background, then one can still have hope for a fruitful development in the near future, especially for our German people, who have been so sorely tried and are therefore perhaps particularly called upon to develop spiritually.

Answering questions

Question: Does Dr. Steiner understand “reminiscences” in the same way as “associations of ideas” when it comes to imagination?

Rudolf Steiner: If you follow what I have discussed in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds”, you will find that the greatest efforts are required of those who want to progress to imaginative life , especially in the direction of combating everything that is reminiscence, that is mere association of ideas, in fact, to combat everything that is drawn from the ordinary unconscious or subconscious life of the soul. In this respect, it may be said that much is well recorded in today's scientific literature. I myself have emphasized some of my own observations in the book mentioned. I will only highlight one example from a well-known publication that appeared in the Wiesbaden collection to show how such reminiscences actually work, how difficult it is to pay attention to them, and how necessary it is to pay attention to them.

A scholar - who describes the matter himself - walks past a bookshop, certainly the delight of many a scholar. And he finds - he is a zoologist - a book about lower animals, something that is certainly closely related to his immediate present life. He is surprised himself that he suddenly has to start laughing at the most serious title. He laughs – just think, a zoologist, a learned man, laughing at a learned title. He feels quite funny himself. And he tries to find out why he has to laugh like that. He closes his eyes; that helps, because now he hears a hurdy-gurdy in the distance, playing a melody to which he danced in his youth. At that time, however, he was thinking of other things, which he has long forgotten, which have long since been drawn down into the deepest depths of his soul, but now they have risen up and made him laugh at the sight of the solemn title. So something that has been in the soul for decades comes to the surface again as reminiscence.

We have to think about such things when we emphasize that the development of the imaginative life must be based on comprehensible ideas, and specifically on comprehensible ideas that can be made directly present in consciousness in all their parts. For only when one has developed the ability to bring such comprehensible ideas into consciousness with the kind of thinking that one otherwise only trains in comprehensible mathematical, geometric concepts, and when one has the will to deal with these ideas inwardly, only then does one gradually succeed in really having a practice in rejecting all reminiscences, all associations of ideas and all life in some subconscious soul content. This overcoming of reminiscences and the like must indeed first be acquired. And only then, when one has conscientiously overcome what reminiscences and the like are, is one actually able to develop that which imaginative life is, and this imaginative life proves itself by its own quality to be related to reality in just such a way as I characterized in the first lecture.

Here too, the objection is often raised – and the objections are sometimes almost typical – that something like this can only be an autosuggestion or something, the origins of which one does not suspect. Yes, you see, in the outer life too one can indulge in illusions, deceptions, and only the context of life, the whole of life as such, makes one gain a judgment about reality. So one must also educate oneself to a sure judgment in what appears to one as imaginative life. And if it is objected that it could not be the same with the imaginations as it is with some people, for whom their mouths water when they just think of or hear about lemonade, it is said that it is still not reality, even though the subjective experience of the taste of lemonade is there. Of course they have this subjective experience. If objectivity is judged only by this subjective content, one is naturally not yet ready to take from the content of the imagination that which represents it objectively, objectively spiritually. But one must still say: If one introduces something like autosuggestion into full, real life, not remaining with a cut-out piece, then the relationship to reality arises. For one can assume that people get an intense taste of lemonade when they think of lemonade, but I don't think that anyone has actually quenched their thirst with the imagined lemonade. When one progresses from a piece of reality to total reality – and this must be done in the realm of outer reality as well as in the realm of inner spiritual reality – then it ceases to be the case that one can be beguiled by mere illusions, mere autosuggestions. Recently, it has been said time and again that what is asserted as spiritual content is based on repressed imaginative life, and that what is repressed in repressed ideas would be brought to life, driven up into consciousness, and that this would lead to personifications and so on. This is how it is described, and to someone who sees through it, it sounds amateurish.

Yes, something like personifications and the like can arise in some nebulous mystics. For there are indeed some mystics who talk about all kinds of soul content and yet mean nothing other than reminiscences. It is true that some claim to have mystically experienced the unio mystica, the union with some divine within. But such experiences, which one had decades ago, can arise as reminiscences in consciousness, not only in the old form, but also in a transformed form; one can experience that what was experienced decades ago, and which has sunk into the depths of the unconscious, emerges after decades in a sublime form. What some mystics describe as the content of their experiences in mystical union need be nothing more than a barrel organ seen decades ago.

These things are carefully avoided in the truly subtle process of spiritual research, and the methods are clearly developed so that such errors can be avoided. People could also be convinced by the fact that the anthroposophical spiritual science referred to here does not just tell of what is in the spiritual worlds, but also talks about the things of ordinary science just like other people. If one can talk about the subjects of ordinary science in the same way as others, then the scientists have no right to claim that the additional findings of spiritual research are mere fantasy or stem from repressed mental images.

Furthermore, with regard to the so-called inner vision, what actually comes out of true spiritual vision is not at all what the nebulous mystics believe. The nebulous mystics speak of all kinds of inner experiences. In true spiritual insight, when one penetrates down through the ordinary life of the soul, one's own material, bodily inner life is more and more filled. One really learns anatomy and physiology through inner vision and does not prattle on about some mystical secrets. One comes to know the real spiritual life by looking at the world and living with the world, not through false, introverted asceticism or through lazy withdrawal into an unworldly life, but precisely by immersing oneself in real life and thus also through a kind of self-inspection that experiences in the inner being of the human being precisely that which the nebulous mystic does not seek.

The imaginative life that is meant here does not culminate in unworldly mysticism, not in a cloud cuckoo land, not in a spirit that is sought by saying: outer reality is so bad that one must withdraw from it, true reality is in the beyond.

A true spirituality is seen in such a way that it is connected with the will to immerse oneself in life. It is therefore not alien to life, but life-friendly. It is from this overall context of life that I ask you to judge what is meant here as anthroposophical spiritual science.

Question: What is the difference between monocotyledons and dicotyledons?

Rudolf Steiner: The question regarding the difference between monocotyledons and dicotyledons cannot be answered briefly. I would just like to say the following: I generally avoid answering isolated questions just like that, because this gives the impression that spiritual science is making judgments out of the blue, when in fact everything is structured in an appropriate way and is pursued from its elements. I would just like to say about this: for the spiritual scientific investigation, it is also necessary to set up a different plant system as real than the one that we find set up in many cases today. You have already seen that When I spoke of the human being yesterday, I had to point out that the human being cannot be viewed in such a way that one simply takes the whole human being and then does some kind of phylogenetic research, as is done today. Rather, one must start from the main organization of the head and trace it back, and there one must consider a complete transformation of animal forms, whereas one must consider later developments in the organization of the limbs. And yesterday I also first dealt with the morphological contrast between the spinal cord and the brain in order to show that one cannot proceed in the history of development as is usually done.

So it is also the case in botany that one starts from plant stages that are now more in the middle of the system. And on the one hand, one will look at these plant stages, which are where monocotyledons and dicotyledons split, and one will go down through the monocotyledons to the lowest plants, the fungi, algae and so and on the other side go up to the fully developed plants and so on; this will provide a system of plants that really includes in the morphological consideration the understanding of why the plants develop one organ downwards and the other upwards. In general, it will be found how two polar forces act on the plants, but in a different way on the plants of the different levels. And there we shall see that a certain force, which we must regard as running parallel to the terrestrial radius, is combined with another force, which has often been sensed in earlier times. We have only to recall the older speculations on the spiral tendency, such as those of Sprengel and others at the beginning of the nineteenth century. But these explanations are incomplete; they are multiple speculations, and what has been developed as morphology will have to be developed differently. If we proceed in this way, we will recognize why one organ is directed in one way and another in another. Efforts are definitely being made within our spiritual community to identify a plant system that will contain the information needed to explain the individual morphological phenomena. Then it will be easier to answer such questions in context from a natural arrangement than if one has to refer to them in an aphoristic way as one does today.

Question: What is the connection between the climbing plants and the heavenly bodies acting on them?

Rudolf Steiner: It is impossible to answer such questions, which necessarily require an explanation of the special nature of the influence of the heavenly bodies on plants, in an aphoristic way now. For one exposes oneself to the accusation of dilettantism if one speaks somehow about the influence of the heavenly bodies without having said in what sense this is taken. It is absolutely necessary that anthroposophical spiritual science be taken as a real method. Just as one cannot explain anything in a scientific way without going into the whole subject — as one would not, for example, expect someone who starts explaining chemistry to start with the most complicated things —, nor can it be done in the way that such attempts at explanation have been made here, and nor can such questions be answered. And one could almost believe that such questions are asked in reference to these lectures out of certain mystical inclinations, which basically should not be accommodated. You will understand me: it is absolutely essential to protect the spiritual science meant here from the accusation of dilettantism. And if such questions are answered without being put into context - they can of course be answered - then the accusation of dilettantism arises.

These questions are not even formulated in such a way that the same words can be used in answering them; they are formulated in an amateurish way. Therefore it is not possible for me to speak to them in this way. I suspect that these questions are based on something that has been heard elsewhere, because they are not in the least connected with what has been presented here about the individual tests of the relations of spiritual science to the individual specialized sciences. You must understand that it is not possible to answer these questions without having discussed the basic elements of them. It is like this: if people want to have such questions answered, then it is – I cannot put it any other way – amateurish. You must not hold this against me, but it is my job to put the scientific nature of this spiritual science in its proper perspective, and that includes its attitude. Therefore, I will not allow myself to be tempted in the future either, by those who would like to be followers but do not want to get into the subject, to expose this spiritual science to the accusation of dilettantism by talking about all sorts of things. That is the character of charlatan movements, that they talk about all sorts of things. Spiritual science also wants to be thoroughly scientific in its attitude.

Question: How does the movement of the muscle come about, since the motor nerve does not transmit the will impulse to the muscle? Is there a connection to be seen with the metabolic system?

Rudolf Steiner: I would have liked to have given the fifth lecture on this question, if possible, because it is a question that is directly related to what I have dealt with in these four lectures, only this question must be treated in the following way:

The difference between the sensitive and the motor nerves has been mentioned, more or less merely to provide direction. It has been emphasized that the so-called motor nerves are also sensitive nerves, only their task – and this can even be seen from their anatomical structure – is to sense inwardly, that is, to sense what underlies a movement process, for example, not to impulse this movement process itself, but to sense what underlies it, what happens in the metabolism – which is always part of a movement process. If you follow all this research on the nervous system and want to use the image of wireless telegraphy for it, then that is not in the sense of spiritual science, you leave that to others. Not true, in the time when telegraphy came up, all kinds of comparisons were also made from the telegraphy to compare the centripetal and centrifugal nerves with telegraphic feeders and pathways and so on. Such comparisons are not applied by spiritual science. It wants to go into the matter itself and not play with analogies.

The point is this: whenever there is a nerve pathway that appears empirically to be a supply line, say to the spinal cord or brain, and its continuation is found in the so-called motor nerve, it is always a matter of sensing inwards and outwards – let us assume, for example, a reflex movement –; what the nerve conveys is merely sensation, only either from the outside or from one's own physical interior. And the transition, which is usually regarded as the end of the transmission and the beginning of the impulsation, is merely what I would like to call a switchover, and not by taking an example from telegraphy. In this process, the whole process is experienced inwardly by the soul. We are then speaking of something very real when we say: something jumps over, just as an electric spark jumps over when I cut a telegraph wire. - This is the process that takes place in the so-called central nervous organs.

If we summarize what can be determined about the nature of the nervous system, then this will become the basis for further research into the nature of volitional impulses. It is, after all, only a hypothetical theory that what we call 'will' is in some way represented by the motor nerve, which is also a sensory nerve. Rather, the fact that we really understand the phenomena leads us to seek the relationship of the will to organs quite different from nerves. But this leads one to study precisely that which is so often treated with hostility – the higher members of human nature; one comes to see how the will cannot be understood at all if one regards it in the same relation to materiality as one regards, for example, the images in relation to materiality. In the study of the will, one then becomes acquainted with something that must essentially be viewed spiritually, while the life of imagination is really present in it in a material context. While the structures of the brain can be shown to parallel the structures of the imagination, the same cannot be said for the life of the will. However, if one wants to find the material correlates, one must look for metabolic processes, but one is led to completely different insights, which then lead upwards to spiritual contemplation. This is approximately how the answer to the question can be formulated here.

It is somewhat shocking to realize that the life of the imagination, which since scholastic philosophy has been regarded as the spiritual life in man, is so closely related in its structure to the material life of the body – although, as I have shown in these lectures, it is based only on it. But that is just how it is. On the other hand, we are led into a much more spiritual region when we consider the structures of the emotional life. There everything is so intimately connected with the rhythmic life of the body. And then one is led into the region of metabolism when it comes to the will; but in truth it is a matter of the mastery of matter through spiritual forces, which one has before one in direct contemplation when one rises up to what the will is - undeceived by the motor nerves. One sees how the will does not intervene in the material world in such a differentiated way as the life of the imagination.

I remember a discussion that followed a lecture by a real, solid materialist. He had explained the whole life of imagination from the brain, so that in the end nothing remained of the life of imagination, because he had actually only described brain processes, but described them very well, and then also drew figures on the blackboard, which in turn the chairman, who was a solid Herbartian, looked at. He then said that he was not as materialistic as the lecturer, but that if he were to draw the associations and suppressions of associations based on his Herbartian teaching, the figures would be exactly the same as those of the materialistic lecturer. So when a staunch opponent of materialism draws the structures of the representations, the same figures emerge as in the materialist, who only records what he has learned from Meynert about nerve phases, nerve centers, and so on.

From this, however, one can clearly see how similar what can be observed in the Herbartian sense as phenomena and connections between phenomena in pure mental life is to what someone who disregards this and describes the brain with Meynert's or similar hypotheses draws on the board. You cannot do that with the emotional life, and least of all with the life of the will. There you have to go to things that are made vivid, but made vivid mentally, but not in the way that what can be drawn in direct connection with material life.

Question: Why, according to the anthroposophical approach, does one suddenly have to work with opposite signs in the Einstein problem, where one passes from ponderable to ether?

Rudolf Steiner: Of course, this can be done quite without an anthroposophical approach, simply by doing things as in numerous other fields of science: one studies the phenomena. In a course I gave a few months ago to a small audience here, I showed how to look at the phenomena of so-called thermodynamics without prejudice. The aim is to try to express in mathematical formulas what is presented to us as phenomena. The peculiar thing about such expressions in mathematical formulas is that they are only correct if they correspond to the process that can then be observed, if, so to speak, what results from the mathematical formula also applies in reality, if it can be verified by reality. If you have a sealed chamber containing heated gas under pressure and you want to understand the phenomena that arise, you can apply Clausius's and other formulas, albeit in a very contrived way, but you will see - and this is also admitted today - how the facts do not match the formulas. In Einstein's theory, the strange thing is that experiments are available first; these experiments are set up because a certain theory is assumed; the experiments do not confirm this theory, and then another theory is constructed, which is actually based on imagined experiments. If, on the other hand, you try to treat the phenomena of heat in such a way that you insert corresponding positive and negative signs into the formulas, depending on whether you are dealing with conductive or radiant heat, then you will find these formulas verified by reality. However, when we proceed to other imponderables, we cannot stop at mere positive or negative signs, but must then add other conditions. We must, as it were, imagine a force that acts in the ponderable in a radial direction, and that which belongs to the realm of the ethereal, as coming from the periphery, acting only in the circular area, but still with a negative sign. And so, when we turn to other factors, we have to express the magnitude concerned differently; then we find that we arrive at formulas that can be verified through the phenomena. This is a path that anyone can take, even if they do not have an anthroposophical attitude.

But there is something else I would like to emphasize: do not think that the things I have told you in these four lectures were told to you because I was in an anthroposophical frame of mind. I told you these things because they are so. And the anthroposophical attitude follows only from the fact that one properly surveys things; the anthroposophical attitude does not precede things, but follows afterwards. One wants to recognize and understand things impartially, and then the anthroposophical attitude can follow. It would be badly ordered what I have said if one had to start from a prejudiced attitude. No, that is not the point at all. The point is to follow the phenomena in a strictly empirical way. The anthroposophical attitude must then be the last thing — even if I do not want to claim anything other than that it can nevertheless always be the best.

Question: What can be said about Schleich's works?

Rudolf Steiner: I prefer to talk about things in concrete rather than abstract terms. I have discussed many things with Professor Schleich and found that he is really very open to many ideas and has extremely interesting views on some subjects. But he cannot make the transition to the latter because he forms theories out of certain presuppositions - not out of a lack of presuppositions, but out of assumed presuppositions. Most of all, this confronted me – and I will now speak of an example – in a case he described to me; Professor Schleich described it to me before his book was published. A man came to him once who had pricked himself somewhere in an innocuous place with an ink pen, and he imagined that he had blood poisoning and would have to die during the night. He came to Schleich and wanted to have his arm amputated. Schleich looked at the arm and said: “That's not possible, it's not necessary at all, the sting is harmless, and I can't take your arm away.” The man went crazy with fear that he would die, he absolutely wanted to have his arm cut off, but Schleich sent him away. The man then went to another doctor, but he did not want to amputate the arm either. The next morning Schleich, who is a great philanthropist and humane man and, when he starts something, does not just leave it, went to the man. The man had actually died during the night. There was no trace of blood poisoning, and Schleich diagnosed: death by autosuggestion. Yes, that is easy to diagnose. But this is something completely different. It is a pity – or perhaps it was not possible – that the autopsy did not determine the real cause of death with certainty. It lay in something completely different. The man felt a certain presentiment, a certain premonition, that did not come to consciousness in such a way that one could have grasped it as a fully articulated presentiment. In the man's case, the approach of death was expressed not as some kind of physical sensation, but only in a mad fear; and the stabbing with the feather was nothing more than the man becoming clumsy and stabbing himself. And his whole behavior was nothing more than a certain presentiment; he would have died — stabbed or not. What was present was the premonition of the death living in the body, and the other was only symptomatic. One should also examine the case more closely from a psycho-physical point of view and not simply say: death by autosuggestion. - The matter was as I have now explained it, at least most likely. But this is something that Schleich did not want to be persuaded of; he stuck to his auto-suggestion, for which there is no evidence and which can only be said to be a daring hypothesis.

The same applies to other problems. Spiritual science wants to investigate everything empirically and not start from assumptions, while Schleich in particular really does have such favorite ideas in many cases. He is a witty and very humane man, but he cannot bring himself to be completely impartial and unprejudiced. But that is what must be striven for in anthroposophy, even with regard to such things that one values. And I can assure you, I appreciate Schleich's thoughts and work, which I know well; but if one asks, it must be pointed out that he always stops at something in this way. Anthroposophy wants to observe the phenomena in full impartiality in order to get to the bottom of reality, so that one can penetrate this reality with mathematical clarity.

I must again and again emphasize that it is not in the sense of any kind of sectarianism or amateurishness that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wants to assert itself here in Stuttgart. What is being striven for, even if it can only be done with the weakest of forces today, is genuine, true science. And the more spiritual science is examined in this way, the more it will be recognized as fully equal to every scientific method of examination. Spiritual science is not heaped with such misunderstandings out of real scientificness, as it is heaped today; its opponents truly do not fight it because they are too scientific, but - one goes after the thing -, because they are too little scientific. But in the future, we need not a drying up, but an increase, a real true progress of science, and in the end this can only be a progress that leads not only into the material, but also into the spiritual with complete precision.

In accordance with the program of today's meeting, my task this evening will be to say a few words about the appeal “An das deutsche Volk und an die Kulturwelt” (To the German People and to the Civilized World), which is in your hands. You will allow me to speak more aphoristically today, when I am addressing an assembly that is essentially familiar with the content of the appeal. I will speak about the social views that underlie the appeal and my book on the social question, which will be published in a few days, next Monday. What can lead a person with a compassionate impulse for humanity to make such an appeal, as has been presented to you today, is truly not some programmatic idea that one tends towards out of this or that interest. No, it is the facts that speak loudly and clearly, which have emerged from the terrible world catastrophe that we have been through in recent years. If we look at these facts with a watchful soul, we will come to a very definite conclusion above all. I would characterize this impression in the following way.

We have heard it said many times: During the terrible years that we have gone through in this world catastrophe that befell humanity, something happened that is unparalleled in the historical course of human development, which one usually surveys as such. There was a widespread feeling that something like this had never been seen in the whole of the great span of time that we call history. Should not the other thing also be evoked, which, it seems to me, has not yet been fully evoked, the feeling that now, for a reorganization of world conditions, things are also necessary that are, so to speak, brought forth from impulses of humanity that are radically new, that radically break, not only with old institutions, but that, above all, break with old habits of thought? Do we not have to say to ourselves, looking at the facts that speak loudly, that shadows are spreading over large parts of the civilized world, shadows that were actually left behind by pre-humanity in a chaotic manner for present-day humanity? In the face of this, can we say that out of the confusion, out of the chaos, such ideas, such thoughts, have already emerged that are equal to these facts? When we look at these facts soberly, do we not feel that we have to say: old party opinions are there, old social views are there, certain ideas of how it should be among people are there, but none of this is enough to somehow lead to a reorganization of what has been left behind from the most immediate past into our present.

This presents us with major, comprehensive tasks for the present. Perhaps we will best meet them if we ask ourselves openly and honestly – because openness and honesty will be the only things that can carry us into the future – if we ask ourselves openly and honestly: how did we actually end up in these circumstances? If I am to describe the most significant phenomenon of the present and want to ask: what has actually led to the present conditions, I cannot point out that they have arisen merely from the aberrations of one class or another of humanity. I would like to say: what is actually happening today is surging up as if from an abyss. What kind of abyss is that? It is an abyss that has opened up in the course of the last three to four centuries between the classes that have led humanity up to now and those who are emerging from being led and are now making their demands. It is not from one side or the other that the turmoil comes, but from what lies in between. This is not a pedantic remark, but something on which I believe a profound basis can be established and which at the same time throws light on what actually has to happen. On the one hand, we have the leading circles of humanity, who, basically, let's just admit it openly and honestly, have developed over the last few centuries and especially the last few years in such a way that they have shown little inclination to somehow look into the future, to have any idea of what may actually lie in the bosom of the social order within which they live.

When one looks at what has become of the influence of the thoughts, feelings, willpower and actions of these previously leading circles of humanity, then one recalls the degree of insight, the degree of power of thought, that was there, well, let us say, in the spring of 1914. It is necessary to point out such things today. In the spring of 1914, we could hear that at a meeting that was supposed to be enlightened at least with regard to political matters, at a meeting of those men to whom the leadership of the people was entrusted at that time, the then Foreign Minister said that he could inform the gentlemen of the German Reichstag that the general relaxation of Europe was making great progress. The relations between the German Reich and Russia are as satisfactory as can be imagined, because the government in St. Petersburg is not inclined to listen to the machinations of the press; the friendly neighborly relations between the German Reich and Russia promise the very best. Furthermore, he said that negotiations had been initiated with England, which had not yet been concluded, but which promised that the best relationship with England would ensue.

Yes, especially if one wants to openly and honestly consider what the intellectual power of the leading circles and those selected from these leading circles was in that decisive time, then one must point out such things. What has been hinted at could have been said in the weeks immediately preceding that terrible time, in which, within Europe, a mere ten to twelve million people were killed and three times as many were maimed! These things must be looked at, because today it is important to finally break away from what in recent times has usually been called the practice of life and to gain confidence in what real insight into the facts can achieve. If we do not decide to look courageously and without pretence at what, let us admit, we have been led to by our thoughtlessness regarding what the present is bearing for the future, we cannot move forward. That is what must be faced today. I really don't want to talk to you about anything personal this evening, but perhaps I may point out one thing by way of introduction.

At the same time that leading people were talking about “general relaxation” and the like, as I have just mentioned, I had to summarize in a small gathering in Vienna what I had formed over decades as a vision of the future possibilities of European, modern, civilized life in general. At that time I had to say it in front of a small group – a larger one would probably have laughed at me, because all those who held the leadership of humanity at that time were only inclined to regard such things as fantasies. I put what I had to say at the time into the following words, only repeating what I had already said in one form or another over the past decades:

The prevailing trends in today's world will become ever stronger until they ultimately destroy themselves. Those who have a spiritual understanding of social life see how terrible tendencies are sprouting everywhere, leading to the formation of social ulcers. This is the great cultural concern that arises for those who see through existence. This is the terrible thing that has such a depressing effect and that, even if one could suppress all enthusiasm for recognizing the processes of life through the means of a science that recognizes the spirit, would lead one to speak of the remedy, to cry out to the world for the remedy, so to speak, for what is already so strongly on the rise and will become ever stronger and stronger. What must be the case in a field, in a sphere, as nature creates through abundance in free competition - in the spreading of spiritual truths - that becomes a cancerous formation when it enters social culture in the way described.

It seems to me that these arguments more accurately describe what followed the spring of 1914, when these words were spoken, than all the words spoken by those who at the time considered themselves practitioners of life, who believed that they drew from reality, while they only drew from their political and other life illusions.

If I am to give a brief description of what has led to such things, well, it is precisely the lack of any foresight, the lack of a will to foresee what lies in the bosom of the present as the seeds of the future. Not to be accused – merely characterized!

If we survey the developments that have gradually emerged in the last few centuries in those leading classes that have ultimately entered the so-called bourgeois class of society, we must say that there have been many extraordinarily praiseworthy endeavors. There is no other way to describe them than to say that tremendous progress has been made in general human culture up to the present day. But what has this progress necessitated? It has necessitated that one has become entangled in a terrible contradiction of life. With the emergence of modern technology, with its necessary accessory of modern capitalism, on the one hand, and the modern world view, which goes hand in hand with capitalist and technical development, on the other, there was a need for a certain broadening of education. I will have to say something very paradoxical, but the truths that are necessary for us today may still sound somewhat paradoxical to the habits of thought of the time. Among those who have spoken out in an outstanding way, I actually know of only one man who has said in the right way how the world should actually be treated if things are to continue as they have been done in these leading, guiding circles for centuries; I know of one man who has said what, if they were consistent, these guiding, leading circles should actually do. And this man, and herein lies the paradox, is the head of the Holy Synod, as it is called in Russia; he is the Chief Procurator Pobjedonoszew. There is a writing of this man, which in an extraordinarily forceful and spirited way radically condemns all parliamentarism of recent times, radically condemns democracy, but above all the press of the Western world. Pobjedonoszew was far-sighted enough to know that either these things must be done away with, parliamentarism, the press, democracy, or that one would come to the destruction of that which the leading, guiding circles believe to be the right thing for modern times. Of course, only such a chairman of the Holy Synod had the courage to speak in such a radical way. There was an inner contradiction in the souls of the most progressive thinkers in the leading circles. It was fundamentally a contradiction even to the invention of the printing press. It was impossible, through all the newer institutions, to call upon the wider circles to make their own judgments and to think for themselves, and at the same time to continue to manage things in the same way as they had been managed. This was bound to lead to the result it has produced, namely, the self-destruction of this culture. That is one side of the matter. If the conclusion of the Senior Procurator Pobjedonoszew had been drawn in the widest circles, then people would have said, long since said: something else, something radically different is needed from what we have allowed to develop in the last few centuries. That is one side of the matter. I say this without accusation, just for the sake of characterization. From the statements of the Senior Procurator, one could see that a radical change was necessary, even if it was nonsense in more recent times. For actually one could only have held one's own if one had thought like him. That is the paradox that can be said on one side. That stands on one side of the abyss. Then comes the abyss, and on the other side stand the proletarians who have come of age, those who have been called from other walks of life over the past few centuries to the machine, to the factories; they have been called in such a way that their lives have been placed in modern capitalism, which is desolate for them. From their soul arose those demands that today are truly not just questions of bread; they are that too – but the important thing today is not the question of bread, because basically in Central Europe it is justified for all people – but, as we shall see in a moment, it is a comprehensive economic, legal and intellectual question. But let us now look at the other side of the abyss from the point of view that I want to take here, with regard to the characteristics of this side. Let us look at what is emerging in the proletarian world. It was truly something significant to witness what developed there. While on the one hand the bourgeois circles formed the upper class and developed a certain culture, which could only develop on the substructure of the proletariat, while the upper class of the bourgeoisie developed its own culture, one could see how, for decades, the little time that the proletarian had left over and above his work was filled with the striving for a social world and life view. This arose from completely different foundations than bourgeois culture. What this means is only known to those who have learned to think not only about the proletariat, but with the proletariat, through the vicissitudes of life. This is what is needed today to assess this side. And what do we see on this side? Well, there are already areas of the previously civilized world today where the proletariat is called upon to create order out of chaos. We have seen it develop, truly through all the ingenuity that corresponds to the fresh intellect of the proletariat, in which I believe – we have seen it, the idea, the idea of the social world outlook of the proletariat, endowed with tremendous momentum. We have seen it develop until the outbreak of the world catastrophe. We know how comprehensive views have arisen within the proletariat about what is to happen. Now, many of those who have formed these ideas in their own way, who believe that they have struggled to a proletarian world view, now stand in a position where they could carry out this world view, now they have inherited certain institutions over large parts of Europe. Do we see that they can do it? We see that from this side, too, the thoughts are much too short for these facts.

We see how on the one hand a worldview is alive that is driving the world into decline, and on the other hand a certain world-humanity current has not been able to find the social impulses at the decisive moment that can lead to a new form of organization. Between the two lies the abyss, and from this abyss surges that which already confronts us today and which will truly confront humanity, both bourgeois and proletarian, ever more strongly if this humanity does not find the inclination to grasp what the present and the near future demand out of the necessities of human development. These necessities of life can be seen by observing the proletarian movement as it is emerging, by seeing how it has gradually formed.

It can be said that what lives in the proletarian soul develops in three areas of life, but also develops what asserts itself as an inevitably satisfying demand of the present and the near future. In three areas of life. Those who have become somewhat familiar with the proletarian world view and outlook on life in recent decades, which has been summarized time and again by the insightful people of this movement in the words: It cannot go on as it has become, found above all how deeply the proletarian minds of recent times by an idea that emanated from the proletarian leader whose name has been alive in the European and American proletariat for seventy years, and who, despite all his successors, has not yet been surpassed, that emanated from Karl Marx. One has only to realize how, in the minds of modern workers, exhausted by toil, who in their evening meetings wanted to educate themselves about what should happen, everything that is connected with the word 'surplus value' has struck a chord. This touched the deepest feelings of the proletariat. But it not only touched the deepest feelings of the proletariat, no, it touched at the same time the most intense demands of the modern development of humanity. Only if you really want to understand such things, you have to look deeper than just into what people say with their minds, with their head consciousness. In the depths of the human soul often rests something quite, quite different from what people consciously realize. Endless meaning was stirred up in the proletarian soul when surplus value was mentioned. Infinitely much was stirred up by what the proletarian has no clear conscious ideas about, but what lives in him and what now erupts with elemental force and must be understood if one wants to find any way out of the confusion. Whether the doctrine of “surplus value” can stand up to the judgment of economic science in the sense of Karl Marx is not important for what is meant. Even if this idea was based on error, its social, its social-agitational effect in the working class as a historical phenomenon would have to be considered.

What was it that lived in the deepest depths of the proletarian soul when the subject of surplus value was raised? Well, the leading, managerial circles spoke of the evolution of humanity; they felt themselves in this evolution of humanity. Yes, when they wanted to express what actually underlies this evolution of humanity, then they said, depending on their need, divine world government, moral world order, historical ideas or the like. The proletarian, who, with the dawn of the new era, had inherited this bourgeois world view as a legacy, was offered certain concepts that had developed over time. But when he looked at the leading circles, he could see nothing of the revelation of what these leading circles spoke of as divine world guidance, moral world order and historical ideas. Why could he see nothing? Well, he was harnessed – that is only in recent times and truly has not improved much through the merits of the leading circles – he was harnessed not to a moral world order or divine world order, but to the yoke of the newer economic order. And he looked at what developed as spiritual life among the leading classes. What did he feel there? He sensed the only relationship he truly had – for he could not have the other – to this cultural view, to this cultural heritage of the leading, guiding circles. What was his relationship to it? He produced what this cultural heritage cost; he produced surplus value for others, that alone he understood.

And what they wanted to give him of this cultural heritage, in the form of all kinds of popular entertainment, popular theater performances, in popular courses, in artistic popular performances of other kinds, was something to which he could not develop an inner relationship. For one can only gain an inner relationship to it if one is socially and vitally immersed in the corresponding intellectual life. But the abyss between the two classes had opened up, and basically it was an untruth when the proletarian felt something in what had been thrown at him as a piece of cultural property. And so it came about — I will only briefly describe it today, on Monday I will say a little more about it — that something came about that cut deeply into the hearts of those who understood culture when, like the one who is allowed to speak before you today, they took part in proletarian life and proletarian striving. It came up that within the proletariat the soul-destroying view took hold that all intellectual life, art, religion, customs, law, all science are basically nothing but the reflection of economic life. Among the insightful proletarians, one could repeatedly hear a word used to describe all intellectual life: the word 'ideology'. What the proletarian felt when he looked at art, at science of modern times, at religion, customs and law, was for him nothing more than something that rises like a smoke from the only real thing, the material economic life - ideology. And the view arose, that view which cut deep into the heart, that view which understood all spiritual life, the entire content of the human spirit as ideology. One can, and the modern proletarians did so, especially their leaders, have this view: All spiritual life is basically only the product of unreal human thoughts that arise from the conditions of economic life. Oh, there is so much that can be proved in a strictly scientific way! We have learned a lot about it in recent times. Of course, this view can be scientifically proven as rigorously as possible, but one thing cannot be done with this view: it cannot be lived with. And that is the great tragic fate of the modern age, that the proletariat has placed one last great trust in the bourgeois class by taking over what has become of intellectual life within the bourgeois social order in modern times. What has become of it has been taken over by the proletariat and perceived as an empty fabric of thoughts, like smoke, one might say, rising from the economic conditions. But one can only live with the spiritual life if one experiences it in such a way that one is strongly supported by it in one's deepest soul. Otherwise the soul becomes desolate, otherwise the soul becomes empty.

And no one understands the terrible damage of modern culture who cannot point to this subconscious, who does not have insight into this subconscious, who does not know that precisely under this seemingly so easily provable view of life, the soul must become desolate and that this therefore led to despair in something other than at most an improvement in external material conditions. , and that this soul, emerging from this desolation, came to despair of everything in life except, at most, an improvement in material circumstances. This is the basis of what must be described as the real spiritual demands of the modern proletariat. This cannot be characterized in any other way than to say that the bourgeois social order of modern times has handed down to the proletariat a soul content, a spiritual content, that cannot ennoble the soul and spirit of man, and now this bourgeois social order is being hit back by what has become of the desolate souls, of the abandoned souls. These souls had to be summoned to participate in education through the necessarily widespread democracy. They could not and should not be excluded, nor did anyone want to do so. But they were summoned by a sense of modern intellectual life, the consequences of which were not drawn by those in power, because they did not need to be drawn. If you were a member of the bourgeois class, you still lived in the impulses that came from old religious ideas, from old moral or aesthetic views from ancient times. The proletarian was put at the machine, was crammed into the factory, into capitalism. Nothing arose from this that could answer the big question for him: What am I actually worth as a human being in the world? He could only turn to what was the scientific orientation in modern times. Intellectual life became an ideology for him, something soul-destroying. From this arose his demands, which are still vague today. Only an understanding of this fact can lead to a salutary path into the future. Things are much more serious and in a completely different area than is usually believed today.

The proletarian, for his part, has now gradually seen how, in more recent times, intellectual life arose from the economic order of the bourgeois circles – today there would not be enough time to fully develop the thought. The way people were placed, their existence and economic circumstances, so was their spiritual life. I may, when I tell these things, perhaps refer to a personal experience, because I consider this personal experience to be extremely characteristic. For many years I taught a wide range of human knowledge at the Workers' Education School founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht. I was also a teacher of speech exercises. In my dealings with students who are now active in party life and play a role here and there, I have been able to see much of what emerged at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century. I endeavored to make clear to my students, who also understood, what the intellectual life has made into an ideology, and that is precisely the economic life of the last four centuries. And by limiting himself essentially to the observations of life in the last four centuries, the proletarian and the proletarian theorist come to regard the whole of intellectual life as ideology. But it has only become so in the last four centuries. The proletarian world view is based on this error, in that it takes a fact of the last four centuries for a fact of the whole development of humanity. I have said it again and again: for the last four centuries this is correct, but we are now faced with the challenge of having to replace ideology with real spiritual life that carries the human soul. The healing aspect lies not in the statement that spiritual life is ideology, but in the will to create a spiritual life that is not ideology. For this ideology is the heritage of the bourgeois social order. At that time I was pushed out of the school by the party leaders, although the students themselves were in favour of me and had also understood me. It was not so easy to gain acceptance for those ideas which, after all, must above all be the fundamental ideas for a social reorganization if one first regards the social question as a spiritual question.

The second area of life that we see as having developed into what has come to light in the proletarian demands is the field of law, the field that, as the proclamation states, is supposed to be the actual territory of the state. What then is right? Yes, I have truly tried for decades to understand the different views that people have about the concept of right. I must admit that if one approaches the concept of right in a way that is true to life and reality, and not theoretically, then one says to oneself in the end: right is something that arises as something original, as something elementary, from every healthy human breast. Just as the ability to see blue or red as a color comes from a healthy eye, and just as one can never teach someone who has a diseased or blind eye the concept of the color blue or red, one can never teach anyone teach anyone what is right in any specific area, unless the sense of right and wrong, which is something elementary and original, lives in him, just as seeing colors or hearing sounds is something elementary. This sense of right and wrong arises, I might say, from a quite different corner of the soul's life than anything else that is created in the development of the human spirit. What is otherwise created in the life of the mind is all based on talent. The sense of right and wrong has basically nothing to do with talent. It is something that develops out of human nature in an elementary way, but only in dealing with people, just as one can only learn language by dealing with people. This sense of right and wrong, whether it speaks loudly and clearly, whether it springs darkly from the human soul, is something that the human soul wants to develop within itself. When the proletarian, through modern educational conditions and through democracy, began to participate in the general intellectual and legal life, in the life of the constitutional state, the question of rights arose for him as well. But when he asked about rights, what did he find? Look into his soul and you will find the answer to this question. He found that when he judged the point of law from his point of view, he did not find rights, but privileges, conditioned by the differences between the classes of humanity. He found that what had become established as positive rights had actually only emerged from the privileges of the favored class, as a disadvantage of the right among the classes without property. He found the class struggle on the legal ground instead of the realization of the right. This realization filled him with the conviction that he could advance only if he was a class-conscious proletarian, if he sought his rights from within this class. This led him to the second link in his world view: to overcome class differences so that the structure of the life of the constitutional state could arise on the soil on which these class differences had arisen in the course of historical development.

The third area from which the demands that are proletarian demands and at the same time necessary demands of the present arise is the economic area. This economic area, as it has so clearly emerged through the capitalist world order and through modern technology, how did it affect the proletarian? How did this economic order, this economic cycle affect the proletarian? Well, it affected him in such a way that he saw himself completely enmeshed in this economic cycle. The others had the intellectual life, which he, however, saw as an ideology, and for him to participate in it was actually a lie because he did not stand in the social context from which it had arisen. The bourgeois circles had their special privileges and cultural assets, and they had an economic life that ran alongside. For them, life was divided into three, even if they combined it in the unified state. But he, the proletarian, felt that his whole personality was harnessed to this economic life. How so? You can see why by looking at the feelings – if you want to understand these things, you have to look at real life – that have developed more and more violently in the modern proletarian soul over the last six to seven decades. Just as it became clear to the proletarian that he derived no benefit from intellectual life, that his only connection to it was his role in producing surplus value, so it became self-evident to him that the new economic life contained something that should not be there if he, as a proletarian, was to receive a humane answer to the question: What is human life worth in the context of the world?

In essence, the only things that move in the economic cycle are those that can be labeled as goods or human services. Production of goods, circulation of goods, consumption of goods, that is basically economic life. For the leading and guiding circles it was also so, but for the proletarian it was different. His labor power was woven into this economic cycle. Just as one bought goods on the goods market, so one bought the human labor power from the proletarian. Just as the commodity had its price, so human labor had its price in the form of wages on the labor market. This, again, was something that touched the unconscious feelings of the proletarian soul, something that did not necessarily have to come to full conscious clarity, but which was expressed in an elementary way in the great, significant, loud facts of the present. It was therefore to the depths of the proletarian soul that Karl Marx's words about “labor as a commodity” spoke. Basically, the proletarian stood in retrospect in the historical development of mankind by understanding these words in the sense of labor as a commodity. In ancient times, economic culture needed slaves. The whole person was sold like a commodity or like an animal. Later, in a different economic order, serfdom came. Less of the human being was sold, but still a great deal. Now the more recent period came along, which, in order to develop in a capitalist way, had to summon the broad masses of the proletariat to a certain education, which had to cultivate democracy in a certain way. And it was not understood in time to see what was germinating in the present for the future. It was not observed in time, as it is necessary, to tear the buying and selling of human labor out of the economic cycle. The modern proletarian felt that he was a continuation of ancient slavery, that he had to sell his labor power on the labor market according to supply and demand, just as one buys and sells merchandise. Thus he felt as if he were wrapped up in the economic process, not standing outside it, as the other classes of the population do. He felt as if he were completely immersed in it. Because if you have to sell your labor, you sell the whole person, because you have to go to the place where you sell your labor as a whole person. The time had come when it should have been realized that human labor had to be integrated into the social organism so that it was not a commodity, where the old wage relationship could no longer exist. This was overlooked. That is the tragedy of the bourgeois view of life: that the right moment has been missed everywhere, that what was necessary in the course of modern capitalist and democratic development has been missed. This is what, in the end, not from below, from the proletariat, but from a lack of understanding of the times, from the bosom of the bourgeoisie, has brought about the current chaos. “My guilt, my great guilt,” the leading circles should say to themselves all too often, then out of this realization would flow the clear feeling of what actually has to happen. This characterizes what has led to the present situation, that which is now bursting out of the abyss as a threefold demand, as a spiritual demand, a legal demand, an economic demand. And we must no longer build on the fallacy that all salvation can come from the economic order. For that is precisely the evil, the harmful thing, that the modern proletarian has been enslaved completely in the economic order. He must be freed from the economic order!

I have only been able to sketch out the historical development of these ideas. Anyone who has followed these events as they have unfolded in modern times with an insightful eye, anyone who has the good will and the inner sincerity and honesty to look beyond all economic, historical and other judgments of the present the reality, will come, through observation of the conditions of the last three to four decades, to recognize the necessity of this threefold order, of which the call speaks.

The proletarian has only seen that intellectual life is dependent on economic life. From this he formed the idea that all intellectual life must be dependent on economic life. He could not overlook the fact that intellectual life has condemned itself to be an appendage of economic life due to its inner weakness, due to the fact that it no longer had the impact of the old worldviews. Thus it came to its view of ideology. The proletarian had paid less attention to something else, which, however, for the same reason as the intellectual life has also become dependent on the life of the state, has remained unseen on the part of the middle-class. I even want to see the historical justification of this dependency in modern times as something necessary. But it is also necessary to take into account the right time at which this intellectual life must be emancipated, not only from economic life but also from state life. Over the last four centuries, the intellectual life of the civilized world has become increasingly dependent on state life. This has been seen as a sign of progress in modern times. Of course, this was necessary to free intellectual life from the shackles of the church; but now it is no longer necessary. It was considered progress to place intellectual life entirely under the wing of state life. How could anyone scoff at the Middle Ages, which we truly do not want to see again, how could anyone scoff at the fact that in those days philosophy, that is to say, for the Middle Ages, science in general, carried the train of theology. Well, at least it has come to pass that modern science does not everywhere carry the train of theology. But science has come to something else, intellectual life has come to this: to the dependence of this intellectual life on the needs of state life, which has been gradually established – this has been shown in particular by the world war catastrophe – entirely according to the needs of modern economic life, which were not generally human needs. The catastrophe of war has made us in Germany very aware of this in individual phenomena, I would say symptomatic. Of course, I could multiply the symptoms a hundredfold, even a thousandfold, but you will understand me when I point to what emerged from a certain scholarship precisely during the war, which, after all, brought everything to an extreme. But the matter has always been there. A very important natural scientist of the recent past, for whom, as a natural scientist, I naturally have the utmost respect, spoke a word that is particularly indicative of the dependence of science on the modern state. He spoke the word as Secretary General of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, calling this Academy of Sciences “The Scientific Guard Troop of the Hohenzollerns”. Well, you don't have to go that far everywhere. In relation to mathematics and chemistry, the corresponding fact is very much hidden, but even there it is present. But go up to those areas that touch on a great vital question of world view, to the field of history, and in modern times, intellectual life has truly become nothing more than the scientific protection force for the modern state. But intellectual life cannot be cultivated in its inner essence by legislating on freedom of teaching, on free science and free teaching. Laws have no influence at all on intellectual life, because intellectual life is based on elementary human talents. And anyone who is familiar with the official intellectual life of modern times knows, even if it sounds paradoxical – I do not even like to say it, because I had to struggle with a certain reluctance to come to this conclusion – that this modern official intellectual life has gradually developed a certain hatred for the talents and a certain preference for the production of the average in human nature. But all intellectual life must be based on the original human talents.

Anyone who looks into the connection between human and individual talents and the social order of human society knows that spiritual life can only prove itself in reality when it is compelled to prove this reality from its own essence prove this reality, when it is left to its own devices from the lowest school up to the universities, from what is today perceived as an appendage of the state to the free artistic expression and so on. Social democracy has so far only found the opportunity, based on feelings that may be wrong, which is not to be assessed here, to demand that religion must be a private matter. In a similar way, all intellectual life must become a private matter in relation to the state and economic order if it is to continue to prove its own reality. This reality can only be proven if this intellectual life is left to its own devices. Furthermore, if it is left to its own devices, this intellectual life will no longer engage in the nonsense it has been engaging in, for example, by interfering in the legal order of the state. One will have to recognize the enormity of the fact that a party like the Center, based purely on spiritual foundations – one may think of it as one pleases in terms of content – has wormed its way into a state parliament, such as the German Reichstag, where only human rights and the like were to be formulated. The moment such a party enters into the life of the state, this life is inevitably tarnished from one side, from the spiritual side. For only that can flourish in the life of the state in which all people are equal, just as they are equal to a certain degree in language. In the life of the state, only that which is not based on special human talent can flourish, but what is determined from person to person on the basis of the original sense of right and wrong. From an understanding of intellectual life as well as from an understanding of the conditions that have arisen in modern times from the intermingling of intellectual life with the state, the demand arises to completely separate intellectual life as a separate organization and to stand on its own. There is no need to fear, as the Socialists do, that the unity of the school system, which they advocate, might be endangered by the fact that the lowest school is placed on the independent basis of spiritual life, in an independent spiritual administration. The conditions of social life in the future will be such that special schools for different classes and groups will not be able to develop. Especially if the lowest teacher is not a civil servant, but only dependent on a spiritual administration, then nothing else can arise from this but the unified school. For how did the classes come about? Precisely because spiritual life was combined with state life.

On the other hand, economic life must be detached from state life. By raising such a demand, one is only too deeply involved in practical life. For basically one can say that economic life, in developing in modern times, has something so arbitrarily compelling that it has gone beyond outdated state and other ideas. Today, people still do not have a clear idea of this, because they do not look at what the necessary demands of modern times are. Let me give you a concrete example, an example that could be multiplied a hundredfold, and that shows how economic life has emancipated itself from the other areas, from intellectual and legal life, in modern human development. I would like to point out the necessary extraction of raw iron at the beginning of the 1860s. In 1840, the German iron industry needed about 799,000 tons of raw iron, which was mined by just over 20,000 workers. In the relatively short period up to the end of the 1880s, the German iron industry required 4,500,000 tons of pig iron, compared to the previous 799,000 tons. These 4,500,000 tons of pig iron were mined by roughly – there is only a slight difference – the same number of 20,000 workers. What does this mean? It means that regardless of everything that has happened in the development of humanity, regardless of what has taken place in the development of humanity, at the end of the 1880s, with 20,000 people, purely through technical improvements, through technical developments, about five times more iron was produced than in the 1860s. That is to say, that which belongs to the technical-economic sphere has become independent, has been set apart from the rest of human development. But people have not paid attention to this, they have not even seen it - and this example could be multiplied a hundredfold - how economic life has emancipated itself. What people did in the economic sphere was not followed by progress in the economic sphere through technology. One should not ignore the opinion expressed here. This opinion is that technology has advanced, but that there was no corresponding idea to accompany technical progress with appropriate social progress. Those who are able to observe facts know that this modern economic life has emancipated itself, and that when this emancipation is demanded from state life, all that is demanded is that people should admit it and make such arrangements as they have developed by themselves. Thus the necessity of the emancipation of economic life follows from many examples, which are not thought up by me or others, but which live in the facts themselves. It is what the facts demand. But what will be the consequence?

Well, a basic requirement, a fundamental requirement of modern life can only be met by separating economic life from state life. Contrary to the thinking of many a socialist thinker of recent times, development must proceed in this direction. While many socialist thinkers think that economic life must develop as in a large cooperative, that it must also include intellectual and state life, economic life must be separated and only run in the cycle of goods production, goods circulation, and goods consumption. But that is the only thing that can lead to a satisfaction of the necessary demands of life in the present.

You see, economic life borders on natural conditions on the one hand. We can only master natural conditions to a certain extent. Whether an area is fertile, whether the soil contains raw materials for industry, whether there are fertile or infertile years, these are natural conditions; they underlie economic life. This builds itself as on a base from one side on it. In the future, it must build itself on something else, which cannot be regulated by economic life any more than the natural forces in the soil. You cannot make decrees about the forces of nature. On the other hand, economic life must be adjacent to the legal life of the state. Just as economic life borders on natural conditions on the one hand, so it must border on the legal life of the state on the other. This also includes ownership, employment relationships and labor law. Today, the situation is such that, despite the employment contract, the worker is still harnessed into the cycle of economic life with his labor. This labor must be released from the cycle of economic life, despite the fears of Walther Rathenau. And it must be released in such a way that the measure, time and nature of labor are regulated on the legal basis of the state, which is completely independent of economic life, from purely democratic legal relationships. The worker will then, before he enters economic life, have himself co-determined the measure, time and nature of his labor from the democratic state order. How this measure, this nature, this character of the labor force is determined will underlie economic life, just as natural conditions underlie it. Nothing in economic life will be able to extend the basic character of that life to human labor. The basic character of economic life is to produce goods in order to consume goods. That is the only healthy thing about economic life. And it is the very nature of economic life that everything drawn into its cycle must be consumed to the last bit. When human labor is drawn into the economic process, it is consumed. Human labor, however, must not be consumed to its very last ounce, and must not, therefore, be treated as a mere commodity. It must be determined on the basis of the legal life of the State, which is independent of economic life, just as the foundations of economic life are laid in the soil by the forces of nature, which are independent of economic circulation. Before the worker begins to work, the nature, extent and duration of his labor are determined in the realm of the legal life.

I know all the objections that can be made against what has been said. One thing in particular can be objected to. As a necessary consequence of this view, it will be said that what is called national prosperity comes to depend on what labor law is. Yes, that will happen, but it will be a healthy dependence. It will be a kind of dependence that does not ask for production and production and more production, but asks: How can the person who has to intervene in the economic process maintain his physical and mental health despite the economic process? How can he be assured of rest from work, in addition to the consumption of his labor power, so that he can participate in the general spiritual life, which must become a general human spiritual life, not a class spiritual life? For this he needs rest from work. And only when social consciousness arises to such an extent that the rest from work also satisfies the purely human needs of the proletariat, when it is recognized that this rest from work is just as much a part of work, of social life, as is the labor force, only then will we emerge from the turmoil and chaos of the present. It is necessary that those for whom the above is biting into an apple, do it. Otherwise they will realize in a very different way what the modern demands mean, which do not arise from human souls alone or from human minds, but from the historical development of humanity itself. If this demand regarding labor law is met, then the formation of prices will depend in a healthy way on labor law and not the other way around, as it still is today despite some labor protection legislation. Wages, that is, the price of human labor, will depend on the other conditions of the economic cycle. Man will become the determining factor for what can be there in economic life. However, just as with nature, which can only be approached to a limited extent through technical devices, one will have to be reasonable in determining labor law and ownership in a certain direction. But on the whole, economic life must be aligned between the legal life and natural conditions. This economic life itself must be built on purely economic forces, on associations that will partly be formed from the professional guilds, but mainly from the harmony of consumption and production.

Today, due to a lack of time, I cannot go into the causes of the great economic crises, especially not into how they ultimately led to the great catastrophe, the Baghdad Railway and the like. But it is necessary to consider – and it can be shown in concrete terms – how these things must actually be thought.

You see, a healthy economic life can only result when the relations of consumption are regarded as the decisive factor, not the relations of production. Now, perhaps I may mention something that was once attempted, which failed only because, within the whole old economic order, such an isolated attempt is bound to fail. It can only succeed if the economic system is radically emancipated from all other aspects of life. In a society that most of you do not love very much because it has been much maligned, we tried, before the catastrophe of war befell us, to accomplish some of the things that must become the economic system of the future, developed, of course, to an immeasurable extent, in a small area, in the area of bread production. We were a society, we could provide consumers with bread. The consumers were there first, and the aim was to produce according to the needs of consumption. For various reasons, the project failed, especially during the war catastrophe, when such things were not possible. But take another example, which may seem strange to you because, compared to the “idealism” of today, it unjustifiably combines intellectual life with economic life for many people — after all, the idealists of materialism are strange people. In the same society, which, as I said, many of you will not love, I have always tried to put the economic element of intellectual production on a healthy footing. Just think about the unhealthy economic basis on which much of today's intellectual production stands. In this respect, it is truly exemplary of what should not prevail in the broadest areas of our economic life. So-and-so – well, who is not a writer today? – writes a book or books. Such a book is printed in a thousand copies. Nowadays, there are truly quite a lot of books that are printed in such numbers, but of which only about fifty are sold, the rest are destroyed. What actually happens when 950 books are destroyed? So many typesetters and so many bookbinders have worked unproductively, work has been done for which there was no need at all. This happens in the intellectual realm in relation to economic life, in relation to material things. I believed that the healthy thing was this: that, of course, needs must first be created. And within this society, which, rightly or wrongly, many of you do not love, the necessity has arisen to establish a bookshop of this kind, where a book is only published when it is certain that there will be takers for it, where only as many copies are produced as needed, so that human labor of typesetters and bookbinders is not wasted, but rather that what is created is adapted to human needs, which one may find wrong for my sake. And that is what has to happen: production must be adapted to needs. But this can only happen if economic life is built on the basis of associations in the way described.

Since the eighteenth century, the modern social life has been imbued with the threefold motto: liberty, equality, fraternity. Whoever hears these three words resounding in the human heart knows that great things have been said with them. But there have been clever people in the course of the nineteenth century who have proved that these three human impulses contradict each other. They really do contradict each other. Three dear human mottos contradict each other. Why? Because they arose at a time when, as far as these mottos are concerned, people felt true human impulses, but were still hypnotized by the unitary state. It was not yet possible to see that the salvation of the future can only lie in the threefold division into a spiritual organism, an economic organism and a state organism. And so people believed that they could realize freedom, equality and brotherhood in a unitary state. They contradict each other. Structure the healthy social organism into its three natural parts, and you have the solution for what the human soul has been brooding on for more than a century: freedom is the basic impulse of spiritual life, where the freedom of individual human abilities must be built upon. Equality is the basic impulse of state and legal life, where everything must arise from the consciousness of the equality of human rights. Brotherhood is what must prevail on a large scale in the economic sphere of life; this brotherhood will develop out of the associations. These three words suddenly take on a meaning, an unsuspected meaning, if one discards the prejudice of the unitary state and embraces the conviction of the necessity of the threefold social order.

I can only hint at all these things, and I can understand if many people still say today: these things seem incomprehensible to me. I have repeatedly tried to seek the reason for this lack of understanding in the call. And many were among those who said that they found it incomprehensible, for example, I cannot quite understand how they can justify what they have understood when they have been ordered to understand it in the last four and a half years. There are many things that people have understood that I truly have not understood. But with this call, something penetrates to the human soul that is to be understood from its freest, innermost resolution. To do so, however, requires the inner strength of the soul. But this inner strength of the soul will be needed if we want to emerge from the chaos and turmoil of this time. The appeal was first made in the midst of the terrible situation in which we found ourselves, because it was originally intended – now we have entered a different phase – as the basis for a foreign policy of which I could assume that with a certain revival of the ideas of this appeal, despite the fact that they only appear to be domestic political ideas, it would have been possible for them to have resounded in the thunder of the guns in the last few years. Then something would have emerged from Central Europe that could have been believed to have resounded out into the world in such a way that it would have been on a par with Woodrow Wilson's so-called Fourteen Points. These fourteen points, which are truly conceived in a quite different interest from the Central European, should have been opposed by the Central European interest. Then there would have been a possibility of speaking of understanding, whereas all the other talk of understanding was hollow. That is what was first attempted there, where it might have had an effect. But it was preaching to deaf ears. Those people who still had influence at that time, those who were the successors of those who had spoken of the “progress of general relaxation” before murdering ten to twelve million people, were told: You have the choice of either accepting reason now or expecting something disastrous. What I said in 1917 at a decisive moment in this appeal, is not the invention of one man, but the result of devoted observation of the developmental necessities of Central and Eastern Europe. You have the choice of either presenting to humanity what reason wants to be realized first, so that this humanity of Central Europe may have a goal again and be able to speak of it like the people of the West, or you will face the most terrible cataclysms and revolutions. In those days people listened to such things, and they were understood. But the will was lacking, or rather, there was no bridge between the intellectual understanding and the development of the will. Today, the facts speak loudly of the fact that these bridges from understanding to will must be found. That is what this call to humanity is meant to say. This call is to be understood out of free inner resolve. It is to be understood out of the will to think.

What I can contribute to this through the book “The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life in the Present and Future”, which will be published in the next few days, I will do so. But humanity will have to admit that completely new habits of thought are necessary for the new building, that something is necessary that has not been thought of in such a way on the left or on the right. One should not take things lightly. Humanity will have to make an effort to do so. It is making an effort to do so, forced by external circumstances to recognize that the time is past when people were led to believe that they can only be happy, contented and socially viable if throne and altar are in order. From the east of Europe today, a different song is heard: “throne and altar” are to be replaced by “office and factory”. In the womb of that which arises in the office and factory lies something very similar to that which arose under the influence of throne and altar. Only if we are willing to look neither to the left nor to the right, but only at the great historical necessities of development, will we find the way that leads us to what we need, namely, to nothing other than humanity, neither to throne and altar nor to office and factory, but to the liberated human being. For by dividing the social organism into three parts, you allow people to participate in all three parts. They are part of economic life, they are part of the democratic state, they are part of spiritual life or have a certain relationship to it. They will not be fragmented, but will be the connecting link between the three areas. It is not a matter of reinstating the old class distinctions, but precisely of overcoming the old class distinctions, so that the free human being can live fully by organizing the external life of the human being in a healthy way within the social organism itself. That is what the future is about. We can only free the human being, we can only place him in a position where he can stand on his own, if we place him in the world in such a way that he stands in all three areas without his humanity being fragmented.

Of course, it is still quite difficult to understand these things under certain circumstances. Recently I gave a lecture on these matters in a town in Switzerland. A speaker stood up who said that he did not really understand the threefold social order, because justice would then only develop on the basis of the state; it must also permeate intellectual and economic life. I replied with a comparison to make the matter clear. I said: Let us assume that a rural family community consists of a man, a woman, children, maids and farmhands, and three cows. The whole family needs milk to live, but it is not necessary for the whole family to produce milk. If the three cows produce milk, the whole family will have milk. Justice will then prevail in all three areas of the social organism when justice is produced on the soil of the emancipated state. It is a matter of returning from clever thoughts and ideas to simple thoughts and ideas about reality. I am convinced that this call is not understood because people do not take it simply enough. Those who take him simply will see how he and his ideas express the longing that we gradually emerge from the turmoil of the present, from the chaos of the present, from the trials of the present, to a life in which, precisely through the threefold social order, the uniformly healthy human being, the human being who is healthy in soul, body and spirit, can develop.

Closing words after the discussion

Someone asks Dr. Steiner where, in our German life at the moment, in the form in which the present government exists, the best opportunity presents itself to translate the ideas expressed into reality. Is there any hope that more can be expected for the thoughts expressed here tonight, or that more can be expected for the development of these thoughts, if the present socialist majority government remains in power?

Dr. Steiner: Those who try to penetrate more deeply into what this appeal actually means will, I believe, not find it difficult to see the direction in which the significant, weighty questions of the esteemed previous speaker are posed. I would like to say a few words about the historical phenomenon touched on by the esteemed previous speaker. You see, I only did it in two places in my lecture, but I believe that today's public life must have thrown its mirror images into personal experience in a certain way for anyone who really tries to penetrate it, dares to have a say in it, and has the confidence to dare to do so. I only mentioned two personal experiences, but perhaps I may say, in response to this question: I myself actually came from a working-class background, and I still remember as a child looking out the window when the first Austrian Social Democrats walked by in their large democratic hats on their way to the first Austrian assembly in the neighboring free forest. Most of them were miners. From that time on, I was able to experience everything that happened within the socialist movement, in the way I have characterized it in the lecture and as it happens when one is determined by fate, not just to think about the proletariat but with the proletariat, while still maintaining a free view of life and all its individual aspects. Perhaps I bore witness to this in 1892, when I wrote my “Philosophy of Freedom,” which truly advocated the structure of human social life that I now see as necessary for the development of human talent. Well, you see, in the 1880s, you could take part in many discussions and the like within the social movement, in which the socialist ideas that were emerging were reflected. I would like to say that a certain basic tone was present in all of this.

Of course, it would be going too far to talk about it, because the history of modern socialism is a very long one; it would be going too far if I wanted to be more detailed about this chapter, so what I say will already be subject to the fate that one must, to a certain extent, characterize superficially. In all that was truly alive in the proletarian-socialist worldview, there was something that I would like to call social criticism. It was something that could point out the entire process of modern life over the last four hundred years with tremendous acuity, with the acuity of human self-awareness. One experienced the social impossibilities of the present. But even when one spoke about these things in small circles, the most knowledgeable, the most active—I cite as examples the recently deceased Viktor Adler and E. Pernerstorfer —, the most knowledgeable stopped the discussion at a certain moment, when ideas were to be developed about what should happen, when the inner consistency that was pointed out, the inner consistency of the modern economic order, led to its dissolution, which was called “the expropriation of the expropriators”. What should happen then? If one considered the nullity of what was given at the time as an answer to this question, what should happen then, one could indeed have a certain cultural concern, because one could already see into a future at that time, which is now actually here. Into that future in which those who thought as people thought at that time are called upon to create positively. Those who have now emerged from these views, which caused such cultural concern – you really didn't need to be a fanatical bourgeois to experience this cultural concern in discussions with Social Democrats; it could arise from honest human thought and will – the descendants of these people are the present-day majority Socialists, and the cultural concern is now faced with facts. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, all the people who spoke in this way said: “Let us only get to the helm, then the rest will follow.” If one could not believe that “the rest would follow,” one nevertheless more or less became a prophet of what one is confronted with today: the helplessness of the successors of these people in the face of the facts. In those days, one was considered a fanatic if one pointed out what has happened today.

I truly admire Karl Marx for his keen insight, for his comprehensive historical perspective, for his superb, all-encompassing sense of the proletarian impulses of modern times, for his powerful critical insight into the self-destructive process of modern capitalism, and for his many ingenious qualities. But anyone who knows him also knows that Karl Marx was basically a great social critic who always fell short when it came to pointing out what should actually be done. This is the source of what we see today as the inability to achieve positive progress. Today we see not only the consequences of the facts, but also the consequences of opinions. You see, when I recently gave a lecture in Basel, to a different audience than the one I mentioned earlier, one of the speakers said that, above all, it was necessary for salvation if Lenin were to become world ruler. The other social issues are national. Internationally, Lenin must become world ruler. Well, in the face of such a remark, I had to allow myself to say the following: however we understand the concept of socialization, more or less, one out of insight, the other out of preference or under the compulsion of the facts, let us be a little consistent in these matters as well. If one wants to socialize, then I believe that the first thing to socialize is the relations of domination. Those who demand a world ruler may socialize in some areas, but they certainly do not socialize in the area of power relations. The socialization of power is what is really a basic demand in the first place. So, you see, today you can be radical and fundamentally conservative, even terribly reactionary. Those who have emerged through what I have characterized are often like that.

Today, one has to think in paradoxical terms in many things, because what is true contradicts the habits of thought so much that people today prefer to present contradictions rather than simple truths. But we also need consistency of opinion. Let us consider the opinion of a thinker who is so consistent – whether one likes him or not – as Lenin is. He is consistent, even with regard to a certain action. If you look at his views, you have to say that, in his opinion, he is more firmly established than any other, especially more firmly established than the majority socialists, in what Marxism is. And in one of his books, which is very interesting, he makes a highly interesting remark precisely from the point of view of Marxism. It is all the more interesting, at least formally, because it is not made by someone who writes about socialist parties within his own four walls, or by someone who may be a minister or otherwise in public office, but by an almighty man. He discusses those tenets of Marxism which point out how the old bourgeois state must pass into the proletarian state, but how this proletarian state has only the single task of gradually killing itself. Thus the establishment of a state that makes laws that ultimately kill it. In this state there will be a social order in which all people are equal not only in terms of the law, but also in terms of economic and intellectual conditions. Oh, the intellectual workers will not have a penny more than the physical workers. But at the same time, Lenin is absolutely convinced that this is only a transition. Because, and this he also deduces from Marxism, after the proletarian state has been killed, so all that it is striving for today will have perished, then the other will come, the actual great ideal, which will be realized in that there will be a social order in which everyone will have, not the same as the other, but where everyone will have according to his talents and his needs. But – now consider this big but – but, says Lenin, this state of affairs cannot be achieved with the present people; a new breed of people must first come. You see, in a sense that is also correct thinking, only in a peculiar way correct thinking. On the one hand you have the negative, and on the other the negative, which has led to the present-day consequence of facts, where people are faced with tasks that they cannot overcome from old theories, from old dogmas. They have the consequence of opinion. Something is to be done, but for people who are not yet there.

Now, dear attendees, in the face of all this, our appeal is for people who are here. And it is precisely this that distinguishes our appeal from everything else: it is radically different from basically everything else that is emerging in this field. What else is emerging? Programs! Well, programs are as cheap as blackberries today. It is very easy to found a society, a party, and make a program. But that is not the point. This call is not based on theory or dogma, but on reality, on practical experience. It is therefore not directed at programs, but at people.

It has been said time and again that if a person is placed alone on an island from birth, he never learns to speak, he only learns to speak in the company of people. Thus, social impulses can only develop in the context of living together with other people. They develop in the individual in a very particular way. Here is some proof of this. Among the Bolsheviks today, you know Lenin, Troitsky, and so on. I will mention another Bolshevik whom you may not have considered, and whom you will be very surprised to hear me call a Bolshevik. This Bolshevik is Johann Gottlieb Fichte! No one can have more respect for Johann Gottlieb Fichte than I do, but read his “Closed Trade State,” read the social order he designs in it. Truly, it is being realized in Russia. What is actually at its basis? Fichte was a great philosopher, one might say, a great thinker. All the spiritual paths he has trodden can rightly be trodden by anyone who brings to development what is latent in the human soul, what flows out of human talent. But more recent times have placed the individual at the very pinnacle of the personality. On the one hand, we have to develop this personality today, but just as language does not come from the individual human being when he develops alone, so a social order does not come from the individual. Social ideas, social impulses, social institutions can only develop in the society itself. Therefore, one should not set up social programs, but merely find out: How must people be organized socially, how must they live together so that they find the right social impulses in this living together? That is what is sought in this call. That is the important thing: how people must be structured in the social organism so that they can find the social impulses in the context that then arises from the right structure. This call does not believe in the idea, so common among social thinkers, that one is wiser than all other people. The author of this appeal does not imagine this; but he does believe that with this appeal he has been led to a burning point of reality. To the people to whom I have often spoken in smaller groups, I have repeatedly said: I could imagine that, based on the appeal, no stone remains upon another, that everything will be different than initially conceived, but that is not the point. What matters is to grasp reality as it is meant here, then people who grasp reality in this way will discover something that will also be in accordance with reality. What matters to me is not a program, not details, but that people work together in such a way that the social impulses are found through the collaboration. That is what must underlie realistic thinking today: to bring people into the right relationship. If a person wants to spin out of himself, as Lenin, as Trotsky, as Fichte did, some kind of socialist program, then nothing will come of it, because the socialist will can only develop in the social context.

Therefore, one has to seek out the right structure, the right design of the healthy social organism. What lives today as socialist theory reminds one of the old superstition that Goethe dealt with in “Faust”, how in the Middle Ages people wanted to compose certain substances of the world out of pure intellectual ideas in order to create a homunculus. Today, one looks back on this as a medieval superstition, and rightly so. But in the evolution of humanity it seems to be the case that superstition flees from one area into another. We no longer seek homunculi in the retort, but we do try to assemble an ideal picture of the social order out of all kinds of mental ingredients. That is social homunculi making, social alchemy. The world suffers today from this superstition. This superstition must disappear. It must become clear that reality must be grasped, that it must be pointed out how people must stand in the social organism. That is why I said: ultimately, it does not matter to me what the names of those who will participate in the new construction are here or there. It does not matter which former classes and social circles will be the ones to participate in this new construction. It does not matter whether they call what is necessary one thing or another, whether it is a dictatorship of individuals in the transition period or whether it is already widespread democracy. All these are ultimately secondary questions. What matters is that the right thing is thought, the right thing is felt, the right thing is wanted. I must again emphasize that, however beautiful our thoughts about social institutions may be, we must devote ourselves to the reconstruction of social institutions wherever we can. But anyone who believes he has a deeper insight into the situation must also assume that the following will be revealed to him from these conditions.

If you continue to make good institutions today, but leave people's habits of thought as they are, then in ten years you will have achieved nothing with these institutions. Today we need not just a change of institutions. As paradoxical as it sounds, what we need today are different minds on our shoulders! Minds in which new ideas are present! Because the old ideas have brought us into chaos. This must be understood. Therefore, today it is a matter of spreading enlightenment about the living conditions of a healthy social organism in the broadest circles. It is important today to start with a free intellectual life, to start expanding the opportunities everywhere to bring people to an understanding of the healthy conditions of the social organism. Above all, we need people who do not practice social alchemy or social homunculism, but people who create from social reality. Therefore, I do not believe that another revolution, and yet another, will follow the past revolution without a thorough re-education with regard to the ideas that a revolution brings something beneficial. Only when it becomes an ideal to engage in the healthy organization of intellectual life, the dissemination of healthy ideas, the arousal of healthy feelings, then there will be people — no matter how they assert themselves, be it in the soviet government or in something else — who will be able to bring about the recovery of the social organism. I consider that the most important thing. The most important thing is the revolutionizing of the human world of thought, feeling and will. Only on this basis can the result be achieved that the previous speaker longs for. I do not believe that salvation can come from anything else without these foundations. Because I take the matter so seriously, I have devoted myself to the area that was expressed in the appeal. Only when more and more people can be found who have the honest will and courage to radically understand and then implement this threefold order — it can be implemented from every point in practical life today —, when enough people with new thoughts replace people with old, unfruitful thoughts, then in some way that which must happen for the good of people and for their liberation will happen.

A communist speaker doubts that socialization in the form of the lecture can be carried out with today's people.

Dr. Steiner: Basically there is not much to be said in connection with what the previous speaker said, because he spoke out in favour of threefolding and is really suffering from a certain pessimism, namely the pessimism that people today are immature for this threefold social order and must first go through a communism in the sense of Lenin and Trotsky. It has been said as if these had been discussed here in a way that they did not come into their own. I only said, “think about it as you will,” that is the only thing I said about the content. I only characterized the form. It seems to me that the honorable gentleman who spoke before me does not actually believe that humanity could really be brought spiritually to put other heads on its shoulders. Well, you see, we have all experienced that five months ago people still wanted the world war and so on. But, dear attendees, I believe that there is one tremendous teacher of all that can be said today by people, and that is the world of facts itself. That is the terrible world catastrophe itself. I do not believe, however, that since the world catastrophe entered a new phase, there has been enough time for all people to learn anew. But for very specific reasons, I cannot join the previous speaker in his pessimism, in the form in which he has it. Not for the following reasons, in particular. You see, if it were simply the case that there was no other way to achieve threefolding than through the detour of communism – believe me, I am not suffering from any kind of pettiness or faint-heartedness about what is necessary – then one could also agree with that. If it were only possible to achieve the threefold social order through communism, as the previous speaker suggested, then I would immediately think that this is the way to go. But I have not said this without careful consideration, but rather based on decades of life experience: from the throne and altar on the one hand, to the office and factory on the other. You see, I am perhaps two and a half times older than the previous speaker. Now, even at this age, I just want to touch on this with a few words, one certainly has the opinion that a great deal of what needs to be done can only be done by young people. I have the opinion that you can stand at the end of the sixth decade of life and have a soul that is just as young as the previous speaker. That may be selfish. But I have given a great deal of thought to what I said about throne and altar on the one hand, and office and factory on the other.

You see, the situation is simply this: when you create any kind of social structure, you are not creating something eternal for all time or even for a long time, but something that is developing and growing. And for those who have gained the necessary life experience, the situation is such that they know full well that when a child is growing, they will take on a different form when they are adults. So, if you look at the living conditions of the social organism, you also have a definite idea of how it will develop and grow. On the one hand, I see something that has grown old, emerging from older communities: the private-sector administration of more recent times, the capitalism of today with its terrible harmfulness. We have experienced this as decomposition under the throne and altar. Now we are starting again with communism, only in a slightly different form – not under the motto 'throne and altar', but under the motto 'office and factory'.

All right, let us start again. After some time, we will not be at the threefold social order, but at another form, at a terribly bureaucratized form under the motto “office and factory”, under what is being prepared today in communism. There will not be what the propertyless experience today through the propertied. There will be, whether you believe it or not, a hunt for positions in order to achieve through the hunt for certain positions what is hunted today through capitalist profit. Instead of the harm of today, there will be a tremendous amount of spying and informing. Those who, on the basis of superficial thoughts, want to restore a bygone social order today so that they can start again and then believe that by starting over with what has already been tried and tested to the point of decrepitude, we can arrive at different conditions, are not considering all of this. Of course, in view of what we have experienced, how so many people have believed in what they were told, while they only barely approached something like the call, one can become pessimistic. I fully understand pessimism as a sign of the times. And in a certain respect, after months of talking about these things, I have also felt something that seems like a tragedy of the times: that it is so difficult to engage in discussion with bourgeois personalities. I regard that as a very significant phenomenon. It is something that very, very much encourages pessimism. You experience many things. For example, recently in a southern city, I experienced that in a newspaper review of a private page it was said, well, he made quite good comments in the first part of his lecture on intellectual life, but one would have wished that a speaker would have appeared who would have considered private-sector capitalism as his business and would have defended it, because it could be defended. It is sad that not a single such speaker appeared. It makes you want to believe that the capitalist order has reached its end. — A tangle of contradictions. First, you have to admit that the private-capitalist administration, the private-capitalist economic order, must be defended, so it must represent something durable after all. But the second thing is that the writer himself doubts it because no speaker could be found to defend it. The third thing is, if the sender was there himself, why didn't he actually speak himself?

It is as if people were extinguishing themselves and thereby proving how far they have descended into nothingness. I can understand all that, but still, for those who do not think pessimistically, there is only one thing to do: we must find as many people as possible who understand this threefold social order, then we can actually realize it in a very short time. Nowhere have I said that it cannot be realized for another ten years. No, this threefold social order can be realized today from every point of view. And that is why it is important to get it into people's heads, which is why we all want to take it seriously enough and work for it. But if you want to work for the good of humanity, you don't have to be pessimistic, you have to believe in your work. You have to have the courage to really think about being able to realize what you think is right. I consider it a form of self-destruction when someone says: I have ideas that can be realized, but I don't believe in them. I don't consider this question to be a question of reality, but only: What are we doing to ensure that a realistic idea can be realized as quickly as possible? Let us not think about what minds are like today, but about what they must become.

Let us take courage, and we will not have to wait for a new breed of human beings; we will find people who, although they have been depressed by the violence of recent years, will find a way to carry the new heads on their shoulders that is different from what some people think. So let us not be pessimistic, but let us work and see if our ideas will take hold or if we have cause for pessimism. If there were such a cause, then I do believe that the ten years of transition would not lead to threefolding but to something else. We have ruined much and would ruin much more, and before ten years have passed, we would reach the point where we would no longer be able to ruin anything because everything has been ruined. Therefore, it is better to work than to fall into discouragement.

Speech to workers of the Daimler factory

The sense in which my topic is to be treated today can be seen from the appeal that each of you has received. The subject today is to treat that which is called socialization today, which sounds like a world-historical call on the one hand and like a general human call on the other, from a broader and wider perspective than it is usually treated. And not because it corresponds to some kind of preference, but because the great and powerful demand of our time can only be grasped in the right way if one approaches the subject as broadly and generously as possible.

If I had spoken to a labor assembly five or six years ago in the same way that I want to speak to you today, the conditions for the speaker to communicate with his audience would have been very different than they are today. That is the case, it is just not well understood in the broadest circles yet. You see, five or six years ago a meeting like this would have listened to me, would have formed an opinion, according to the social views it held, as to whether one or other of the things the speaker said might differ in one way or another from its own social views, and it would have rejected him if he had put forward anything that was not in line with its own views. Today, it must depend on something quite different, because these five to six years have passed as significant, incisive events containing humanity, and today it is already necessary that trust in someone who wants to say something in terms of socialization, not only when he wants exactly the same thing as you, but when he shows that, with regard to the justified demands of the time, which are expressed in the ever-growing proletarian movement, he has an honest and sincere feeling and desire for these justified demands of the time. Today, we are facing very different facts – time has developed rapidly – than those we faced five or six years ago. Today, we have to look at very different things than we did five or six years ago. The following is offered by way of introduction.

You see, respected, very clever socialist thinkers, shortly before the autumn revolution of 1918 in Germany approached, they said something like the following: When this war is over, the German government will have to treat the socialist parties quite differently than it has treated them in the past. Then it will have to hear them. Then it will have to draw them into its council. — Well, I do not want to continue the matter, as I said, so spoke respected socialist leaders. What does that show? That shows that shortly before November 1918, these respected socialist leaders thought that after the war they would have to deal with some kind of government that would be there in the old sense, and which would only take these socialist personalities into account. How quickly things have changed, how quickly something has come about that even these socialist leaders could not have imagined! The kind of government that they believed would still be there has disappeared into the abyss. But that makes a huge, enormous difference, and today you are all faced with completely different facts. Today you are no longer in a position to seek 'consideration', but today you are in a position to participate in the new development of the social order that must take place. A positive demand is made of you, the demand to know, to think about what has to happen, how we can reasonably move forward in terms of the recovery of the social organism. A completely different language must now be spoken than before. Above all, it is important to look back and remember what led us into the terrible situation of the present; what should change for the better, what must change. Let me just mention a few introductory remarks.

I do not want to trouble you much with personal remarks. But if you are not a theorist, not an abstract scientist, but, like me, have acquired your views on the necessary social development through more than thirty years of life experience, then what you have to say in general and what you feel personally merge into one. As I said, I do not want to bore you with any particularly long personal statements, but perhaps it may be noted in the introduction that I was forced, personally forced, in the spring of 1914 in a small meeting in Vienna – a larger probably would have laughed at me at the time for the reasons I will speak of in a moment — to summarize what, figuratively speaking, had emerged in my bloody life experience regarding the social question and social movement. At that time, as a conclusion of decades of experience and decades of observation of the social life of today's so-called civilized world, I had to say the following: the prevailing tendencies of life will become ever stronger until they finally destroy themselves. The one who spiritually understands social life sees everywhere how terribly the tendencies towards social ulcerous growths are sprouting. This is the great cultural concern that arises for the one who sees through existence. That is the terrible thing, which has such a depressing effect and which, even if one could suppress all enthusiasm for recognizing the processes of life by the means of a spirit-cognizing science, would lead one to speak of the remedies that can be used against it – one would like to scream words about it to the world, as it were. If the social organism continues to develop as it has done so far, cultural damage will occur that is to this organism what cancerous growths are to the natural human organism.

Now, if someone had said this in the spring of 1914, the so-called clever people would naturally have thought him a fantasist. For what did the very clever people, those to whom, as the leading class, the fate of humanity was entrusted, what did they actually say about what was in store for the world? Today, one has to investigate a little critically what the minds of these leading people were made of, otherwise people will always object that it is not necessary to speak as seriously as we want to today. What did these so-called leading personalities say at that time? Let us listen, for example, to the Foreign Minister who was jointly responsible for foreign policy at that time. In a decisive session of the German Reichstag, in front of several hundred enlightened gentlemen, he had the following to say about what was about to happen. He said: The general relaxation in Europe is making gratifying progress. We are doing better every day with the Petersburg government. This government does not listen to the comments of the press pack, and we will continue to cultivate our friendly relations with St. Petersburg as we have done in the past. We are in negotiations with England, which have not yet been concluded, but which have progressed so far that we can hope to establish the very best relations with England in the near future.

This general relaxation has made such great progress, these relations with St. Petersburg have been so well initiated by the government, these negotiations with England have borne such fruit, that soon after, the time began in which, to put it mildly, ten to twelve million people within Europe were killed and three times as many were maimed. Now I may ask you: How were the gentleman and those to whom he belonged as a class informed about what was going on in the world? How strong was their intellect to grasp what was needed for the immediate future? Were they not truly stricken with blindness? And was there not added to this that terrible, that hideous arrogance that labeled anyone as a fantasist who pointed out that there is a social cancer that will break out in a terrible way in the near future? These questions must be asked today. They must be asked because numerous personalities today, despite the loudly speaking facts, are as blind as those with regard to what is only at the beginning of its development today: the form which this social movement, which has been going on for more than half a century, has taken in its newer form since the fall of 1918. That is what one would like to achieve today, that there would be people - such people must be among the proletarian population today - who have in their heads a consciousness of what must actually happen.

Those who, over the past few decades, have learned not only to think like so many who talk about socialism today, but to think and feel like the proletariat, have been led by their fate to do so. Today, they must think about the social question in a much more serious and broader way than many do. He must look at what this movement has become today as a result of its development over the last five, six, seven decades since Karl Marx's great reputation spread throughout the world; he must realize how the social movement, how the social programs today have to step out of the stage of criticism and to enter the realm of creation, the realm where one can know what needs to be done to rebuild the human social order, the necessity of which must be felt today by everyone who lives with an alert soul.

In three fundamental areas of life, the working class has sensed what is actually good for it, what must change for it in its entire position in the world, in human society, and so on. But the conditions of the last few centuries, especially of the nineteenth century and particularly of the beginning of the twentieth century, have had the effect that, while more or less unconsciously, instinctively the worker felt with his heart very well that the paths to his future ideal are three, yet, so to speak, the attention was directed only to a single goal. The modern bourgeois social order has, so to speak, relegated everything to the economic sphere. The modern worker was not allowed, not able, to gain a completely free, fully conscious view of what is actually necessary from his employment relationship. He could, because modern technology, namely modern capitalism, had harnessed him to the mere economic order, he could actually only believe, because the bourgeoisie had shifted everything to the economic level, that the downfall of the old, the collapse of the old, and the construction to be longed for and achieved, would have to develop in the economic sphere, in the sphere where he saw that capital, human labor and goods were at work. And today, when the justifiable call for socialization is heard, even when other areas of life are taken into account, only the economic order is actually considered. As if hypnotized, I would say, the gaze is directed purely at economic life, purely at what is understood by the names capital, labor and goods, living conditions, material achievements. But deep down in the proletarian's heart, even if he is not quite sure in his head, there sits what tells him that the social question is a threefold one, that this newer social question, which he suffers from, for which he wants to stand up, for which he wants to fight, is a spiritual question, a legal or state question and an economic question. Therefore, today, allow me to treat this social question, this social movement, as a spiritual question, as a legal question, and as an economic question.

You only have to look at economic life to see that there is much more at stake than just economic life. If we are right to call for socialization today, we must also ask: yes, what should be socialized and how should it be socialized? Because from these two points of view,

What should be socialized?

How should it be socialized?

we must, above all, consider economic life as it has developed in recent times, and how it actually is in our day, if we have no illusions about it, at least for our region, it is more or less in collapse. We must realize today that we can no longer learn anything from all the things that people in the sense of capitalism, in the sense of private enterprise, have regarded as practical and appropriate for people. Anyone who today believes that one can get ahead with institutions that are only conceived in the same way as one has previously conceived is truly indulging in the greatest illusions. But we must learn from these institutions. You see, the most characteristic thing that has emerged in social life over a long period of time, but especially to this day, is that on the one hand we have the previously leading classes, accustomed in their thinking to what has been comfortable for them for a long time; those have repeatedly praised and even adulated in their spokesmen and themselves all that modern culture and modern civilization have produced that is so glorious and great. How often have we not heard: Man today rushes across miles in a way that was previously unimaginable; thought travels at lightning speed by telegraph or telephone. External artistic and scientific culture is spreading in an unimagined way. — I could continue this song of praise, which I do not want to sing and which countless people who have been able to participate in this culture have sung over and over again, for a long time. But today, indeed, the times demand that we ask: how was this new culture possible from an economic point of view alone? It was only possible because it arose as a superstructure over the physical and mental misery, over the physical and mental distress of the broad masses, who were not allowed to participate in the much-praised culture. If it had not been for this broad mass, if it had not worked, this culture could not have existed. That is the crux of the matter; that is the historical question of today, which must not be ignored.

From this, however, the hallmark of all modern economic life emerges. This characteristic consists in the fact that today any follower, any member of the propertied class, can easily provide a popular “proof”; recently, this proof has been provided more abundantly. For a while, people kept quiet about it because, foolish as it is, stupid as it is, one can no longer dare to tell the working class, the truly socially minded people, about this folly. But today it is being heard more and more often, today when so much folly is going through the air, through the so-called intellectual air. It is easy for those who still want to represent today's declining economic order to say: Yes, if you now really divide up all the capital income and ownership of the means of production, the division does not particularly improve what the individual proletarian has. It is a foolish and stupid objection, because it is not at all a matter of this objection, because it is not at all about this objection, but about something much more fundamental, greater and more powerful. What it is about is this: that this whole economic culture, as it has developed under the influence of the ruling classes, has become such that a surplus, an added value, can only give a few the fruits of this culture. Our entire economic culture is such that only a few can enjoy the fruits. Nor is more added value given than what only a few can enjoy. If the little that is given were to be distributed among those who also have a right to a dignified existence, it would not even begin to suffice. Where does this come from?

This question must be posed differently than it is by so many today. I would like to give you just a few examples; I could multiply these examples not a hundredfold, but a thousandfold; perhaps some examples in the form of questions. I would like to ask: Within the German economic culture of the last decades, did all machines really need exactly as much coal as was absolutely necessary for these machines? Ask the question objectively and you will get the answer that our economic system was in such a state of chaos that many machines required much more coal in the last decades than would have been necessary according to the technical advances. But what does that mean? It means nothing other than that much more human labor was expended for the production and extraction of these coals than should have been expended and could have been expended if truly socio-economic thinking had been present. This human labor was used uselessly, it was wasted. I ask you: Are people aware that in the years before the war, we used twice as much coal in the German economy as we should have been allowed to use? We wasted so much coal that today we have to say that we could have gotten by with half the coal production if the people who had to supply the technology and the economy had been up to the task. I am giving this example for the reason that you see that there is an opposite pole to the luxury culture of the few on the one hand. This luxury culture has not been able to produce capable minds that would have been up to the newer economic life. As a result, an infinite amount of labor has been wasted. As a result, productivity has been undermined. These are the secret causes, quite objective causes, by which we have been brought into the situation in which we now find ourselves. Therefore, the social and socialization question must also be solved in a technical and objective way. The culture of the past has not produced the minds that would have been able to somehow create an industrial science. There was no industrial science; everything is based on chaos, on chance. Much was left to cunning, to cheating, to senseless personal competition. But that had to be. Because if one had gone into the matter on the basis of industrial science, then what would have resulted would no longer be what only a luxury culture has produced for a few from the surplus value of the working, producing population. Today, the question of socialization must be approached in a completely different way than many people approach it.

You see, someone can come to me today and say: Yes, you are of the opinion that there should no longer be any idle rentiers in the future? Yes, I do hold that view. But if he fights for the current economic order as one of its supporters, he will tell me: But just consider how little it is when you add up all the pension assets and distribute them, and how small it is in relation to what all the millions of working people have together. I will tell him: I know just as well as you do that the pension assets are few, but look, a counter-question: it is a very small ulcer that someone has on some part of their body. This ulcer is very small in relation to the whole body. But does it depend on the size of the ulcer or on the fact that when it occurs it shows that the whole body is unhealthy? It is not a matter of calculating the size of the rentier's fortune, nor of necessarily morally condemning the rentiers – it is not their fault, they have inherited this wisdom of being rentiers or something like that – but it is that, just as in the natural human organism a disease, an unhealthy thing, shows itself in its entirety when an ulcer breaks out, so the unhealthiness of the social organism shows itself when idleness or rent is possible in it at all. The rentiers are simply proof that the social organism is unhealthy; they are proof that all idlers, like all those who cannot work themselves, use the labor of others for their sustenance.

Thoughts must simply be brought into a completely different channel. It must be possible to convince oneself that our economic life has become unhealthy. And now the question must be asked: How is it that within the economic cycle, capital, human labor, and goods develop in such an unhealthy way – namely for the question of the broad masses of humanity as to whether one can lead a dignified existence as a worker? This must be asked. But then one can no longer stop at mere economic life; then, when one sees this question in all its depth, one is necessarily led to grasp the social question in three aspects: as a spiritual question, as a state or legal question, and as an economic question. Therefore, you must give me a quarter of an hour if I first speak about the social question as a spiritual question. Because anyone who has studied this aspect a little knows why we do not have an industrial science, why we do not have what has long since resulted from the minds of people a healthy management, a healthy socialization of our economic life. If the soil is diseased, no fruit will grow on it. If the spiritual life of a people is not healthy in a particular age, then the fruit that should grow on it is not the economic overview, as a way to control the economic order so that real benefit can arise from it for the masses. All the chaos that exists in our economic life today has arisen from the soil of a sick spiritual life in recent times. Therefore, we must first look at this: what is going on in those buildings that the worker passes at most when he walks across the street on Sunday, when he is freed from his factory or place of work? What goes on in those institutions where the so-called higher intellectual life takes place, from which, in turn, orders and instructions are issued for the lower school system, for the ordinary elementary school? I ask you, hand on heart, what do you actually know about how those personal abilities that are actually guiding in spiritual life, in legal life, in economic life are fabricated in the universities, in the grammar schools, in the secondary modern schools? You know nothing about it! You know something about what is taught to your children at school, but even there you do not know what intentions and aims for this school teaching flow down from the higher educational institutions into the ordinary schools. The broad masses of the proletariat basically have no idea which paths lead people growing up in the field of intellectual life. And this is part of what creates the abyss, the deep divide: on the one side, the proletariat; on the other, the others. What has been done in recent times to improve the situation? Because there was no other way than to make certain concessions to democracy, a few scraps in all possible forms of so-called newer education were given to the people; adult education centers were established, people's courses were held, art was shown to the people, so benevolently: the people should also have some. What has been achieved with all this, what is it actually? It is nothing but a terrible cultural lie. All this has only served to make the gulf even more significant. For when could the proletarian look with an upright, honest, whole-hearted, whole-souled gaze at what is painted within the bourgeois class, at what is fabricated within the bourgeois class as science? If he shared a common social life with those who produced it, if there were no class difference! For it is impossible to have a common spiritual life with those to whom one does not belong socially. That is what has, spiritually, above all, created the great divide. That is what points, spiritually, to what has to happen.

The enlightened, the enlightened in their own opinion, the very clever people, they are proud when they can say today: In the Middle Ages, well, it was the case that philosophy – as the whole of science was called back then – trailed behind theology. Of course we do not want to wish back that time, I certainly do not want to call back the Middle Ages, but what has happened in the course of the modern development? Today, because it has become very proud, the scientist no longer carries the train of theology, but with regard to the state, what does he do then? Well, here is a blatant example: You see, there was a great modern physiologist, he is dead now, who was also the luminary of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. I hold him in high esteem as a naturalist. Just as Shakespeare once said, “Honorable people they all are,” I would like to say, “Clever people they all are, all of them.” But this man revealed something about what characterizes this modern intellectual life in particular. He said – one would not believe it, but it is true – the scholars of the Berlin Academy of Sciences saw themselves as the scientific protection force of the Hohenzollern. – Yes, you see, again an example that could easily be multiplied a hundredfold, a thousandfold.

Now I ask you: Is it any wonder that the modern proletarian, when he looked at this intellectual life, perceived this intellectual life as a luxury intellectual life? Is it any wonder that he says to himself: This intellectual life is not rooted in a special spirit, it truly does not carry the human soul, nor does it reveal that it is the outflow of a divine or moral world order. No, it is the consequence of economic life. People live spiritually in the way they acquire their capital. That is what their intellectual life makes possible for them. Therefore, even in the modern proletariat, a truly free view of a spiritual life that truly nourishes the soul could not arise. But I know from decades of experience: the modern proletarian has a deep longing for a true spiritual life, not for a spiritual life that stops at the bourgeois border, but one that seeps into the souls of all people. That is why the appeal that I am commanded to speak about today states that in the future this intellectual life must be self-contained and not only contain the last remnants of intellectual life, art and the like that still remain. In Berlin, they have also wanted to incorporate these heavily into the omnipotence of the state.

The whole of intellectual life, from the lowest level of education to the highest, must be left to its own devices, because the spirit thrives only when it has to prove its reality and strength anew every day. The spirit never thrives when it is dependent on the state, when it is the state's lackey, the servant of economic life. What has become of this field has paralyzed people's minds. Oh, when we look at the ruling classes today, when we, who want to understand the call for socialization, look at those who run the factories today, at those who run the workshops, who run the schools, the universities, who run the states – oh, it makes one's soul ache – they can't think of anything, the seriousness of the situation does not sink into their heads. Why not? Yes, how have people gradually become accustomed to economic life, to legal or state life, and to intellectual life? The state, so to speak, takes over when the human being is beyond just the first years of education – which the state has not yet taken over because the first years of a person's education are not run cleanly enough for the state – with its school, it takes over the human being. He then educates him in such a way that this person only has to accomplish - as it was until the great war catastrophe over the entire civilized world - what he is commanded, what he is ordered, what the state - from its theologians, from its physicians, as it turned out during the war, in particular from its lawyers, from its philologists - actually wants. If there is an intelligent person among them, in the examination commissions, then you can hear a clever word from them. I once sat with the gentlemen of an examination commission, and when we talked about how bad our grammar school system actually is, he said: Yes, it is also a shame when you have to examine people and then see what kind of people you have to let loose on young people.

I am telling you this as a cultural-historical fact, as a symptom, so that attention is drawn to what lives among the people who have led the world, to whom, in a certain way, the leadership of the people was entrusted, and why people have finally brought the world into this terrible catastrophe. The causes that have brought humanity to this catastrophe are made up of millions of details. And among these causes, the social phenomenon of spiritual life is predominant, and because socialization is on our minds today, it is the socialization of spiritual life that matters most. What matters is that human talents and abilities be cultivated in the right way, just as what is to grow in the field is cultivated, as is the case in agriculture. This has not been done so far. The state took over the human being, trained him for its use, and all activity, all independence, was driven out of the human being. In the end, the human being had only one ideal in relation to economic life and intellectual life from the legal life of the state: economic activity. The state had taken him over and trained him for itself. Now, when man is well trained, the state economic life begins for him. He was provided for; then he was well-behaved, even if he no longer wanted to work, provided for until his death in the form of a pension, that is, through the work of those who had no pension. And when he had died, the church took care of the matter after death. The church gave him a pension for after death. In this way, a person was provided for economically until death if he belonged to the ruling classes, and in the grave he was also retired after death. Everything was in order for him; he no longer needed to think for himself or intervene in the social order in such a way that something beneficial could arise from it; he did not need to participate actively. Therefore, it has gradually become the case that people were no longer able to reflect on what should happen, on what should come into the world as a kind of new development. Those who were excluded from all of this, to whom the state would not even have granted the small insurance pension until death if they had not forced it, and to whom the ruling classes have also not handed down any intellectual life, because the intellectual life that gave them a patent for the soul after death was not wanted by the proletarians, who demand a new order. Therefore, we have as our first demand precisely that for an emancipation of intellectual life, for a reorganization of intellectual life. That is the first question that matters.

The second question arises when we turn our attention to the field of law, to the area that is supposed to belong to the actual state. However, we only find ourselves coming together sympathetically in this area today if we look at the economic area from it. What is actually in the economic area? In the economic area, there is the production of goods, the circulation of goods, and the consumption of goods. The commodities have certain values that are expressed in the price. But through the economic development of recent times, in its connection with the development of the state, the bourgeoisie has introduced into economic life something of which the proletarian demands in the most justified way today: it must no longer be part of economic life, and that is human labor. Just as it has struck the souls of the proletarian-feeling, when Karl Marx pronounced the significant word of surplus value, so the other word struck the souls of the proletarians, that in an unjustified way, the labor of man has become a commodity in the modern economic order. Here the proletarian feels: as long as my labor power must be bought and sold on the labor market, like goods on the commodities market according to supply and demand, I cannot answer yes to the question: Do I lead a dignified existence? What does the modern proletarian know of the intellectual life? Despite all popular entertainments, despite all guidance in the galleries and so on, he only knows that which he calls surplus value. Surplus value means that which he must supply for an intellectual life that cannot become his; that is what he knows of intellectual life. That is why the word surplus value struck so sympathetically into the proletarians' minds. And when Karl Marx formulated it, the modern proletarian's feelings ran counter to this concept of surplus value. And because human labor power must never be a commodity, Marx's other concept of “labor power as a commodity” struck the hearts and minds of the proletarians like a bolt of lightning as a profound truth. |

Anyone who truly understands human life knows that what I have just said, that in the modern economic cycle the human labor of the proletarian is unlawfully treated as a commodity, that this in turn is based on an enormous lie. For human labor is something that can never be compared by any price with a commodity, with a product. This can even be proved quite thoroughly. I know that the lectures I am now giving in this way – especially to the leading classes – are repeatedly and repeatedly said to me, directly or indirectly, to be difficult to understand. Well, just recently someone told me: They are just difficult to understand for those who do not want to understand them. And when I recently gave a talk in Dornach to a gathering of proletarians that was similar to the talk I am giving you today, someone from the type of people who find these words so difficult to understand said that he had not understood them properly after all. A proletarian replied: Well, you have to be a fool not to understand it. I, for one, do not fear this difficulty of comprehension, for I was a teacher for many years at the Workers' Education School founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht, and I know that the proletarian understands much of what the bourgeois finds quite incomprehensible. I do not fear that you will not understand me when I say: All tendencies, all goals of economic life, are directed towards consuming commodities. The issue, therefore, is to consume the commodity in a healthy way. What cannot be consumed is produced in an unhealthy way. In some way, the commodity must be consumable. But if the capitalist economic system turns human labor into a commodity, then those who turn it into a commodity are only interested in consuming it. But human labor power must not be merely consumed, and so we need an economic system, and above all we need a socialization that not only determines the working hours but also, and above all, determines the hours of rest, because these must be there if a communal social life is to be there. This shows that recovery can only come about when the leading circles of society, the then rightful leading circles of society, have as much interest in the worker having his rest period as today's capitalists have in the worker having his working hours.

Therefore, I say to you: human labor power can never be compared in price to any other commodity. Therefore, buying human labor power on the labor market – you understand what that means – is a great social lie that must be eradicated. How do we go about divesting human labor power of the character of a commodity? That is a great social question.

The first question was the intellectual question. The second is a great social question: How does the modern laborer come to strip his labor power of the character of the commodity? For what does the modern proletarian feel about the way his labor power is used in today's economy? He may not always have time to sort out his feelings and what is going on in his heart, and he may not be able to express himself clearly about these matters, but he says to himself: In ancient times there were slaves; the capitalists bought and sold human beings, just as one buys and sells a cow, the whole human being. Later there was serfdom; then they no longer sold the whole person, but only a part of the person, but still enough. At present, despite all the assurances of freedom and humanity, despite the so-called employment contract, the proletarian knows very well that now his labor is still being bought and sold. He knows that. The so-called employment contract does not deceive him about that. But in the depths of his soul, in the depths of his mind, he feels: I can sell a horse or a pair of boots at the market and then go back. But I cannot take my labor power and sell it to the factory owner and then go back; I must go along as a human being with my labor power. So I am still selling my entire self when I have to be in a wage relationship, when I have to sell my labor power. Thus the modern proletarian experiences the connection of the true character of his labor power with the old slavery. That is why he experiences it, which unfortunately the leading classes have failed to grasp at the right moment: that today the world-historical moment has arrived when labor power can no longer be a commodity. Economic life can only have the cycle of commodity production, commodity consumption, and commodity circulation.

Only people who can only think in the old way, such as Walther Rathenau in his latest booklet, which is titled “After the Flood,” show a certain fear of this realization. Walther Rathenau says: If you separate labor from the economic cycle, then the value of money must fall terribly. — Well, he only looks at it from one side. For those who think like him, this decline in the value of money will indeed have great significance. We will not talk about that any further. The point is that economic life itself can only be properly understood if one sees how this economic life is connected, on the one hand, to the natural conditions of economic life. There is the soil, it produces coal, it produces wheat. In the soil, for example, are the natural forces that belong to the soil and that produce the wheat. From above, the necessary rain falls. These are natural conditions. You can get around them to some extent with technical aids, but economic life does have its limits there. How terribly foolish it would be if someone wanted to legislate based on economic cycles and write a law that said: If we want reasonable prices and reasonable economic conditions, then in 1920 we need a year with so-and-so many rainy days and so-and-so many sunny days, and the forces under the ground must work in such and such a way. You are right to laugh. It would be very foolish to want to make laws about what nature itself determines, to want to invent requirements from the economic life as to how nature should work with its forces. Just as we come up against a limit with the economic life, as the soil of a particular country can only provide a certain amount of raw materials, so on the other hand the economic life must border on that which stands outside this economic life, on the life of the constitutional state. And in the life of the state under the rule of law, only that which is the common concern of all people, and which can truly be based on democracy, may be established and regulated. Thus we arrive at a threefold structure of the healthy social organism.

Spiritual life stands on its own; spiritual life must be free. In this respect, talent and human abilities must be cultivated in the right way. One statesman, who has said many a hot-headed thing during the terrible catastrophe of the war, has also said: In the future, the path will be free for the hardworking! — In these serious times, fine phrases and empty talk that are only true in terms of the letter no longer suffice. If people say, “A free hand to the capable,” but they are predisposed by blood and social prejudices to consider their nephew or sibling the most capable, then not much will be achieved by such a grand motto. We must take the cultivation of human talent seriously in the free spiritual life, and then we will socialize the spiritual life. The state is responsible for everything in which all people are equal, for which special talents are not considered, but for which what is considered is what is innate in man, just as the ability to see blue or red is innate in a healthy eye. The state is responsible for the sense of justice. This sense of justice can lie dormant in the soul, but it is placed in the heart of every human being. The proletarian sought to live out this sense of right. What did he find? Just as he found intellectual luxury in the sphere of intellectual life, which was like a smoke that emerged from the economic life, so in the sphere of the state he found not the living out of the sense of right, but class privileges, class prerogatives and class disadvantages. There you have the root of the anti-social element in modern life. The State is the owner of everything in which all men are equal. They are not equal in respect of their mental and physical abilities and aptitudes. These belong to the sphere of the free spiritual life. The State will only be healthy when it no longer absorbs spiritual and economic life in the sense of the modern bourgeois order, or one might say, in the sense of the bourgeois order that is now heading towards its decline. Instead, it should release spiritual life on the one hand and economic life on the other for their own socialization. That is what is at stake. Then it will be possible for the worker, as an equal of all people in the territory of the state, to regulate the measure and type and character of his labor power before he has to plunge into economic life at all. In the future, it must be as impossible for economic conditions or economic necessities to determine labor law as it is simply impossible for natural conditions to make it impossible for the economic cycle or other factors to regulate the forces of nature, rain and sunshine. Independently of economic life, it must be determined by the state, on democratic soil, where one person is equal to another, in the state, which is completely separate from economic life, what labor law is, and what is opposed to this labor law, what disposition of a thing is, what is called ownership today, but what must cease to the greatest extent possible and must give way to a healthy state in the future. If economic life is not determined by the worker, but rather, conversely, economic life must be guided by what the worker determines about his work in a state democracy, then an important requirement has been met.

Now, one might object: then economic life becomes dependent on the law and right of labor. Very well, but it will be a healthy dependency, a dependency as natural as the dependency on nature. The worker will know before he goes to the factory how much and how long he has to work; he will no longer have to deal with any foreman about the extent and nature of his work. He will only have to talk about what exists as a distribution of what has been produced together with the supervisor. That will be a possible employment contract. There will be contracts only about the distribution of what has been achieved, not about labor. This is not a return to the old piecework wage; that would only be the case if this process of socialization were not thought of in the round.

I can also briefly mention another issue that stands in the way of labor law, which will liberate the worker. Conventional socialism talks a lot about private property becoming common property. But the big question of this socialization will be precisely how to do it. In our current economic system, we only have a little healthy thinking about property in one area. This is in the area that, according to modern bourgeois phraseology, modern bourgeois dishonesty, has gradually become the most insignificant property after all, namely intellectual property. In relation to this intellectual property, you see, people still think a little bit sanely. They say to themselves: however clever a person may be, he brings his abilities with him at birth, but that has no social significance. On the contrary, he is obliged to offer them to human society; these abilities would be of no use if the person were not part of human society. Man owes what he can create from his abilities to human society, to the human social order. It does not truly belong to him. Why do we manage our so-called intellectual property? Simply because we produce it; by producing it, we show that we have the abilities to do so better than others. As long as we have these abilities better than others, we will best manage this intellectual property in the service of the whole. Now, at least, people have realized that this intellectual property is not inherited endlessly; thirty years after death, intellectual property belongs to all of humanity. Anyone can print what I have produced thirty years after my death; they can use it in any way they like, and that is right. I would even agree if there were more rights in this area. There is no other justification for the administration of intellectual property than that, because one can produce it, one also has the better abilities. Ask the capitalist today whether he agrees to take responsibility for what he considers to be the right thing for the valuable material property that he possesses! Ask him! And yet this is the healthy way. It must be the basis of a healthy order that everyone can acquire capital through the intellectual organization that will be the healthy administration of human abilities – you will find this explained in more detail in my book 'The Crux of the Social Question'. But it must come about that the means and ways are found to this great, comprehensive socialization of capital, that is, of capital income and the means of production, so that everyone who has the abilities to do so can come to capital and the means of production, but that he can only have the administration and management of capital and the means of production as long as he can or wants to exercise these abilities. Then they will pass over, when he no longer wants to exercise them himself, to the community in certain ways. They will begin to circulate in the community.

This will be a healthy way to socialize capital if we can get what is today capital in inheritance law, in the creation of pensions, of idler's rights, of other superfluous rights, what accumulates in capitals, into the social organism. We need not even say: private property must become social property. The concept of property will have no meaning at all. It will be as meaningless as it would be if blood were to accumulate in individual places in my body. Blood must be in circulation. What is capital must go from the capable to the capable. Will the worker agree to such socialization? Yes, he will, because his situation in life compels him to be reasonable. He will say to himself: If the one with the right abilities is the manager, then I can trust him, then my labor power is better applied under the right manager than under the capitalist, who does not have the abilities, but who has only been put in his place by an unhealthy accumulation process of capitals. I can only hint at these things now. The future doctrine of socialization will be the concrete, true development of the circulation of capital and the means of production, which Karl Marx also presented in an abstract way as a great goal for humanity: From each according to his abilities and needs.

We have gone through a hard time of human suffering, a hard time of trial for humanity. Today we no longer need to say, as some have done, that there must be a new race of people who can socialize according to the principle: To each according to his abilities and needs! No, we can have the right belief. If we only want it, then such healthy social ideas will be able to take hold of the tripartite division into spiritual life, legal life and economic life. For this economic life will only become healthy when it is separated from the other two. Then, in the economic sphere, associations will be formed, as I have described in my book, and cooperatives will be formed, which, in a healthy way, do not aim to produce and profit, but which start from consumption and do not make production in such a way that workers are squandered, but rather that workers are called upon to improve consumption and to satisfy needs.

Allow me to tell you the beginning that we made in the society that you do not love, because I understand it so much being maligned – allow me to tell you how, in a particular area, attempts were made to economically socialize intellectual life. When I was obliged, about twenty years ago, to lead this society with my friends, it was important to me to say to myself: If you distribute the books that are produced by me on the basis of this society in the same capitalist way as is the custom in the book trade today, then you are committing a sin against healthy social thinking. For how are books produced today? Many people today consider themselves capable of producing good books. Well, if everything that is printed today were to be read, then we would have our work cut out for us. But you see, that is why there is this custom in the book trade: someone considers themselves a genius and writes a book. The book is printed in a thousand copies. Of most of these books, 950 copies are pulped because only fifty are sold. But what does that mean in economic terms? You see, so many people who have to produce the paper, so many typesetters, so many bookbinders and so on have been employed to do the work; this work is unproductive, this work is wasted. Therein lies the great harm. Oh, you would be amazed if you only tried to answer the question of how much of the work that the honored attendees sitting here have to do is wasted. That is the great social harm. So how did I try to do it? I said to myself: There is nothing to be done with the book trade. We founded a small bookstore ourselves. But then I first made sure that the needs for which the book was to be printed existed. That is, I had to make the effort to create the consumers first; not, of course, by putting up a pillar like the pillars with the advertisement: Make good soups with Maggi! but by first creating the needs – one can argue against these needs, of course – and then starting to print, when I knew that not a single copy would be left lying around, not a single action would be in vain. Attempts have also been made to produce bread, which was not possible under present conditions in the same way, but where it could be carried out, it was precisely in economic terms that it proved fruitful, if one starts not from blind production aimed only at getting rich, but from needs, from consumption. Then, when that happens, real socialization can be carried out through the cooperative economy.

So today I had to talk to you about socialization on a broader basis. Because only what arises on this broad basis is the truly practical. Otherwise, socialization will always be botched if we do not ask the very first question: What does the state have to do? First it must release spiritual life in one direction, then economic life in another direction; it must remain on the ground of the life of right. There is nothing impractical about that, but it is a socialization that can be carried out every day.

What is needed? Courage, nothing else! But why do people want to see it as impractical? I have met enough people who, over and over again in the last four and a half years, have said that this world war catastrophe is so terrible that people have not experienced such horrors in the history of mankind, that it is the greatest experience in the historical development of humanity. Well, I have not yet found people who also say: If people were condemned to be led into such misery by old thoughts, by old habits of thinking, then they must now pull themselves together to leave these old thoughts and come to new thoughts, to new habits of thinking. Above all, we need a socialization of minds. The minds that we carry on our shoulders must contain something different from what has been in people's minds so far. That is what we need. Therefore, the question must be approached in a broad way.

And now, in conclusion, I would like to say this: when the dawn of modern times broke, those people who had the greatest concern for the progress of civilized humanity were imbued with three great ideals: liberty, equality, fraternity. These three great ideals have a strange history. On the one hand, every healthy and inwardly courageous person feels that these are the three great impulses that must now finally guide modern humanity. But very clever people in the nineteenth century repeatedly demonstrated the contradictions that actually exist between these three ideas: liberty, equality, fraternity. Yes, there is a contradiction, they are right. But that does not change the fact that they are the greatest ideals, despite the contradictions. They were formulated at a time when humanity was still hypnotized by the unitary state, which has been revered like an idol up to the present day. In particular, those who have made the state their protector and themselves the protectors of the state, the so-called entrepreneurs, could speak to the employee as Faust spoke to the sixteen-year-old Gretchen about the god: “The state, my dear worker, is the all-embracing, the all-sustaining; does it not embrace and sustain you, me, itself? And subconsciously it can think: but especially me! — The gaze was directed as if hypnotized to this idol, the unified state. There, in this unified state, these three great ideals do indeed contradict each other. But those who did not allow themselves to be hypnotized by this unified state in the field of intellectual life, who thought of freedom as I myself did in my book “The Philosophy of Freedom”, which I wrote in the early 1890s and which had to be republished now, in our time of great social issues and great rethinking, they knew: Only because people believed that they had to be realized in the unified state did contradictions arise between the three greatest social ideals.

If we recognize correctly that a healthy social organism must be one that is structured in three, then we will see that in the realm of spiritual life, freedom must prevail, because abilities, talents and gifts must be cultivated in a free way. In the realm of the state, absolute equality must prevail, democratic equality, because in the state lives that which makes all human beings equal. In economic life, which is supposed to be separate from the life of the state and the life of the spirit, but which is to be supplied by the life of the state and the life of the spirit, fraternity must prevail, fraternity on a large scale. It will arise from associations, from cooperatives, which will emerge from the professional associations and from those communities that are formed from healthy consumption, together with healthy production. Equality, liberty and fraternity will reign in this threefold organism. And through this new socialization it will be possible to realize what people who think and feel healthily have longed for a long time. We must only have the courage to regard many an old party program as a mummy in the face of new facts. We must have the courage to admit: new ideas are needed for new facts and for the new phases of human development. And I have had experiences with all classes in my life observations, which truly span decades, that have arisen from a destiny that has taught me to feel and think not about, but with the proletariat, and I have gained from this the feeling that the proletariat is the healthy element, that even what has now emerged as a consequence of the impermissible fusion of economic life with state life, that this is felt by the proletarian in the right way. Those who have listened to me today will know that I am sincere in my belief that the modern proletariat's demands are justified and historic. But I also know that in the final analysis, when it comes to the question of strikes, the reasonable proletarian thinks like the reasonable man in general. I know that the reasonable worker does not strike for the sake of striking, he only strikes because the economic system has brought it about that political demands are mixed up with economic demands. Not until this separation of political life from economic life has occurred will economic life be able to be completely brought into reasonable channels. We would also understand this, especially if we had the opportunity to talk about it in more detail. We would understand the need for every strike: it could be avoided; the reasonable worker would only want to undertake it out of necessity. This is also something that belongs to healthy socialization, that we get beyond what we actually do not want to do, what is unreasonable to do. Even the modern economic order has brought it about that what is unwanted, what is considered unreasonable, is often done.

You will understand me, and you will also understand when I say, precisely from this point of view: however bad my experiences have been with the old classes, people must still find their way to threefolding, and I hope for much from the healthy senses of the modern proletariat. I have seen how behind what the modern proletariat calls its class consciousness there stands an unconscious human consciousness; how the class-conscious proletarian is really asking how to arrive at a world order that answers the question, ” Is human life worth living and worth living for me? — Today the proletarian can only answer this question arising out of the economic order, out of the legal order, and out of the intellectual life with a No; tomorrow he wants to answer it with a Yes. And between this 'No' and this 'Yes' lies true socialization, lies that by which the truly self-conscious proletariat will liberate and redeem this proletariat and thereby liberate and redeem all that is human in man, which deserves to be liberated and redeemed.

Closing words after the discussion

Well, esteemed attendees, in the final analysis the discussion has not really yielded anything of such significance with regard to what I said that I needed to detain you much longer with this closing speech. But first I would like to answer the direct question that was put to me at the end: why I used so much agitation in my talk. Well, I certainly do not want to enter into a discussion with the esteemed questioner, as you will understand, as to whether, because it is said of me that I am a philosopher, I am only entitled to speak in an incomprehensible, unagitated way, that is, in figures of speech. That is not my point. But I was somewhat surprised, very much surprised, that the word “agitational” was applied at all to what I said. Because I am truly not aware of having spoken a single word other than what emerges from my conviction of truth, from my view of the current situation. What is agitative? If, let us say, a man who is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative listens to the very moderate words of someone who is very much on the left, and the latter finds them inflammatory, are they necessarily inflammatory? Why does he speak in an inflammatory way to the dyed-in-the-wool conservative? It is not his fault. The words only become so in the mind of the ultra-conservative man. So, you see, what one person regards as demagogic does not have to be demagogic for another. What one person finds quite unpleasant, he often calls demagogic. Now your technical manager has also spoken to you. If everyone who comes from the same background as your esteemed technical manager were to speak as your esteemed technical manager does, then, ladies and gentlemen, we would soon achieve what we want to achieve. If a great many people thought like this, then it would not be necessary for a few to say that the words of those like me, who want to speak the truth and do not want to create an abyss, only serve to widen the gap. But on the other side, on the right side of the abyss, there are also people quite unlike your esteemed technical director, who addressed you, and who speaks quite differently from him. There will not be a great gulf fixed between him and us. Perhaps the gulf will only begin where he, too, stands more on the other side. I believe that what I said about the fate of many intellectual workers could be understood.

You see, you could experience different things if you are really involved in the newer development of humanity. Many, more than 27 or 28 years ago, I once attended a meeting at which Paul Singer spoke. Some people from the proletariat somehow made it clear that they did not value intellectual work the same as physical labor. They should have listened to how Paul Singer, in agreement with the vast majority, defended intellectual work! I have never seen intellectual work misunderstood by the proletariat. I was not talking about any gap between physical and intellectual labor, I was talking about the gap between the proletariat, human labor, and capitalism. We must be clear about that. And let us be clear, such speeches as we have heard from your esteemed leader, to our great joy – at least to mine and certainly to your great joy – such speeches, we do not easily hear them on the other side either. We will not easily find people whose hands can be grasped.

And finally, one more thing: Yes, certainly, I say things that may make it necessary to act quickly with regard to many things. As a scientist myself, I understand very well the words of the esteemed previous speaker when he says: Development must proceed slowly; one must have patience to wait. Thirty years ago, mathematicians discovered things that are only now being recognized. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, and I now address your technical director, whom I greatly respect: But there are things in social life today that we cannot afford to wait for, but rather we are obliged to open our minds a little and be capable of quick understanding. That is why I was more pleased about the following than about the emphasis on slowness.

I have given lectures on social issues in various cities in Switzerland. I have come to understand that someone who falls outside the usual program is initially met with mistrust. In Basel, friends initially tried to get the Socialist Party's executive committee to have me give a lecture in their circle. The board – I do not blame them, I understand it, I also spoke today of justified mistrust – perhaps because they did not want to refuse me, based themselves on principle and said that they did not know whether it was desirable to let outside influences approach party members. So they rejected my lecture. That seems to be the opinion of some leaders now. They drew the conclusion that I should not speak. Then a Social Democrat came to me and said he would try to get me to come and speak at the Railway Workers' Association. That too was rejected. I then gave a lecture in Zurich. We then made leaflets in Basel, simply handed them out on the street and took the largest hall for a social lecture in Basel, and I was able to give this lecture in front of more than 2,500 people. You see, that was very recently. Now, just before I had to leave, after I had given this lecture to the proletariat of Basel, I received an invitation from the railway workers' association, which had refused at the time, that I should now give a similar lecture to its members. So things are fourteen days apart: first the association refuses, then it knew what it was getting and now also demanded its lecture. That was a rapid development, a development in a fortnight. I believe that today we must pay more attention to such rapid thinking, which takes place in a fortnight, than to such thinking that tells us that things must happen slowly. Today I would like to be much more pleased about those who first want to assert their free will, but who want to learn and want to learn quickly. Because, my dear attendees, we are heading for a terrible time if we want to adapt to slowness. We need a healthy impulse for thoughts that go just as fast as the facts will go. That is what we want to write on our hearts today. I know that the honored speaker did not mean to walk slowly out of laziness, but other people are lazy. But anyone who is serious today knows how quickly we will have to rethink and relearn if we do not want to be left behind and end up in misery and destruction.

It might seem as if, in the events of the great world catastrophe, which today is at the “Versailles” stage, the topic: the future of capital and human labor, seems somewhat unfounded. However, following the events in their depths, one might perhaps point out that these two topics: world catastrophe and that to which today's reflection is to be devoted, are intimately connected. For it must be more or less clear to anyone who has observed the events of recent years with an open and alert mind that something of what could be called world capitalism on a large scale has led to this so-called world war, that this world capitalism behaves, as you painfully know today, in its own way within the so-called conditions of peace, and that through a large part of the civilized world today, what could be called the demand directed precisely against capitalism is already going like a mighty historical opposition. Thus, the contradiction between capital and human labor is perhaps the deepest, most significant problem of our time. Capitalism ultimately rose to what can be called, and often has been called, imperialism. Human labor gasped under the rule of this imperialism. And if you take a closer look at the most significant characteristic of capitalism, you will find that it effectively came to an end in the terrible world catastrophe. What is one of the main characteristics of the capitalist world economic order? It is this: that man's working life, his enrichment, is based on the so-called profitability, the investability, of capital. Now I ask you: how much of the causes of the horror of the catastrophe can be traced back to the investability of capital on a large scale? To what extent were the struggles actually fought for the expansion of the investability of capital by certain imperialisms? And so it is already apparent, and will become more and more so, that from the depths of humanity rises and will rise the demand: How do we come to a reorganization of human existence, after those forms which the world economic order under capitalism, imperialism, has assumed, firstly, to such a high degree have shown themselves to be a disaster for humanity, but secondly, have long been leading to their own destruction? And so, with what we are discussing today, we are actually discussing the contrast between capital and labor, a declining world economic order on the one hand, and a rising world economic order on the other.

In discussing this question here, I ask you to bear in mind that it is necessary, from the points of view from which we are speaking here, to first speak clearly about the comprehensive, the great impulses, so that then, on the basis of understanding these great, comprehensive impulses, we can go into the details. For no one who, in this day of the great reckoning of the world, wants to avoid turning to the great, comprehensive impulses can possibly think of making a healing contribution to the rebuilding of the world. Whoever today calls great, comprehensive points of view impractical, actually expresses, whether he wants to or not, that by remaining in his so-called practical, in his small, he does not want to participate in what is really necessary for the development of humanity. Therefore, allow me today, in connection with my last two lectures, to dwell on somewhat more comprehensive impulses, so that next Friday I will be able to discuss only details that arise from the comprehensive plan of the threefold social organism in a fully clear way. These details could not be discussed without first fully unrolling the blueprint.

If we want to get to know the demands that arise from the broadest sections of the population today, and which at the same time express significant historical necessities, then we first of all need to have the good will to listen to what is most necessary in the light of the new situation, in order to give the people's particular demands a form that can be integrated into the reality of human development. Circumstances in recent years have changed so much from what they used to be that they appear to be something completely new, and yet many people today still cannot let go of old habits and old ways of thinking, and they have no ears, at least no willing ears, for what is most urgently needed. Today we are indeed faced with demands that do not originate from this or that source and cannot be propagated by this or that source. We are today actually faced with the demands of the broad masses of the people, which arise from the depths of human feeling, human experience and human will. In this time, above all, trust is necessary, trust among people, trust of people in those who have something to say about the demands of the time. Above all, it is trust that is not based on something personal, but trust that is based solely on the matter at hand. Today we are noticing something very significant. It can be said that if one knows how to gain access to the broadest masses of the people, it is relatively easy to gain trust. However strange it may seem, it must be said: Today it is all the easier to gain trust the more one speaks to those people who, due to the previous economic, legal and intellectual order, have been uprooted, so to speak, with regard to the human necessities of life, who rely on the strength of their own person, on the strength of their work, to make a living.

It is remarkable how the most comprehensive impulses are received with understanding by those who have personally experienced the inadequacies of human development in recent times. It is more difficult to speak to those who today are still, as it were, standing there with the remnants of the old economic, legal and intellectual order; who carry over into the new era what they have acquired, inherited or otherwise appropriated from the old order. They are attached to their possessions and to their ideas. And it becomes difficult for them to find anything practical except for that which enables them to preserve, at least to a certain extent, what they have acquired, inherited or otherwise appropriated. Today, many people, and all the more those who belong to the latter category, lack not only the opportunity to seek trust in order to achieve a new beginning through trust between people, but they even lack faith in this trust; they lack faith that the understanding of those who want to understand great impulses is genuine and honest. I do not wish to criticize, I only wish to discuss facts, but facts which make it so extremely difficult to advance today by means of that which alone can advance us - the power that lies in man for the understanding of other men. Today it is infinitely difficult to popularize this basis of all real socialism: understanding of one man for the other. For it is a strange fact that in our time, when the call for socialism sounds so significant, so magnificent, it is in this time that the strongest anti-social instincts live in the depths of the human soul. This is why, clouded by these anti-social instincts, it is actually very difficult for few people today to gain sufficient, realistic, truly practical insights into what is necessary for the further development of humanity. What has been discussed in the previous lectures and what will be discussed today and next time has not been plucked out of the clouds. It has been taken from real life. For much of what is required by the impulses of the threefold social organism is, in the secret desire of many people, actually already there, already there in the sense that it wants to move from the depths of the soul to the surface, that it wants to fight for its existence, and that only the institutions of our present-day intellectual, legal and economic order want to hold back these forces that are pushing to the surface. The world-wide struggle between capital and labor, which is now agitating the world, makes one particularly aware of the strange phenomena whereby people today are working out of their old state economic order to counteract what wants to fight its way up for their own good. Do not expect me to start with some more or less satisfactory definition of capital and human labor. In reality, one does not fight against concepts and ideas, in reality one has to fight against forces and people. In reality, however, one also often has to fight against delusion, inadequacy, even blindness. In this respect, things are extraordinarily strange today.

This brings me to the second point to be considered, apart from the socio-psychological fact of seeking trust. From the great mass of the proletariat and the socially minded, the call arises, and it has been arising for a long time, for some kind of socialization of the means of production, which, after all, are essentially the same for the proletariat as for capital. Anyone who, in the sense in which I have dealt with it in my last two lectures here, engages in the development of social and socialist ideas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries may come to the conclusion that there is something in this call for socialization of the means of production that corresponds to the most justified thing that one can see in the more recent development of humanity. But for those who allow themselves to be influenced by the facts as they have changed through the world catastrophe, it will not be difficult to see through how inadequate many of those ideas, party opinions and the like that have also asserted themselves on the socialist side have become, now that the facts arising from the world catastrophe are loudly and powerfully demanding expression and seeking to be shaped. Now the questions must be raised: How can we shape social life? How does the path lead to what is presented as a good goal: socialization of the means of production? How do we arrive at such ideas that not only show us the goal that can satisfy demands born out of suffering and deprivation, but that also open up the path to that goal for us? That is the task of the threefold social organism: to find the way to an end that the broad masses of humanity recognize as their own, feel as their own, and to a certain extent understand as their own. I must again and again emphasize that what I have to say here is not derived from some vague theory, nor is it the product of erudition. It has its source in real life and its present far-reaching demands. But one sometimes wonders how the times, how human thoughts relate to something that has been taken straight from the depths of life. In the form in which the call for socialization sounds today, it comes from a significant world-historical rallying cry, from the so-called Communist Manifesto of the ingenious Karl Marx. And basically, what has been experienced to date and what will continue to be experienced in terms of social and socialist impulses will be branches and shoots of what is given at the root with this Communist Manifesto. But it is remarkable that in the same year that the Communist Manifesto appeared, an honest, realistic book was published. And the thoughts in this book arose from the soul of a man who already knew life and who would have been inclined to profess himself a socialist completely even then, if he had been able to do so based on his knowledge of life. It is Bruno Hildebrand who wrote the book at that time, a seemingly unassuming book, but a symptomatic book, a book that should be thoroughly considered: “The National Economy of the Present and the Future”. I mention this here today in my introduction for a very specific reason. If you take everything that has been put forward by the opponents of socialism since the Communist Manifesto, you can clearly find it all in the work of Bruno Hildebrand from 1848. What is actually the basis of the impulse of this remarkable man? He said to himself, I have to imagine what a social order would look like if it were purely socialist! He visualizes such a socialist social order to a certain extent. If he could consider it possible, as everyone can tell from the man's explanations, then he would immediately profess it. He cannot consider it possible according to his views. Why? Not because he believes that some people who have acquired, inherited or otherwise obtained wealth will suffer, but because because, as a thinker of reality, a genuinely practical thinker, it becomes clear to him that those who want socialism as they imagine it would have to feel unhappy in such a socialist social order in no time. And why should they feel unhappy? The man gives all this. He shows how many of the legitimate human powers would naturally have to disappear if a socialist structure were to take hold of human society. He shows how it would be impossible to establish the relationship between capital and labor in the long term, especially in a socialist society.

Now, one is in a very strange position when faced with such a realistic examination. One says to oneself, but now, the historical necessity of socialism does exist. Socialism must come, and it will surely come. Should one want that which may also bring people into misery, at least not into happiness, who want the new order? That is the question that can weigh like a terrible burden on people today who look deeper into human development. What we are called upon to do today, prompted by the forces inherent in human development, cannot be clearly understood from any agitational or demagogic background, but only from a sense of bitter seriousness and sacred responsibility towards the demands, the legitimate demands of humanity.

The questions that arose from these foundations are the questions that ultimately emerged for the foundation of the impulses of the tripartite social organism. The socially structured human society stood there as a future perspective, based on real life. But in the quest not simply to speak out of illusions and demands, but in the quest to arrive at something that can truly benefit humanity, the question had to be asked: Why is it that what is historically necessary, what must certainly come to pass, can at the same time appear as something that disturbs humanity in terms of the noblest forces? Such a prospect cannot deter those in positions of responsibility from recognizing the necessity of a social structure for the social order. But it can drive him to investigate how to ensure that good and not evil may come of it, so that the free human nature, developing in all directions, may come into its own, and not a human being withered and dried up inwardly must live in the historically necessary. This leads to a more exact, life-oriented study of this social organism. And there it becomes evident that if one simply wants to transfer the old state order, the old state content, into the new social order, if one would develop the old unified state into the new social order, then what the opponents of socialism, if they are well-meaning opponents, would argue, would come about. The murky picture is immediately illuminated when one realizes that One must first remove the actual legal or state or political sphere and the sphere of human spiritual culture from the economic organism, in which we have become more and more involved, so that the state and spiritual organism have become servants of the economic organizations. If you leave these inside, you sail away, hypnotized by the idol “unity state”, and if you want to socialize, then the objections apply. If we separate the newer human culture, the legal or political or state life on the one hand, and the spiritual life on the other, from economic life, in which more and more of human culture has been concentrated, then the possibility remains in the freed economic cycle to socialize in a healthy way. And at the same time, the possibility arises to socialize in a healthy way in the other two areas as well.

I wanted to draw attention to this for the simple reason that today, when these things are discussed, people are so easily persuaded that what is being said has, as it were, come about overnight. What is meant by the threefold social organism is not such an idea. It is something that has arisen out of living together with social reality. Because only if you have the prospect of the tripartite social organism that you characterized recently and the one before that, does the possibility arise of casting the right light on such impulses in the newer development of humanity and on their design in the present and into the future, which are necessary for capital and human labor. Among the confusing and unjust forces of modern times, views have emerged that do not always point in the right direction. For example, it can be said that those who have thought about how to help human development have expressed the strangest ideas about what they actually mean by capital and its effects. There is an economist, Roscher, who includes the state in capital; there is an economist, Thänen, who includes people in capital. I could give you a long list that would prove to you how people view the economic world and have the strangest ideas about what is active in economic life. Therefore, we will perhaps get a clearer picture of what is actually moving and stirring humanity today than we would from the ideas of such people and perhaps also the ideas that we can form ourselves, by pointing out the fundamental impulses of the unleashed struggle between capital and human labor. First of all, we can point to the beliefs of both sides. For basically, two economic creeds are pitted against each other.

What does the capitalist actually believe? The capitalist believes that he lives off his capital, or if he is economical, that he lives off the interest of his capital. That is his belief. He does not think much about this belief, because he does not suspect that no one can live off capital and interest. And he also does not suspect that there is a certain justification when a very significant political economist, who even became a Prussian minister for once, uttered the words that capital is the fifth wheel on the economic wagon. You really have to consider what that actually means. It means nothing less than that human society does not actually need what is considered capital today. But in reality, this capital feeds many people, very many people. These people are all nourished by the fifth wheel on the economic wagon, that is, they feed themselves in such a way that if they did not feed themselves, the economic wagon would also move, only they themselves would have to do something other than feed themselves from capital, namely work. You see, that sheds light on the capitalist's belief. It is very difficult to fight against this belief, as it is generally very difficult to fight against religious beliefs, for the simple reason that religious beliefs are intimately connected with human nature. And no matter how often you tell the capitalist: your capital does not create life, as long as your capital is not transformed by the social order into a power, into the power that you have over other people through your capital, who work and provide you with a living through their labor. Anyone who looks at these things thoroughly will realize that capital only has any significance when viewed from the standpoint of this question of power. So much for the moment about the capitalist's creed.

Now, the creed of the laborer, at least of the laborer who has developed into the modern age under the soul-destroying capitalism, this creed is: I live from my labor! In today's social order, it is just as much a mere belief, an unjustified belief, that one can live from one's work as it is an unjustified belief that one can live from some capital, although the belief that one can live from one's work has at least a certain limited truth. It is just that it is not completely true within our social order. For within our social order, which is based on the division of labor, in order to be able to live from this labor, a threefold activity of the human being is necessary, which proceeds from the spiritual culture of the time in the broadest sense. Firstly, there is the inventive activity that leads to the means of production, and secondly, there is the organizational activity that leads to the harmonization between the means of production and human labor. Thirdly, there is the speculative activity that leads to the utilization of what is produced with the help of labor on the means of production, and to the transfer of the products to the corresponding members of human society. Without this threefold spiritual activity, labor is unfruitful in the social organism based on the division of labor. But this points us from the outset to what, as I said, sheds light in a certain way on what is needed today. We just have to look at what is there in the right light. Today's society works under the influence of capital. The worker feels quite rightly when he regards the means of production as the essence of capital, that is to say, that which must be created by human labor and does not lead directly to consumption, that is, is not a direct consumer good, is not a direct luxury, but what serves to produce consumer goods and luxury goods. Socialism seeks to bring these means of production into a social order that is different from the one into which they came under the influence of the capitalist economic order of modern times. Now, strangely enough, one can say that it is already apparent that in a certain sense the means of production are something in themselves, that they can be separated from people. Just compare how, in the older economic forms, what the human being needed as a craftsman to produce was grounded in his or her humanity. Now compare everything that is done on a large scale today with the help of modern means of production, how it can be separated, as it were, as a material good from human individuality. We know that when a sum of means of production that make up a business is sold – it can be sold by a person or a corporation to another person or another corporation, both of whom may have nothing to do with these means of production other than to draw their royalties, their profit – it shows how, to the greatest extent, the means of production are detached from their owners. Here we have something that exists in reality, which in the future only has to be turned into its opposite in a corresponding way, and then we come to a real socialization of the means of production. I have tried to indicate such a thing in my book “The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life”.

Two things must be achieved. Firstly, a closer bond must be established between the managers of a business and the means of production. A manager or a consortium of managers must be the one who, through his intellectual work, whether it be planning, calculating or inventing, intervenes in the business through the means of production and participates in it. The greatest possible trust must be placed in such a consortium, which is united by its entire intellectual structure and intellectual abilities with the means of production of a particular enterprise, by those who, as manual laborers, have to work with these means of production. In the future, the craftsman, the manual laborer, and the person who does not derive the profit that arises from the means of production, but who, through his intellectual abilities, through his intellectual work, which he has oriented towards the type of specific means of production, is solely entitled to manage this company, these means of production. But this manager has only as long to manage the production means as he can justify the management by the connection between his abilities and these production means.

This is where a point begins, where, however, those who can only imagine that at least the essentials of the old remain, begin to look perplexed. And yet, when the time comes that someone who has grown together with a certain set of means of production through his abilities can no longer maintain this state of being, then the social organism has the obligation to transfer these means of production to another person or group of persons without purchase. This means nothing less than that in the future there will be a coming together of – let's call it capital or whatever we want – of capital and human abilities without purchase. Capital will then only have the meaning of what is needed to initiate large businesses. In the future, capital will come into being through a person who is capable of running a particular business. This capital will only come into being through the trust that other people have in him, who will give him what they work as surplus labor beyond their needs. He will be able, so to speak, on behalf of a group that trusts him, but that means the general public of the social organism, to build up such a business, which today can only be built on private capital and private capital gains. But once the business has been set up, the possession of the means of production no longer applies. After the means of production have been set up, the worker faces the person who is the technical or other intellectual director of the business. The means of production do not belong to anyone; the possession of the means of production ceases. And the moment the collaboration of the company with this manager is no longer justified by the special abilities of the manager, the manager is obliged to transfer the means of production to another consortium, to another group of people. Directly or indirectly! This achieves for the future what I must call the circulation of capital and the end of private ownership of capital! Capital will be incorporated in a healthy way into the socialized social organism. It will circulate in this social organism, as blood circulates in the human or animal organism, where it must not be used by one organ alone, but must circulate through all the organs. Free circulation of capital! That is what is really required for the future.

In such a social organism, in which capital circulates freely, only real freedom of labor is possible. For just as private capital ownership is in fact a fifth wheel on the cart in relation to social functions, so human labor power, as the counterpart of capital, has been placed in a dilemma under the rule of capitalism. What is necessary for the recovery of human society is achieved through the circulation of capital that no one owns. What is paid out today, what is extracted from the means of production, what people call their capital or their pension in mortgage certificates, in mortgage bonds or bonds and so on, is absolutely unnecessary in the real process of human development of the social order. It is removed from this social order, and that removes the people who remove it from this social order, making them more or less parasites and those who generate the great forces of discontent within the social organization. Some people will, of course, find everything I have explained here about the circulation of capital highly impractical. I believe that. But to find something impractical, in this case, means nothing more than not wanting to let go of what is the fifth wheel on the wagon of the economic order, that is, having become accustomed to finding only what has proven practical for oneself, for one's own selfishness. But in the future, human beings will have to give themselves over to the social organism with their entire being. It will not be enough for people to sit in their rooms and fantasize about love for their fellow human beings and brotherhood and think very highly of themselves while doing so, and then cut the coupons, which they can only cut because the people in the mines and factories work for them in need and misery so that they can do themselves good in their sermons of philanthropy, love for their fellow human beings and brotherhood.

This talk, this good behavior, must come to an end. The organization of human society in such a way that it truly meets the demands of good behavior is what is now going through the world as a call. What has emerged under the newer capitalism, what has developed more and more, what has now, so to speak, arrived at the pinnacle of its consciousness, namely its class consciousness, is the social group of people that, for the time being, basically consists only of the working population, of the proletariat. What needs to be done with regard to this social group? Well, this social group has, in a sense, practiced self-help, and it has also achieved many things for itself, which it has wrested from the capitalist-led state, the purely capitalist economic order, and so on. Cooperatives and trade unions have emerged to organize the social group – initially, the masses of workers were anarchic, not in their attitudes, but in their grouping, initially anarchic. But as long as we were under the old economic order, these attempts at organization could not achieve any real goal. Despite all the praise of workers' protection, workers' insurance, even international workers' protection and so on, none of these things were suitable for properly organizing the social groups that live as the proletarian population. Because something was left behind in all these attempts at organization: the opposing capital and its representatives remained. And so it emerged, as it still is today, that there was a struggle between one social class, the supporters of capitalism, and the other social class, the proletariat. Struggle, competition, that is what emerged. And we have seen what we have come to through this struggle, through this competition: the unionized worker must wrest his wage increase or something else from the representatives of capital through the union. What the proletariat feels today clearly expresses how little the previous organization was able to fulfill what lies within the proletariat as a demand.

In earlier lectures, I have already pointed out what the main point is. One could say that two main points of socialism as a whole lie in two demands, to which a third then arises as a matter of course, as a self-evident consequence. They lie, firstly, in the demand, which has already been discussed today in the context of capital, in the demand that in the future the capital invested in the means of production should no longer be property. Capital is divested of its property character. Secondly, in the future, labor must no longer be a commodity. That is to say, in the future socialist or social society, in the healthy social organism, the wage relationship will cease to exist. Labor or labor power must no longer be a commodity. The person who does manual labor produces as a partner with the intellectual worker in the way that has already been characterized. There is no labor contract, there is only a contract for the division of services. This can only be achieved if the worker faces the supervisor as a completely free human being, that is, if he is able to determine the extent, time, and type of his labor on a completely different basis than that of the economic order, if he is free to dispose of himself as a whole person before entering into a contractual relationship.

I know that today's pigtails cannot yet imagine what has been said as something practical. But fifty years ago, many things could not be imagined as practical that have become practical in the fifty years since. The worker enters into the contractual relationship as a free human being who can say: Because I can determine the character of my labor on a basis independent of economic life, I will now approach you and work with you in the way my labor is regulated. What we produce is subject to a division of labor with you!

You see, therefore it is necessary that in the future the actual state, the actual social legal field, be detached from the economic field. By doing this, it will be possible to regulate everything that can be regulated as law on democratic ground, independently of economic life. Economic life itself can only be organized on the basis of experience and the real foundations of that economic life. But labor power can already be organized when the worker enters economic life at all. If that is the case, then in the future there will be, on the one hand, circulating capital or the circulating means of production, which are not the property of any one person, but are actually there for general use, and which can always come to the most capable through the institutions that I have just described. On the other hand, there will be human freedom, not only in terms of all kinds of ideal goods, which the manual laborer cannot count as his own today, but above all in terms of human labor power. Then the economic life will be relieved of the wage relationship, for then there will only be goods in the economic life, or, for that matter, we can call them products. Then what is capital, wage and market today will face each other in a different way. Then, as you have seen, capital will have ceased to exist, and so will wages, because there will be achievements that the worker produces together with the supervisor. The concept of wages will cease to have any meaning.

But what is now the market will also take on a different form. Today, the market, although it is already organized in many small ways, still has something anarchic about it. The market regulates the mutual values of goods, and that is the only value that should exist in economic life in the future, because human labor has a value that cannot be compared to anything else and must not be counted among economic values. What economic values there are will be the comparative values of the goods. Under the circumstances described, it will be possible for the goods to acquire such comparative values that give the greatest possible number of people, that is, all people who work, a standard of living that is as close as possible to the general, not to a group prosperity. This can only be achieved if the market ceases to be what it is today, if it is thoroughly organized, if the most comprehensive economic experience, the calculation of the various economic fundamentals, leads to a determination of commodity values that are not subject to the anarchic conditions of supply and demand, but are oriented towards human needs, as determined by experience. This can only be achieved if this economic life, if the market, or rather the markets, are transformed into associations, into cooperatives and so on. This cooperative structure, this structure not only on the basis of such cooperatives as have already been tried, but the interweaving of the entire economic life with a cooperative structure, will only be possible if, on the basis of experience in economic life, an intuitive knowledge of the relationships between producers and consumers is acquired. There are also some signs of progress in this respect. You can familiarize yourself with these in the writings of Sidney Webb, for example, where great things have been achieved in cooperatives, insofar as great things can be achieved within the current economic system, which still exists outside these cooperatives. But if the economic system is changed in the way I have suggested, then the point is that the cooperative structure must be brought about not according to subjective demands, but according to what the economic structure itself yields. I would just like to make a certain remark so that you can see that things are not left hanging in the air. It will be obvious to anyone who takes into account the nature of economic life as described in my book 'The Core of the Social Question' that the question arises: how, for example, can we limit cooperatives? If we want to limit them arbitrarily or for reasons outside of economic life, then we will always end up with false pricing and, as a result, false influences on people's lives. Now there is a very definite law that can lead to the development of a cooperative structure out of reality. You can start by considering the two currents of economic life, production and consumption. You can imagine consumer cooperatives where people join together who want to buy economically so that they take advantage of everything that can be exploited for buying by joining together as consumers.

On the other hand, producers can join together; this has already happened to a great extent within our economic system, and this is where the production cooperatives come from. Now, both types of cooperatives have very different tendencies. If you study consumer cooperatives, you will find that consumer cooperatives are primarily interested in buying as cheaply as possible and secondly in having as many people as possible in their ranks. They never resist the expansion of their cooperative if they have their true interests in mind. The production cooperatives have the opposite characteristics. The participants will fear competition if they expand, and they have every interest in selling as expensively as possible. This indicates that in the future, salvation can only come from bringing together people with consumption and production interests, in consumption-production or production-consumption cooperatives, where not only consumption will regulate production but where even the size of the cooperative will be regulated, in that consumption tends to make the cooperative as large as possible, that is, to expand and grow, while production tends to set limits to the cooperative. In this way the social structure is created out of the essence of things, out of reality itself. I could cite innumerable cases from which you would see that anyone who is capable of thinking in terms of reality, anyone who really wants practical ideas in their head today, will find the foundations of true, genuine socialization that is beneficial to people in the beginnings that already exist in reality.

But all that I have told you presupposes the real threefold social order. There will be no capitalists in the modern sense, arising purely out of economic life. There must be people who grow out of a free spiritual life, as I have characterized it in previous lectures, out of a spiritual life that will not produce abstract intellectual products that are alien to life, but that will unfold spiritual material that, on the one hand, rises to the highest heights of the spirit and, on the other hand, trains people to become truly practical human beings. At all levels of intellectual life, people who are alien to life because they only know will not be educated, but people who can think, who can dispose.

A cycle will take place within the limits that I have already indicated today, within which the administrations of the spiritual organizations will send their most capable people into economic life, as I have explained in my book, and economic life will send its people into the spiritual organizations, so that they may deepen there the knowledge they have gained through their experience in economic life or, as teachers, instruct the growing youth in economic life.

A living cycle, carried by human beings themselves, will take place between the three limbs of the social organism. The three-part organism will not disintegrate into three separate areas. The human being, who will live in all three parts, will become the living unity.

In the future, the human being, with his or her social interests and powers, will form the very basis of all life. The human being will be much more important than today, when the apparent unified state still divides humanity into classes and estates and does not allow people to be full and whole human beings. Today, people still believe that if they have a constitution, then a great deal has been achieved. In the future, people will understand that a constitution is nothing if the people are not there who, in their own liveliness, carry the forces to mutually compose, if I may say so. That is what matters, that one understands what I recently hinted at: Gladstone, the English statesman, once said that the North American free state had the most advantageous constitution. Another Englishman, who seems to me to be more ingenious than Gladstone, said in reply: But these North Americans – that was precisely his view – could have a much, much worse constitution, even a terrible one; they are the kind of people who will make the same out of a good and a bad constitution! That we must put the human in the place of what is separated from the human, that is what must be achieved. From a living spiritual life will come the living leaders of the enterprises. Capital is no longer needed! Alongside such living leaders will stand the free worker as a whole human being. He will know how to answer yes when he raises the question: Does the social order give me my human dignity? And a market that is not anarchic but organized will be able to bring about a just balance in the value of goods. Many details need to be said about all these things. Today I could only sketch out an outline, and you could ask many questions. I know that some of today's words cannot yet be fully understood. Next Friday, details, evidence and further explanations will be provided to show you that this is not something that is carelessly thrown into the world, but something that is intended to provide what is justifiably demanded with the call for socialization.

What is justifiably demanded, but perhaps not yet clearly recognized by those justifiably demanding it.

What is given with the tripartite organism is not intended to be like the description of a house. No matter how beautiful the description of a house may be, one can object that such a description is of no use at all; the house must be built. But there is a difference between a beautiful description of a house and a construction plan. And a construction plan is intended to be everything that is given as impulses for the tripartite division of the social organism. However much it may be misunderstood today, it will be the one thing that alone can lead humanity out of the chaos and confusion into which it has been brought. I know that I can still be misunderstood today. Some say that this is a new party formation. It is not even remotely a new party formation. What is at issue here is what follows from the very development of humanity, which has nothing to do with any kind of party formation.

And anyone who believes that they can see into this development of humanity and recognize what the time itself demands also exposes themselves to the misunderstanding, even from those who want to misunderstand or perhaps misunderstand in good faith, that they personally want something. For he knows that what is objectively striven for cannot be so easily inserted into the development of mankind in the face of people's prejudices and preconceptions. Today, however, we live in a time, especially here in Central Europe, where we have to look at what the last excesses of the old capitalist competitive labor have brought. And we in Central Europe are experiencing particularly painfully the consequences of what the leading circles, the leading circles so far, have brought upon humanity. We are experiencing it in pain and suffering, we are experiencing it in these days with bleeding souls. We may say that days of trial are clearly evident. In such days one may give oneself to the hope and faith that in the face of unusual experiences, unusual thoughts will also be understood, that in the face of great suffering, great courage will not be found for small, but for great reckoning.

That is why I believe and why I say what I have to say, even in these days of suffering, out of this belief: Through suffering, pain and trials, we will find the courage, the boldness, the understanding for a new construction. The construction must be done not only by transforming old institutions, but by transforming all our thinking, all our habits of feeling, by transforming our whole inner man.

Final remarks after the discussion

Dear attendees! Although I am completely convinced that he is not even aware of how he actually came to his assertions, and although I do not in the least want to deny him a kind of goodwill, what the second speaker has discussed here makes me feel that, piece by piece, he has each time what I said, sometimes by a quarter, sometimes by half, sometimes completely reversed, and then polemicized against his own assertions, discussed with them, in order to arrive at something that has nothing at all to do with what you heard from me today or yesterday. It happens very often that one creates the possibility of discussion through such preconditions, and so I would like to discuss only a few individual points from this perhaps quite unconscious discussion practice. For example, the gentleman who spoke before repeatedly dwells on the opinion that I advocate tyranny or the supremacy of the intellectually gifted. How does he make it clear that, according to what I have discussed, one consequence could be that the intellectually gifted should rule? Now I do not know whether the speaker has also heard what I said here recently, or whether he knows what is in my book. Otherwise he would know that the underlying principle of all the impulses I am talking about is that all human talents find their appropriate social place. It is precisely a matter of the structure of such a social organism, which does not give priority to any particular talent, but which makes it possible for each talent to find its appropriate place. This cannot be achieved by anything other than the thorough selection and development of the various talents in places where people understand talents and where talents can be managed in the right way. The spiritual organism will have to see its main task in developing talents. Read my book carefully. Do not add a single adjective to what I say, but take what I really say as it is. Then you will see that in the field of spiritual life not only spiritual talents are developed, but all talents down to the most physical ones. The spiritual organism is not there to create a spiritual aristocracy, but to develop all talents. Apart from the fact that I pointed out last time that a spiritual gift cannot really exist without at the same time offering the possibility of developing a manual gift when necessary. In short, the speaker has not made the slightest effort to break out of previous thought habits and really muster the will to rethink, but has criticized, according to what has been customary up to now, something that consciously strives out of what has been customary up to now. But that seems to me to be what must be overcome above all. People who, even if they have good will, do not make the effort to understand what the other person is saying and wanting, are precisely the ones who have led us into today's situation. And painful as it is for me, I must say: I can only see in the previous speaker one of those people who do not want to let us out of the confusion. Before the great world catastrophe, one could understand such people for my sake, because in those days the great test and the great questions had not yet come to humanity. But today we should truly not want to stop the course of development by our stubborn thinking. That is what makes me so anxious when people come up with all kinds of old stereotyped ideas and even want to frighten people by saying that the other person is a thought anarchist or something similar; I did not understand the adjective. These are things that can be frightening. One must counter what can really be inferred from what has been said. According to the imagination, what the speaker said can be inferred from the threefold structure, but read my book and you will see that every possible precaution, if I may say so, has been taken to ensure that what appears to be inferred here cannot be inferred at all.

For example, the speaker claimed that the interests of the professions would be in conflict. That is a matter of course. But precisely by separating intellectual life, by separating legal life, this is resolved. I have taken up a lot of your time today with what could be called an introduction: if socialism is realized and it leaves everything in the social organism that brings about what I have described, then this will happen. Of course, in the social organism that the speaker envisions, this would be included. In the threefold social order, precisely what he wants to introduce into the economic order is taken out of the economic order. It seemed to me that the speaker, although he professes to believe in the council system, is a representative of the court council mindset, which once made a similar objection to me, not from the people's council system but from the court council system.

The matter does not have the foreign policy side that the speaker painted, but a completely different one. The only remedy for our foreign policy situation, which has led us into this catastrophe, should have become apparent when foreign policy matters were discussed - I cannot, of course, discuss everything in one lecture. What we can achieve above all by means of the threefold social organism, even if it is only implemented by one state and not in neighboring states that still retain the old capitalist order, is the previous game of interests.

It is indeed a peculiar feature that every state can carry out the threefold order independently of the others, and that, for example, through the interplay of interests, which will be quite different will be quite different from the present one, when economic interests alone also work across borders as economic interests, that then those sources of conflict which have led to the wars that are technically called resource wars will be eliminated. The privy councillor who made this objection told me: Yes, so far a large proportion of wars have been resource wars. If your system is realized, then there will no longer be any resource wars, so your system contradicts reality. I had to tell him: If you had said that in confirmation, I would understand it; that you say it to refute it is peculiar. So I have to say: The only help against the mood that exists on the side of the Entente is that we break down this mood, this resentment, into three parts. That is what this threefold division would bring in this area for the current foreign policy. I would advise the speaker to study the foreign policy that follows from the tripartite division from a point of view broader than that of a court councillor; then he would be able to spare himself the completely useless definition of whether the tripartite organism is anarchistic or the like. He would be able to see how true it is, as I have already hinted at here, that the same people who are enthusiastic about unity need to be told: a rural family consists of a man, a woman, children, a farmhand and three cows, and they all need milk. Do they all have to give milk? No, only the three cows have to give milk, then everyone will have milk. It is necessary that the entire organism is structured in the right way; then the members will also work together in the right way to form a unity, and what arises on the one soil will also be able to work in the right way on the other members.

Because the previous speaker did not take this into account, he would have to decide the endowment through universal suffrage. Well, you can decide the filling of positions, you can decide all sorts of things through universal suffrage. But how you would like to administer the talents through universal suffrage, I ask you to think through thoroughly, and you will see if I follow the method of the previous speaker and outline the consequences - but I only recognize this method as a sophistic method, so I will not go into it further - but if I were to outline the consequences to you, then you would see what would come of it. If you democratized talent, you might not call it thought anarchy, but you would call it something else.

Similar things have been said many times. I was particularly surprised to hear the expression “spiritual capitalism”. I don't know what that means, especially how it might be used after a lecture in which the circulation of capital was discussed in the way I discussed it. Intellectual owners – yes, honored attendees, just try to think with realities! Imagine the social organism – the speaker has not described it as he imagines it – according to the few hints the speaker has made. Then you will have to say: What is it exactly, if, let us say, intellectual workers work alongside manual workers under some kind of socialist order? I do not know what kind of difference it is supposed to make to my economic organism that the intellectual worker works alongside the manual worker. I have expressly stated: ownership ceases at the moment when the capital is realized, that is, when the means of production are there. How one can then speak of intellectual ownership is completely beyond me. From the particular experiences mentioned by the esteemed speaker, one can of course derive anything one wants. One can of course derive a great deal from the atrophy of the soul and the like. I did not find it very tasteful when the speaker concluded by saying that he would leave the middle class to me so that the proletariat would be all the more assured to him. Well, there is no need to get involved in such things, because whether you ultimately see it as an inflammatory phrase or not is entirely a matter of taste.

But what has been said with regard to trust and with regard to believing in trust – well, you see, I must say that today it is truly not a matter of criticizing the relationship that we have come to know from the old conditions, but today it is a matter of establishing new conditions. If someone were to tell me today, whether for the first time or the hundredth or the thousandth time, that he does not believe there is trust, but has had to struggle with mistrust in so-and-so many cases, then I would say to him: Nothing will get better if we do not try to create this trust, because we have to work with trust today. All the other threads that have been used to draw the masses together are failing. The threads of the future can only be those of trust. If mistrust were to be allowed to take hold tomorrow or the day after, we would just have to wait for what comes after tomorrow and the day after, because if good things are to come, they can only come out of trust. The trust that I mean and that we must work on, this trust will have to come from the souls. This trust must be created, it is more important than anything else, even today. Then, when this trust is created, the relationship between those who work with their hands on the means of production and those who work intellectually will be right. Then this trust makes impossible what the speaker has painted as a horror.

This is precisely what is so terribly lacking today in these socially turbulent times: the will to build on trust. Oh, this trust will be there, the more and more trials come upon people, and I would have to despair of humanity, at least of the rebuilding of healthy conditions, if I could no longer believe that one person will be able to find their way to another through trust. Because, dear assembled, socialize as much as you want, talk about socialization as much as you want, but one thing must underlie this socialization: the socialization of souls. Those who do not seek the way to the socialization of souls may socialize externally as much as they want, but they will lead people into more anarchistic conditions than what the previous speaker wanted to present as a kind of anarchism. And there is no other name for soul socialism than trust. But this trust must be worked at. And today, is this trust not a little shaken? Dear attendees, I have been connected with the social movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries for a long time. I have worked in it; I know it. What the honorable speaker said before, one could have heard over and over again against what I said today. Apart from the threefold social order, the same objections that the previous speaker has raised today have already been raised by others in 1898 and 1899. But it is most necessary that we move beyond the old ideas, that we can relearn, that we do not remain with the old. As painful as it is for me to say, I believe that those who cannot overcome their old prejudices are holding us back the most. And those gentlemen who use the method of first turning the sentences halfway or completely around in order to then polemicize against their own, always have an easy time of it, because of course not everyone will understand, after hearing a lecture just once, how the things are meant, how they must be understood if they are placed in reality. For precisely those things that do not correspond to theories, not merely to good will, but that stem from a conscientious, responsible life experience and observation, precisely those things cannot be exhausted in an hour, but only suggestions can be given for them. But I have always said that these suggestions, since that time, and it has been quite a long time since I have spoken of the threefold order, may well turn out quite differently in their realization than what I myself say about these details, for example. What matters to me is that the building plan is taken from reality and can be lived into reality, that it is realistic. And because I believe that it is not subjective human

will that imagines it must realize these impulses, but because observation of the developmental forces of humanity in the present and in the future itself leads to it, I believe that it will find understanding. And I hope that I must say once again, from our sorely tried time and from our painful situation we will still find understanding for much for which we perhaps cannot yet imagine finding understanding at all today.

I have often had the opportunity to speak here about the so-called threefold social order, which is supposed to be the way to fulfill the current demand for socialization. Today, I would like to take the liberty of adding a few details to supplement and explain what I said in the previous lectures. I am well aware that even what I will be able to present today will not yet be what everyone imagines by way of the practical advice that is called for. But I would like to say that it will be recognized more and more that the impulses that want to be put into the world under the name of the threefold social organism are practical impulses to such an extent and of such a kind that, as with all truly practical impulses, it is necessary to apply a certain instinct for reality to what is put forward. For only that which does not want to be a preconceived program, which is thought and felt from the outset in such a way that it is formed out of reality and thought into reality, can basically only be understood by someone who takes the trouble to put himself in the position of how such things appear when he wants to lend a hand in realizing them. It is easier to have some preconceived party program and demand its realization than to listen to reality itself and discern what that reality demands. The tripartite social organism seeks to solve the problem of socialization in such a way that everything that happens in the direction of its impulse must first prove itself in practice, by being directly applied in reality. On the one hand, the present time is just as little accessible to impulses of this kind as, on the other hand, it needs them precisely for the most essential demands of the time. The impulse towards a threefold social organism wants to tackle the facts which can be subject to real socialization in an honest and open way. Above all, it does not want to destroy all the fruits of human culture that have resulted from the great developmental advances of modern times. It does not want to dismantle, it wants to build. He does not want to destroy certain lines of business that have emerged and that definitely meet human needs, for example, by socializing them in a stereotyped way, without taking into account the facts of the matter. For such a realistic program, if we had another word, I would not call it a program, one must indeed muster the goodwill to understand, because it is very easy to misunderstand what is actually meant by this three-part social organism. What is meant is, above all, what can be deduced from our practical life, from the way it has developed through technical and industrial progress, from what has been created in the way of means of production and knowledge about production.

But today a truly practical impulse in this direction must be based on something quite different: it must be based on a true understanding of the human being. Therefore, I must emphasize again and again, the threefold social organism is not about establishing any new classes or other groups of people and their differences, but rather about merely threefolding everything that takes place around people in the world. In future we shall have a separate economic administration, a separate legal administration, and a separate spiritual administration. But the same human beings will be active in the economic organism, in the spiritual organism, and in the legal or state organism. It is precisely this threefold organism that will enable man, through his continuous interaction, to establish the necessary unity of human social life. Anyone who wants to understand this in the way it actually is today must, above all, realize that it means something when a person is brought from one sphere of life to another. The same people will work in the economic organism, which will have its own administration and organization. The same people, of course not at the same time, will be active in the legal and spiritual organism, at least through their relationships with the spiritual organism.

Now one could say, yes, but what significance does this structure have? Only someone who wants to close their eyes to the true reality would raise such an objection. I will give you an obvious example. Until very recently, anyone who had a little knowledge of life would have said that merchants were a completely different breed, I would say, based on their way of life, than, say, stiff bureaucrats. Now, something very strange has happened recently under the influence of the so-called war economy. Merchants were brought into the bureaucratic government offices, and lo and behold, these merchants became the most beautiful bureaucrats in the bureaucratic government offices. Now, that is an undesirable example of human adaptation to what man is placed in, but this perhaps unsympathetic example points to a general human phenomenon. Man behaves in a certain way because of the circle in which he works. If we reorganize the entire life of human society in such a way that the three most essential branches of life have their own administration, let us say, their own representation, their own organization, then the person who has to live in such a sphere as one of the members of the social organism will work out of the spirit of that sphere. He will be able to contribute to the whole of human life in a way that would never be possible if everything in social life were mixed up and confused. However, creating clarity in such a field requires dedicated observation and practice of life. And if what is being striven for in the future for the good of humanity is not based on such devoted observation and practice of life, we will only end up in more confusion and chaos, but not out of it. Above all, if we want to create something healthy in the individual, we must be able to devote ourselves to what the immediate present can actually teach us with regard to social life. We must not ask: What have we thought for decades about socialism, about socialist programs? - and then, in this thinking, completely overlook what is around us in the immediate present, but we must have the ability to really look at this immediate present. This immediate present has brought something up that should surprise most of all those who have thought about socialism before.

Anyone who is familiar with the thinking about socialism, even among the socialists of past decades, must say that the events of the present must come as a surprise if one only wants to take things in their true sense and truthfully, openly and honestly, especially today. If we look beyond mere appearances and try to see what holds the germ of the future in a phenomenon, what is the most striking and significant phenomenon in the life of social demands of the present? I believe that anyone who has really taken a proper look at what is actually happening cannot find any other answer to this question than: the most striking phenomenon is the so-called soviet system. And I would like to say that one should have the ability to pay proper attention to the tremendously significant symptomatic phenomenon of the soviet system. For in a certain respect it can be said that the emergence of this system of councils is precisely what should have surprised traditional socialism the most. Traditional, old socialism should have listened attentively to this system of councils; it should have said to itself, this is actually the refutation of much of what I have thought. The council system refutes many old ideas about socialism. One need only recall, I would say sketchily, what traditional socialism has always emphasized and unfortunately still does: People do not make social upheavals, evolution does. It has been said that economic forms will gradually be transformed, primarily through the concentration of the means of production in the hands of a few capitalists, so that, to a certain extent, the old type of society itself grows into the new one.

Then came the world war catastrophe, which shook humanity. It poured out on the one hand over capitalism, which was driving itself into its own destruction. But it also poured out over the truly justified aspirations that arise from human nature, which are called the social movement. What has actually emerged from this social movement? People have emerged who, in the most diverse ways, as councils, as people's councils, want to take further development into their own hands, who want to intervene in development out of their own human resolve, their human insight, and their human will. If one were to have a sufficiently developed sense of discernment for the facts of reality today, one would perceive what has been indicated as an enormous surprise. But it seems almost as if precisely in those circles that have settled down so well into the old ideas of socialism, this power of discernment would be difficult to achieve. The November events have occurred. What has announced itself in the East - I will speak neither approvingly nor disparagingly about it - as the system of the Soviets, has also occurred in Central Europe. One was forced to think of something that could be called, by what was there through the November events: the realization of the social aspiration to which one has devoted oneself for a long time and from which one has promised oneself so much for a long time. There, very strange phenomena have come to light. One need only recall a few events in this, our present, strange transitional period, and one will immediately notice how little the old habits of thought were suited to the new phenomenon, which should actually have been surprising. I will highlight one example. A very clever person, full of enthusiasm for social ideas, gave a lecture in Berlin on socialization. He discussed certain very general ideas about socialization, the kind that were current when socialism still justified criticism, but could only criticize, when it was not yet called upon, as it has been since November, to intervene in events. He had very definite general ideas about what socialization should look like, and I believe – because it is perfectly clear to someone who can discern the human soul between the lines of what is said – that the man must have said to himself: What I have imagined in general program sentences cannot be done! — When something cannot be done, then today one says — it was also said in the past, but today it has become very characteristic —, well, people are not yet ready for it, it will come later. Yes, later, according to this man's views, true socialism will come. But what comes until then? He has now worked out a broad socialization program, it is the engineer Dr. Hermann Beck in Berlin, and he calls what is to be achieved in the transition period social capitalism. We have thus happily arrived at a situation in which the events that have occurred do not lead us to envision as an ideal what has always been called for: a real overcoming of the damage done by capitalism. However, one must learn to distinguish between real socialization and what is often striven for today, namely the transformation of private capitalism into state and municipal capitalism. That is not socialization, that is fiscalization or something similar. Do not confuse socialization with fiscalization. What needs to be looked at today – if you have a sense of reality, you will – is, as I have already indicated, the way in which people who want to participate in social events stand out, and this is expressed in the so-called council system. But no one who wants to make the transition from capitalism to socialism based on abstract principles, on some ideology or on some utopian premise can cope with this system of councils.

The striving for the system of workers' councils shows that it is unwise today to attempt socialization from above. The only way today is to work together with those who aspire to the council system, to create an exchange of views and experiences in ideas that are directly human. That is why I said, when I spoke here on Tuesday, that it is necessary today that we learn to understand the reality of trust, that we learn to really create with those who come from the working people and strive for certain goals. It is much more important today to listen to what those who come from the working class have to say than to reflect on how some law or the like should be based on some ideas. What we need today, what must be real reality today, is to recognize that what is to happen must come from the people. It is therefore more important to establish a living connection with the broad masses of the people than to hold meetings among ourselves upstairs. Holding meetings at the top only leads us to continue the old damage, because what wants to be realized today must come directly from the people, and the symptom that history wants this is the system of councils. And in addition, this system of councils has basically already emerged in two forms, and just as the proletariat's ordeal has necessarily led to the threefold social order because the proletariat has experienced physical and mental hardship in the three spheres of life, so too does the remarkable phenomenon of the system of councils already point to the threefold social order. At first this system of councils presents itself in such a way that on the one hand so-called workers' councils arise, but on the other hand another form of council is already emerging, the form of council that is now appearing as a demand for works councils.

Those who have an instinct for what is emerging from the times can already know today that the system of general workers' councils points to the political side, the state side, the legal side, and can only be developed if we 'can go towards a legal life separate from economic and spiritual life. Such things come about, I might say, with unavoidable historical ambiguity, in that they break away from humanity. But the question must be asked: how can that which asserts itself in this way be shaped on a healthy soil that makes a real organization of human society possible? Just as the system of workers' councils points to the independent legal basis, so the institute of works councils points to the independent economic basis, for it is in this that the practice of impulses for the tripartite social organism is to be sought, so that it is not built into the air with a program, but is built on soil and land, out of the historical reality, which one only has to observe correctly. There is really no need to discuss whether the councils are a reality or not. They are partly a reality, they will become more and more so, no one will be able to drive them back again, they will arise in even more diverse forms than they already are. Realistic thinking demands that we create the ground on which these councils can be worked with.

The one area in which the threefold social organism wants to create is the economic area. The esteemed listeners who have heard earlier lectures of mine will know that what is at issue here is to shape this economic ground in such a way that the so-called wage relationship disappears on its own, that the regulation of the type and time and the like of human labor is removed from the economic cycle and transferred to the legal state, where decisions are made about the time, type and measure of human labor. What remains on the economic plane is what is revealed in reality as the production of goods, the circulation of goods, and the consumption of goods. You will also have gathered from earlier lectures that economic life is about an organization that consists of associations, mainly of those associations that together regulate the conditions of consumption and production. It has often been said from the socialist side: In the future, production cannot be for profit, but must be for consumption. It is therefore self-evident that the consumer interest, which has not played a conscious role in the economic process itself to any significant extent, must come to the fore in economic activity. Cooperatives will have to be formed in which both the consumer interest and the dependent production relationship are represented. In these cooperatives, the main thing will be to always find out, within the practical work, how large such a cooperative must be. The size of such a cooperative cannot be derived from the boundaries of the state structures that have emerged in the course of modern history – for the simple reason that these state structures have emerged as closed administrative bodies for reasons quite different from the conditions of production and consumption, and because other boundaries arise as soon as people associate socially in relation to relations of production and consumption in such a way that the regulation of relations of production and consumption results in the mutual value of commodities, which makes a healthy life possible for the broadest sections of the population. In order to accomplish such tasks, we will have to develop a genuine economic science, one that cannot be conjured out of thin air, nor even out of subjective human experience, but out of the experiences of collective economic life. Within these experiences, one will have to observe how cooperatives that are too small lead to the members of these cooperatives having to wither away in terms of their economic situation; cooperatives that are too large must also lead to withering away in the economic life that is provided by the cooperatives. Once the relevant law, which underlies economic life, is clearly recognized, it will be expressed in the following words: Too small cooperatives promote the starvation of the participants in these cooperatives, while too large cooperatives promote the starvation of the others in the economic life associated with these cooperatives. Therefore, it will be a matter of avoiding this twofold atrophy of human needs. That will be the guideline for the work to be carried out by all sections of the national community. For it cannot be determined by any mathematical calculation how large such a cooperative must be; it must have a certain size in one place and another in another. It must regulate its size according to the actual conditions. These actual conditions are to be determined by those who are directly involved in economic life. They cannot be regulated in any other way than by disregarding any state legislation on economic life, leaving this economic life to its own vitality, so that it can be shaped by the continuous living interaction of the councils. One cooperative must be enlarged according to the circumstances at a certain time, while another must be reduced in size. For the social organism is not something that can be defined by a constitution or determined by laws that have been established once and for all; rather, it is something that is in a state of perpetual life, just as a natural organism basically is. Therefore, what is the measure of economic life can only be expressed at most in more or less short- or long-term contracts that are concluded, but never in any limitation or definition of the powers of the councils that are part of economic life.

You can still say today, and rightly so, that he is telling us about the extent of the size of a cooperative, but where is the evidence for this? Yes, that is precisely because we have not yet achieved an economic science that must be based on economic experience in the most eminent sense, that cannot be constructed, that cannot be gained from the idea, but only from life. I can tell you that no one who has truly studied economic life with selfless devotion comes to a different conclusion than the one I have expressed to you. For it is the peculiarity of social laws that they can never be proved in the same way as natural laws, but that they must be proved directly in their application, and that therefore only those who have a certain instinct for social reality can have a sense for them. This is so difficult in the present time that we are confronted with facts which require this instinct for reality, but people are so reluctant to develop this instinct for reality that is present in every human soul.

The second task that will arise in the future will be a price regulation arising from the laws of economic life, which will represent the mutual value of the goods. For it is only through such a price regulation, observed in economic experience, that the basic law of all socialization can be realized. This will make it possible to fulfill the basic principle of all socialization, which, after all, basically consists of nothing more than ensuring that what a normal person can achieve through normal human labor based on his or her abilities is equal to what the society in which he or she lives provides for him or her, so that everyone can receive from society the equivalent consumption for what he or she produces. In addition, of course, there is what the community must provide for those people who, due to illness, old age or abnormality, must be supported by society itself. This is not achieved by wage struggles or the like, but only by ensuring that the economic cycle is such that prices are formed in a healthy way, not too low and not too high. Prices themselves, ladies and gentlemen, can be said to be irrelevant. It just always depends on earning what things cost. But that would only be the case in societies that merely produce land products. The moment a society has to simultaneously produce products for which man-made means of production are needed, there is a necessary normal price that must not be exceeded or fallen short of.

In this respect, we could learn an enormous amount from history if we could look at history today on the basis of real insights into economic laws, rather than economic fantasies, as is often the case in the economic histories of recent years. For example, it is extremely instructive for people who are honest in this regard that we have already reached the point in the most important regions of Central Europe that a kind of normal pricing system exists over large areas. That was around the fifteenth, towards the middle of the fifteenth century. This normal pricing - please read about it in the histories that at least give some clues about it - which at that time extended over a large part of Europe, only became possible because the old serfdom and semi-slavery, the old hereditary leasehold and the like had gradually given way to better conditions, better conditions, by no means ideal conditions. But then an event occurred that undermined this economic development. It is impossible to say what it would have meant for European humanity if this event had not occurred. Of course, I do not want to engage in bad historical construction, nor indulge in historical criticism, but only point out these things for a better understanding, because what happened had to happen. One cannot even imagine the favorable economic development that would have followed if what had already been prepared around the middle of the fifteenth century had found a straightforward continuation. But it was cut off by the radical introduction of Roman legal concepts; it was cut off by the fact that economic life was disturbed precisely from the legal point of view. Anyone who is familiar with this phenomenon at its very roots has in it an enormously strong historical proof of the necessity of separating actual state life from economic life. Old habits of mankind led to a certain sympathy for these Roman legal concepts. In the Baltic region, from which so much reactionary thinking has emanated, there were people at the Diet who said: According to Roman legal concepts, which we must reintroduce because they are the right ones, the farmers should actually become slaves again.

Today, when we are facing not a small reckoning but a great one, as I said before, we must see through such things with a healthy eye of the soul, see through them in all their consequences for the present. But if we want to shape our economic life independently in this and many other ways, we will need a real organization of the council system. It will be a matter of introducing into the factory the system of workers' councils, which today is longed for and hoped for, which some people are already trying to set up based on a certain understanding of the times, so that it so that it can be an intermediary between the workers and the managers of the future, in the sense that I characterized it in my last lecture here and as I presented it in my book 'The Crux of the Social Question'. That will be the first task for which the works councils will have to come up with, to really be able to mediate for those contracts that have to be concluded between the workers and managers of the future, who will no longer be capitalists. But all these things can be prepared today. All these people who are part of such a council can already take on functions today, even if they can only be transitional functions. Furthermore, the works council will, above all, have to mediate in everything that arises from the company and is of general interest in the context of life in a unified economic entity. But other things will also be necessary for this system of works councils if we do not want to continue to individualize economically, which the working class in particular would soon come to resent. If we want to socialize the whole of economic life, the unified economic entity, then we will need many other types of councils. I would just like to point out from the types of councils that there will be a need for transport councils and economic councils. The factory councils will be close to the production conditions and production needs of the working people. The economic councils will be close to the consumption conditions.

This will create an economic body that, above all, will represent a real system of councils. Such a system of councils, which does not prevent – that is what will be important in its practical design – the initiative of the individual in economic life from being decisive in the individual case. But that can really be developed if trust prevails. If the initiative of the individual were undermined by, say, the soviet system, then all internationality of economic life would be lost. This internationality of economic life would be particularly lost – people today have little idea of the extent to which this would be the case – if, instead of socialization, nationalization were to be introduced, that is, state capitalism, if economic life were to be merged with state life. If the state were to manage the economy, as some strive for – anyone who is familiar with the actual circumstances knows this – then it would be impossible to control the complicated conditions that the internationality of economic life necessarily creates. If you set up a real system of economic, transport, works councils and similar councils, which will truly not take as many people out of the working population as the current bureaucracy, then, if you can still manage to avoid undermining the initiative of the administrative people in the practical implementation, then all the fine apparatuses of internationalism can be fully maintained despite socialization. Then, if the councils are real councils, that is, institutions that set the direction of life, then the councils, through their coexistence with the administrators, will bring it about that the administrative man, whom they trust, can also take the initiative in their sense in detail. The broad lines of the institutions will always emanate from the council. The day-to-day activities will be taken care of by the council. In this respect, anyone who can imagine economic life as separate from the rest of society, and taking into account all the circumstances , which are present today, to institutions which do not reduce the achievements of the old culture, but which make it possible to bring about a dignified existence for all people within these achievements.

You may ask what means the economic life, separated from the state, will have to carry out the measures it has taken, in a sense against the resistance of individuals? Today, however, it is thought that such measures can only be implemented by means of coercion. In this respect, we have not yet deviated very much from the old habits of thought. I do not know how many people have noticed that such old habits of thought continue in a strange way. If, for example, I read a certain passage from a certain speech today, many people will be astonished. This passage, taken from an address to troops in Danzig, reads: “The troops shall see the man who stands up for their weal and woe and advocates military discipline and order. If the right military spirit lives in the troops, I will repay loyalty with loyalty.” You will say, in which old imperial speech did you find that? No, it is from the speech that the Reich Minister of Defense Noske gave to the volunteer troops in Danzig. This is how old habits of thought take root. But it is essential that we move beyond the old habits of thought. Today, people do not yet realize how they are muddling along in the old habits of thought, how little they have come out of the old things. So naturally some people ask, who can only imagine that what is decided upon as a measure will be carried out by some kind of state or even military force: What means does the economic body have to enforce what is born out of its womb in the way described? — In the future it has a very effective but at the same time very humane means, the boycott. The boycott, which does not even need to be imposed by coercion under such conditions as I have described, but which simply arises by itself. If a cooperative exists for any business and branch of consumption and someone wants to go over to the other side, he will not be able to produce, precisely because of the law that the circle from which he produces will then be too small. And in a similar way, other conditions for thwarting economic measures through the obvious boycott can be eliminated. If someone were to believe that the recalcitrant could then come to such a large cooperative that he could compete, he need only reflect on the real laws of economic life and he will know that by the time he would come to this competition, he must have perished long ago.

You must seek this as the practical life behind the threefold order, that this threefold order takes account of reality and seeks to create a foundation for this reality. Of course, we shall have to take certain things seriously that today still go against human habits of thought. We shall have to take seriously what I have already explained in earlier lectures, namely the emancipation of spiritual life. We shall have to realize something with this spiritual life that has always been implicit in the call of socialist thinkers, but is poorly understood today. It was always inherent in socialism that it would lead to something new, but people have never thought about it clearly. Time and again, the adherents of socialism have said: competition and profit-making must be replaced by objective administration. That is quite right. This must be done especially in the field of intellectual life. It will, of course, be necessary for this intellectual life to be able to administer itself. Purely from the observations on human existence, one will be able to create something truly fruitful for the future through a mass pedagogy. I know that I am perhaps saying something crazy to many people today by saying: If we want to socialize in a healthy way, then we must, above all, express human strength and potential in such a way that the human being can stand powerfully in reality throughout his normal lifetime.

This will be particularly evident in the free administration of education. In other areas, it has already been shown in a less than pleasing way, in that the conditions of promotion in the old state have led to the fact that the highest council positions were usually occupied by old men who then wanted as little as possible to do with the matter. In the future, the necessity will arise from the self-government of the mind that these old gentlemen will have the most diverse leading tasks. But for that they need to be young and fresh. Our state school undermines youthfulness. This youthfulness has certainly not been found in the Reich Railway Office – it was called the Reich Railway Office because the posts were mostly filled by old men. It will be necessary for us to shape the very first stage of school teaching, which can only develop in a free spiritual life, on the basis of a thorough anthropology, so that the human powers of thought, feeling and will are not developed in such a way that later life is unable to maintain them, but weakens them. During the years in which the human being develops thinking, feeling and willing, we must shape all of this in such a way that we create a foundation for life. What can be achieved in the years of youth can never be made up for by the human being later on. But only if school life is administered according to the most intrinsic laws of human life, not according to the state corporation, can it be possible that the strength of his power will not be weakened throughout his entire life. And for social life it will be necessary in the future not only to acquire knowledge through school institutions, but also to learn to learn, to learn to learn from life. It still looks strange today when one says that a properly organized school system will provide us with very different people in the future than we have today.

You see, it is necessary for new things to arise, things that are not even thought of now. People today still look perplexed when you talk to them about wanting intellectual life to follow its own laws. They cannot imagine anything other than an intellectual life administered by the state because they have no idea of what the human being is in human society. Matters are serious today, and those who want to take things lightly will not achieve what is so necessary for us today: the recovery of the social organism. We must see again and again how strangely people continue in their old ways of thinking, how they at best bring themselves to say, “What he says is so unclear to us.” Of course, such things, which must have the power to give birth to a long-lasting reality, must first be accepted as something that is unclear, because one must get used to acquiring a new, realistic view of life by dealing with them. Today we have the duty to reflect on our deep instincts. When we reflect on them, we will be able to recognize with clarity what appears to be unclear. When many people today say that the impulses of the threefold social organism are unclear, it is often due to the old, wrong school education, which has prevented people from coming to a truly concentrated thinking, from coming to the conception of realistic thoughts. And so, on the one hand, one is obliged to say what is necessary, but on the other hand, one has to fight to prevent all kinds of prejudices from wanting to create new things in the world out of old habits of thinking. When people today keep asking: What is the way? How do you do it? — I would like to know what would be a clearer way than that of the threefold organism, if only one wants to follow it. But just think of what has to happen first if one wants to go down this path. The government, which has continued to develop from earlier developments, will have to say to itself one day: We reserve for ourselves all those departments that relate to legal life, public safety and the like. With regard to intellectual life, culture, education, technical ideas on the one hand, and with regard to economic life on the other, to industry, trade, commerce and so on, we will become a liquidation government. This requires our time as something immediately practical: the insight that governments that come from the old practices and habits can pull themselves together to say such things as those just mentioned; to cast aside intellectual and economic life to the left and right, so that these can shape and administer themselves.

Only the initiative can lie with the previous governments, because they have already developed out of the old conditions, but they must have the selflessness to become liquidation governments to the left and to the right. This requires a great reckoning. Those who call this impractical, I can understand, because they cannot rethink what centuries have hammered into their heads. Today, however, we are faced with the necessity of hammering out of our heads what centuries have hammered into it. Today we are faced with the necessity of taking things with the utmost seriousness, because only this utmost seriousness is the truly practical thing to do. This seriousness will then unite with the necessary insights that I have mentioned to you with regard to the organization of economic life, the size or smallness of these or those cooperatives, price fixing and so on. But these are tasks that arise in the concrete, in the practical, and to which we must resolve, for these are the foundations of a real socialization, the foundations for a truly social shaping of human life. This is what the councils want, even if they cannot yet say it, as they strive to emerge from the greater community of the people. Therefore, people should have been surprised by the council systems, especially all those who believed that they had already come far enough in what is called socialization. Today we are experiencing strange things.

This afternoon, I had to read a remarkable sentence that I would like to say had to be received by me with the strangest feelings in these serious times. There I read the following sentence in connection with the impulses of this three-part organism. You don't really want to believe it:

“The present struggle is not about finding an idea or putting the right man at the helm, but about how the socialist idea must be translated into reality. It is not about beautiful plans, but about execution.”

Now I ask you, my dear audience, how can you execute if you have nothing to execute? Such things are said today in good faith, out of a good opinion. But they are nothing more than a symptom of how little sense and understanding people have for what has to happen. Someone presents the plan of a house, and someone objects: It is not the plan of the house that matters, but the execution. — It may well be asked: Where is your plan? Where does it show itself? — We would remain silent if your plan showed itself, for we speak truthfully only through the facts.

That such things are possible today, that such thinking is possible in the face of the seriousness of the times, is what makes one sad again and again when one thinks of the possibility and necessity of what has to happen. We must be seized today, especially we here in Central Europe, by the seriousness of the situation. For only by breaking ourselves of today of thinking and speaking outside of things - because we never look into things - only by doing so will we avert the great disaster. Today, one needs the opportunity to create out of the broadest masses of humanity. If anyone attempts to do so, he is told that he is suggesting things to the masses, for the masses do not understand them. The ruling circles have no idea what the masses already understand in their fresh minds, things they themselves do not understand because they do not want to understand anything. These things are a problem for our time, and I do not shrink from speaking about them, no matter how many objections are raised about suggestion and the like, because basically I only say what would come from the hearts and souls of people themselves if they were to become clear about what lives in these hearts and souls. I only want to clarify what lives in the hearts and souls. But many people today do not want to know anything about that because they shy away from living with those who clearly carry the demands of the time in their hearts. However, you can find out a lot about this from all sorts of voices of the time. Recently, for example, a gentleman wrote in the widely read magazine 'Die Hilfe' (Help) - and it is not a socialist magazine, but it aims to be a social magazine; similar views can be found in socialist magazines today - that we cannot socialize now. He does not consider the possibility that he does not know how to do it, but of course he does not attribute the reason why he has no idea how socialization should be carried out to himself, but to the others. In his article, he says quite naively: “Capitalism has simply corrupted our people... Yes, anyone who had a nation of healthy, happy, kind-hearted people who were eager to work and for whom fraternity was a living concept and not just a slogan like ours could dare to introduce communism overnight.”

Now I ask you whether anyone in the world would need to introduce communism if we lived in a social order in which people are healthy, happy, cheerful, kind-hearted and in which only fraternity lived. You see, that is today's world of thought. People have no idea what they said just a short time ago. They would truly have no need to think of an ideal of socialism if people were as they should be, as they are supposed to be, precisely through socialization.

People always forget one thing: if the natural organism is healthy, then a person does not feel what the health of the natural organism is. Then he must first seek in health, but then he can feel the harmony of his soul, or the joy of his soul, for that matter. But if the organism is sick, then he feels pain, then the pain of the organism is part of his soul experience. Then no one can come and say, “I cannot make you healthy,” because I could only do so if you first felt healthy in your soul, if you had harmony and joy in your soul. We must strive for a healthy social organism. That is what matters. We must not ask, as the gentleman I just spoke of did, “But where shall we get the people from?” Mankind must first be educated for socialism! — Think of the Munchausen hero who wants to lift himself up into the air by his hair. No, socialism should be there to educate people.

It is easy to call people immature when one is unable to develop mature impulses oneself. Our task in the present is not to accuse humanity, but to create conditions that will no longer require us to accuse humanity to the extent we do today. Therefore, the impulse we are talking about here sets itself the task of examining the conditions of a healthy social organism. We shall not make any progress until there is an awakening of understanding for this threefold social organism. Then I would like to see, if in a sufficiently large number of people - and that is what matters today - there is understanding for what is to be done, which government can resist such understanding! Under any other circumstances, we will not make any progress with all the experiments.

Today, the effort must be made to create understanding in the broadest circles. This can happen faster than one might think. And it must happen faster than one might think, because only those who are immature themselves speak of people's immaturity. We have no time to waste dreaming that it will take a long time to socialize. If one recognizes the practical possibility of basing social life on the three fundamentals of the spiritual, the legal, and the economic, then one will realize that one can carry out a real socialization on these three fundamentals. But one must resolve not to cling to old prejudices. We must make up our minds to really relearn. The same gentleman I have already told about, says the beautiful sentence: “Any renewal that tries to rush ahead of this development,” he means the development towards kind-hearted, friendly, contented people, “must fail because it finds no support in the people's feelings.” — In the feelings of this gentleman, it certainly finds no support. Such sentiments must simply be ignored if they cannot be improved, because humanity must not be held back any longer by old prejudices and old habits of thinking. Today we need to go deep within ourselves, to reform and revolutionize our feelings and our thinking. Then we will find the resonance in the people. We need not suggest anything to people; we need only find the clarity for what they legitimately want. We need only do the work of trust and not shy away from this cooperation with the broad masses, then we will truly serve the demands of the present time.

Today, I want to say once again that everyone must take themselves by the word: I must learn to understand what needs to be done from the phenomena of the time, from the loudly speaking facts, before it is too late. And it could very soon be too late, which would then be most regretted by those who have not taken the trouble to transform themselves, out of the abilities they have acquired, so that they can really understand these new demands of the time and place themselves at their service. To be able to place oneself at the service of the times, even if we have to relearn in the deepest part of our being, that must become the task of all people, before it is too late!

Closing words after the discussion

Since, in principle, hardly anything has been said in the discussion against my statements except by one of the honored speakers, it is also unnecessary for me to say much in detail in the closing remarks. I do not wish to go back over the arguments of the speaker who has contradicted me. I think it is certainly a strange way of putting things to say that one should refute things that are quite incorrect in comparison with what is in my book. A discussion cannot be conducted in such a way that one asserts inaccuracies or fallacies during the discussion and then demands that one refute what one never deigned to assert. I would like to point out just one thing. It has already been said by Mr. L. and it is also my conviction that, as far as Karl Marx is concerned, anyone who really knows Karl Marx will have to say that Karl Marx has always allowed himself to be taught by the facts of history, contemporary history, in such a way that there is no doubt that anyone today who would not be able to answer the question: What would Karl Marx think under today's conditions? — You see, there is a very, very strange word from Karl Marx that comes to mind when someone like Mr. W. refers to Karl Marx in such a strange way. Marx had many contemporaries who were his followers, who called themselves Marxists, and Karl Marx said something very strange, but it has a very deep meaning for these Marxists: As far as I am concerned, I am not a Marxist. Such a saying should really make you think. Sometimes you have to ask yourself what the followers of a certain view actually believe. A view, such as that put forward by Karl Marx, is meant by its creator to flow into the full movement of time. And only those who are able to take it up in such a way that they are able to transform it for their own time will understand it in a later age. That is enough on this point. Now, because three questions were asked, I would just like to make a few comments about these three questions. All three questions relate to foreign policy. Of course, I could answer them individually, but perhaps it would be better not to answer these three questions in particular in the form in which the questioner wants them, given the events that are still pending. It is necessary to withhold information about current events, although it is not likely that what I am saying here will be in the newspaper tomorrow. But it is better if certain things are not spoiled by being talked about. But I will tell you the following about it, so that you do not think that something can be withheld lightly with regard to answering this question. You see, what is now presented as the threefold social order was initially treated as a foreign policy matter during the terribly difficult war period. At a time when it was out of the question to tackle socialization within Germany just before the end of the war, when the only question was what Germany would do in response to Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, for example, if there was to be a possible end to the terrible events? Today, even more than in the past, I am of the opinion that much could have been helped if people had shown understanding for that foreign policy, which, in addition to socialization, lies in this threefold structure of a healthy social organism. That, I would say, is precisely what stands before me today with such sadness. This structure would, I believe, have been the only way to avoid such a terrible end to the war as we have come to. May that lack of understanding which the relevant circles showed in the past not also become what those who matter, the broadest sections of the people, make it theirs today. If only we could find the hearts of the broad masses of the people more than we could find the hearts of those who, instead of seeking some kind of sensible foreign policy under the influence of these impulses, have wreaked havoc at Brest-Litovsk and in the aftermath.

I cannot give you a second lecture on foreign policy now. But one day we will study the real causes, the more distant and more proximate ones, of these unfortunate European events of the last five years. In the future, we will study, for example, the web of so-called causes of war that led to the Austro-Serbian conflict. Interwoven into this conflict as foreign policy are chaotic economic and political causes. And anyone who, like me, has spent half their life, that is three decades, in Austria, who is familiar with Austrian conditions, knows that this was bound to happen from the unfortunate development of these Austrian conditions, because these conditions could only have been maintained if the economic and political-legal conditions could have been disentangled at the right time, also in relation to foreign policy. You see, I came to Vienna once during the war. Various people approached me and said, emphasizing only the economic side of the causes of the war: “Oh, this war with Serbia is only a pig war.” Of course, this only expresses the economic cause in terms of one area, but it was present. In addition, there were the political and even the cultural causes, even if they lay in different languages, of which Austria officially had thirteen. In short, as I said, I would have to give a very detailed lecture if I wanted to show you how these things have crossed the former state borders, which I call an inorganic, chaotic jumble of the three branches of life, which must first be separated in the future. So today, for easily understandable reasons, I can only hint at all this.

You see, what is now called war guilt, what is now called the terms of peace, which are the subject of the question at hand here – well, is that an impossibility when you think of the realization? No, that is not an impossibility, but mere nonsense, because it is something like sailing into a dead end. It is absolutely incomprehensible how people in Versailles can even imagine such things. Of course, one might not look clearly enough, not concretely enough into the circumstances, but just consider this. Let us leave aside the war debt. Let us assume that which has arisen from the old conditions, the debts that are to be repaid within the German borders themselves. So let's leave the war guilt aside for the time being. Then, for the next few years, the mere interest, listen carefully, ladies and gentlemen, the interest, as I believe, is 28 billion marks annually. So not only is it impossible, but it is really nonsense. Things that cannot be realized.

This is a typical phenomenon of the present time: we have sailed into something under the influence of the old conditions, and it can only develop further if we build something completely, completely new, from completely new foundations. Now, people will very soon be convinced that they have to build on completely new foundations. Those who today still do not want to know about the threefold social order will have to learn it from the field of foreign policy, when it becomes impossible to escape the calamities if we do not manage to establish international relations that go beyond all political and spiritual conditions and arise out of the necessities of economic life. Of course, this must be studied in detail. If it is studied, it will be seen that recovery can only come if we try to build international economic relations on the basis of the tripartite structure of the social organism, at least for us. It is no obstacle that the Entente states do not have a tripartite structure. For us, it would only be necessary for us to make progress, to get some air and the possibility of life again, that Russia and the Ukraine could also enter into the tripartite division to the east.

But anyone who, on deeper grounds, is familiar with the intentions of the Russian national soul also knows how much has actually been achieved by the peace of Brest-Litovsk and how it would have been possible, had not so much been buried, to win adherents with this threefold organism, especially in Russia. This is something for which, of course, ways must be sought to make up for it. But for those who do not take things according to programs, not according to preconceived ideas, but as they present themselves in reality, including in foreign policy, there is only one possibility, to gain strength over a sufficiently large territory in Eastern and Central Europe, so that we find the possibility of not being harmed by the fact that in the West there is that intention, which is expressed in the dreadful peace conditions. I would like to point out to you that the impulses of this tripartite division were first thought of during the course of the war as a foreign policy, and that is what can weigh heavily on us today: After these terrible and bloody experiences, are we to go back to the way things were during the war? At the time, I tried to make it clear how people would have reacted quite differently to everything else if there had been a manifestation in this direction, which of course would not have been worded as one has to speak about these things now, according to the demands of the times. But that is something one would wish for, that now that a new era has dawned, this new era would understand these things better than they were understood by those people who were the last stragglers of the old era and who, because they were these stragglers, led European humanity into terrible misfortune. May as many people as possible now open their hearts, so that they may not be among the stragglers, but may be the forerunners of that which alone can help, namely, that which really cures the inner organism. And the healthy inner organism will also find the ways and means to assert itself in the right way on the outside.

after eurythmy-dramatic presentations: “Dedication”, “Prelude to the Theater”, “Prologue in Heaven”

Yesterday and on other occasions, I have spoken about the fact that Goethe's Mephistopheles is fundamentally a contradictory figure. We also already know why he is a contradictory figure. One could say that Mephistophelean, that is, Ahrimanic and Luciferic character traits are combined in him in a colorful jumble. Goethe, one might say, was not yet able to distinguish these character traits. If, on the one hand, one values a work of art as highly as you have seen me do with 'Faust', then one may also draw attention to such factual things. It remains strange, however, that so little has been noted about the contradictions in the poetry itself, although it has been done in individual cases. This is also a sign of the way in which things are often received today: one does not approach them with sufficient inner participation, so as to notice the inner life and activity. For if one did, one would soon have to notice, for example, the inner contradictions in the figure of Mephistopheles.

Let us take, first of all, a contradiction that may not be complete, but is nevertheless very strong, and which might be noticed immediately when one hears Mephistopheles speak in the scene that has just passed before our soul.

I see only how people toil.
The little god of the world always remains of the same ilk,
And is as whimsical as on the first day.
He would live a little better
If you had not given him the glow of heavenly light;
He calls it reason and uses it alone,

Only to be more animalistic than any animal. What must one feel when Mephistopheles criticizes the fact that man does it this way? Now, no one would credit Mephistopheles with very deep, selfless goals. He can't, even after this first scene in “Prologue in Heaven.” For what does Mephistopheles actually want? He wants Faust, doesn't he? He wants him for himself and so basically has to approve of everything Faust does in order to get together with him, to grasp him, to take hold of him. In this case, to take hold means to seize, not to understand; it is not meant conceptually, abstractly. “Can you grasp him?” – can you seize him? Mephistopheles will want to do everything to do so. It would suit him very well if Faust had all the qualities that would bring him into the very claws of Mephistopheles!

Let us turn to a later verse, where Mephistopheles confronts Faust himself in the study, where Faust speaks of his attitude towards reason and science. Faust leaves; Mephistopheles remains in his long robe. One can imagine that he will now be honest with himself, this Mephistopheles. So he says:

Despise reason and science,
Man's highest power,
Let only in Blend- and Zauberwerken
You from the lying spirit strengthen,
So I have you already unconditional.

So that could suit him just fine, when man does not apply reason and science in the right sense, but uses them to be more animalistic than any animal. Then he will just talk the Lord into it, won't he:

If thou hadst not given him the semblance of heavenly light;
He calls it reason and uses it alone,
Only to be more animal than any animal.

I say it is not a complete contradiction, but it is a strong contradiction for the senses.

In the scene I just quoted, where Mephistopheles stands opposite Faust in the study, it is clear that he is speaking sincerely as Ahriman-Mephistopheles. But in the passage you heard today:

He calls it reason and needs it alone,
Only to be more beastly than any beast,

a Luciferian trait comes into it. Lucifer cannot approve of Faust using reason to incite the animal passions. But Ahriman would have to approve if Faust behaved as Mephisto criticizes him for doing. In this case, we have not a half-contradiction, but a three-quarters contradiction!

But what are we to make of another passage?

As long as he lives on earth,
so long do not forbid it.
Man errs, so long as he strives.

I thank you for that; for with the dead
I have never been willing to associate myself.
Most of all I love my own full, fresh cheeks.
I am not at home with a corpse;
I feel like a cat with a mouse.

If you compare that with the scene that we might also be able to perform one day, where Mephisto finally tries so hard to get the soul, in the second part, when the corpse is lying there, how are we supposed to cope at all? The devil is after souls, and here he is talking about the opposite! There are many such contradictions. I only wanted to give two examples; the first is a three-quarter contradiction that is found in the poetry itself. Such contradictions can certainly be attributed to the fact that the two character traits, the Luciferian and the Ahrimanic-Mephistophelian, get mixed up.

Now the question may arise for us: how is it that Goethe actually places Ahriman-Mephistopheles at Faust's side, directing all attention to Ahriman-Mephistopheles and, as it were, still suppressing Lucifer altogether? — That must surely be a question. For the fact that Goethe, under the influence of his time, was tempted to place Mephistopheles at Faust's side means that he has also taken on Luciferian traits and thus, so to speak, blamed Mephistopheles-Ahriman for everything that should be divided between the two. Thus there must be reasons in the time to turn more attention to Mephistopheles than to Lucifer. By treating the Faust saga, Goethe goes back to the time when the Middle Ages collided with the modern era. And he has essentially absorbed the impulses of the time that arose from this clash between the Middle Ages and the modern era. If we consider somewhat more ancient poetry, poetry that follows more ancient impulses, we find an opposite confusion. We can also talk about this some other time. But today I just want to hint at it. In Milton's 'Paradise Lost', you will find the opposite mistake made. Everything that should have been attributed to Ahriman-Mephistopheles is dumped on Lucifer, although not in such a crude way as it is done in “Faust”. As I said, we will talk about this some other time. It was more of a mistake that the Middle Ages made, to focus more on Lucifer. And the mistake that the modern era makes is to focus more on Ahriman-Mephistopheles. Now we live in a time in which the correct relationship between the two world powers, Mephistopheles and Lucifer, must be more and more recognized by people. Hence our group, our sculptural group, which is intended for the building here and which is to show the Ahrimanic and the Luciferic – Mephistopheles and Lucifer – in the right relationship to each other in pictorial form.

If you want to understand what it is actually about, you have to consider something that still seems quite paradoxical to people today, but which will one day, when people do not really reject spiritual science from their earthly existence, be deeply understood. We live in modern times under very special impulses, under which we have to live. It is right that we live under these impulses. We must only recognize these impulses. We must not mistake them. I have often explained how the Copernican world view had to arise at the beginning of modern times, how it is justified, deeply justified. We have somewhat different feelings about this Copernican world view than the external world has. For if one considers the feelings with which the external world faces the Copernican world view, one can hardly come to any other conclusion than that people say: Well, the Middle Ages and antiquity were stupid, and we have become clever, and when the Middle Ages and antiquity were stupid, they thought that the sun moved and constructed all kinds of cycles and epicycles — the Ptolemaic worldview — and then believed that, assumed the movements of the heavenly bodies according to appearances. In a certain sense, this is even true for the Middle Ages, especially for the later Middle Ages, because confusion had already crept into what had emerged as the Ptolemaic worldview. But the original Ptolemaic world view was not like that; it was part of the original ancient revelation, had come into human souls through the ancient mysteries and by no means through mere external observation, and was therefore based on revelation. With this revelation, modern times broke, and modern times asked the question: How should one look at the sky in order to get to know it and its movements? — Copernicus first did the calculations, tried to make a simple calculation of the movements of the heavenly bodies, and then showed how the positions that were calculated actually corresponded to the positions of the heavenly bodies. And so, by way of calculation, he invented his Copernican system, formulated three theorems that can be found in Copernicus' works themselves, about the movements of the heavenly bodies in relation to our Earth. Of these three propositions, however, one was left out, and that is how the present-day confused Copernican view of the world came about, which is not that of Copernicus himself. The third was inconvenient – so it was left out! Therefore, anyone who merely learns the Copernican view of the world from the usual books does not know the view of Copernicus at all. But that was bound to happen. First, Copernicus had to establish a far more correct doctrine with his three propositions. Then our teaching had to come, which is based on two of Copernicus's propositions. Only when the whole matter is thoroughly penetrated in spiritual-scientific terms will the right thing emerge.

Then came those who sought to understand the movements of the heavenly bodies and their laws in a more external way, not through calculation. The telescope came. People learned to examine the sky as they examined things on earth. And in this way modern astronomy and modern astrophysics arose, a science that arises entirely from the fact that what is observed is expressed in laws; that is, one wants to explain the sky by observing the sky. And what could be more natural than this? Modern man must think that anyone who wanted to know anything other than the heavens by observing the heavens must be a completely crazy fellow. That is quite obvious, isn't it. And yet it is not correct, but it is one of the great deceptions. It is something that will be quite different in the future. In the future, too, people will consult the heavens even more than they do now, wanting to learn about the movements that live and breathe in the heavenly bodies. They will study the heavens carefully and intently, but they will know one thing that we do not know today, that seems completely paradoxical to us when we say it out loud: You learn nothing about the heavens by observing them. The most false method of getting to know the sky and its movements is to observe it as one does today. — No, I am saying something completely twisted. But one must relate to the distortions differently than the good Christian von Ehrenfels, to whom I referred eight days ago, related to them. One will observe the sky, observe it more and more thoroughly and let it tell one its secrets. But what will these secrets reveal in the distant future? They will reveal what is happening here on earth. That is what they will reveal. People will observe the sky, but they will explain from what they recognize in the sky how plants grow on earth, how animals come into being on earth, everything that forms on earth, everything that lives and weaves on earth. The information that heaven reveals will provide enlightenment about this. It will no longer occur to anyone to ask heaven about heaven, but rather they will ask heaven in order to find enlightenment about the earth. And the most significant laws that one will learn about from heaven will be used to reveal the secrets of earthly existence. Old astrology, which is little recognized today in its original meaning and which has largely become amateurish, even charlatanistic, will be revived in a completely new form. Not only will earthly destinies be sought in the movements of the stars and in the laws of the heavens, but the laws of earthly life, that which lives and moves, will be explained in terms of the laws of the heavenly bodies. One will not know why salt crystallizes in cubes, why diamond crystallizes in octahedrons, and so on, before one explains that which has forms here on earth from the positions of the heavenly bodies. And the secret of the life of animals, plants and human beings will not be known as the secret of life until the movements of the heavenly bodies, whose effect is life, can be used to explain what lives and moves here on earth. The earth is explained from the heavens. Admittedly, what is known about heaven will take on a somewhat different form from what is claimed to be known today. The laws of the positions and movements of the heavenly bodies will be investigated. But then one will let oneself be inspired meditatively by what one investigates in order to enter into a relationship, so to speak, with the beings that live in the stars. One will let oneself be told by the beings that live there what one will need to know for life on earth.

That is a future prospect. You now know that in a similar way to how Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, who, incidentally, still had old ideas flowing in their minds, tried to discover the laws of celestial motion by observing the heavens, and how this was continued in their spirit in more recent times, so Darwin, Lamarck and Haeckel tried to find the laws of earthly life. And what would be more natural here than to get to know the earth through the earth! You travel around, as Darwin did, you use a microscope, as Haeckel did, you rationalize, as Lamarck did, about the creatures of the earth and try to recognize the laws by which life on earth is governed. On the other hand, you can be considered a crank if you don't see it as a matter of course. The future will not see it as a matter of course at all! If you consider the straight, beautiful course of development that modern biology has taken from Darwin to Haeckel and to Haeckel's students, you will find that it has led to the formation of certain laws, especially about embryonic life. The so-called biogenetic law plays an important role, that in embryonic life, man follows the individual animal species. You know that I have often drawn attention to the biogenetic law. In order to find this, such observations were made in the hope of finding something about the life of living beings. We may say that the present time is again occupied with the dissection of these views, only that it is little noticed in lay circles. Copernican astronomy is already strongly doubted by individual more insightful people. And Haeckel's student, Oscar Hertwig, has expressed things in his last writings that are likely to call into question everything that the Darwin-Haeckel theory has brought to the surface. If you educate yourself from what is happening within the field of science, you get a different view than if you educate yourself only according to what is offered to the public in popular lectures by the usual lecturers – well, I dare not say Mauthner, how should I put it? Much is already happening in the actual specialized science, and what is given here as a future perspective is already being prepared. Only one will have to come to spiritual science, so that what is going on does not become confused, but really appropriate.

Now I must again say something that is paradoxical. By observing what is happening on earth, you do not learn anything about the earth; you will learn that one day when you read from the stars what is happening on earth. But what actually happens out there in space, that is learned through the observation of, for example, embryology and so on. One can treat this observation in turn as I have indicated before, that one observes the movements of the sky; one can enter into a relationship with the elementary beings that regulate these movements within the events on earth. Just as one will ask the heavens to explain the earth, so one will ask the earth to explain the heavens. As I said, it is still paradoxical today, but it will come, in some way it will come over this earth, that this correct view will take hold. Astronomers will establish biology by the means of their science, and biologists will establish astronomy by the means of their science. And a biology truly founded on the data of astrology will be spiritual science, and an astrology founded on the data of true embryology will be spiritual astronomy. When you consider this, you must say to yourself: Humanity does not follow a straight line of development, but moves forward, as it were, in waves, in a wavy line, up and down. And in order to prepare the right spiritual view that had to come, error had to arise, which consists in wanting to explain heaven by heaven and earth by earth in modern times. People lived under this impression.

But Goethe did not live entirely under this impression, not entirely. In a sense, Goethe had pre-Darwinized Darwinism, but his was a much more spiritual Darwinism. He did not just focus on the external sensory sequence of phenomena, but on the primal plant and the primal animal. And I have often referred to the well-known conversation between Goethe and Schiller, where Goethe, after they had seen how plants were viewed side by side at the botanist Batsch's in Jena, and Schiller found this unsatisfactory, sketched out the so-called primal plant with a few strokes. This picture by Goethe does not exist. In the introduction to Goethe's morphological writings in Kürschner's National-Literatur, which I wrote in the 1880s, I tried to trace this Goethean primal plant. You can find it there as I have traced it. Schiller, however, said: That is not reality, that is an idea. — Goethe said: Then I see my idea with eyes. He was clear about the fact that this was an intuition for him, an experience, not something thought up, something rationalized. And if you get to know Goethe that way, get to know him quite intimately, whether it is through his poetic endeavors in connection with his scientific ones, or whether it is the other way around, in his scientific endeavors in connection with his poetic ones – I have just interpretation of Goethe, one sees how Goethe does not feel quite comfortable explaining heaven by heaven and earth by earth, and how this principle of modern times is continually being broken through in his ideas. That is why it is so difficult to understand Goethe's theory of colors today, because what Goethe actually wants is an astronomical explanation of the secret of colors. And if you read Goethe's Morphology very carefully, you will see how certain things come into play that originate from the very beginnings of astronomy. This is particularly evident when you consider Goethe's essays on the spiral tendency of plants. Now, that would lead to details, which I can only draw attention to today; I just want to point them out.

Let us now raise the question: how is it that this more recent period, which we have been calculating since the clash of the Middle Ages with the modern age, since the advent of Copernicanism, Galileism, Keplerism, and which we have been following up to Darwinism, to Haeckelism, to Lamarckism, how is it that this time considers explaining the heavens by the heavens, the earth by the earth, instead of the earth by the heavens and the heavens by the earth? How is that? — It is due to a twofold seduction, in that Ahriman as well as Lucifer seduce people. In the Middle Ages, when things were being prepared, when people were heading towards Copernicanism, Darwinism, it was more of a Luciferic activity, it was Luciferic impulses that prepared that. And when Copernicanism had emerged, it was more of an Ahrimanic seduction. It is Ahriman who essentially lives in people by carrying out this reversal of people that I have spoken of. For ultimately, modern science is entirely under Ahrimanic influence. And Goethe sensed correctly when he felt that Ahriman was close to the person, to Mephistopheles, in modern times. For him it was less important to consider the relationship of Lucifer to man than that of Ahriman to man. His particular attention had to be directed towards this. The Luciferic influence was of less importance to him. For Faust is presented from the very beginning of the story as the man of modern times. The various aberrations of theology at the end of the Middle Ages stemmed from Lucifer. But Faust appears on the scene by placing the Bible under the bench and declaring himself to be a man of the world and a physician, that is, he wants to explain the earth by means of the earth and heaven by means of heaven, not as was the case with the old theologians of the late Middle Ages, who still tried, as a last atavism, to explain the wonders of the earth from the revelations of theology, that is, to explain them from heaven. In more recent times, Ahriman appeared at man's side. Those who felt this, but who were not imbued with the necessity, but only permeated with the fear of the devil, therefore blasphemed the Faust, who only followed the necessary impulse of modern times. And so the sixteenth-century Faust legend came into being, which has Faust burnt and consigned to hell because he falls prey to Ahriman. Those who still lived under the atavism of the Middle Ages gave this form to the legend, as it were. Goethe was no longer under the influence of the Middle Ages. Therefore he did not have his Faust burnt and consigned to hell. But he did pose the big question: What should actually be done?

Let us look at the matter quite specifically. What do we actually do when we explain the earth through the earth? Let us grasp it with an example that is perhaps a little removed from ordinary science and therefore perhaps closer to us. Let us take a myth or a piece of fiction and think of a commentator or an interpreter of the kind I have often criticized – you remember! Let us assume that such a commentator, an interpreter of a myth, a saga or a piece of fiction, steps before us and explains, as he says, the piece of fiction from the piece of fiction; he seeks the laws of the piece of fiction in the piece of fiction or in the myth. He can be very ingenious. There are indeed very ingenious interpreters of myths and poetry. But they all err, for one can never explain a myth or a poem by applying one's intellect to it. Oh, the things the interpreters of Hamlet have written in order to interpret “Hamlet”! And what have the interpreters of Faust written in order to interpret Faust! What have the theosophists done in order to interpret all kinds of myths! One can only get to the bottom of myths and the bottom of poetry if one knows how to direct one's gaze to where myths and poetry come from — from heaven. This again points to that future perspective. This is closer to us than to point this out in science. Myths are cited by illustrating through them, so to speak, when one has come to understand the great connections in the heavenly universe; one then allows them to be reflected through the myths, at least. And when one has insight into the cosmic laws that prevail, then one will not come to intellectual commentary skills in the face of poetry; because when one peels out of the myth and the poetry that what such intellectual commentators usually get, what actually occurs there? Yes, you can always have a certain image in front of you when a myth explainer or a poetry commentator appears in the way they do today. Something emerges, like the one who emerged in his bat form, really something bat-like and gray, in contrast to the living life that is in poetry and myth. There one also makes the acquaintance of Ahriman-Mephistopheles.

What I have just mentioned as an example could be extended to cover all the goings-on in science, although I am not criticizing science. I want to show you the necessity for it. Ahriman had to intervene for a certain length of time, otherwise the way people worked in the Middle Ages would have become one that would have allowed people to become lethargic all too easily. People like to have absolute peace, so the world admits the devil, who works and entices and, as a devil, must create - he tempts and entices and works. This intervention of Ahriman is necessary. And it is utter nonsense to have heard something about Ahriman and Lucifer and then ask: “Is this perhaps an ahrimanic influence? Is this a luciferic influence?” One must guard against this!

Goethe understood the role of Ahriman! But why did Ahriman have to play such a role in modern times? Why did Ahriman-Mephistopheles have to enter the sphere of man at all? We know that evolution proceeds in such a way that we have the so-called Lemurian time, the Atlantic time, our post-Atlantic time. We know that in the Lemurian time, the human I, that is, consciousness, was still quite inactive, still quite inactive; it is only just beginning here.

But only gradually does man become enlightened about the I-impulse that lives and moves in him. Only gradually do people become clear about their position when the I dwells in their soul, about Lucifer and Ahriman. Only gradually do they become clear, people. If we visualize the principle that must guide the future era, it presents itself, schematically indicated, as pointing towards the earth to discover the secrets of heaven, and towards heaven to discover the secrets of the earth. If one does things the wrong way, if one does things in the sense of our time, then one does not find the secrets of the earth, but out of the earth comes, instead of the laws of heaven, instead of the secrets of heaven, which should come out, comes the Ahrimanic, which approaches man, which tries to approach man. It must be rejected, because what the earth gives must not be sought intellectually in the earth, but what it reveals for heaven. Lucifer comes from the cosmic space; he must go away. If he were to approach man, it would be that what is not found in him would be sought in the cosmic space outside: the secrets of heaven itself. This relationship must be understood.

Once upon a time, people had to understand how close Lucifer is to man. It has been made possible for people to understand this in a symbol that is much more than a symbol, in a symbol that points deep into the secrets of the spiritual world. If one wants to characterize what Lucifer means for humanity as a whole, one cannot make this more intimate than by presenting the matter in such a way that Lucifer approaches the powers of woman and, with the help of specifically female powers, influences the world, and man is then seduced by woman with the help of Lucifer. This symbol had to be presented to humanity, and it had to be there when the fourth post-Atlantean period began, when people should first understand the relationship between Lucifer and man, when they should feel it, sense it, become aware of it. There is no better way to become aware of the relationship between Lucifer and man than to study the beginning of the Bible, how the serpent approaches the woman, how the woman seizes her powers and thus begins the seduction, the temptation of the world. This significant symbol was the most effective for this fourth post-Atlantean cultural period, even though it had existed earlier. The mystery of Lucifer is contained in this symbol.

The fifth post-Atlantean period had to consciously enlighten man about the Ahrimanic-Mephistophelian mystery. Another symbol had to take its place. Just as the symbol of the Luciferic tempter of woman stands at the head of the religious book, which deals with the spiritual world, and man is thereby also seduced by the arts that Lucifer performs with the help of woman, so the counter-image had to arise in the fifth post-Atlantean period: Ahriman, who approaches man, initially seduces man, and with man's help, woman. Even if it was not so brilliantly achieved in the first part of the Faust epic, the deeply moving nature of the Gretchen tragedy is often based on the fact that just as Adam is seduced by Lucifer in a roundabout way through Eve, so Gretchen is seduced by Ahriman-Mephistopheles in a roundabout way through Faust. Necessity dictated that the World Book should be contrasted with the Book of Theology: the seduced and the seducer; the seduced and the seducer; Lucifer, Ahriman. The relation of Lucifer to woman on the one hand, and of Ahriman to man on the other. This is a deeply significant spiritual connection.

And therefore this world book of Faust, in contrast to the theology book, was really created out of an inner spiritual impulse. And the newer time is called upon to find the paths between Ahriman and Lucifer. For all the forces through which Lucifer works in the world are not the same as, but similar to, the forces through which he succeeded in seducing woman. All the forces through which Ahriman works in the world are similar to the forces with which he seduces man. And just as we correctly imagine the luciferic seduction that the Bible presents to us in the Lemurian period, so we must seek Ahriman in a place in the Bible that is no longer clear because the Ahrimanic secret in the Bible is not yet revealed in the same way as the luciferic secret. While we are placing the Luciferic mystery in the Lemurian time, we must, as I have often explained, place the Ahrimanic mystery in the Atlantean time. The Bible only hints at this, not with such a clear and radiant image as that of the temptation in Paradise. The Bible only says that the impulses that came into earthly existence caused the sons of the gods to take pleasure in the daughters of men. This is only a hint at what comes in as an Ahrimanic impulse.

Goethe's “Faust” already has a certain historical significance. And this historical significance lies in what I have tried to sketch out for you today. If we want to draw attention to what spiritual science wants to become and should become for humanity, we often have to express paradoxes today, express things that seem strange to many people. But it is true. When human beings will one day arrive at a state where their science will recall the original revelation by explaining earthly life from the secrets of heaven, when earthly science will be such that the deepest secrets of heaven can be recognized in the formation of embryonic development, then mankind will have found the right relationship to Ahriman and Lucifer, and then, in a certain way, that in humanity will be realized which is to be represented in our main group in the structure, in which the representative of humanity is placed between Ahriman and Lucifer in the right gesture.

We shall have to understand more and more deeply what is contained in Goethe's Faust. But we shall need an interpretation that is not dependent on authority. Those people who want to arrive at knowledge only by making, as a lady in our society once said, “a face all the way to their stomachs” in order to express their inner soul mood will not reach their goal. It was a lady who was not accustomed to speaking German and therefore made this linguistic error. But that is not the point; it was a correct description. She wanted to point out those people who lack any possibility of developing humor in their perception of the world. If one cannot develop humor, then under certain circumstances it can become quite dire. So it will have to be that one has to find one's way in the world in the way I have characterized it. Those people who only want to approach the things of the world in a sentimental mood will naturally prefer to be able to understand a work of art such as Goethe's 'Faust' in such a way that they can make 'a face up to their stomachs' at every line. But people who want to understand Faust will have to grasp it without authority. Then they will have to work their way through the contradictions, but working through the contradictions will offer the possibility of understanding. Something like the Prologue on High is no child's play! If one is too afraid of a certain irony and a certain humor towards the world, then one easily falls prey to the greatest humorist, who is a comrade of the one who confronts us in Goethe's Mephistopheles, who is more of a burden to the Lord than a prankster, who is a somewhat more dangerous spirit of the kind that can deny.

I would like to suggest that such things, which already occupy an exceptional position in the spiritual development of mankind, be grasped more deeply. For they are also a way of penetrating into the secrets beyond the threshold, where everything is different from this side of the threshold, where everything is such that one must already become familiar with it, that some things sound paradoxical, which are spoken out of the consciousness of those facts that lie beyond the threshold to the spiritual world. The present time does not want to know much about the secrets that lie beyond the threshold to the spiritual world. Most people today are indeed always convinced that we have come so gloriously far. Well, I don't know how far people will be able to maintain this conviction through our immediate time, which has come so gloriously far and yet only lives in the consequences of what it has believed through the centuries. But even if what is proclaimed from the other side of the threshold sounds paradoxical to many people today, more and more understanding must be formed for these mysteries of existence. And much of the beneficial development of humanity into the future depends on people finding understanding for what still sounds so paradoxical in so many ways.

It may still seem foolish to the world to say that the earth must be explained through heaven, heaven through the earth. He who looks into the compelling destiny of man, which reveals itself from beyond the threshold, knows that what appears so foolish and paradoxical to people is nevertheless wisdom in the sight of the spiritual and the world. And today it may be said without becoming immodest, because when one says it out of the consciousness of the spiritual world, one already has the necessary humility to be allowed to say it, because this humility already exists in the heart , although one may have to use strength to express what one would most like to express in a gesture of humility, in a gesture of the necessary strength, which might give the appearance of a gesture of arrogance. But only an Ahrimanic view could find fault with that, confusing humility and arrogance in this case. More about that another time.