The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Wilhelm von Blume: Dear attendees, on behalf of the Federation for the Threefolding of the Social Organism, I would like to welcome you again today. We have planned an evening on which questions are to be answered that have been or may be asked from the floor, and I would first like to ask Dr. Steiner to make a few introductory remarks.

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees, this evening is primarily intended to answer questions that have arisen from the esteemed audience in connection with the impulse given by the idea of social threefolding. Tomorrow I will deal with one of the main objections in a lecture to be held here, the objection that the impulse of the threefold social organism is only some kind of sophisticated idea, some kind of ideology or utopia, and tomorrow I will try to prove that it is really the most practical matter in our present time. Today, allow me just to say a few words to introduce the answering of questions that makes up the content of today's agenda.

It has, in fact, been little noticed, my dear attendees, that the impulse for the threefold social organism is intended to point out the most significant task that has been set for humanity in modern times as a result of developmental conditions. It is truly not out of exaggerated pessimism when one expresses the view today that all too little – truly all too little – of the great seriousness of the time, of the great seriousness of the demands of the time, is recognized in the broadest circles. We are indeed faced with a task that is almost gigantic. For the whole development of modern humanity has come to a head in such a way that this task has arisen at last, and it has arisen out of the momentous events of this world war catastrophe. But the extraordinary significance of this task is by no means understood in the broadest circles today, and one would like to believe that it is itself a task to make the people of the present age fully aware of the seriousness of this task. The task first emerges in the phenomena, in the facts of the time. People from the most diverse classes, from the most diverse social circles and also from the most diverse parties take their stand on these phenomena, on these facts of the time. From all that has emerged from such statements to date, two things stand out. I would like to characterize these two things in these few introductory words; I will go into more detail tomorrow. I would like to characterize this in the introduction because, however desirable it may be to discuss more individual, concrete, practical questions in today's question, But today it is necessary for people to look again and again at the big, comprehensive picture of the task, if only to awaken in people their sense of responsibility towards the great issues of the times.

There are two things that can be observed when considering the opinions of the most diverse circles on this great task today. One can say: One group of people is primarily interested in restoring in some way, in some form - in a form that is acceptable - what has been destroyed by the significant world war catastrophe. And the other type of person, coming from a completely different background, is primarily interested in doing everything differently than it was before the world war catastrophe - partly with the aim of ensuring that such terrible things never happen to humanity again, partly also out of the feeling and conviction that we cannot move forward on the basis of the old economic, state and spiritual order, that a new construction must be tackled very seriously. If we want to call one type of people – in the face of the completely new demands – more the conservative people, then our gaze is directed to all those circles that more or less belong to the old social worldviews, which are somehow intertwined with what the old worldviews have brought to humanity, especially in terms of economic orders. On the other hand, we see the forward-rushing parties, which are made up mainly of the proletariat, and there we see that which takes a completely different approach to the great task and which takes such a different approach that one type of people no longer understands the other. If we look for the reasons for this lack of understanding – I will only sketch them out today – if we look for the reasons for this lack of understanding, we will find that on the one hand the representatives of the old, who in some way want to continue to be associated with this old, have lost an actual cultural goal in the course of recent history and have retained an old cultural practice in which they have continued to work. These people, dear assembled presenters, have a practice, but this practice is no longer imbued with purposeful impulses. This practice always expresses itself in such a way that when you ask these people: How do you actually want to move forward now that the big tasks are coming? they somehow answer with what only means a continuation of the old; but they do not answer with any great goal either; basically, they only answer with what has emerged from the routine of their previous practice. They have a practice without a goal. On the other side stands the proletariat. It has a goal, a goal that can be expressed in the most diverse ways, but it is a goal. But this proletariat has no practice; this proletariat lacks any practical possibility of realizing what it somehow defines as its goals. So on the one hand there is traditional practice without a goal, on the other hand there is a new goal without practice. The proletariat has been kept away from practice, only summoned to the machine, only harnessed to the factory and to capitalism. From this, its goal has emerged, in that it, I would like to say, is rushing against what it has experienced, but it is never connected with the management, with the leadership of the economic forms themselves. Today it demands new forms of life; but it knows nothing of practice. Where does this gap come from?

This gap arises from the fact that we are faced with the greatest problem of modern times, and this greatest problem of modern times has arisen precisely in the age that has brought industrialism to its highest flowering. This problem is hidden at first in the economic sphere, but it extends its various branches to the other forms of life. This problem is so momentous that even a keen mind such as Walter Rathenau's has at most touched on it, but has not come to any clear understanding of this far-reaching problem of the present, this problem from which we all suffer, this problem that imperiously demands its solution. At least the impulse for the threefolding of the social organism would like to consider this problem without prejudice and full of life. And if I am to hint at it in a few words, so to speak as an introduction to tomorrow's lecture, which is to deal with it in its specific forms, then I must say: this problem, it had to slowly arise in humanity, had to, so to speak, rise to its highest development in the time of ever-expanding industrialism and modern technology, and now stands before us, questioning and threatening. It consists in the fact that all industrialism works with a deficit in the national economy – that is the case, there is no other way. The national economy must be attuned to this, knowing that all industrialism, insofar as it develops further and further through its means of production, works with a deficit in relation to what the national economy is for humanity. Insofar as industrialism works with a deficit, what is missing in the human national economy must be replaced from another source. That is the great problem of the present time, that all industrialism works with a deficit and that the question cannot be asked by me or others as to whether this deficit will be covered, but life is constantly being asked to cover the deficit of industrialism. Where does it come from? It is covered only by the soil, my dear audience, only by what the soil produces. In the modern economy, we are constantly involved in this exchange process [between industry and land production], which is covered up by secondary processes – in that the deficit of industry has to be covered by the surplus of land production in the broadest sense. Everything that is involved in the question of wages, the question of capital, and the question of prices in modern life is due solely to the fact that the surplus in the production of land must migrate into the deficit in industry.

But this, dear ladies and gentlemen, is linked to something else. It is linked to the fact that, on the one hand, everything in man that is connected with the soil tends towards a certain conservatism. This can be strictly proven, but today I will only hint at it in my introduction. If only the land and its products were available, we would have to remain more or less in a primitive state in terms of culture. The progress of humanity stems from the fact that industry, with its extensive division of labor, favors this progress. But at the same time, industry becomes the basis for progress in the most diverse fields, first of liberalism, then of socialism. Thus, what is expressed in the significant, I would even say bookish, contrast between land and industrial means of production is transferred to human sentiment. And as human sentiments clash with one another in life, this conflict is intimately connected with what underlies it: the opposing economic interests of land and industrial means of production. But in modern times this whole problem has intensified in yet another way. Not only that in parliaments liberal and socialist sit opposite the conservative, stemming simply from the assets and liabilities of the entire world economy; not only that in modern times the conservative and progressive element has crept into the people's assemblies of humanity , but economic interests have also crept in, with everything connected with the land, on the one hand, working for what remains stationary, and everything connected with industry, on the other hand, working for what is progressing. And so it has come about that, on the one hand, man's spiritual progress and, on the other, man's economic interests have been chaotically thrown together in our modern unitary state system.

This is the great problem that confronts people today, I would even say it is a gigantic one. People on the left and the right are fiddling around with this problem. Because it is so huge, that is why it is so difficult to reach an understanding. People on the one hand only want to consider the most immediate issues and only call that practical, while the times demand that we find some solution to the great accounting disparity between the land products and industrial products, from which humanity feeds, clothes and satisfies other needs, in the more recent development of humanity. I would say that everything that has occurred can ultimately be traced back, almost in terms of numbers, to the accounting result mentioned. But it takes real goodwill to engage with the fundamental forces of real practical life, even if you just want to see the task. We are at the point today where we have to see this task, that what is chaotically mixed up must be properly separated again. The impulse for a threefold social organism wants to face up to this task, which wants to place a healthy social organism on its healthy three legs in the right way: on the spiritual, the legal and the economic. This problem has arisen simply from what is inherent in this development of modern times. And even if, for my sake, people still find the next results, to which the impulse for the threefold social organism has come, disputable, one comes, without asking about these three areas of life in such a way that for their proper organization in the future, one does not come any closer to the greatest problem that has been set for us; one does not come any closer to what alone can lead out of the threatening chaos and confusion.

I wished to say this by way of introduction for the simple reason that, on the one hand, it should be seen how the impulse for the threefold social organism is really connected with the highest that is set before humanity as a great historical and because, on the other hand, the answer to the question will show how much can already be said today, based on a real observation of life, about what can arise in detail from the questions posed today.

I will now begin by answering the questions that have been put to me.

Wilhelm von Blume: So we will now begin to answer the questions that have been put to us in writing.

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees, I will try to answer the questions that were handed to me in writing in a not too long form, for the simple reason that I believe that perhaps afterwards numerous questions from the esteemed audience may still be asked orally or in writing.

The first bundle of questions that I have before me is headed “On Threefolding”. The first question:

In what way are individuals, associations and enterprises placed under the three different organizations? Individual borderline cases are, for example, the newspaper publisher, public health institutions, theaters and cinema enterprises.

Now, esteemed attendees, I would like to focus on the newspaper industry in particular from this first question. Because it is precisely something like the newspaper industry that will make it possible to see how, on the one hand, the threefold social organism can actually lead to a complete transformation of the current situation, but in an organic way, and how, on the other hand, it can result in the unity of life not being disturbed at all. Basically, it will also be possible to show that what people say about the incomprehensibility of the three-part social organism is actually based on the fact that, out of old habits of thinking, they do not want to engage in the present with what is necessary. But they will have to decide to come to terms with this necessity.

As you can see, dear attendees, in the newspaper business, all three aspects of human life basically come together. In the newspaper business, on the one hand, we have the publisher, the person who has to ensure that the newspaper is printed, that it is distributed in the appropriate manner, and so on – this is a purely economic task. On the other hand, we have those who write the newspaper. I believe that today, many people are already comfortable enough in our strange circumstances to come to the conclusion that newspapers should be written differently than they are often written. You see, something beneficial for humanity can only come out of writing a newspaper if what is written arises solely from the interests and needs of the spiritual life of humanity and from the needs that arise from the fact that the spiritual life also looks at the various other branches of life. The newspaper writer and everything that belongs to the editorial staff belongs to the spiritual life. And since we are dealing on both sides, both in the economic part of the newspaper business and in the spiritual part of the newspaper business, with people who, in turn, as human beings, are in relationships not only with their subscribers, but also with the whole of the general public, we are dealing with relationships that take place from person to person, that is, with legal relationships. The issue at hand, esteemed attendees, is that in the future, especially in a business such as the newspaper industry, the economic, the legal and the intellectual, cultural aspects will not mesh for the detriment of humanity, otherwise, in the culmination of the disaster, we will end up with things as we are experiencing them in the present, for example. Recently, a strange advertisement appeared in the so-called press. It called for the world of big industry and the world of capitalists in particular to join forces to create a new newspaper. So it is advertising for a new newspaper, especially among capitalists and big industry. The purpose of this newspaper is to fight with all spiritual means against the socialization of the means of production. So, dear attendees, the interest of capitalists and big industrialists is supposed to enslave everything that should actually educate humanity from the judgment that comes from impulses of the spiritual world. Those who have some experience in life will know how, especially in the newspaper industry, these things have increasingly merged in recent times and have developed in a particularly grotesque way under the present circumstances.

In the future, the aim must be for the newspaper publisher and printer to be a mere economist, subordinate to the administration of the economic part of the social organism. He will be part of the economic organism with all the interests he can develop within his newspaper business. The editorial staff will not be part of the economic organism, but will be entirely subject to the self-administration of intellectual life, along with the other branches of intellectual life. The editorial staff will form a unit with all that is teaching, art or the like, which are other branches of intellectual life. How a particular newspaper publisher can come to be a particular editor depends on the contract that can be concluded between the newspaper publisher and the editor, whereby the editor, because he belongs to the self-government of the spiritual organism, is independent of the newspaper publisher with regard to his entire material life. The editor will merely have an interest in being able to pursue his profession at all. If he did not pursue this interest in practicing his profession, he would be without a livelihood. But the moment he succeeds in concluding a contract with some administration, he will not receive compensation for this profession from the interests of that administration, but from the interests of the self-governing intellectual life. If any matters arise through which one or other part of the newspaper violates the law, this violation of rights will be subject to the laws of the constitutional state. In the future, therefore, it will be desirable for such a branch of production to be influenced by the three great administrative branches of intellectual, legal and economic life. In the most diverse branches of production, those interests that are administered from the most diverse directions will converge. And it will come about in the cooperation of people that these interests - which otherwise, when they are confounded, when they are mixed together into a tangle, only interfere with each other - that these interests will precisely moralize, ethicalize, and support each other. The one who really has a practical mind will say to himself: There is no doubt that such a division of a single trade can really be carried out in practice. And by this structuring of the entire social organism, which reaches into the individual circumstances, we then have the recovery of the whole of social life. It is just that people today are not accustomed to thinking about what leads to such a recovery. They are also unaccustomed to it because they have to let go of many things that they consider almost indispensable from certain old ways of life. Today it is considered essential that the person who takes the economic risk for a newspaper also makes the person employed by the newspaper on the editorial staff his writer. He will not be able to do that in the future. From this will arise a great independence of the writer from the economic interests of the newspaper publisher in the newspaper industry, and precisely in this branch will come a recovery that we truly need and must admit that we need if we want to address the living conditions of a healthy social organism.

The second question put to me is:

Will the municipal administration, with its enterprises that break through the tripartite division, be maintained in the areas of the three organizations – for example, schools, gasworks, and jurisdiction?

Now, dear attendees, it is not the intention, in this transitional period – in which we are not even in it yet, but are only striving for it – to talk about the size of the individual spiritual, legal and economic areas, which I talked about in the last lecture here. In regard to the external structure of social life, not much needs to change at all if there is to be a genuine socialization of all human life. But what I have just explained for a single trade can just as easily be carried out by any state, an empire or a single local authority. Schools, gasworks, courts of law, they will have their various aspects, partly on the legal side, partly on the economic side – and in the case of schools, also on the spiritual side – and what emanates from the three organizations and their administrations will play a role in the individual enterprise, be it spiritual or more or less merely material, economic. The third question:

Who decides on the respective affiliation to one of the three organisms?

This question, dear attendees, actually arises – forgive the harsh word – from a certain prejudice that everything must come from an authority. In what is striven for as a healthy social organism for the future, the affiliation arises from the matter itself. We have just seen in our discussion of the newspaper industry how this affiliation arises from the matter at hand. From this affiliation, a much more comprehensive answer will be given than is currently thought. And a question like this one - it will be recognized as one that actually flows from the present-day mood of obedience to authority, and not from a truly factual basis. The fourth question:

Is there, in addition to or above the special representatives of the three members, any thought of a parliament consisting of their top leadership or an elected parliament (for the individual states? for the empire?)?

Now, ladies and gentlemen, it must first be stated that, of course, as I have explained in my book on the social question, the question of what is the administration or representation in the individual of the three parts of the social organism is that it must belong to the others in some way and that a mutual exchange must take place through people. But in this respect, too, people often think far too stereotypically. For example, it is stated — and this is not in this question — in a long document that was sent to me a few days ago that threefolding actually makes three different parliaments necessary: a cultural parliament, a state parliament and an economic parliament. Now, I am of the opinion that if three parliaments with three ministries were to sit side by side in such a stereotyped way, then the only consequence that could arise would be that all three would sabotage each other. And this is precisely what follows from a true understanding of the actual situation: that parliamentarism – and only a democratic parliamentarism is a true parliamentarism – can only be based on that which can be established between human beings by virtue of the fact that the human being is simply an adult, a mature human being. Everyone must be able to participate in democratic parliamentary life who is an adult, a mature human being. For everything that comes to a head in the legal sphere can be based on what a normal, healthy, adult, mature human being is, on what he can know, think, feel and want. But economic life has become mixed up with this legal life, which is therefore not only based on the feelings and thoughts of the adult, mature person, but which is based, firstly, on economic experience, which one can only acquire in a specific area can only be acquired in a specific, concrete area, secondly on the actual foundations, I would like to say on credit in the broadest sense. I do not mean monetary credit, but credit in the broadest sense, which is generated in a group of people by the fact that this group of people is involved in a particular branch of production. Because everything in economic life must develop from actual experience and the actual administrative basis of the specific individual branch, the organizational structure that exists in economic life can only arise on such a basis. That is to say, only an appropriate administration can develop in economic life from economic experience and economic facts. There will be no parliamentary representation at the top, but rather a structure of associations, coalitions, cooperatives from the professional classes, from the grouping of production and consumption and so on, which organize themselves and can manage themselves. And this structure will also develop a certain leadership, I would say a central council. But this cannot be the same structure that is expressed in what must be independently separated as the legal basis. On the contrary, it is precisely that which is to have an effect on economic life as law that will have the right effect as law, because it can now arise purely, without being contaminated by economic interests, on the legal basis of the community of all people who have come of age. And just as little as economic life can be administered in a stereotyped, parliamentary way, just as little can spiritual life be administered in this way. Spiritual life, in turn, must develop an organization based on its own laws, which will be quite different from that of economic life, because of its special circumstances. That which arises at the very apex of intellectual life, together with all that which stands in the middle, on the legal ground, what is administered by parliament and by ministers, and with that which arises as a kind of central council in economic life, will be able to order the common affairs. I know that there are many people who cannot imagine such a thing; but in practice it will be simpler, above all more fruitful, than all that stands in its place today.

The second set of questions is entitled “On Economic Life”. First:

What will happen to the existing property of the wealthy, in particular agricultural and urban property?

The question is clearly explained in my book on the Social Question. That which has led us into the individual crises of economic life and now into the great crisis - for such is the present world catastrophe - is that form of modern economic life which I have tried to highlight in my book 'The Crux of the Social Question'. In this book, the question is answered as to how, in the future, on the one hand, the means of production, which consists of land, and, on the other hand, the industrial means of production, must be viewed differently. The industrial means of production may only suck capital out of the economic body until they are finished; when they are finished, their sucking of capital out of the economic body is also finished. In other words, industrial means of production can only cost something while they are being worked on until they are completed; then they have to be transferred to the circulation process for means of production; then they have to be what is generally owned. But the land, which is not manufactured but is already there, can never cost anything.

You see, dear ladies and gentlemen, if you think in a healthy way, it already arises in a certain way today, but only in the individual cases where you think economically in a healthy way. We have built a structure in Dornach as a School of Spiritual Science that is not yet finished, which has been affected in its completion by the catastrophe of the world wars. We have, of course, built it out of the present economic conditions, but the question can be raised about this building: when we are all dead, when we are no longer there when the building is finished, who will own this building, who will be able to sell it to someone else? This question answers itself for our building. It will not belong to anyone; it naturally belongs to the general public. For it is built on the sound foundation that it will one day [in the future] be able to pass as the common property of all humanity to whoever can manage it in turn. One only has to have come up with such a thing in practice. In the present economic system, one can only come close to this, but one will see that what is written in my book “The Crux of the Social Question” about the fact that every purchase relationship ceases with a means of production when it is completed, and that this means of production, which can no longer be bought in other forms, then passes into the administration of society. And one will see that there is something eminently practical in this.

The second question:

How should small-scale crafts and trades be organized?

It is to be organized in no different way than large-scale industry and trade, for the simple reason that it will follow from the laws of economic life itself - from the laws that I explained in the lecture the other day - that a trade or business that is too large harms and starves those who are outside of it, and that a trade or business that is too small harms those who are within it. Size will be determined by the future economic situation.

The third question:

Should trade, in particular wholesale trade in import and export, be stopped?

That would, of course, be completely absurd if it were to stop. Anyone who really thinks through with a practical mind what is explained in my book “The Key Points of the Social Question” will see that the actual conditions at the boundaries of the economic, legal and intellectual spheres will by no means change. Not even the initiative of the individual will change as a result, which is of course necessary, especially in the external world. What is changed are only the social conditions within. In fact, only things that have nothing to do with what is happening on the borders will be changed, except that on these borders, what has previously had such a disturbing effect and has come to a head in the terrible explosions of war, will harmonize with each other. The fact that economic conditions at the borders have a harmonizing effect on international legal and spiritual conditions – for example, also at language borders – is precisely why the threefold social organism in its international relationship, as I explained in my book, will have its greatest significance. It will no longer be possible for what develops on the one hand from the economic and on the other from the legal or from the spiritual, to which the national also belongs, to mix in a colorful way with imports and exports. The absurdity of a “national economy” will, however, come to an end, for the simple reason that only economic conditions will be decisive for export and import across borders and because there will no longer be the possibility of such world conflicts being caused by the intertwining of economic and political interests. A great deal of what led to the present world war catastrophe lies in such a tangle of political, cultural and economic issues, as has emerged, for example, in the Sandschak question or the Dardanelles question in the southeast of the European continent or in the Baghdad railway problem.

The fourth question:

Will the economy of exchange by 'wages' be replaced by a natural economy?

In my book and in many lectures I have explained that the concept of wages will no longer have any real meaning in the future, because a kind of socialization will occur between manual laborers and intellectual workers. So there can be no question of a return to a purely natural economy. But money will — even if the leading commercial state of England adheres to the gold standard — at least initially in domestic trade — take on a different significance. What adheres to money today — that it is a commodity — will fall away. What will be present in the monetary system will be only a kind of changing accounting of the exchange of goods between the people belonging to the economic area. A kind of written credit will be kept in what is used as a monetary record. And a deduction of these credits will take place when one acquires anything one needs. A kind of bookkeeping, walking bookkeeping, will be the monetary system. Money, which is a commodity today and its equivalent, gold, which is only a sham commodity, will no longer be a commodity in the future.

The fifth question:

Is compulsory labor envisaged?

Now, dear readers, anyone who delves into the spirit of my book “The Key Points of the Social Question” will see that what must seem to every humanely thinking person - I say quite bluntly here - must appear as the most abominable, a bureaucratically ordered compulsion to work, that in the future [in a threefold social organism] can be eliminated. Of course, everyone is forced to work by their social circumstances, and one has only the choice of either starving or working. There cannot be any compulsion to work other than that which arises from the circumstances in this way [in a social order] in which the freedom of the human being is a basic condition.

The sixth question:

Is the abolition of inheritance law planned?

Inheritance law, to the extent that parts of it remain, will at most be based on the fact that in a transitional period some kind of reckoning must be made with feelings of piety and the like. But inheritance law [in the sense of the previous inheritance law] will no longer be talked about in the future for the simple reason that, on the one hand, it can no longer be the case that something that cannot actually be sold, that is not for sale, still has value for someone. On the other hand, inheritance will no longer be needed, because under the institutions of a healthy social organism, people will be able to provide for the future of those who belong to them in a completely different way than is the case today under the purely materialistic law of inheritance. I have stated this in my book.

The third set of questions is headed: “On practical feasibility”. The first question:

Does not the accidental nature of personal talent (often not factual content, but individual ability such as skill, oratory and the like) create an upper class with the danger of abuse of the power entrusted to it, as well as corruption, and towards which envy and resentment of the lower class persists?

Now, dear attendees, anyone who does not want this formation will never be able to contribute anything to any fruitful shaping of the social organism if it does not correspond to the absolutely ideal state. The greatest enemy of all social impulses is when, through these social impulses, one wants to establish, so to speak, the happiness of humanity. I would like to use a comparison here. You see, dear ladies and gentlemen, let us take the human organism, let us assume that it is a so-called healthy organism. You don't feel it at all, and precisely because you don't feel anything in your organism, it is a healthy organism. Joy, harmony, and inner soul culture must first arise on the basis of such a healthy organism. You cannot expect the doctor to give you soul joy or inner soul culture in addition to health, but you can only expect him to make your organism healthy. It is only on the basis of a healthy organism that inner soul culture can arise. But if the organism is sick, then the soul shares in the sickness, then its inner life is dependent on this sickness. It is the same in the social organism. The sick social organism makes people unhappy; but the healthy social organism cannot yet make people happy, but only creates the conditions for human happiness, which can arise when the social organism is healthy. Therefore, the impulse for the tripartite social organism is to seek the living conditions of a healthy social organism. Of course, corruption or the like can also arise there – that cannot be denied – but such corruptions can be improved by countermeasures, and the greatest prospect of improving them when they occur lies precisely in the health of the social organism itself. I am firmly convinced that if the social organism is healthy, then the professional windbags with their gift of the gab will simply drive people away; they will not have much support. At present, due to our social circumstances, this is not yet the case. Particularly in those spheres where intellectual life is supposed to flourish, it sometimes happens that the audience of some professional babbler in a professorial chair takes to its heels, but they have to pay their college fees and may also take their exams. And professional babbling with its corruption has no particular effect on real life, on the living conditions of the social organism. Such things will naturally fall away in the future when man is instructed in the spiritual life to rely on the fact that he must gain the trust of his fellow human beings and that, for example, only on this trust of his fellow human beings can his achievements be based.

The second question, and this is the last question that has been put to me in this bundle of questions:

What evidence is there that communism, which does not strive for the equality of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie but for the rule of the proletariat, and which believes that the bourgeoisie will not voluntarily renounce its present position, will renounce its program of power in favor of threefolding and see an accommodation on the part of the propertied classes not only as an advance payment?

This question cannot be answered simply on the basis of the structure of the threefold organism. Rather, it must be said that the gulf that has arisen between the proletariat, on the one hand, and the non-proletariat, on the other, is essentially the fault of the leading circles , that is, the non-proletariat, and that the next task of these leading circles would be to really understand the demands of the proletariat and to be able to respond to them; for the proletariat will need, above all, the strength of intellectual workers. It is not in some impossible demands from one side or the other that one should see a danger, but only in the lack of goodwill to build any kind of bridge across the abyss.

There are now a few other written questions, for example the question:

In the three-part social organism, human labor will lose the character of a commodity. There will no longer be a wage in the traditional sense. The workers of a company will receive a contractually agreed portion of the total revenue of the company in question, while another portion will belong to the employees and the manager. How will it be ensured that the worker is guaranteed a kind of subsistence minimum, for example if a single company has a low earning capacity?

This question is dealt with in my book, and I will only note here that the question in the most eminent sense, when the three members of the healthy social organism really exist, is an economic question, and that the socialization of economic life will give rise to a major practical question for those administrations that will be active within the economic body. In essence, I would say that this question boils down to the following: what is today called the minimum subsistence level is still conceived in terms of the wage relationship. This kind of thinking will not be able to take place in the same way in the case of independent economic activity. There, the question will have to be posed purely and simply from the point of view of economic life. This question will then arise in such a way that a person, by performing some kind of service, by producing something, will receive in exchange as many other human services as he needs to satisfy his needs and those of those who belong to him, until he has produced a new, similar product. In doing so, only what the person has to do for his family in terms of work and the like must be taken into account. Then one will find a certain, I would say original cell of economic life. And that which will make this original cell of economic life what will make people satisfy their needs until they produce a similar new product, that applies to all branches of spiritual and material life. It will have to be organized in such a way that the associations, the coalitions, the cooperatives of the kind I have described earlier will have to ensure that this primal cell of economic life can exist. That is to say, that each product, in comparison with other products, has a value equal to the other products needed to satisfy needs until a new, similar product is produced. The fact that this original cell of economic life does not yet exist today is precisely because labor, goods and rights converge in the supply and demand of today's market and that these three areas must be separated in the future in the tripartite, healthy social organism.

Then the following question was asked:

How does Dr. Steiner envision an improved future for the status of private teachers and teachers of similar professions whose necessary income depends on the number of hours they personally work? How will it be possible in the future to strip their labor of its character as a commodity?

Well, that takes care of itself, because anyone who works as a teacher in the spiritual life will, when they are no longer tied into the state machine, actually be more or less free, but then in a healthy way, like any spiritual cultural activity in the threefold organism. That is about all that can be said on the matter. Simply, such persons as are meant here will be equated with those who today have monopolies, in that they are, in the field of the spiritual, combined in their position with purely state affairs.

I think I will now take a break in answering the questions submitted in writing so that any questions that may arise from the honored audience are not affected. The questions that I answered first have been on my mind for quite some time, and I wanted to answer them first today because I believe that they could be really significant for a larger circle. If we are unable to answer all the questions today, we can do so at a later date. I think it would be a good idea to let the questions that may arise from the audience approach us now.

Wilhelm von Blume: So I ask the esteemed attendees, if you have any questions on your mind, to speak up now and submit them in writing as far as possible. But you are also welcome to ask questions orally. We would just ask you to come here and ask the question from here so that we can hear you all.

Perhaps I may in the meantime answer the one question that was raised earlier with a word that I would like to add to what Dr. Steiner said, because this question has occasionally arisen for me myself and I therefore well understood that it was asked. It is the question of the position of the municipalities in the future threefold social organism. Perhaps the questioner would like to know more about what the situation of the municipalities will actually be in the future threefold social organism. The question has been asked: What will happen to the municipal schools, what will happen to the gasworks and so on? Behind this is the question: what will become of the community in the future, if, as there is no doubt, the gasworks, as an event in economic life, must be integrated into the overall organization of economic life, and can no longer be considered a special municipal institution? The questioner did not mention anything else, but the question of housing is at least as important. Who will be responsible for the construction of housing in the future? The construction of housing is, to put it bluntly, an economic process, since it involves 'production'. And there can be no doubt that the allocation of housing for use can also be regarded as an economic process. In the future, this matter will have to be dealt with by the special economic organization. One might think that the community will lose all or at least almost all of the tasks it has had until today – so what will actually become of the community? And yet: the community remains, and the community will continue to play an extremely important role in the future, just as the state remains and will continue to have tasks to perform in the future. I think everyone will immediately feel that the transfer of the gasworks from pure municipal administration to a special economic administration also has its very, very good sides, when they consider that the price of gas, which is charged by the community today, is not set with the aim of enabling as many people as possible to have this gas at a price that reflects the cost of production, but rather because the gasworks is a municipal institution that generates income and [through the surplus] municipal finances are maintained. The same applies to the power stations, the trams and so on. This means that these institutions, which are actually supposed to pursue very specific economic purposes, must also serve the financial purposes of the community, and often enough in such a way that the actual purpose of providing the community's residents with these extremely important goods is severely compromised. So it is certainly an advantage if, in the future, the community can no longer use such institutions for its financial purposes, but if they are only used for purely economic purposes. But the community remains the organization subordinate to the state in all matters of law and administration, that is, in particular, the police and the so-called welfare work - the welfare work insofar as it relates to the maintenance of the strength of the individual. That will be the task of the community, and that is where it has its most important task, as it does today. The community has only taken on economic activity because no one else has properly addressed this task, and it is fortunate, I believe, for a proper community life if in the future the purely economic is no longer the concern of the community. It is fortunate that in the future the municipal administration will no longer be organized in such a way that selfish interests prevail, but will be organized in such a way that every individual can effectively come to his or her rights.

As for spiritual life, what applies in general to the separation of this spiritual life from the influence of the state must also apply to the community. It is clear that today the communities have achieved a great deal of good in this area, but the disadvantages of economic interests interfering in cultural matters, which keep cropping up, can be felt clearly enough in the area of community life. But nevertheless, the community still has the very large area that it had before it took over such community institutions. So the fear that the community would become completely superfluous is just as unjustified as the other fear that the state would actually be finished off by this threefold order. It is not.

No further questions have been asked from the audience so far. Dr. Steiner will now answer the questions submitted in writing.

Rudolf Steiner: There is still the question:

The Steinerian economic order will have to submit to a certain government policy in broad outline, such as the nationality principle, the militaristic or pacifistic world order. Will the burden on the economy (apart from the current war debts and war reparations) be any different according to these guiding principles? Will not, for example, a nationalist policy, conceived in the old way, again burden the economy above all else and undermine the general welfare?

Now, dear attendees, the question arises from a not yet complete penetration of what the essence of the threefold social organism actually is. You see, the damage caused by the unitary state arises from the fact that, let us say, in the legal sphere, and thus to the greatest extent in politics, economic interests interfere, for example, when farmers form an alliance and assert themselves in the state parliament as the “Alliance of Farmers” and there, based on their interests, influence the legal system. On the other hand, harm can come about when a corporation that pursues purely spiritual interests – let us say, for example, the Catholic-organized “center” – in turn sits in the state parliament and there makes the legal interests, I would say, into reshaped spiritual interests. Now you will say: Well, in the future the three elements will exist separately: the spiritual organism, which is completely self-governing from the spiritual principles; the legal organism, which will form the continuation of the present state organism, but which will not have the spiritual and economic life within itself, but only the legal and political life; the economic organism, the cycle of economic life. But, you will say, the three areas do have certain things, certain interests in common, and they are connected through the individual himself; the individual is involved in some kind of business in which the three independent administrative areas play a role. You will ask: Yes, could not some club or the like assert itself in the future for the parliament of the legal ground, which carries the economic interests into the legal ground and asserts its interests in the state parliament , as for example, in the unified state, the farmers' union wants to make rights out of economic interests, or as the center wants to make rights out of religious, confessional interests, that is, out of spiritual life, through coalitions with other parties?

Now, dear attendees, the essence of the threefold social organism, which is still so little understood today, is that in the realm of the economic plane, only economic measures can be taken, not legal measures and not measures that have anything to do with the development of human abilities, which are to be administered in the realm of spiritual life; in the realm of the legal life, only legal issues will have to be developed at all. Let us assume, then, that a club with economic interests were to be found in the parliament of the legal sphere, in the state parliament. It would never be able to take measures that somehow influence economic life, since only legal issues relating to the equality of all people are ever discussed in this parliament. They cannot be conceived in terms of economic life. Economic life is out of the question in the Parliament of Right. It is impossible for anyone, no matter how much economic interest he may have, to assert his economic interests in the Parliament of Right, because nothing of an economic character can take place on the basis of the life of right; that can only take place on the basis of economic life. The point is that it is not a question of dividing men into classes, but of dividing the social organism itself. Thus the present unified state breaks down into three areas, and the interests of each area cannot be asserted in any way in the other two, because such assertion would have no effect in these areas. It is precisely this consistency that will bring about the future healing of the social organism; it is also the reason why this tripartite social organism is a social necessity.

I believe that most of those who have already familiarized themselves with the impulse of the tripartite organism consider what is meant by it to be much too sophisticated, something beyond practical application, something that someone has thought about and come up with: The unified organism did not work out well, so let's make three of them. That is not the point. What is important is the recognition of real life and real necessities, which lead to the tripartite social organism as a consequence. Today, we often hear people say: “We don't understand what is actually wanted.” They don't understand what is actually being sought. Today, so many people say to such an impulse: “We don't understand that.” Why is that? You see, that comes from something that is supposed to be different and better through the threefold social organism. Today, when people are called upon to judge something, what is missing above all is the connection with life. When someone speaks today from a theory, from something that can be explained with a few general principles, which are ultimately comprehensible to every normal person when they come of age, then people understand it. But when we speak today of something that cannot be grasped in this way, but for which a true connection with life is necessary, where one must appeal to life experience, then people come and say they do not understand it. Where does this come from? It comes from the unitary state that we have had for four centuries; through this unitary state, people have been thrown into a life in which they are involved in a particular area of life and have acquired a certain routine in it. They call this routine their practice. They know what they have through this routine. Otherwise, they are educated by the state from the lowest school level. What will play a role in the future is not part of their education, real life is not part of their education, but decrees, laws and so on are part of their education. The abstract nature of the decree and the law flows into human thinking [from the lowest school level], so that today people only have the routine of some individual branch, which they handle quite mechanically. Anyone who disagrees with them on this point, based on a broader experience of life, is called a fool or an impractical person. And on top of that, they have a head full of abstractions because they have only been educated from decrees, laws, teaching objectives and so on, which are not taken from life, but merely from some abstract way of thinking, which has sole authority on the legal ground, but on no other ground of life. In the legal sphere, it has legitimacy because, in the legal sphere, anything that any normal person of legal age can spin out of themselves simply by being of age can be claimed as a human right over against all other people. But what cannot be spun out of the ground is what must flow into the administration of economic life and into the development of intellectual life. Therefore, because we have lacked the freedom of intellectual life, the self-reliance of intellectual life, we have today this strange phenomenon that people can only grasp what they have been thinking for a long time.

Recently, I spoke in a neighboring town about the same issues that I am talking about here now. Afterwards, someone came forward to join the discussion who put forward something from which one could see that he had only taken up and even heard from my remarks what he had been used to for decades, even down to the sentence structure. But what had not been in his brain box for decades, that man did not even hear, it passed him by so strangely that he did not even hear it, that he denied it altogether in the discussion. This is because something like the impulse for a tripartite social organism must appeal not to what we have been educated to through abstract decrees, laws, teaching objectives, courses and so on, but must appeal to what people understand from life itself. That is why such a gulf has opened up today, when one speaks not out of utopian and ideological thinking, but precisely out of life. The more practical one's words are today, the more impractical people call one, because people do not have a real life practice, but only life routine and abstractions in their heads. That is also what leads to the fear that in the future, in the tripartite social organism, there could somehow be a tyranny from one side or the other. This cannot happen because, as I have explained, such a tyranny cannot even assert itself. No matter how many laws are passed in the right-wing parliament, they would not affect economic life, because even what would be dangerous for the interests of economic life could not affect economic life, since it is independently administered.

Another question:

On the other hand, how are the requirements of social policy, for example support for war invalids, orphans, the weak, and so on, regulated? In particular, on what scale? How are the results of the economy used? Couldn't a suitable government configuration render Dr. Steiner's social policy illusory? Even if the main excesses of capitalism, the rent economy, were eliminated, can't the distribution of the burdens still be one-sided?

The last part of the question has already been answered with what I have just said. But the fact that a truly self-reliant economic life can take even better care of widows and orphans, etc., is explained in more detail in my book “The Crux of the Social Question”. I have already indicated that the economic unit must take into account what each person has to contribute as a quota to what widows and orphans, and other people who are unable to work, receive, as explained in my book, and also for children for whom I claim the right to educate. The standard for this will be derived simply from the living expenses of the other persons. Since the economic unit provides a standard for the living expenses of a person according to the existing overall economic prosperity, this also makes it possible to create a standard for the living expenses of those who really cannot work.

The next question:

Could the dangers of the so-called bourgeois government not continue to exist? Are these not further strengthened by the fact that, depending on the composition of the leading political direction, the distribution of offices can take place in such a way that, despite all the good words, the leadership and the occupation of the factories, cooperatives and so on happens through cronyism? In a backward ruling society, that is, in parliament, who guarantees the removal of the incompetent and the lazy from a leading or independent position? Can't a clique economy quickly destroy the advantages of Steiner's system?

Basically, the answer to this question also follows from what I have already said. Because, dear attendees, it is really not a matter of devising some ideal state in which it can no longer happen that one or the other eats up something, but rather it is a matter of finding the best possible state adapted to some specific human society. What is here called the “cousin's” way and the like, that would, if you only really think about things - but think about them practically, according to reality - become quite impossible. For just consider that in this threefold social organism the circulation of the means of production takes place on the widest possible scale, and that, furthermore, the cooperation of the manual workers with the intellectual workers is based on a completely free contract regarding their respective services. So there are much greater safeguards than anywhere else. If you consider, for example, what can arise from corruption and informers in a large economic cooperative that has become a tyrannical state, then I would like to know how that compares with what can arise in the threefold social organism due to a flaw in human nature in the individual, certainly here and there, but which will of course soon be corrected. The greatest safeguard against the spread of damage that is inherent in human nature is offered by the very liveliness that takes place in the threefold social organism, because the three limbs of the social organism themselves control each other. A unified organism, especially one that is built on the purely material economic life, carries within itself the dangers that are characterized by this question. And because these dangers can be foreseen, the question has arisen – again out of a practical necessity – how to remove the possibility of these damages arising from a unified economic body. By taking out the legal life, thus creating a correction for what can arise as injustice. How do you remove the damage to the spiritual realm caused by the economic system of production? By the spiritual realm governing itself; it must be based on trust in one's fellow human beings, and the unfit must withdraw from the spiritual life and become manual laborers or the like. All this arises directly from the threefold social organism, because this threefold structure also provides the possibility of correction for damage that occurs in one or the other area.

Another question is asked here:

How do you envision the self-administration of the spiritual realm and which organizations will support it?

Now, dear attendees, to characterize this complicated self-administration of the spiritual realm in detail would take a long, long time. I can only hint that it will be a matter of only those people being involved in the self-administration of the spiritual realm who are also active in this spiritual realm themselves. Thus, for example, in the field of education, nothing but that which the pedagogue, as pedagogue, must properly exert as influence, will enter into the self-administration. The selection of personalities for certain posts will not be based on examinations, decrees and the like, but on the actual pedagogical knowledge of abilities and so on, so that the question of where I stand in the spiritual organism will depend, let us say in the specific field of schooling, on pedagogical considerations alone, that is, on inner considerations. Never will any other body, the economic or state body, be able to organize the schools according to its own needs. The schools will be organized solely on the basis of human needs up to the age of fifteen, and from the age of fifteen on, according to the needs of the social organism, according to the needs of the life of this social organism. But this means that what is administration depends precisely on the same points of view as teaching itself in educational institutions. In the future, the human being must not be placed in one place by a state and then also have to follow the state's decrees; rather, everything that is active in the spiritual life is placed only in an administration that has arisen from the point of view of this spiritual life itself.

The question then arises:

Has the Federation for Threefolding already considered the establishment of a cultural council for the spiritual realm? If not, then the assembly should take the initiative to do so.

Now, esteemed attendees, it is of no use today if we do not speak openly and honestly about the great tasks that present us with the present, Economic life has taken on forms that have led the proletariat to vigorously defend its economic interests. It is well known, through a wide variety of circumstances, that today the proletariat suffers greatly from the fact that it has more or less a theoretical goal but no practice. Nevertheless, what lives in the proletariat is a definite will, which is also the result of a very definite political education that has gone through decades. From this will, something like a works council or a council of intellectual and physical workers can be formed today. This will not be easy, especially since if it does not happen quickly, it could be too late.

But, I would like to say, today it is a struggle with obstacles that are less and less formidable than those of the creation of a cultural council, because the most diverse [obstacles] confront one. For example, there are party leaders today who believe they think socialist, completely socialist, no longer in the sense of the old intellectual culture of the privileged classes, and yet they have adopted nothing but that intellectual culture. Nothing but the ultimate consequence of this intellectual culture lives in their heads. This intellectual culture of the leading and ruling circles can be characterized by the fact that, over the past four centuries, it has increasingly merged with economic life to such an extent that intellectual life is now actually only a consequence of economic life, a kind of superstructure over economic life. From this experience of the last three to four centuries, the proletariat, or rather proletarian theory, has now formed the view that intellectual life may only be something that arises from economic life. The moment you put this into practice, the moment you say that intellectual life may only arise from economic life, you lay the foundation for the complete destruction of intellectual life, for the complete destruction of culture. The bourgeoisie cannot now demand that the proletariat should take a different view and expect everything from economic life, because the bourgeoisie itself has brought everything to the point where ultimately everything of a spiritual nature is somehow dependent on economic life.

The course of development was such that, in the beginning, historical development overcame those damages that arose for man within human society from the aristocratic order. From this aristocratic order, legal damages arose; the bourgeoisie fought for rights against what used to be the aristocratic order. Then, in the course of historical development, the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, that is, between the propertied and the propertyless, emerged as a further consequence. The great struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is aimed at no longer allowing labor power to be a commodity. As things stand today, the proletariat is vigorously demanding – and this is not only a proletarian demand, but an historical one – that in the future physical labor should no longer be a commodity. The bourgeoisie demanded liberalism because it no longer wanted the old aristocratic privileges, because it no longer wanted to make the law a thing to be conquered and bought. The proletariat demands the emancipation of labor from the character of a commodity. If we do not want to leave something behind that would plunge all of Central and Eastern Europe into a state of barbarism, we must recognize something else today. If the proletariat were not to demand cooperation with intellectual labor in a spirit of understanding, the proletariat would succeed in divesting physical labor of its commercial character. However, the consequence of this would be that in the future a state would arise in which all intellectual human labor would become a commodity. This state must not be allowed to come about, must not be brought about. The seriousness of the task must be grasped in such a way that at the same time as physical labor, spiritual, truly spiritual labor, also comes into its own. The old aristocracy brought about the lack of rights of the people, the old bourgeoisie brought about the lack of property of the proletariat. If the purely materialistic-economic view of the proletarian question remained, the dehumanization of intellectual life would remain. We are facing this danger if those who have a heart and mind for cultural life do not take the initiative to liberate this intellectual life themselves. And this intellectual life can only be liberated if we break away from the dependence of intellectual life, which I have characterized in so many different ways, and really bring about a reorganization of intellectual life through a serious cultural council. But today we must speak honestly and openly: interest in this area is unfortunately still far too low. The most pressing task at hand is to recognize that this is an urgent issue. A cultural council must be formed.

The attempts we have made, including a meeting yesterday, have not been very promising, because people do not yet realize what is at stake today if we do not manage to put intellectual work on its own feet and not let it be a slave of economic or state life. It is therefore an urgent necessity that in the very near future hearts and minds be stirred precisely for a cultural council. The apolitical nature of our Central European people, which has unfortunately manifested itself in such a dreadful way in the last four to five years, is what should lead to self-knowledge precisely in the spiritual realm. This is what should open people's spiritual eyes and hearts to the fact that our spiritual life has so far been the spiritual life of a small clique, calculated on the basis that it would develop on the soil of broad masses of people who could not participate in this spiritual life, and that today we must create a spiritual life in which every human being can find a dignified existence not only physically but also spiritually and soulfully. Dearly beloved, if one looked into the damage to this spiritual life, especially in the years that have proven to be the decades of preparation for the current world catastrophe, one could truly be seized by cultural concerns.

Then the question was:

What is the best way to educate our children?

In the time when people were so proud of the fact that they did not want to pay homage to any authority, children were still being educated in such a way that the blindest belief in the authority of the established was the most authoritative of all, and the connection between this established order and life could no longer be judged at all. They had neither the heart nor the mind to appreciate that, for example, the habits of thought that a person absorbs in the last years of youth permeate his entire being and constitute his entire being. Do we, as members of the intellectual elite, really absorb anything vital for the present day?

Interjection: Very true!

Oh, this spiritual life needs a thorough transformation, and it is very difficult to find an open ear among people in this field today. But until this open ear is found, there will be no salvation. There is no one-sided solution to the social question, only a three-pronged one. It is essential to stand on the ground of a spiritual life that really arises out of life. This requires goodwill, not the unconscious evil will of the pigtails. Therefore, it is urgently necessary that precisely in this area, something arises that can be called a cultural council. I can only say that a cultural council seems to me to be an absolutely essential requirement, because it must develop an activity that saves us from the commercialization of intellectual work in the external life.

This question seems to be related to the other question that was asked:

If we can expect the transformation of economic life in the sense of the separation from the unitary state through the organization of the works council to take place quickly, how then can intellectual life quickly be made independent and its reconstruction tackled?

Precisely by forming a cultural council and exploring the requirements within this cultural council that are necessary for the rebuilding of our intellectual life. That is what I have to say in response to these questions.

Lively applause and hand clapping.

Dr. Carl Unger: Dear attendees, a whole series of further questions have been received, which we will probably – and I hope you will agree – postpone answering until a later evening.

However, it is extremely important to us to really take to heart the last words of the esteemed speaker. Right now, a challenge is circulating among us that truly bears the mummification of the bankrupt intellectual life: the question of the galvanization and preservation of the humanistic grammar schools in the old sense. We have heard in which direction we have to look when we look at the dire consequences of contemporary life, and we have heard where we have to attack in the intellectual life. And just in these days we have also noticed how the impulse of a new spiritual, a new artistic life has been met with the greatest philiserosicäs. Dear attendees, we must allow strong impulses to arise within us from the words we have just heard, which work to release forces and strong, even revolutionary willpower for the spiritual life in us in the direction of preparing to found or form a genuine cultural council. But this can only be founded on freedom, on the own initiative of individual personalities who, from whatever situation in the spiritual life, are willing and able to contribute to a real new development of spiritual life. The purpose of my present words is to trigger this initiative and to work towards promoting this idea and the threefold social order among those present. We are prepared, first of all, to accept addresses – and indeed as early as this evening – from personalities who are willing to take on the heavy task that our esteemed speaker has set us. I ask to be allowed to approach you with this request, and I would like to ask you in particular to let the impulses for the rebuilding of intellectual life take effect in you in the strongest possible way and also to bring them to bear in other personalities.

With that, allow me to close today's meeting.

The theme for this evening's lecture has been requested as “The social will as a basis towards a new, scientific procedure.” I don't know exactly what the motives are for proposing this theme, but when the request came to me I found it extraordinarily lucky because it corresponds in tone to what I consider necessary with regard to the facts which the social movement has brought into the present, and is expressed far more clearly than what formerly had been discussed and negotiated regarding the social question in the course of the last decades.

It is possible to follow the development of the social movement over a long time, up to our present times and to notice how the social impulses in their aims tend more and more to the one or other side, having something sneaking into this social will, into the social mood of recent times which can seem like a wrapping of something from quite another time when superstitions ruled in the Middle ages. These superstitions appear now again when you engage yourself deeply in the second part of Goethe's “Faust” and come to the scene where Goethe allows his Wagner to create the Homunculus, the manikin who would like to be on the way to becoming a human being, developed out of the manikin. According to Goethe it depended on Middle Age superstitions to desire the creation of something out of mere theory, mere outer dry and sober facts assimilated in the human mind into something with being, something thought up which becomes alive. The impossibility of taking abstractions drawn from outer life and forming something alive with them, was Goethe's concern in particular. The Middle Ages don't rule our current thinking as such, but it appears to me as a metamorphosis, one could say, in all the impulses and instincts of many of our contemporaries who want to address the social will and allow some superstitions to dominate. One can observe the development of social life, how it has in the course of history up to the present resulted in thoughts developing out of certain principles, certain foundations which they want to accomplish, or, as you can hear from various opinions, they want it carried out themselves, which means, just as through abstract principles the Homunculus was formed, they can create something called a social organism.

Towards such a social organism there is a striving of, what one could call, the unconscious part of modern humanity. It is only necessary to make the following clear, in order to understand this. The social life of humanity as such is admittedly nothing new; it only appears to be different in more recent times. The social structure of a community is determined, in our more recent times, by the human instincts and human subconscious impulses. The most significant aspect of the rising forces of our more recent times is that humanity can no longer remain stuck on mere instinctive will impulses, that simply out of the nature of development it must prepare the form of the social structure out of a conscious will. If it is to be prepared through a conscious will, then the will needs a basis of thoughts which need to be developed in the right way. These thoughts towards its foundation would not be mere thoughts derived out of abstractions but out of reality; they would be thoughts which familiarise one's own will with the forces in natural events which weave within the world's own powers. To a certain extent one must be allied in one's own will with the creative powers of natural existence.

This is something which wide circles of humanity still need to learn. They must learn to think that they actually can't proceed if they think: ‘What must happen in order to withdraw from a social structure formed out of a life many experience as intolerable, is to replace it with a feasible social structure.’—One cannot proceed this way. One can't imagine what social illnesses are, to a certain extent. One can only apply one's best aspirations by finding it out of people themselves, how they live together in the community and bring mutual harmony in their reciprocal relationships to unfold what is necessary in these alternate lives, to establish a social structure.

After long years of studying the social question it has come to me that the basic question, which is considered today as a uniform abstract formulation, should be seen in a threefold way: the first, being like a spiritual question, the second, like a question of law and the third as an economic question. What has arisen out of the modern capitalist economic life has developed from the basis of technology and this has hypnotised people's focus in recent times only on to economic life, and have quite drawn away the awareness of the social question beside the economic question to above all also a spiritual question and a question of rights.

I'm going to allow myself to deal with the spiritual question first, not from the basis as perhaps some of you may believe the consideration of spiritual life involves me in particular, but because I am of the conviction that if the Proletarian thinkers of today become unbiased toward the spiritual aspect, in search of a solution for the social question, it can make a contribution to just those realistically orientated observers of the social question, that the spiritual aspect must take a stand first of all. To do so is to develop insight into the soul of those people touched in their real nature by the modern social movement. You need to try and recognise the will impulses of what actually lives in the socialistic orientated circles. Above all, the origins of these will impulses need to be discovered.

You see, as technology and capitalism moved into our more recent human lives, humanity branched off more and more into the so-called ruling class, away from the development in the most varied areas of Proletarianism. Between the Proletarian forces of will and the non-proletarian life today lies a gap, no one can lie about it, a gap which can hardly be bridged if not at least an attempt is made, not only with antiquated thoughts and old will impulses active in the social movement, but with new thoughts and will impulses.

In the course of time a belief has developed within the Proletariat—and one can as far as relationships go, not at all see this belief as something unfounded—a belief has formed that the socially disadvantaged class can expect nothing from the present ruling class if they build on their goodwill, their ideas and so on. There has, if I may say so, developed a deep mistrust between the individual human classes. This mistrust has come out of the origins, which up to now did not play a role in human consciousness, origins which have always been available in the subconscious. As a result, at the start of our more recent times, the bourgeois working class has met with one final important trust and they, not out of their convictions but by feeling, have been tricked out of this final important trust. You see, we are talking about the Proletarian point of view today. Many, also earlier personalities who believed they could bring the Proletarian will and thinking into an expression, actually knew nothing about the origins of these thoughts and will impulses. What comes as challenges out of life itself, living in the social movement actually stands in a remarkable contrast with the challenges and social impulses which are being considered by the Proletarians themselves. If I want to briefly express what I mean, I must say: the Proletarian, the social culture has thus come about, but within the proletarian feelings, within the social culture and the life, rules the inheritance out of just those viewpoints and concepts of life which came about at decisive moments in their historic development.

This decisive moment in the more recent historic development must surely allow the observer to notice that within this development, the newer scientific way of thinking has grown—I ask you to please take note, I don't say natural science but the newer scientific way of thinking—in such a way out of the old spiritual impulses, but that this scientific way of thinking no longer involves the same spiritual power which the old-world view had. The old-world view sent roots and spread into human impulses as the modern scientific way of thinking. The old-world view was capable of sending impulses into the soul, through the person's sensing and experiencing towards solving a stirring question: ‘What am I actually as a person in the world?’—Such a power living in the soul has not come through the modern scientific way of thinking. Obviously through a historic necessity, which is no less of a historical disaster, the old-world view positioned itself at a decisive moment in a hostile opposition towards the newer scientific way of thinking instead of allowing it to flow into a fuller friendship which it should have carried into the spiritual life of the soul. So the following facts came about.

The capitalist machine of economic order tore a number of people out of the context of their lives, out of a context in which they had stood up to then which had quite a different relationship with regards to human feelings for their sense of dignity. There existed a connection between what a person was and what he did. Just think about the relationship which clearly continued in the old crafts up to the 13th Century and still continue in remnants later. Out of this relationship a large number of people were thrown at the machine of the modern economic order. Here was no kind of relationship to elements of production; here was no possibility to establish some or other process between the people and what they were actually doing. This is how it came about that this side of human beings, who didn't invent the modern machine age, could ask: ‘What am I worth as a human being? What am I really worth?’

This question is not to be answered out of a context, of life having become overpowered and worthless, but the answer is to be found within those who were not dependent on the outer context of life. Here nothing other rose out of these classes than what the machine age and the economic ordering imposed at the same historic time: the result was the modern scientific way of thinking.

The old classes didn't need to apply this scientific way of thinking to their beliefs and to their concept of life; they only needed to apply it to their theoretical principles. They instilled in life traditional impulses inherited from origins of olden times. The Proletarians were the only ones who were torn out of all they could not identify as their concept of life which was connected to the old outlook on life. They were, through their purely outward existence, predestined to take what was new and allow it to enter their soul content. So this Proletarian is, as paradoxical as it sounds, as unbelievable as many may see it, the actual, purely scientifically orientated person.

To acknowledge the entire scope of this fact one should not only think about what one has learnt about the Proletarian Movement but one needs to be transported through one's destiny by the possibility to think with the Proletarian, with the thoughts of such people who from one or the other side became the carriers of the Proletarian Movement. One could clearly sense what follows, as it spread itself from olden times into the direct social present.

Isn't it true, you could say: ‘Yet, the scientific way of thinking still has been extensively accepted in middle-class circles.’—If you consider intelligent middle-class circles, you will think about people whose beliefs are quite scientifically orientated: yet in their feelings, in their entire life experience, they stand within relationships which are not totally determined by scientific orientation. A person can be a materialistic thinker in modern times, can call him or herself enlightened, call themselves atheists, can acknowledge it as an honest conviction, but can't renounce all the rest of their experiences out of the old connections of life which have not originated from a scientific orientation but which had emerged out of times which carried spiritual impulses—as has been sketched as a force, in the foregoing.

Purely scientific orientation itself works quite differently. I don't say, the scientist, because obviously the scientific orientation influenced quite uneducated Proletarians: but it works quite differently where it has been imposed as a view of life on to the Proletarian.

I want to clarify this by an example. For many years I shared a podium with Rosa Luxemburg who has passed away in such a tragic way. She addressed the theme of “Science and the Worker.” I need to repeatedly think how she stirred a large audience towards being aware that actually all prejudices which are in relation to human social situations are human classifications according to the old ruling classes and this is connected to representations of what old spiritual viewpoints contained. The modern Proletarian, she believed, originated not solely from angelic, divine origins but they had at one time indecently climbed around trees from animalistic origins which she had developed, on the basis that as she had followed their development, she could substantiate the conviction: a human being is the same as another human being. All previous classification was based on some or other form of prejudice.—You should not consider her formulation but what kind of force such words had on the proletarian natured soul.

Purely considering the concept, I actually meant to say: The Proletarian is completely “scientifically” orientated in his point of view in more recent times. The scientific orientation failed to fill his soul in such a way that it could answer the question: ‘What am I actually, as a human being?’

Where did the Proletarian get this point of view? What is the basis of this scientific orientation which he sometimes had to receive in such a false way? It is after all a science. He took it as the inheritance of the middle-class people. It developed out of an old viewpoint of life, from within middle-class people at the transition into the more recent machine and capitalistic age, when machines and capitalism overpowered the people.

The following which is often heard with corresponding colouring is this: within the Proletarians their spiritual life became something which can be experienced as an ideology. This is heard most often when the background of the Proletarian view of the world is dissected: art, religion, science, ethics, law and so on are ideological mirror images of the outer materialistic reality.

However, this experience that everything is like this, that spiritual life is ideological, this didn't originate from within the Proletarians, the Proletarians received it as a dowry from the bourgeoisie. This last and big belief which the Proletarians took in from the middle-class was a result of the nourishment it received, spiritual nourishment for the soul. It could well be that as it was exposed to spiritual life, as it was called out of the old relationship to the machine and introduced into the social structure, that it could only look at what had developed as knowledge about the people and the world; it could only look upon what it had received out of the bourgeoisie: through belief, dogmatically—I could call it—it acquired ideology from the bourgeoisie. It hadn't entered into the convictions but as an experience of disillusionment which it had to be if one does not look at the spiritual as something which is created out of itself, containing a higher reality, but if one looks at it is a mere ideology. Within the subconscious awareness of a large number of carriers of the social movement it wasn't known but was clearly being experienced: ‘We have met the bourgeoisie with a strong trust, we have entered into an inheritance which should have brought us the salvation of our souls and the strength to carry it though. The middle classes didn't bring this; only ideology, which has no reality and which contributes nothing towards the support of life.’

One can argue a lot whether ideology is really the basis of spiritual life, or not. It doesn't come down to that but it comes down to spiritual life being experienced by the majority as an ideology, and so the soul becomes desolate, remains empty, the centrifugal spiritual force becomes paralysed and the result is what has happened today: The stripping of the social will from belief that somehow something spiritual could have developed, somewhere rise as a centre, a real centre from which our world view or something similar can bring salvation, also in relation to the desired formation of the social movement. I would like to say: as a negative, spiritual life has been incorporated into the development of the modern Proletarian humanity above all things; as a positive, that it demands yearnings from these people. It demands soul-supporting and as an inheritance has been given the depletion of the soul.

This is something which blows and runs quietly though our entire present day social movement which can't be grasped by concepts, which in fact makes out the form of one of the branches—we got to know three—of the present day social movement. As soon as one perceives that this is so, one can correctly ask: Where has it come from and how can it be remedied? Instead of letting will be paralysed, this social will, how can it be fired up and empowered? This is a question one must ask oneself.

Now an event occurred when the spiritual life came to a decisive point which I've indicated already. The ruling class at the time was through their situation in life connected to, what we today call, the state. It has often been stressed by some individuals—I can't enter into this today due to our limited time in how true this is—it has often been stressed that modern humanity believe that what we call the state, today, has always existed in this way. That is completely untrue. What we call the state, which for example in the Hegelian world appeared as an expression of the divine itself, was basically only a product of thinking in the last four to five Centuries. The social organism of earlier times was quite different.

Just take a single fact, take the most recently appeared fact that the free schools of earlier times, which were independently built opposite the state, were filled out by state institutions, and that, to some extent, the state had become the custodian of mankind's spiritual goods. This happened due to the civil interests in the beginning of more recent times.

The state was there to let the folk grow their souls towards it; they connected all their needs to it. Out of this impulse grew a new relationship between spiritual goods and the state, made the state the custodian of the spiritual goods of mankind and demanded from those approaching the custodian that their lives be actually defined by it.

If one looks deeper into the inner weaving of the human spiritual goods then it involves not only an outer administration of the spiritual goods—the legislation regarding universities as part of the state, of schools, of folk schools becoming part of the state—but that the state is determining the content of the spiritual goods.

Certainly mathematics doesn't have a state characteristic, but other branches of our spiritual goods have their character, have sustained the unification of these spiritual goods with interests of the state in more recent times. This growing together is not without participation of becoming an ideology from the side of spiritual goods. The spiritual goods can only really protect its own true worth, which it carries within, when it can govern itself through its own forces, when out of its direct initiative can give the state what it is, when it however doesn't receive demands from the state.

Certainly there will still be many today who will see no fundamental social facts in what I've just said. They will however see that, in reality, only the ruling spirit of mankind can give laws, when this spirit is separated and stands independently from the outer state organisation. I know that kind of objections can be made against this but this is not important. What is relevant is that the spirit, in order to unfold itself properly, calls for the ability to always develop out of the direct free initiatives of the human individual.

In this way one arrives at the true form of one of the members of the modern social question, that one considers the spiritual life in the right way and see the necessity, that whatever is pushed into the structure of the state is gradually brought out again, so that it can unfold its own supporting power and then work back again, just because when it is freed, while it develops independently with the other members of the social structure, it can as a result really work on the social structure.

If one wants to talk about the practical aspects of the first member of the social question, one must say: The tendency of development for the spiritual life must be denationalized in the widest sense. If the spiritual life member should be denationalised which probably appears today as a paradox, one can speak in this way: the relationship in which a ruling individuality appears to people, who is involved in criminal or private law involving people—one can in certain psychological orientated circles still see that, but taking the thing from quite the wrong side—one so personal, the direction belongs directly to what must be considered internally as spiritual life. So I am counting all which is relevant in religious convictions, all artistic life, all which is related to private and criminal law, to move towards developing the tendency for denationalization.

Why should anyone who hears about mass regulation immediately think about violent revolution? Even in socialist circles of more recent times, people are gradually not thinking like this anymore. I also don't consider that from one day to the next, everything can be denationalized; but I think that through the social will humanity can enter into measures here and there—it must also happen here or there on a daily basis—towards a re-orientation for such a gradual detachment of the spiritual life from that of the state. You can imagine realistically what is actually meant by this.

The state we must see as something which in recent times has grown out of the ruling classes, created out of a particular soul of the middle classes becoming educated. To the state this bourgeoisie has now contributed not only spiritual life, but also what the later human development has overpowered in the social organism: namely the economic life. This economic life having been introduced into the life of the state has introduced the further nationalisation of traffic interests, post, railways and so on. This has resulted in a certain superstition towards the state, towards nationalised orientated associations. The last remainders of these beliefs are the beliefs of the socialist orientated people: that actually the salvation of a communal administration is only possible through a communal economy. Also, that is an inheritance accepted by the middle-class viewpoint and way of thinking.

Now spiritual life has been put on one side and the economy on the other side; in the middle, the state is positioned.

You can ask what will actually remain of the state? As we will soon see in what follows, the economic life couldn't tolerate being mixed into actual state life. Perhaps we can reach a clear picture of this question if we clearly envisage what the bourgeois classes found in the developing modern state. They found the stronghold of their rights in this state.

Let us now examine what the actual laws represent. I'm not thinking about criminal law or about private law as it isn't in the relation of one person to another, because I'm thinking of public law. Public law belongs, for example, to the dealings of ownership. What is property finally? Ownership is only the expression of the authorization of something which one personally and alone may possess and work on. Ownership has sprouted from a law. Everything which we see as material objects has its roots in the relationship of people to laws. Such laws have in our recent times, before the conception of our modern state, rejected the bourgeoisie earlier and everything connected to them; such laws found themselves best protected when they took on everything which referred to such laws as those from within the state itself.

So the tendency started of economic life being ever more drawn into the life of the state. The state penetrates the structure of the economic life with a number of laws. Now, these laws should in no way be taken in their future development to the state life. The social will must gradually develop towards the precise differentiation between everything comprising the life of law, what spiritual life actually is and what the economic life is.

The modern social movement makes it particularly clear that the ruling circles haven't taken anything of the life of rights from their modern state. While much has been taken out of the economic life, also out of the purely isolated economic life, and incorporated into the legal state structure, there is something which has not been incorporated into this legal structure and that is the labour of the Proletarian workers. This labour of the Proletarian workers was left within the circulation of the economic processes.

This struck most deeply into the minds of the modern Proletarians and could be made clear through Marxism and its followers—there is always the labour market just as there is a goods market. Just like goods are offered on the goods market and there is a demand for it, so you bring your labour—the only thing you own—on to the labour market, and it is only valid as goods. You are sold like goods; you stand in the more modern economic process as goods.

Through this we come to the true form of the second modern social claim. This is expressed from out of a certain subconscious sense regarding human worth; the modern Proletarian found it unbearable that his labour was bought and sold as goods on the labour market.

Certainly, the theory of the socialist thinker states: ‘It has come about through the objective laws of the economic life itself; the force of labour was placed on the market like other goods.’ This is in the awareness, perhaps even in the awareness of the Proletarians. However, in their subconscious, something else was weaving. In their subconscious the continuation of the old slavery prevailed, the old question of serfdom. In the subconscious one only saw how the entire person during the time of slavery could be bought and sold, that later somewhat less of the person was in bondage and all that was now left over was the labour of the workers. With this he allows himself to be taken completely into the economic process. This he felt was impossible, as unworthy.

From this the second social demand has come about in more recent times: disrobing labour from the characteristic of goods.

I know that still today many people think: ‘How can that be done? How else is it at all possible to organise economic life than through the remuneration of work activity, labour?’—With this you have already bought it! However, one needs to hold something up against it, which Plato and Aristotle already took as obvious and said it was evident, that there has to be slaves. So modern thinking needs to be forgiven if it finds it necessary to carry labour to the market.

Now one can't always imagine what will perhaps be a reality in the near future. Today however we must ask: How can labour be disrobed from the character of goods? It can only happen if it is drawn up in the area of a pure legal state, such a state which eliminates it from the spiritual life on the one side, as characterized earlier, and eliminated on the other side from all that belongs to, what was characterised earlier, as the economic process. If we divide the entire social organism, or we think of it as divided into three members: into an independent spiritual life, into legal life and economic life, then we have instead of Homunculus in the area of economy a real Homo in the area of the economic life, then we have our spiritual eyes focused on the real social organism which is alive, not one made up of chemical agents.

I don't really want to enter into a game of analogy between biology and sociology—that's far from me—neither fall into the mistake of Schäffle nor Meray in his “World Mutation”; I don't want to go into all of that, it is not relevant here. What is of relevance is to see how, in a single natural human organism, three independent systems rule—I have presented this scientifically, at least as a sketch, in my last book “Riddles of the Soul”—likewise in the social organism three independently applicable systems need to be seen: the spiritual system, the judicial system—now the system of public rights, as mentioned where private and criminal law are excluded—and the actual economic system.

However, if you have between the spiritual and the economic life, the regulated state life, the regulated judicial life, then you have something which is capable of life inserted into the social organism, just as in the natural human organism you find the relatively independent systems of circulation, lung-heart system and circulation system, the heart-lung system between the head system and digestive system. Then again if it is fully developed from its own basis as merely economic—we think of a democratic administration on the basis of judicial life—if each one can equally have a say about his rights, that the only basis of ruling will be according to the relationship of one person to another, then the incorporation of labour in the economic process will be something quite different than the case is now.

You see, I'm not giving you some or other principle, or theory: this is how it must be done when the power of labour is to be disrobed from its characterisation of goods—but rather, I say to you: ‘We must place people in such a division in the social members that, through their actions, through their thoughts, through their will, a viable social organism is created.’—I don't want to offer general remedies but I only want to say how humanity must become members of the social organism in order for their healthy social will to continuously result in making the social organism capable of life. In this way I will, in place of theoretical thinking, introduce intimately related and trustworthy thoughts. What will happen if, despite economic life, there would exist a foundation which maintains and governs itself out of its own forces, and out of this purely human foundation, employment laws can be negotiated? Then something will come about which work in a similar way into the economic process as does the natural foundation of economic processes. We very clearly see these natural foundations of the economic process when we really study the economic process. They regulate the economic process in such a way that its regulation deprives a person of what he or she can do themselves, in the economic process. Isn't it so, you only have to observe the obvious?

Just take for once—I want to use radically clear examples—the fact that in certain regions, rather removed from our area, the banana is an extraordinarily important item. However, the work which involves bringing bananas to a place where they can be consumed is exceptionally little from our point of view, in comparison with products in our natural European region; bringing wheat from its point of origin right through to its point of consumption. This work which renders the bananas consumable is nothing in comparison to wheat, roughly compares it is as one to one hundred, or the relationship could be even greater than one to a hundred. So, one hundred times more effort is needed than that of bananas, to bring wheat to the point of consumption. So we can quote the biggest variables within the economic area which exist in connection with the regulation of economic life. These are not only dependent on what a person contributes: it depends on the yield of the earth, other relationships and so on; these things place themselves within the economic life as a constant factor, like people are one of the independent economic factors. This is how it can be seen from the one side.

Now consider for yourself the labour laws as quite separate on the other side from the economy, then it will, when it no longer has economic interests in the determination of working hours, in the application of labour independently contributing to an independent purely person to person interrelationship, it will create something independent of the economic life, which plays from the other side into this economic life, just like each side plays from the natural foundations of given factors.

One must orientate the formation of prices, which has actual worth in the goods market to how the natural factors work. One will in future, when the social organism should be viable, also have to address how production should take place, how the circulation of goods should take its course. When this commodity circulation does not determine remuneration, working hours and labour law, but when it is independent of commodity circulation, of the goods market, in the region of the state life, purely out of human endeavours, purely out of mere human points of view agree about the working hours, then it will be so that one commodity will cost as much as it will cost for the time needed to produce that particular work, which is however regulated through independent economic life, because economic life today for instance regulates employment so that the price of goods often has to regulate the economic process in working hours and employee-employer relationships. The opposite will appear by correctly dividing the members of the social organism.

These relationships can only be indicated today. You can see, however, that they come out of a social intention which is quite different from what has placed us into such a sad situation within world events; they come out of a social will which has not originated from some non-profitable spinning of human thoughts, spinning as one has to so that this or that is done in the right way, but they come out of thoughts which are so familiar with reality that it doesn't come to light when people in this or that relationship in this or that way become members of the social organism. Then they will, because they have become members of the social organism in a healthy way, be able to determine laws, then they will work in the right way.

One only has to have experienced how other social intentions determined relationships in real life, even in the then already conquered Austria. It was a state, but a state does not live purely as a life of laws; in a state, there lives, in quite a pronounced way, the economic life which has sprung from the interests of single human circles. Just think how the old Austrian parliament was up to the end of the nineties (1890's). Out of this parliament's representation originated relationships which played right into the catastrophe of war. This parliament consisted of the four curiae: the Chamber of Commerce, the great land owner, from the curia of the cities, markets and industrial sites and the curia of the established economic circles. These economic circles were not represented on the basis of an economic parliament but their interests determined the being of the state, therefore public laws were determined according to them. Just as it is impossible for a confessional inclined party, which the last German Reichstag was, to be created and influence institutions of the legal life of the state out of definitions, just so little is a social organism viable which is destined to determine the economic circles of the legal life. The life of rights must develop separated from that; only out of the relationship of one person to another, considered in a completely democratic manner. Then the rights life will regulate in a corresponding manner the threefold organism, with on the one side the economic life and on the other side the natural foundation of this economic life.

Within the economic life, which in turn has established representatives from the most varied fields, pure economic factors and interests would be needed. One would then have a social organism—if I might express myself according to the habits of the time—with three classes, three areas, each creating its own laws and own management. They will stand in a relationship, one could call it, as sovereign states and if they continue, they reckon with one another. That could invite complications, make the people uncomfortable; but it is the one and only way to make a healthy social organism viable in future. The economic life itself can only be determined out of its factors when only economically active interests appear from its foundation, which can only be determined through the necessary relationships between production and consumption. These relationships between production and consumption can only result in the economy from the associative basis, an associative basis as it could have been in the trade union, cooperative context. However today the trade union, cooperative context still maintains the character out of the state from which it has grown. They need to grow into the economic life, must become mere serving bodies of the economic life. Only then will the social organism develop in a healthy way.

I know that what I've been saying will appear extraordinarily radical. Whether it appears radical or not, is not important. What is important is for the social organism to be workable, that people, in their starting from the old instinctive social life moving towards the conscious social life, are permeated with impulses which come out of insight of how one needs to stand within the totality of the social organism. People today are considered uneducated if they don't know their multiplication tables; a person is considered uneducated if he does not know something he is supposed to know as education, but a person is not considered uneducated if he has no social awareness, or if his soul is within the social organism in a state of sleep. This is something which has to change fundamentally in future! It would be different if a judgement would consider that, what belongs to the most elementary schooling should include being equipped with a social will, just as much as one should be equipped with the multiplication tables. Today every person should know what three times three is. In the future, it would not appear more difficult to know the relationship between capitalism and ground rental if I want to choose something out of today's life. It should not be more difficult in future than to know that three times three is nine. However, this knowledge will become the foundation for a healthy involvement in the social organism which means a healthy social life. A healthy social life needs to be strived for.

In a healthy human consciousness, it is preparing itself, as I have said. One only has to have an inkling for what is being prepared and what strives towards revelation and form in our more recent time.

Just think back to the great ideals of the French Revolution: Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood. Whoever followed these ideas in the minds of people who have in the course of time experienced it as a destiny, knows, how often they have struggled with the logic within the contradiction which exist in Freedom on the one side, which point to personal initiatives, and Equality on the other side, which should be brought about in the centralization of the state orientated social organism. This is not possible. Yet, the solution for this confounding has emerged in our more recent time. Why capitalism today has not yet understood the concept of a threefold social organism is due to the concept of a completely centralised state.

If you grasp the idea which already today appear in this intention which is expressed in the ideals of Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood, then it is easy to understand that it is being considered from the point of view of the threefold organised social organism. Its first member would be the spiritual life. It should be completely permeated with the idea, the principle, of freedom. Here everything should be based on the free initiatives of people and it can be so, would be most fruitful, if it is stated this way. With reference to the constitutional state, in relation to what is between the spiritual and the economic life regulated by the being of the state, the actual political system exists, which has to permeate everything regarding the equality of relationships between people. With reference to the economic life, the one and only thing which is valid is Brotherhood, social community living the outer and inner life of one person through the other.

In the economic life within the social organism, interest is the ruling factor. This interest however brings quite a specific characteristic into the economic member. Why is it apparent that basically everything comes out of economic life? It all comes down to economic life, that in the best, most appropriate manner, the economic life shows it can also be consumed. I'm talking about consumption in the narrower sense where the spiritual is excluded. Consumption can refer for instance to labour, human labour. This is felt by the modern person: becoming a mere element of consumption in terms of his labour. He even has to, like he earns interest through his labour, through spiritual production, also inherit interests through his rest, through his calm capacity for the spiritual. The human being becomes consumed in the economic life. He has to pull himself continuously out of the economic life by the other two members of the healthy social organism, if he doesn't want to be completely consumed within the economic life.

The social question is not the same in modern life as when it originated and perhaps could be solved, and was actually solved. No, the social question exists as something which has entered modern life and can no longer be avoided in the future of humanity. There will always be a social question in the future. However, this social question will not for once, not through this or that measure, be solved, but could be regulated, through the continuous intentions of people which means that those who use people in the economic process, should be regulated from the political standpoint and forever balance out the consumption with spiritual production, through the independent spiritual organism.

Whoever has seen over the last decades how the social question has developed—and it has relatively not been all that long ago that the social question has taken on its present form—whoever has observed in intimate detail how the social question has developed out of its origins, could in relation to the social intentions/will and its focus for the future form of human life, arrive at thoughts which could be characterised in the following way.

Many people, even enlightened people, don't see the social question as something existentialistic. In my youth, I became acquainted with an Austrian minister who officiated over the Bohemian-German border and made the most grotesque declaration: “The social question stops at Bodenbach.” I remember very clearly how a large group of the first social democratic miners marched past my parents' house, heading for their gathering. I noticed how the social will had come about, not as thoughts about a social movement but through the communal life of the social movement. I had to say to myself, much has to be done and many mistakes have to be made! Even with socialistically orientated thoughts of more recent times, these mistakes were quite numerous. It appears that exactly in this area people's minds developed in such a way that they didn't experience this. The mistakes became terribly widespread.

Out of such a spirit of observation I have endeavoured to speak to you tonight about the social will. You have invited me as member of a community who studies what the social intention of humanity's healing should bring in future.

Those older people, like me for example, who speak to people who through the decades can look back, know about all that had to be gone through to get to the present moment. Then again you find some things that need to be gone through, in addition also the conviction that the mistake was not fruitless, that even today when the facts are expressed often in a frightening way, people manage to be strong enough to find the way out of what the biggest part of today's humanity has experienced as unbearable.

It is in this sense that I ask you to accept what I have allowed myself to speak about this evening. The facts speak clearly in some areas. The facts also clearly say: the more people, who are still young, can now take up a true, viable social intention, the more will the human social organism be viable and efficient. Whoever wishes to speak the word, let him do so. Doctor Boos, who has given a lecture about a week ago, announced that he was willing to have discussions.

A speaker says something (stenographic details incomplete).

Dr Steiner: What you have claimed has taken on a form as a result of you not considering what must come to the fore through the relatively independent formation, on the one hand of the constitutional state and on the other, the economic life. The labour organisations which are partly production companies or consumer companies, or even could have connections between both, are only involved with economic factors which take place within the economic life itself.

The regulation of labour law is preferred by a relatively independent state. Here nothing is decided other than on a democratic basis, I call it, as relevant to the relationship of one person to another. This is why I mention this regarding the basis of the purely democratic state, that a link exists between both factors, on this basis people stand equally before the law. As a result, the mere wishes of single economic organisations will come to an end because they must balance out the democratic legal life with the interests of other circles.

So, this is just what should be processed, a remedy should be considered towards anything damaging, which would certainly develop if for instance the working hours are fixed within the organisation of the economic life. Economic organisations should only be involved with the economy itself: in other words, the regulation in the sense of labour laws. By contrast, the fixing of working hours, only underlying the state corporation, involves the relation of one person to another.

We must not forget what a great change can develop between one person and another with one-sided interests grinding it down. Self-evidently, nothing can be totally perfect in the world, but one-sided interests will be grinded down in the democratic state structure which has its basis of equality between people.

Just consider for instance what happens when a certain economic organisation is interested in a project of short duration—they will have to be comfortable with balancing this with the interests of the individuals who would suffer during this short working time. If one doesn't consider some or other subconscious force then it would—just like in a natural organism it would always in an approximately natural way result in how many men and how many women there are, which obviously is no strict natural law nor will it become one—it would also prevent something unhealthy being created when in the right way the single factors of the social organism cooperate and not develop individual small interests, which are most harmful to others.

The foundation of my way of thinking differs from many other social thinking patterns due to the latter being more abstract. Logically the one can easily be derived from the other; results flow from one logic into another. Crucial to such questions is only actual life experience. Obviously I can't prove logically—no one can—that a discrepancy of interests may enter into such a future organism, but accept that when the forces within their own circles, which are appropriate to them, can develop, then it will be a humane development. I mean, if you consider what I have wanted to present, the fixing of working time out of the purely economic process in the legal circle of the state, then this damage will be able to develop in practical areas. This is what I wanted to add.

Another speaker says something (stenographic details incomplete).

Dr Steiner: I would like to comment on the honourable previous speaker's words as follows. Understandably with every lecture it is not possible to say everything one wants to in a single lecture, and I don't know which omissions our previous honourable speaker's conclusion has been drawn from in my lecture where I gave no opinion regarding the modern worker psyche, that I don't want to take the modern labour movement into account, and so on. Every person does it in his own way. I have for many years, for example, been a teacher in the various fields of a workers' educational school and have given rise to speech exercises in political organisations. I am entitled to be aware of a large number of workers who present their speeches today, speeches they have learnt to give as a result of my speech exercises. During these speech exercises all possible kinds of questions were discussed, questions which actually were not far from the most intimate particulars of the workers' psyche. So I don't know—I had naturally no reason to place this particular practical side of my social activities and intentions out in the open, but I can't quite rightly understand out of which omissions my talk should come from what went before, that I should be so far removed from the practical labour movement.

Certainly it is obvious that within the modern social movement the worker himself should be considered. Just contemplate by yourselves, what I have been stressing the entire evening regarding how things can actually appear within the Proletarians. I have spoken about the Proletariat as such; you would have noticed if you were listening attentively, how my belief has woven my lecture into a practical presentation as to what lives in a practical way in the proletarian labour force of today.

Regarding the accusation that I have perhaps been too one-sided in my presentation of what seems to me the fundamental meaningful fact, that the middle-class thinking methods will be conquered by the labour force, particularly by the leaders of the working class, this declaration which I have done and which I have drawn from single instances has made it clear from one side, really more accurate through the study of the workers' psyche and the entire modern labour movement.

I would like to add an example which I would like to draw your attention to. A Russian author who I know personally has recently pointed out to me in an unusual way how a philosophy adhered to by younger people in Zurich has played a big role: the Avenarius philosophy which for their part has certainly grown out of the middle-class substrate. I can hardly imagine that Avenarius considered how his philosophy would play such a role in the Russian labour movement as it is playing today. As far as I know it is strongly represented, right in Zurich, by Adler who translated the natural scientific derived philosophical conviction of Mach. Both these philosophic directions are to some extent the official philosophies of Bolshevism, of the most radical socialism. The Russian author Berdjajev said in a lecture—it is contained in the translation of a very interesting book about “Russia's political soul”—in this lecture Berdjajev has in a very clear manner worked out the political soul.

So you can give a multitude of examples; I could give you numerous examples which are similar to those which I took from the address of the deceased Rosa Luxemburg, which would prove to you that the last important heirloom, deeply interwoven with the workers movement and the middle-class life, is the scientifically orientated method of thinking. The possibility to make spiritual life into an ideology is of middle-class origin. The middle-class, if such a categorization may be made, firstly took scientifically orientated methods of thinking in the region of natural knowledge, and made it into an ideology. They did not transfer it within their class over on to scientifically orientated thinking. This latter consequence only then attracted the proletarian thinking. Certainly, proletarian thinking also drew other consequences but these consequences were drawn out of the basis which today is clearly recognisable as rooted within the middle-class' scientific method of imagination, which now created something further. The importance of this should not be misunderstood.

That which dwelled within the totality, which has developed a deep interest for the participation of the modern worker psyche in the modern labour movement, waited, I want to say, with a certain concern on the one side, but also with a certain inner satisfaction on the other side for the moment when it would appear within the modern socialist movement. What now lies in the subconscious will one day be noticed, brought into awareness and it will be said: ‘Aha, this we had in our soul's higher thinking’—if I might use this expression—‘in our soul's higher thinking, and it must come to the fore. We have the desire for our human dignity to be scientifically orientated; this is what the middle-class line of inheritance of science has now made possible. We must look for a spiritual life elsewhere.’

I believe in any case that when this moment arrives, when the entire, full longing surfaces out of a specific side of modern people only, namely the proletarian people—if it has not come into full expression in modern times—when this longing in the modern Proletariat has reached its complete education of the scientific way of thinking in their world view, with the power of old religions, when this has happened that it no longer depends on them being goods, drawn as the consequence out of the middle-class thinking methods, then one will be able to argue that the fruitful organization of social will has arrived.

To mere socialism and in its relation to what the previous honourable speaker offered, regarding the philosophy of Bergson, I believe one should not make such dogmatic statements. Understandably I don't want to discuss such philosophic questions today. The previous speaker said that Bergson was a typical representative of the bourgeois thinking methods. If this is so then socialism would have developed out of Bergson's philosophy, derived directly out of bourgeois foundations! Today one can for instance refer to Bergson's philosophy as containing many “Schopenhauer-isms” and that Bergson was much more influenced by Schopenhauer than any of you can imagine.

Now, should one want to discuss such a thing in detail, then one has to be able to argue extensively. I can't do this today but I only mention this to you because there are within the proletarian world sensitive thinkers, for instance, Mehring, Franz Mehring, who is really in many ways similar to Bergson; he characterised Schopenhauer as the representative of the most bourgeois philistinism in philosophy!

One can have different views about these things and I don't believe one should be dogmatic about it. One can have the view that Bergson is an advanced philosopher who has irrational elements within his philosophy. However, one could ask what an irrational element has to do with the social question. A Proletarian can be just as irrational as a middle-class person. I don't quite understand what this whole irrational element has to do with it. Here one already has to draw a dogmatic precondition: Bergson is the absolute example of a modern philosopher; if the Proletarians really want to think, they must become Bergsonians, not so? This involves the whole issue.

Undoubtedly there are tendencies which appear in the most varied areas of life, tendencies which focus themselves in the direction I have characterised. It would really be sad to order human life, if it is always going so straight, to go over, I would say, and always evolve it in the opposite direction from the straight one! Not so, this can't of course be the case. I would even say in the area of the judiciary, certain things are fuelled by quite psychologically orientated people. Such innumerable examples can of course be cited but it is also a secondary derivation if one doesn't really validate it but merely offers a favourite opinion. Certainly one may sympathise with things which have been said about impulses that have principles according to historic periods; but without going into the latter further—if one wants to go into all these things I will have to keep you here for a very long time—so without further examination into references I want to say the following: very many people are inwardly obstinate when one mentions threefoldness, which I spoke about today. They say three different branches which are directed and guided by different principles are not possible.

However, I haven't spoken about three different members which are directed by three different principles, but about a threefold social organism! Just consider that this threefold social organism in our time must gradually find its whole way of thinking in a corresponding way, like for instance the ancient subdivisions which you find with Plato and which were then justified. Someone once said to me after my lecture: “So we have once again a reference to Plato: the nutritionists/guardians, the fighters/auxiliaries and the producers/labourers/educational state.” Actually, what I have said is the opposite of divisions into nutrition, defence and educational states because people are not divided into classes but divisions are sought for in the social organism. We human beings will simply not be divided up! It can well be that the same person who is active in the spiritual member, is active in the judicial and even the economic member. The human being is as a result emancipated from such one-sidedness in some or other member of the social organism. It is therefore not important that people should be divided into such independent classes when a healthy social organism is developed, but that the social organism orders itself according to its own laws. That is the radical difference. Earlier, people were divided. Now, according to the way of thinking relevant to our time, the social organism will be divided by itself so that people can look at their life situation according to their needs, their relationships and abilities and how to be active in one or the other division. For instance, it will be quite possible that in future an economically active person may at the same time be a deputy in the field of the purely political state. He will then obviously make his economic interests effective in a different way as he would in relation to the field of the constitutional state. The three divisions provide the demarcation of their territories. Everything doesn't get confused and allow them to get mixed up.

It is better if the things are separated. There are of course the same human systems which are differentiated into the one or the other branch. Just as in the natural human organisation—above all I don't want to play the game of analogy but still need to mention this—there are three centralized parts: the nerve-sense system, lung-breathing system and the digestive system, there are three members in the social organism. This is something which doesn't yet belong to ordinary thinking habits, which I believe however, will be able to find its way into thinking habits and that people would not take it less thoroughly, I think, than when they only grapple with their own favourite opinion.

Dr Roman Boos: May I be permitted to refer to a question addressed to the speaker in relation to the field of criminal law? Now, when there was talk about the freedom of judges, was there also a breach against the statement that no punishment without law will be made—it seems to me this is what is meant, that criminal law as such should not be given out of free spiritual life but out of the political member, that the question possibly contains a misunderstanding with Dr Weiβ who stated that an offence is made against the principle that no punishment could be given if no specific law has not been broken. May I ask you to say more about this?

Dr Steiner: Isn't it true that in this question you obviously touch on the system of public law with the system of practical jurisdiction? What I stressed is the separating of practical judging. For this reason, I used the expression “judging,” expressly the practical judging from the general public legal life, which I thought should be central in healthy social organisms whose public political life should see to it, that a specific law will determine a procedure. That judging can't be done in the most arbitrary way is quite self-evident. However, I haven't considered such things which are abstract and in their abstraction, they are more or less obvious. Today I have also not spoken about the scope of the law but about the social organism and about the social will. Now I ask you with reference to this theme, to consider the following.

You see, I have nearly spent as much of my life in Austria as in Germany. I could get thoroughly acquainted with the Austrian life; you may believe me that it is not an impulsive assertion if I say that much of what has taken place in the so-called state recently is connected to events which during the (eighteen) seventies and eighties had resulted from deep incongruities. Don't forget that in such a state as Austria, in other fields it isn't as radically characterised, but is present in some or other form as well—particularly because in Austria the various language regions are mixed and overlap and you can for instance have the experience that a German, when he is by chance involved in some or other circuit court officiated by a Czech judge who can't speak German, is convicted by a Czech in a language he fails to understand. He doesn't know what he is convicted of and what has happened to him; all he notices is that he is led away. Just so is the reverse case when a German judge who can't speak Czech, judges a Czech who can't understand German. What I am indicating is the individual arrangement, the free formation of relationships of the judgement to the judge.

So, a state like Austria could expect great success from this. Thus, this impulse resulted in always, over the next maybe five or ten years—relationships shifted continuously—for the convicted being able to choose their judges freely.

(Gap in stenographic record)

This is not simply an object of the spiritual life, but it is foremost an object in the life of the judicial state; in that only one law is focused on, which had originated from a deed and secondly became a law of the state, already concerned with its competence; in each case it will obviously show the concerned result.

However, another question is this: when you look at things more closely you will see that all the solutions to these cases are very consequential. Today I could only give you the initial conditions; I need not talk the entire night but need to continue tomorrow again.

Today I hope to conclude my remarks about human society in the present time and the social demands it makes on us, but I am only too aware that all I have been able to say and still intend to say here can amount to nothing more than a very scanty guideline. The social question in our time is extremely wide-ranging, and there are two main aspects that need taking into account if we are to reach some clarity about it. These are firstly the present historical moment in human evolution and secondly the immediate external circumstances in the world.

The present historical moment in human evolution needs to be approached with the utmost impartiality. Our understanding is all too easily clouded by preconceptions and an emotional approach that leads us to skate over the surface of what is going on in the depths not so much of the human soul as of the very nature of the human being as such.

We are easily misunderstood when we say that we are living in an age of transition, for this has been said in almost every age. Obviously we always live in a time of transition from past to future, but the point is to discern the nature of the particular transition in question. To do this it is necessary to realize that ‘the present’ does not mean this year or even this decade but a much longer period of time. The present time has been in preparation since the fifteenth century, and the nineteenth century was its culmination. Although we are now right in the midst of this age, people in general have little appreciation of the particular character of this particular moment in world history.

To put it plainly, to gain any kind of insight into social life today we have to investigate the way human beings are straining to extricate themselves from old social forms because they long to be free, independent human beings pure and simple.

To use a German term, we need a Weltanschauung der Freiheir, a universal conception of freedom or—since ‘freedom’ in this country has other connotations—a universal conception of spiritual activity in deed, in thought and feeling deriving from the spiritual individuality of the human being.

Early in the 1890s in my book Philosophy of Spiritual Activity I endeavoured to paint a picture of what human beings are now striving for not so much in their conscious as in their subconscious activity. In former times human beings were bound within a social context as far as their thoughts and actions were concerned. Look at someone in the Middle Ages: he was not an individual in the sense we mean today, but rather a member of a class or a particular station in life; he was a Christian, or a nobleman or a citizen. All his thoughts were bourgeois or aristocratic or priestly. Itis only in recent centuries that individuals have extricated themselves from these structures. If one wanted to fit into society in a social way in former times one had to ask oneself: ‘What is priestly behaviour? How should a priest behave towards others? How should a citizen behave towards others? How should a nobleman behave towards others?” Nowadays we ask: ‘How should one behave in a way that is in keeping with one’s worth as a human being and one’s rights as a human being?’

To find the answer one has to look for something within oneself. We now have to seek within ourselves the impulses that formerly showed us how to behave in society in consequence of being a citizen, a nobleman or a priest. These impulses are not in our body but in our spirit which is impressed into our soul. That is why in my Philosophy of Spiritual Activity I described the moral impulse that is at the same time the most profound social impulse guiding the human being as ‘moral intuition’.’? Something needs to come to fruition in us that can guide us even in the most concrete situations and tell us: This is what you must do now.

Then, you see, everything depends on the individual. Then you have to look at the individuality of each human being with the presupposition that moral intuitions reside in his or her heart and soul. All education must be aimed at awakening these moral intuitions, so that every individual can express the sense: ‘I belong not only to this earth, I am not solely a product of physical heredity; I have come down to the earth from spiritual worlds and as this particular individual I have a specific task to do here on earth.’

But to know that we have a task is not enough; we also need to find out what that task is. In each concrete situation we must find within ourselves what it is that we have to do. Our soul must tell us. Vague pricks of conscience must develop into individual moral intuition. This is what it means to become free as a human being; it means to build only on what we can discover within ourselves.

A good many people have taken strong exception to this because they imagine it would lead to placing the whole moral sphere in society at the mercy of individual caprice. But this is not the case. The moral sphere then rests on the only basis suitable for society, which is, on the one hand, the basis of mutual trust. We must learn to acquire this mutual trust in the larger concerns of life, just as we already have it in small things. If I come up against Mr K. in the doorway as I leave, I instinctively trust that he will not come straight for me and knock me down. I myself act in accordance with the same trust and we both make way so as not to knock into each other. We already do this in the lesser events of life, but it is something that can be applied in all our affairs if we learn to see ourselves rightly as free beings. There has to be trust between individuals—what a golden word this is! In educating ourselves and others to trust and believe in the individual human being, rather than just the nation or humanity as a whole, in working towards trust in the individual we are doing the only thing that can generate an impulse for social life in the future, for only such trust can create community among individuals. This is the one aspect. The other is that when there is no longer anyone telling us what to do or compelling us to do it, we shall have to find the necessary impetus within ourselves not only to act but also to respond to situations with feeling, to be active in our soul. What does this mean? If someone was a priest in former times he knew his station in society. Without having to look it up in a book he knew how to behave when he wore the habit of a religious order, and that certain obligations were connected with this. Likewise if he wore the sword of the nobility he knew that his place in human society was based on being a nobleman. He had his specific place in the social order, and the same applied to the citizen.

Whether we like it or not, this is something that is no longer appropriate in human society. Of course there are plenty of people who want to go back to those days, but world history is telling us otherwise. There is absolutely no point in establishing abstract programmes for all kinds of social set-ups. The only useful thing we can do is look at what current history is telling us.

So now we have to ask ourselves what the emotive impulse for our social actions can be when we are no longer pushed along by virtue of being a priest, a citizen, a nobleman or a member of the fourth estate. Only this: we must have as much trust in our dealings with other people as we have in a person whom we love. To be free means to realize oneself in actions carried out with love.

One golden word that must rule social life in the future is ‘trust’. The other is ‘love’ for the task we have to do. In future, actions will be good for society as a whole if they arise out of love for the whole of humanity.

But first we have to learn what love for the whole of humanity means. It is no good jumping to the conclusion that it already exists. It does not, and the more we tell ourselves that it does not yet exist the better it will be. Love for the whole of humanity must be a love of deeds, it must become active and must realize itself in freedom. Then it will gradually move on from the domestic hearth or the local pulpit and become a universal, world-wide appraisal.

From this point of view I now want to ask how you think a worldwide appraisal of this kind can be applied, for example, to that most dreadful and heartbreaking example of social chaos now taking hold in Eastern Europe, in Russia.

In such a situation it is important to ask the right question, and the right question is: ‘Is there too little food on the earth for the whole of mankind?’ We have to refer to the whole globe, for since the last third of the nineteenth century we have a world economy, not national economies, and it is important to take this into account in the social context. No one will reply that there is too little food on the earth for the whole of humanity. Such a time may come, and then people will have to use their ingenuity to solve the problem. But for now we can still be sure that if countless people are going hungry in any corner of the earth, it is because human arrangements in recent decades have brought this about. It is these human arrangements that are preventing the right food supplies from reaching the starving corner of the earth in time. It is a question of distributing the food supplies in the right way at the right time.

What has happened? At a specific moment in history Russia has isolated a huge territory from the rest of the world by instituting a continuation of Tsarism on the basis of a purely intellectual abstraction. A feeling of nationalism extending over a large territory has locked Russia away from the rest of the world, thus preventing global social arrangements from enabling human hands to let nature from one part of the world help out generously in another where nature has failed for once.

When we can find the right angle from which to view these things, the sight of such social distress will lead each of us to cry: “Mea culpa.’ For although we feel we are all individuals, this does not deprive us of a sense of unity with the whole of humanity. In our human evolution we have no right to feel ourselves as individuals unless we also have a sense of belonging to humanity as a whole.

I should like to call this the fundamental ground from which any ‘philosophy of freedom’ must spring, for such a philosophy must place each individual human being in the social context in an entirely new way. Our questions, t00, will then become quite new.

Very many questions have been asked about society in recent centuries, and especially in the nineteenth century; and what have the proletarian millions made of these questions which arose first among members of the higher classes? Why is there such a widespread view that the proletarian millions are on the wrong track? It is because they have taken erroneous doctrines on board from the higher classes. They have become the pupils of the higher classes; the doctrines are not their own.

We must learn to see things clearly. Some maintain that human beings are the product of their environment, that they are produced by the social circumstances and arrangements all around them. Others say that social circumstances are what people have made them. All such views are just about as clever as asking: Is the human physical body the product of the head or of the stomach? The physical human being is the product of neither but rather of a continuous interaction between the two. The two have to work together; the head is both cause and effect, and the stomach is both cause and effect. Indeed, if you look a little deeper you will find that the stomach is made by the head, for in the embryo the head is created before the stomach is formed; but on the other hand it is the stomach that forms the organism.

So we must not ask whether human beings have been created by circumstances or circumstances by human beings. It is essential to understand that each is both cause and effect, that everything affects everything else. The foremost question to ask is: “What social arrangements will enable people to have the right thoughts on matters of social concern, and what kind of thoughts must exist so that these right social arrangements can arise?’

In practical life people tend to think in terms of doing one thing after another. But this leads nowhere. We can only make progress if we think in circles, but many people do not feel up to doing this because it would be like having a mill-wheel turning in their head. It is essential to think in circles. Looking at external circumstances we must admit that they have been created by people but also that people are affected by them. And looking at the things people do we must realize that these actions bring about the external circumstances but also that they are sustained by these same external circumstances. To arrive at reality we must skip back and forth in our thoughts, but people do not like doing this. They want to set up a procedure and make a programme: Point 1, Point 2, Point 3, right up to, let us say, Point 12, with Point 1 coming first and Point 12 last. But there is no life in this. Any programme should be reversible, so that we can begin with Point 12 and work back to Point 1, just as the stomach nourishes the organism, and if the nerves situated underneath the cerebellum are not in good order we cannot breathe properly. Just as things can be reversed in life, so must we also see to it that they can be reversed in social life.

In the same vein, when I wrote my book Towards Social Renewal I had to assume, on the basis of the social situation at the time, that it would find readers who would be capable of going both forwards and backwards in their ideas. But people do not want this. They prefer to begin at the beginning and read through to the end, at which point they know that they have finished. They are not interested in being told that the end is also the beginning. The worst misunderstanding connected with this book with its social intentions was that people read it the wrong way; and they continue to do so. They do not want to adapt their thoughts to life; they want life to adapt to their thoughts. This, however, is not at all the precondition for social arrangements with which we are dealing here. I shall continue with this theme after the translation.

When people began to discuss the idea of a threefold social organism I heard about an interesting opinion. The idea of a threefold society draws attention to the three streams in social life that I have been describing over the last few days. Firstly there is the cultural, spiritual stream which is today the heritage of the old theocracies, for all cultural life can ultimately be traced back to the origins of theocracy. Secondly there is what I have called the sphere of political, legal affairs, and thirdly what can be termed economic life. When attention was focused on the threefolding impulse, on these three ideas, there were people of good standing in the world, manufacturers perhaps, or clergymen, people with a specific position in society, who came and pronounced on the matter: ‘How delightful to discover a new suggestion emerging that will once again validate Plato’s grand ideas.” These people thought I had breathed new life into Plato’s division of society into the order of agricultural producers, the order of soldiers and the order of statesmen and scholars.

All I could say was that perhaps this might seem so to those who rush to the libraries to ascertain the origins of any new idea. But for those who understand what I mean by a threefolding of social life it will be obvious that it is the opposite of what Plato meant by his three orders, for Plato lived a good many years prior to the Mystery of Golgotha. His three orders were appropriate in his time, but to bring them back to life now would be absurd. The idea of a threefold organism is not concerned with dividing individuals into groups with some being producers, others soldiers and yet others statesmen. What we want to do now is create arrangements, institutions in which every individual can partake in turn, for today we are concerned with human individuals and not with orders or categories. There will be arrangements in which the cultural, spiritual life of humanity can be cultivated, this being built solely on people’s individual capabilities. Secondly there will be independent arrangements that govern political and legal life without wanting to swallow up the other two elements of the social organism. And thirdly there will be arrangements dealing solely with economic affairs.

The political, legal life will deal with agreements people have to make with one another, with things that are determined between individuals.

In the cultural, spiritual sphere not everyone will be able to make judgements, for in this sphere only those can judge who have the necessary competence in a particular subject. Here everything emanates from the individual human being. There is a wholeness in the cultural life; it has to be a coherent, uniform body. You will object that this is not so, but I shall come to this in a moment.

The political, legal sphere requires individuals to work together in the sense of present-day democracy in matters that require no specialist knowledge, so that every individual is competent to form judgements. Such a sphere exists; it is the legal and political life.

Thirdly there is the sphere of economics. Here individuals do not make judgements; indeed, an individual opinion is irrelevant, for it can never be correct. In associations or communities of individuals judgements arise when opinions merge in a common judgement.

The whole point in all of this is not the division of the state, or for that matter any other community, into three parts. The important thing is that each of the three aspects is in a position to make its own contribution to the health of the overall social organism.

The way of thinking I have represented here is capable of holding its own in the midst of life. Suppose someone wants to apply his capabilities and do something, using the necessary skills or techniques. What this person does is then carried forward by others. It is important that I should do something, but it is not the main thing. The main thing is that a second, third, fourth person or any number of people carry my action further in an appropriate manner. For this to happen the social organism must be so managed that traces of my activity do not disappear. Otherwise I might do something here in Oxford that is carried on further for a while, but by the time it reaches Whitechapel there is no trace of it. All that remains visible are the external symptoms of the hardship prevalent there. Hardship will inevitably arise if human forces cannot enter into the social organism in the right way.

Look at the misery in Russia. What causes it? It is there because social forces cannot come to grips properly with the social organism, because the social organism is not structured in the right way according to its natural three parts. The actions of individual human beings will be able to percolate through the whole social organism like blood through the human body only if that social organism is so arranged that the cultural life depends freely on individuals, if there is a legal and political life that orders all the business that falls within the competence of every individual regardless of each person’s level of education, and if, thirdly, there is an independent economic sphere concerned solely with production, consumption and distribution.

Such a thing can indeed result from a true and realistic insight into the world so long as people really do come to grips with it on the basis of a realistic understanding. But if such things, once stated, are merely explained away by Marxist theories and doctrinaire intellectualism, then of course they remain incomprehensible. No one then knows what is meant by someone who does not look at hardship superficially but who delves down more deeply, saying: ‘You cannot improve matters in this way. First you must create social interrelationships of a kind that enables the hardship to be sent packing.” That is where the problem lies.

We must begin to realize how far what was once theocracy has retreated from real life. The original theocrats did not need libraries; their science was not neatly stored in libraries. To study a science there was no need to sit down and pore over old books, for what they did was go and dwell with living human beings. They paid attention to human beings. They asked how best to do what was right for human beings. The real world was their library. Instead of studying books they looked into human faces, they took account of them; instead of reading books they read the souls of human beings. Today all our science has been swallowed up by libraries or stored by other means, well away from human beings.

We need a sphere of spirit and culture firmly rooted in the real world; we need a sphere of spirit and culture in which books are written from life and for life, full of ideas for life and ways and means of living. Especially in the sphere of spirit and culture we must emerge from our libraries and go out into life. We need education for our children based on the children present in the classroom, not on rules. Our education must be derived from knowledge of the human being; what should be done each day, each week, each year must derive from the children themselves.

We need a legal and political sphere in which human being encounters human being, where the only basis for decisions is the legitimate competence of each individual, as I have already pointed out, regardless of profession or whatever other situation each is in. The legal and political sphere exists for all the situations in which human beings meet one another as equals.

What else will belong to the sphere of spirit and culture if this sphere is accepted in the form I have described? Little by little the administration of capital will move of its own accord from the economic to the spiritual, cultural sphere.

However much we may rail against capitalism there is nothing we can do about it, for we need it. What matters about capital and capitalism is not that they exist but what the social forces are that work in them. Capital has come into being through the intellectual ingenuity of human beings; it came into being out of the cultural, spiritual sphere through the division of labour and intellectual knowledge. Merely as a way of illustrating the possibilities, and not to make a Utopian statement, I described in my book Towards Social Renewal how capital might stream towards the spiritual, cultural sphere of the social organism. Just as the copyright on books lapses after 30 years, so that their content becomes common property, so, I suggested, might someone—having amassed capital and had capital working for him while he was himself engaged in the work which his capital generated—transfer his capital to the common good after 30 years or so. I did not state this as a Utopia but merely as a possibility of how, instead of stagnating everywhere, capital might begin to flow and enter the bloodstream of social life. All the things I wrote were illustrations, not dogmas or Utopian ideas. I merely wanted to hint at what might be brought about by the associations.

What actually happens may turn out to be something quite different. When one has brought life into one’s thinking one does not set down dogmas to be adopted, one counts on human beings. Once they are embraced in the right way by the social organism they themselves will discover what is meaningful and useful socially in the environment in which they find themselves. In everything I say I count on people, not dogmas. Unfortunately it has been my experience that what I really meant in my book Towards Social Renewal is never discussed. Instead people ask questions such as: Is it really possible for capital to be inherited by the most capable after the passage of a specific number of years?’ People do not want realities, they want Utopias. This is what militates against an unprejudiced reception of the threefolding impulse.

Once the legal, political sphere is able to function properly people will notice that it will involve itself with questions of labour. Today labour is entirely enmeshed in the economic life and is not treated as something to do with how people relate with one another. In 1905 I wrote an article on the social question in which I demonstrated that with today’s division of labour, labour is reduced to a commodity as it flows into the rest of the social organism. Qur own labour only has an apparent value for us. What others do for us has real value, and what we do for them also has value. This has been achieved by technology, but our moral outlook has not kept pace with it. Within the social order as it is today one can, technically speaking, make nothing for oneself, not even a jacket. If you make it yourself it still costs as much, taking the whole social structure into account, as if it had been made by someone else. The economic aspect of the jacket is universal in the sense that it is determined by the community at large. It is an illusion to imagine that the jacket made for you by a tailor is cheaper. If you work it out in figures it might appear cheaper. But if you were to calculate its price as part of the overall balance sheet you would see that by making your own clothes you can no more jump out of your own skin than you can remove the process from the economic sphere or change that sphere in any way. The price of the garment you make for yourself remains an item in the total balance sheet. Labour is what one person does for another. It cannot be measured by the number of man/hours required in a factory setting. The value put on labour is a supreme example of something belonging in the realm of law, the legal, political sphere.

You can tell that this is not an outdated idea by the way labour is everywhere protected and safeguarded by laws. But these regulations are not even half-measures, they are quarter measures. No regulations will be properly effective until there is a proper threefolding of the social organism. Only when this has happened will human beings meet each other as equals. Only then will labour be rightly regulated when human worth meets human worth in that sphere where all are competent to speak.

You might want to object: ‘Perhaps there will sometimes not be enough work to go round if work is determined in this way in a democratic state.’ This is indeed one of the areas where the social life is affected by history, by the evolution of humanity as a whole. The economic sphere must not be allowed to determine the amount of work available. The economic sphere must be bounded on the one hand by nature and on the other by the amount of labour determined by the legal, political sphere. You cannot get a committee to decide in advance how many rainy days there are to be in 1923 so as to enable the economy to run on course in that year. Just as you have to accept the limitations set by nature, so in an independent economic organism will you have to reckon with the amount of labour available being determined by the legal, political organism. I can only mention this in general terms here, as an example.

Within the economic sphere of the social organism there will be associations in which consumers, producers and distributors will together reach an associative judgement based on practical experience—not an individual judgement that can only be irrelevant in this sphere. The small beginnings being tried today show that this is not yet possible, but the fact that these small beginnings are being tried shows that unconsciously humanity does have the intention to form associations. Co-operatives, trade unions, all kinds of communities show that this intention exists. But when co-operatives are founded side by side with ordinary social life as it exists today they will perish unless they conform to this social life by charging the same prices and using the same marketing practices. In working towards a threefold social organism we should not be trying to create new realities based on Utopian concepts; we should be coming to grips with what is already there. Institutions already in existence, consumers, producers, the entrepreneur, everything already in existence needs to come together in associations. There is no need to ask how to create associations. The question to ask is: ‘How can existing economic organizations and institutions be inte grated in associations?’

If such associations can be achieved, commercial experience will enable something to arise that can indeed lead to a genuine social ordering, just as a healthy human organism leads to a healthy life. There will be circulation in the economy, circulation of production money, loan money and gift money. There can be no social organism without these three. We may want to rail against gifts and donations, but they are a necessary part. You deceive yourself if you say that a healthy social organism should make gifts unnecessary. Yet you pay tax, and taxes are merely a roundabout way of making donations to schools and other facilities.

People deserve to have a social order in which they can always see how things flow without having to make suppositions. When social life has been extricated from today’s general muddle, in which everything is mixed up together, we shall begin to see—just as we can already observe the blood circulating in the human organism—how money circulates in the form of production money, loan money and gift money. ‘We shall see the different way human beings relate on the one hand to money they invest—money for trading, production and purchase—which goes back into production because of the way it earns interest, and on the other hand to the money they give as donations, which must flow into an independent cultural sphere.

People can only participate in social life as a whole through associations which make visible how the life of society flows. Then the social organism will be healthy. Abstract thinking is incompatible with the idea of a threefolding of the social order; only living thinking can encompass it.

Yet even in the economic sphere our thinking is no longer alive. Everywhere we have abstraction. Where is there any life in the economic sphere today? How did it begin in the days when people jotted down their income and expenditure on odd scraps of paper? As things grew more complicated clerics were employed to do the job; they became the clerks. They ran external life to the best of their ability. And who are the successors of those clerks taken from the church to record the economic affairs of princes? They are today’s bookkeepers. In some districts you still occasionally come across a small reminder of those early times. If you turn to the first page in their ledgers—is this the case in your country also?—you see the inscription: “With God’. But there is little in subsequent pages that is ‘with God’. What you find there is an abstraction of something that ought to be full of life, something that ought to be present as life in the associations and not stored up in ledgers.

In working towards a threefolding of society we certainly do not aim to juggle about in old ways with concepts such as cultural life, political life, economic life, mixing them up perhaps in slightly different ways, as has been done in recent times. Our main concern is to comprehend what an organism really is, and then to bring back into real life those things that have become such total abstractions. The most important task is to rescue things from abstraction and bring them back to life. Every individual will belong to the associations of the economic sphere, including representatives of the cultural sphere, for they, too, have to eat, as do the representatives of the legal, political sphere. Conversely, too, every individual also belongs to each of the other spheres as well.

There is a necessary consequence of all this that shocks people a good deal when the subject is brought up, especially when the examples one uses are somewhat exaggerated so as to be more explicit. I once told an industrialist, an excellent man at his job, what was needed in order to bring things back to life: ‘Suppose you have an employee who is fully integrated in the life of your factory. Then along comes a technical college and snaps this man up, not someone recently trained but someone who is fully immersed in the life of the factory. For five or ten years this man can talk to the youngsters about what the life of a factory really is. Then, when he gets a bit stale, he can return to the factory.” Well, such things will make life complicated, but they are what our time requires. There is no getting away from it.

Just as new life must continually flow through the social organism if it is not to decay, so must people either become full human beings, which means that they must be able to circulate through all the spheres of the social organism, or we shall fall into decadence. Of course we can choose decadence if we like, by standing still with our old points of view. But evolution will not allow us to stand still. This is the salient fact.

In conclusion I should like to add that I have developed the subject of my lectures more from a feeling angle. It should not be taken one-sidedly as being purely spiritual except in the sense that it arises out of the spirit of real life. I have only been able to give you a kind of feeling for the impulses that are to arise out of these social ideas. More is not possible in only three lectures.

However, as I bring these lectures to a close I want to thank you in the warmest possible way for allowing me to speak to you about these things. I especially want to thank Mrs Mackenzie who has chaired the committee, for without her efforts this whole Oxford enterprise would not have taken place.’* I also thank the committee for all they have done to assist her. Another thing I am especially grateful for is the opportunity given us here in Oxford during this meeting to bring in the artistic endeavours, eurythmy specifically, which we are trying to send out into the world from Dornach. Thank you all for your endeavours!

You will sense how seriously I want to express my thanks when I remind you that everything we are starting in Dornach is only a beginning that cannot become reality without such efforts as have taken place here in Oxford. The understanding and stoutness of heart we need in Dornach is expressed in a fact which I also want to mention to you, although this is not in any way at all intended as a hint. It is likely that by November we shall have to break off our building work in Dornach because by then we shall have run out of funds. These funds do exist in the world, I believe, but somewhere there is a blockage in this connection. If things were to proceed as they ought in a rightly functioning social organism, then . .. The fact that this work has begun but may well have to be interrupted because of the unfavourable times if an understanding for the need to continue does not emerge in time—this is something that oppresses us greatly in Dornach. I have mentioned this to show you how very heartfelt and cordial are the thanks I have expressed to you.

I have endeavoured to speak to you about education on the one hand, and about social matters on the other. From Dornach these things will be cultivated in a general way. When the anthroposophical movement was founded the point of departure initially was that of a world view and a theoretical understanding. Then people began to see and feel what strong forces of decline exist in our time, whereupon they realized that something needed doing in education and in social life. That was when they began to approach me with the question: “What has anthroposophy got to offer with regard to the establishment of schools that take the fullness of real life into account, and with regard to a future that needs to emerge from the deeper layers of humanity?’ For there is not much to be gained for the future from the more superficial layers of human existence.

The education movement did not arise out of some fad or abstract idea. It came about because people began to enquire what anthroposophy had to offer on the basis of real life rather than out of some kind of sectarian effort.

This was even more strongly the case with the social question. Here, too, people whose hearts were filled with dismay at today’s signs of decay came to ask what anthroposophy might say out of its encounter with genuine reality about impulses that could be sent towards the future.

I am immensely grateful to have been met with understanding here, for what needs saying must go forth into the fullness of life; from this college it must send its effects out into the world where real human beings are at work. I am grateful that it is not antiquated knowledge, for the centres of cultural life must send out impulses to ensure that the right people are in position in the factories, the people who know how to administer capital that generates life. You will not take it amiss that I endeavoured to demonstrate this by means of such examples as came to hand, for on the other side I want to repeat what I have already said before: I have been most happy to explain these impulses here in Oxford where every step you take outside in the street brings inspiration from ancient times and where such strong influences come to the aid of someone wanting to speak out of the spirit.

The spirit that lived in former times was not the one that is needed now to work on into the future. But it was a living spirit that can still inspire. Therefore it has been deeply satisfying to give these lectures and suggestions for the future here in Oxford surrounded by impressions of ancient, venerable learning.

Finally, yet more thanks remain to be expressed. I am sure you will all understand how grateful I am to Mr Kaufmann who has done all the translating with such great love. When you know how much effort goes into translating quite complicated texts and how much this effort can deplete a person’s strength in quite a short time you can appreciate the work Mr Kaufmann has done here during this holiday conference over the past weeks. I want to express my sincere thanks to him, and I hope that many of you will also do so. I now ask him to translate these final words as accurately and faithfully as he has translated all the previous things I have said.

The great catastrophe of the War (World War I) reveals how inadequate was men's thinking concerning the social problem. They imagined that they understood what the worker really wants. The demands of the workers, formerly suppressed, are coming to the surface as the powers instrumental in their suppression are now in part destroyed. In many parts of the world, leaders have failed completely to understand the indestructible nature of these human impulses.

The greatest illusions existed among certain key people who, in 1914, could have checked the rush into this war. These persons actually believed that a military victory for their side would hush the mutterings of impending social storm. They have since recognized that it was their own attitude and its consequences that first brought these tendencies to life. During these last fateful years, these leading individuals and the leading classes have been obliged to attune their behavior to the demands of the Socialists. If they could have disregarded this group, they would often have been glad to act differently. The effects of all this are seen in the form events are taking today.

The facts are now before us, fully ripe, and yet the thoughts that accompanied their development are no match for them. While hoping that current happenings could serve the social ideals people had in mind, men have found themselves practically powerless to solve the problems.

The opinion of those under the delusion that it would be possible to retain the old scheme of things in the face of the demands of the workers must be dismissed. When we look at the aims of those who want to remodel social life, we have to admit that party programs are drifting about among us like the dried corpses of now dead creeds. The facts call for decisions for which the creeds of the old parties are altogether unprepared. The parties certainly did evolve along with the facts, but they and their habits of thought have not kept pace with events.

The tragedy revealed in all the attempts to solve the social question arises because the real meaning of the working-class struggle has been misunderstood. Men by no means always read their own purposes correctly.

What is the real meaning of the modern working-class movement? What is its will? Does the usual thinking about the “social problem” reveal that question in its true form? Or is an altogether different line of thought needed?

Such questions cannot be approached impartially unless one has had the opportunity of coming into intimate relationship with the modern worker's soul, his feeling-life. Much has been said and written about how the developments of recent economic life have led to the current demands of the workers. True enough, these have been evolved during the growth period of modern science and capitalism. But recognition of this fact gives no clue at all to the impulses behind these demands. The fact is that, although the demands are economic, the underlying impulses are of a purely human character. One must arrive at the cause of these impulses if one would understand the true form of the social question.

There is a word of striking significance frequently used by the modern worker: he has become “class-conscious.” He no longer follows, more or less unconsciously, the lead of the other classes. He knows he is a member of a class apart and is determined that the relation established between his class and the other classes shall be turned to good account for his own interests.

The way this word, “class-conscious,” is used by the worker standing in the midst of modern technical industry and capitalism, gives an important clue to his view of life. His soul has been impressed and fired by scientific teachings about economic life and its bearing on the destinies of men, and the idea that the “uneducated” working man has had his head turned by Marxism and by later labor writers of the Marxist school will not help towards the necessary understanding of the true facts.

The scientific evolution of recent times is responsible for the concepts that fill the consciousness of the working man. In the demands put forward by the workers today, whether moderates or radicals, we have the expression, not of economic life somehow metamorphosed into human impulse, but of economic science by which the working-class consciousness is possessed. This stands out clearly in the literature of the labor movement, with its scientific flavor and journalistic style.

The individual, working at his machine, may be a complete stranger to “science.” Yet those who enlighten him as to his own position borrow their method from this same “science.”

Everything said about modern economic life, the machine age and capitalism, may throw an instructive light on the underlying facts of the modern working class movement. But the decisive light on the present social situation does not come directly from the fact that the worker has been placed at the machine and harnessed to the capitalist scheme of things. This light comes from the different fact that his class consciousness has been filled with a definite kind of thought, shaped at the machine under the influence of the capitalist economy.

Many people may look at the stress laid on this factor as a mere dialectic play upon terms, but anyone who wants to understand the working-class movement must start by knowing how the worker thinks. For the working-class movement, all the way from its moderate efforts at reform to its most devastating excesses, is not created by “forces outside man,” that is to say “economic impulses.” This movement is created by human beings, their mental conceptions and the impulses of their will. These human ideas and impulses do not lie in what capitalism and the machine have implanted in the worker's consciousness. The labor movement turned to modern science for the sources of its thought because capitalism and the machine could give to the soul of the worker no nourishment worthy of a human being.

The medieval craftsman did not feel this lack. He got such inner substance from his craft that his humanity was enhanced by his work. Tending a machine under the capitalist scheme of things, the man was thrown back upon himself, his own inner life. As a result, the worker's class consciousness turned towards the scientific type of thought.

This change occurred at the time the leading classes were working towards a scientific mode of thought which, however, was lacking in spiritual force. The old views of the universe gave man his place as a soul in the total spiritual complex, but modern science viewed him as a natural object set in a purely natural order of things. The old conceptions withdrew from the everyday world and lived on full of things that meant nothing to the souls of the workers.

The leading classes did not look for new substance for their consciousness, because they were able to hold on to the old that had been handed down to them. But the modern worker was torn out of his old setting. His life had been put on a totally new basis. For him there disappeared all possibility of drawing from the old spiritual springs.

Therefore the faith of the modern worker turned to the modern scientific conception of the world. Here he sought the new content that he needed for his inner consciousness. For the ruling classes the concept of a natural order of things leading up from the lowest animals to man remained purely theoretical, without an emotional content.

The worker took the scientific outlook in earnest and from it drew his own practical conclusions for life. It was the only thing left to him that had the power to awaken faith. Some may smile at this, but it is a fact of modern life on which the fate of the future turns. The educated man has made a pigeonhole for science in the recesses of his soul, but it is the circumstances of actual life that give the direction to his feelings.

The worker may be far from what others call scientific, yet his life's course is charted by such scientific lines of conception. For him science is turned into a creed of life, even though it be science filtered down to its last shallows and driblets of thought.

Now what scientific thought has not brought down from the old order is the consciousness of being rooted, as a spiritual type, in a spiritual world. For a member of the leading classes this presented no difficulty. Life, to him, was filled by the old traditions. But it was different for the worker. His new situation drove the old traditions from his soul. He took over from the leading classes a scientific mode of thought—a spiritual life that denied its spiritual origin.

I know very well how these thoughts will affect a lot of people. Believing they have a practical acquaintance with life, they look at the view expressed here as something remote from realities. But the language of actual facts, as voiced by the state of the world, will increasingly prove such a view as theirs to be a delusion.

I know, too, how someone professing working-class views will react to what has been said. I can hear him saying, “Just like the rest of them. Trying to shunt the real gist of the social question off onto lines that promise to be smooth for the bourgeois.” He is unable to see that he himself lives as a working man but thinks as a bourgeois, using a type of thought inherited from them.

The scientific mode of conception will only become life-sustaining when, in its own fashion, it evolves an inner content. In its transition to the new age, the old spiritual life has turned into something which, for the working class, is ideology. The worker feels that this inner life does not come to him from a spiritual world of its own.

An important factor in the modern labor movement is this belief that spiritual life is ideology. It affects the worker's mood of soul as expressed in current social demands. Anyone who says that this idea exists only in the minds of the workers' leaders does not know what has been going on. The influence of this concept ties in with the demands of the Socialist and extends even to the deeds of those who “hatch revolution” out of the blind promptings of their inner life.

The non-worker listens with dismay to the worker saying, “Nothing short of socializing the means of production will make it possible for me to have a life worthy of a human being.” But the non-worker is unable to form the faintest notion of how his own class, in the period of transition, not only summoned the worker to labor at means of production that were not his, but even failed to give him anything to satisfy and sustain the soul in his labor.

Worker and non-worker may both insist that the soul does not come into the picture, but such insistence does not touch the essence of the social question nor reveal its true form. For if the working population had inherited from the leading classes a genuine spiritual substance they would have had a different consciousness within their souls and would have voiced their social demands in a different fashion.

The unhappiness of the workers over the ideological character of spiritual life, even though they are not definitely conscious of it, makes them suffer acutely. In its significance for the social question today, it far outweighs all demands for an improvement in external conditions, justifiable as some of these demands may be.

[ 19 ] The modern proletarian movement has sprung out of thoughts. I did not come to this conclusion as a result of lengthy pondering, but from years of actual experience and observation, when I was a lecturer at a workers' institute, giving instruction in a wide variety of subjects. And I have had occasion to go further and follow up the tendencies at work in the various unions and different occupational groups.

[ 21 ] It is hard for members of the middle class today to put themselves into the soul of the worker or understand how the worker's still fresh, unexhausted intelligence opened up to receive a work such as that of Karl Marx. I am not proposing to discuss the substance of the Marxian system. This is not the significant thing. What seems to me significant above all else is the fact that the most powerful impulse at work in the labor world today is a thought system.

[ 22 ] No practical movement, making the most matter-of-fact demands, has ever rested almost entirely on a basis of thought alone. Indeed it is in a way the first movement of its kind based completely on a scientific approach. But this must be seen in its proper light. Of main importance is the fact that thoughts have become the determining factor of the worker's attitude toward life while in other classes thoughts affect only the activity in the intellectual sphere.

[ 23 ] Thus, what has become an inward reality in the worker is a reality that he cannot acknowledge because thought life has been handed down to him as an ideology. He really builds up his life upon thoughts, yet he feels thoughts to be unreal ideology. This inner contradiction, with all that it involves, must be clearly recognized. Otherwise, it is impossible to understand the workers' views of life and the way those who hold these views set about realizing them in practice.

[ 24 ] One cannot expect a spiritual life that one feels as mere ideology to provide deliverance from a social situation one has resolved to endure no longer. The scientific cast of the modern worker's thought has turned not only science but also religion, art, morality and legal rights into so many constituent parts of human ideology. He fails to see behind these branches of the spiritual life the workings of an actual reality that exists in his own life and could contribute something to material existence. To him the intellectual sphere is only the mirror image of the material life. He is convinced that anything that will lead to the removal of social difficulties can arise only out of the sphere of the material processes themselves.

[ 25 ] In fact the impotence of the spiritual life is an article of faith with a large part of the working class, and is openly stressed in Marxism and similar creeds. Yet the man obliged to lead the life of a worker today needs a spiritual life from which inner strength can come, strength to give him the sense of his own human dignity. The discovery of a path out of the maze of confusion into which social affairs have fallen depends on a right insight into this fact. The path has been blocked by the social system that has arisen, under the influence of the leading classes, with the new form of industrial economy. The strength to open it must be achieved.

[ 26 ] In a human community where spiritual life plays a merely ideological role, the general social life lacks one of the forces that can make and keep it a living organism. The impotence of the spiritual life in modern man is what is ailing the body social today, and the disease is made worse by the reluctance to acknowledge its existence. Once this fact is acknowledged, there will be a basis on which to develop the kind of thinking needed for the social movement.

[ 27 ] At present the worker thinks he has come in contact with a major force in his soul when he talks about his “class consciousness.” The truth is that ever since he was caught up into the capitalistic economic machine he has been searching for a spiritual life that would sustain his soul and give him a consciousness of his human dignity. Yet there is no possibility of this with a spiritual life which he feels to be an ideology.

This human consciousness was what he was seeking. He could not find it, so he replaced it with “class consciousness” born of the economic life. His eyes are riveted on the economic life alone, as though some overpowering influence held them there. He no longer believes that anywhere in the spirit or in the soul can there be a latent force capable of supplying the impulse needed for the social movement. All he has faith in is that the evolution of the economic life, devoid of spirit and soul, can bring about the state of things he feels to be worthy of man. So he is driven to seek his welfare in a transformation of the economic life alone.

[ 28 ] He has been forced to the conviction that with this mere transformation of the economic, all the social ills would disappear. He feels these ills were brought on through private enterprise, through the egoism of the individual employer, and also through the individual employer's powerlessness to do justice to the employee's claims of human self-respect. So he was led to believe that the only welfare for the body social lay in converting all private ownership of the means of production into a communal concern or into actual communal property. This conviction is due to people's eyes having, as it were, been removed from everything belonging to soul and spirit and fixed exclusively on the purely economic process.

[ 29 ] Hence the paradox in the working-class movement. The modern worker believes that the economic life itself will, of necessity, develop everything that will ultimately give him his rights as man, the rights for which he is fighting. Yet in the heart of the fight something different makes its appearance, something which never could be an outcome of the economic life alone.

The fact is that this element lies in the direct line of evolution, through the old slave system, through the serfdom of the feudal age, to the modern proletariat of labor. This is what provides the fundamental force actuating the social purpose of the modern worker. It is related to the fact that the modern capitalistic system of economy recognizes basically nothing but commodities. In its processes something has been turned into a commodity which the worker feels must not and cannot be a commodity: the labor of the worker. If only the loathing that he feels at this were recognized as the fundamental force that it is!

[ 30 ] Once people become aware of what this loathing means, they will have discovered the second of the two impulses making the current social question so urgent. The first, as was indicated earlier, is that spiritual life is felt as an ideology.

[ 31 ] The fact that labor is still stamped with the character of a commodity has not remained unnoticed, but in studying it, people keep their attention fixed entirely on economic life. They see how the economic life gave the commodity character to human labor. What they do not see is that it is a necessity inherent in economic life that everything incorporated in it becomes a commodity.

Economic life consists in the production and useful consumption of commodities. One cannot divest human labor of its commodity character unless one finds a way of separating it from the economic process and bringing it under social forces that will do away with its commodity character. Any other form of industrial economy will only make labor a commodity in some other manner.

The labor question cannot take its place in its true form within the social question until it is recognized that the considerations of economic life (which determine the laws governing the circulation, exchange and consumption of commodities) are not considerations which should govern human labor.

[ 32 ] Modern thinking has not learned to distinguish the totally different fashions in which the two things enter into economic life. On the one hand there is labor, which is intimately bound up with the human being himself. On the other hand there are those things that proceed from another source and are dissociated from the human being. The latter circulate along the paths that all commodities must take from their production to consumption. Sound thinking along these lines can show both the true form of the labor question as well as the proper place of economic life in a healthy society.

[ 33 ] Thus we see that the “social question” divides itself into three distinct parts. The first is the question of a healthy form of spiritual life within the body social. The second is the consideration of labor, and the right way to incorporate it into the life of the community. Third is the correct deduction as to the proper place and function of economic life in today's society.

If I have the temerity to speak about this social question in three brief lectures you will, I am sure, understand that the time at my disposal will only allow me to give the vaguest outline, an outline that will have to take shape in what you, my respected audience, will make of what I have to say. Please regard the content of these lectures as the merest hints which may serve you as suggestions.

What can we make of the social question nowadays? If we look squarely at human life as it is today we certainly do not find a clear picture with any obvious solutions. What we see is a huge number of differentiated conditions of life spread across the face of the earth, conditions that have created great gulfs and abysses within humanity between internal human experiences and the external life of commerce and industry. The tremendous variety of differentiations becomes all too obvious when you look at the difference between life prior to the terrible World War and life now. If you look at any larger region of the earth you will find that the differentiations in social life prior to and following the War are entirely different from those that pertained even only 50 years ago in the same region.

Today—thank goodness, we should add—we tend to look on these conditions of life with our heart, we feel their tragedy. But our intellect, well trained though it has become over the course of recent centuries, cannot keep up. This is the strange thing about all social matters now, that real questions, questions of life itself, are so very pressing and yet human understanding cannot keep pace with them.

It is hard to find ideas that can truthfully be called genuinely fruitful. The thoughts people have tend to fail when they are applied to social life.

The direction social development has taken makes it necessary to link the question of social life with another question in which only factual knowledge can be decisive, only a direct, concrete understanding.

It is easy, ladies and gentlemen, to think about a paradise on earth in which human beings can live a good life and be contented; such a thing appears to be a matter of course. However, to state how an existence worthy of the human being is supposed to arise out of today’s economic life, out of the concrete facts that nature and human labour and our inventive spirit present us with requires a profounder knowledge of the matter than any branch of science can provide. Compared with the complicated facts of social, economic life, what we see under the microscope or in the sky through the telescope is exceedingly simple.

As a matter of fact, everyone has something to say about the social question although hardly anyone has the patience or tenacity, or even the opportunity, to acquire an expert knowledge of the actual facts. As far as the social question is concerned, we have just come through a period with regard to which we should thank God that it is behind us. This was the period of Utopia, the period when people imagined the kind of paradise on earth in which human beings should live in the future like characters in some kind of novel. Whether these Utopias have been written about or whether someone has tried to establish them in reality, as Owen®' did in Scotland or Oppenheimer has been doing in Germany, is irrelevant. As far as present-day social life is concerned, it is irrelevant whether a Utopia is described in a book—in which case it becomes obvious that it cannot be realized—or whether someone founds a little settlement like an economic parasite which can only exist because the rest of the world is there around it, which can only exist so long as it can maintain itself as a parasite on the commercial world and then perishes.

The important thing to be considered with regard to the social question is the need to develop an awareness of the social waves pulsating beneath the surface of humanity, an awareness of what existed in the past, what is there now in the present and what wants to work on into the future—for what is preparing to work on into the future already exists everywhere to a great extent in the subconscious part of human beings. It will therefore be necessary in these lectures to point very firmly to what is there in the human unconscious. Above all, though, we must gain a broad conception of social life as it has developed historically.

Ladies and gentlemen, what once existed long ago is still with us now in the form of tradition, a remnant, but we can only understand what is here amongst us if we understand what existed long ago. Similarly, future tendencies are already mingling with what is here now in the present, and we must understand those seeds of the future that are already planted in our present time. We must not regard the past solely as something that happened centuries ago; we must see it as something still widespread amongst us, something effective that we can only comprehend as a past in the present or a present from the past if we learn to assess its significance correctly. We can only gain some insight if we trace the external symptoms back to their deeper foundations.

Please do not misunderstand me, ladies and gentlemen. In describing things like this one sometimes has to emphasize them rather forcefully, so that one appears to criticize when one merely intends to characterize. I do not mean it as a criticism when I say that the past is still a part of the present. In fact I can admire this past and find it extremely attractive as it makes a place for itself in the present, but if I want to think socially I must recognize that it is the past and that as such it must find its proper place in the present. This is how I have to gain a feeling for social life as it really is.

Let me give you an example, and please forgive me for quoting something from the immediate present, for I mention this somewhat strange symptom without intending any slight whatsoever. Yesterday we met your respected chairman on the street wearing his cap and gown. He looked remarkably handsome and I admired him very much. Nevertheless, what I beheld before my eyes was not only entirely medieval but I even thought someone from the ancient oriental theocracies was approaching us in the midst of the present day.

Underneath the gown there was, of course, an entirely modern soul, an anthroposophist actually, who possibly even saw himself as embodying something of the future into the bargain. Yet the symptom, the actual face of what I saw was history, history in the present time.

If we want to understand social life, if we want to understand the economic interrelationships that have their effect on our breakfast table every morning and determine how much we have to take out of our purse in order to make it possible for our breakfast to be there, then we need to have an overall view of humanity’s social evolution. Yet this social evolution of humanity, especially with regard to the social question, is today almost exclusively approached from the materialistic point of view.

What we must do first is look back to those quite different conditions that once obtained in human history and prehistory We must look back to those social communities that were the social theocracies of the Orient, although to this day they still exercise a strong influence in the West.

These were very different social communities. They were communities in which social relationships were structured through the Inspiration received by priests who remained aloof from ordinary conditions in the world. From the spiritual impulses that came upon them people derived the impulses for the external world. If you look at ancient Greece or Rome you see a social structure involving an immense army of slaves with above them a self-satisfied, wealthy upper class—relatively speaking. It is impossible to understand this social structure without taking account of its theocratic origins in which people believed in it as something given by God, or by the gods; they believed this not only with their heads but also with their hearts and with their whole being. So the slaves felt they were occupying their rightful place in the divine scheme of things. Human social life in ancient times is only comprehensible if you take into account the way in which external, physical structures were filled with commandments received through Inspiration.

These commandments, received from beyond the world by priests who remained aloof from the world, determined not only what human beings needed for the salvation of their souls, not only what they thought and felt about birth and death, but also how they should relate to one another. From the distant Orient we hear resounding not only the words ‘Love God above all things’, but also ‘and thy neighbour as thyself. Today we take a phrase such as ‘thy neighbour as thyself very abstractly. It was not so abstract when it rang out to the crowds from the inspired priest. It was something that worked from individual to individual, something that later came to be replaced by all those concrete conditions we now summarize by the name of law and morality. These conditions of law and morality that only came to be a part of human evolution later were originally contained in the divine commandment ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ through the very way in which they were brought into the world by the inspired priests of theocracy.

In the same way the duties of the economic life, what human beings were supposed to do with their cattle, with their land and soil, these things were also determined by divine Inspirations. You can find echoes of this in the Mosaic laws. With regard to their culture and spiritual life, with regard to their life of law and morality, and with regard to their economic life, human beings felt themselves placed into the earthly world by divine powers. Theocracy was a unified structure in which the various members worked together because they were all filled with a single impulse. The three members: the life of culture and spirit, the life of law—what we today call the life of the state—and the economic life, these were combined in a unified organism filled with impulses that were not to be found on the earth.

As human life evolved further these three impulses, spiritual/cultural life, state/legal/moral life, and economic life pulled apart from one another and became differentiated. The single stream flowing in the form of unified human life in the theocracies gradually divided into two, as I shall show next, and then into three. It is with these three streams that we are confronted today.

Ladies and gentlemen, theocracy in olden times rested on the Inspiration received by the Mystery priests which flowed into the social life, including the legal-moral life and also the economic life. Rules of conduct in the form of commandments could be derived from those Inspirations so long as economic life was based mainly on the soil, agriculture, animal husbandry and so on. Based on their special relationship with the land, human beings bore in their hearts something that went out to meet what came towards them from theocracy.

Once trade and commerce began to play a greater role in human evolution this changed. We can only understand the oldest theocracies if we know that essentially all economic life rests on the human being’s sense of belonging to the land and the soil, and that trade and commerce are merely superimposed on top of this. They existed, of course, but in the way they developed they followed on from what related to the soil, to agriculture. Looking at human evolution we can see how trade and commerce emancipated themselves from agriculture, initially in ancient Greece and much more so in the days of the old Roman Empire. Roman life as a whole received its characteristic configuration from the way the activities of trade and commerce became an independent element in the social structure.

The significance of this emancipation for people in the Roman Empire deeply touched the hearts of the Gracchi, Tiberius Sempronius and Gaius Sempronius, and the words they found with which to express what was in their hearts led to the great social struggles of Roman times. In fact the first social movement leading to strikes had taken place in ancient Rome when the plebeians streamed out to the ‘sacred mountain’ to demand their rights. That was when the urge arose to push for new social forms for the future.

Then for the first time it was noticed that something independent had arisen, something that had up to then been an integral part of the whole social structure, and this was the human being’s labour, which brings into being a specific relationship between one individual and another. When an individual is told by the commandments that he is more lowly than another, he does not ask how he ought to arrange his work since this arises naturally from the relationship between the two. But when labour manifests as something that has emancipated itself and become independent the question arises: How do I relate to my fellow human beings in a way that enables my labour to be integrated within the social structure in the right way? Trade, commerce and labour are the three economic factors that stimulate human beings to bring to birth their legal rights and also an independent morality, a morality that has been separated off from religion. So human beings felt the need to let two streams flow from the single stream of theocracy. Theocracy was allowed to continue, and a second stream, the stream of the military life and specifically of the law, then flowed along beside it.

So as eastern culture spread towards Europe we see how under the influence of trade, commerce and labour the ancient theocratic ideas moved over into legalistic thinking. We see how in place of old situations that were not legalistic at all legalistic conditions developed to regulate questions of ownership and other matters that express the relationship between one individual and another. (You must try to understand what this means in relation to ancient Mosaic legislation.)

The seeds for this were sown at the time of the Gracchi, and these germinated later in Diocletian’s day. You can see how the second stream gradually established itself alongside the first and how this expressed itself in human life as a whole.

In the ancient theocracies over in the East the spiritual knowledge human beings were to have about the supersensible worlds was self-evident theosophy. Theo-Sophia is the concrete wisdom that was received through Inspiration.

Then, when the stream moved on towards Europe, jurisprudence came to join it. Jurisprudence cannot be a ‘sophia’ for it is not something that is received through Inspiration; it is something that human beings have to work out for themselves through the way one individual relates to another. The capacity to form judgements is what counts. So ‘sophia’ was replaced by logic, and the jurisprudence that was then poured into the whole social structure became predominantly logical. Logic and dialectic triumphed not so much in science as in the life of the law, and the whole of human life became squeezed into this second stream, this logic. The concept of ownership, the concept of personal rights, all such concepts were realized as logical categories.

This second stream was so powerful that it began to colour the first, thus turning ‘theo-sophia’ into ‘theo-logia’. The first stream came to be influenced by the second. So then, side by side with a well-tried ‘theo-sophia>—who, a little less lively and somewhat skinnier than she had been in her youth, had turned into a ‘theo-logia’—there came into being a ‘jurisprudentia’ as well. This jurisprudence encompassed everything that emerged in various disguises right up to the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth century, and it is still at work in the whole of economic life.

It was at work in Adam Smith, even though his concern was the economic life. Read Adam Smith while retaining your sense of how legalistic thinking continues to rumble on. The economic life was beginning to arise, but it was into the old concepts of jurisprudence——obviously these concepts Were old by then—that he tried to squeeze the economic life and its complications arising out of the way scientific thinking had taken hold of technology and so on.

So for a while in the civilized world two streams developed. There was ‘theo-logia’, which on the one hand flowed into science; it is easily proved how the later sciences developed out of ‘theo-logia’. But meanwhile human beings had learnt to think dialectically and logically, and this, t00, they poured into science. This is how modern times have come into being. Social and economic conditions are developing an overwhelming complexity. People are still accustomed to thinking theologically and legalistically, and this they are now applying to science on top of everything else. The scientists have failed to notice this. When they put their eye to a microscope Or study the starry heavens through a telescope, or when they dissect a lower animal in order to study its organism, it does not occur to them that they are applying a historical phase of human thinking rather than anything absolute. In recent times this scientific thinking has most certainly been taking over human civilization. One is expected to think scientifically about everything, and this has become a habit not only amongst the well-educated, for it is rife in the whole of humanity down to the simplest people.

I hope you will not misunderstand me when I make the following observation. When we discuss things in the way 1 have been doing over the past few days with regard to education one must include spiritual aspects that can illumine the scientific aspect. But people educated in science react by presuming that there can be no truth in things that are not written down in a book on physiology or pronounced from the rostrum in the physiology department. They do not assume that things that cannot be pronounced in this way, things that I have said with regard to scientific matters, have in fact all been checked and that full account has been taken of what the physiology books and the professor on the rostrum tell us. But people today cannot discern how one thing develops from another. As a result today’s science which is so brilliant and which is fully recognized by anthroposophy becomes a hindrance not because of what it says but as a result of the way people see it. In fact you can use the latest developments in human evolution to demonstrate clearly the way in which it has become a hindrance.

Karl Marx is well known to you by name. In recent times he has spoken about social life in a way that has impressed millions and millions of people. How did he speak? He spoke in a way that a representative of the scientific age is bound to speak on social matters.

Let us imagine how this representative of the age is bound to speak. The scientist has thoughts in his head, but he is not too concerned with them. He only begins to take them into account when they have been verified by what he sees under the microscope or by some other experiment or observation. What he observes must be kept entirely separate from himself, it must not be linked with himself in any way but must come from outside. So someone who thinks scientifically is bound to see an abyss between his own thinking and whatever comes to him from outside.

Karl Marx learnt this way of thinking that one wants to keep separate from the outside world not quite from the newest science but in a somewhat older form, namely, Hegelian dialectics. In fact this is only a slightly different colouring of scientific thinking. While he was learning this scientific way of thinking he was living within his own surroundings. But as a representative of the scientific age he could make nothing of it. As a German he was at home within the German way of thinking logically and dialectically. But he was unable to make anything of his thoughts, just as the scientist cannot make anything of his thoughts but has to wait and see what the microscope or telescope will show him, namely, something from outside. Karl Marx was incapable of doing anything with his thoughts, and as he was unable to escape from inside his own skin he escaped from Germany instead and came to England. Here he found himself confronted with external social conditions just as the scientist is confronted by the microscope or telescope. Now he had a world outside of himself. This enabled him to speak and establish a social theory in a scientific way, just as the scientist establishes his theory—and since people are totally immersed in this way of thinking he became immensely popular.

When one talks about human beings in terms of external nature—as Karl Marx did—then human beings, including the social conditions in which they live, are made to look as though they were in fact nature. I can say what I have to say about Jupiter, about the violet, about the earthworm equally well in Iceland, in New Zealand, in England, in Russia or anywhere else. There is no need for me to speak in concrete terms, for everything must be kept general.

So if you establish a social theory along scientific lines it seems that this is something that has validity all over the world and can be applied anywhere. In fact the main characteristic of the legalistic political way of thinking—of which Marxism is merely the culmination—is that it wants to take general abstractions and apply them anywhere. You will find this even where there is as yet no sign of socialist thought, but only a legalistic, logical way of thinking, as in Kant with his categorical imperative which is also perhaps known to you as something from beyond your shores.

Ladies and gentlemen, this categorical imperative states: Act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be valid for all people.?! Such a thing has no application in real life, for you cannot say to someone: Get the tailor to make you a jacket that will fit anyone. This is the logical model on which old-fashioned legalistic, political thinking is founded, and it has reached its culmination in Marxist social thought.

So you see how what Marx observed scientifically by applying his German thinking to the English economic situation was initially realized. This he then transported back to Central Europe where it lived in people’s will impulses. Subsequently it was also carried further eastwards where the ground had even been prepared for this application of something totally abstract to real human situations. In the east Peter the Great had even prepared the ground for Marx. Peter had already inserted western thinking into Russian life. Even though Russia bore many oriental traits in its soul while its people were still steeped in theocracy he brought in legalistic, political thinking and side by side with Moscow set up St Petersburg further to the west.

People overlooked the fact that here were two worlds, that St Petersburg was Europe and Moscow was Russia where pure oriental theocracy still had a profound role to play. So when Soloviev created a philosophy it was theosophical rather than dialectic and scientific like that of Herbert Spencer. Soloviev belonged to Moscow, not St Petersburg. Not that things in Russia can be divided neatly in accordance with geography. However much he remains attached to Moscow, however far eastwards he might travel, Dostoevski belongs to St Petersburg.?® Experiences in Russia take account of the interplay between St Petersburg and Moscow. Theocratically speaking, Moscow is Asia, even today, while St Petersburg is Europe.

St Petersburg had been prepared in a legalistic, political way for what Leninism perpetrated in Russia when something that was the final outcome of the Western European soul was impressed upon the Russian soul, to which it was completely foreign. It was so abstract, so foreign that what Lenin>® did in Russia might just as well have been done on the moon. He could have chosen anywhere else, but he happened to want to rule Russia.

So conditions have arisen that we entirely fail to understand in a concrete way if we only look at the social situation. We must make an effort to understand them in a concrete way, ladies and gentlemen. We must understand that in human evolution the spiritual, cultural life came before legalistic, political life which established itself as a second stream beside the first one. We must understand that the time has perhaps now arrived for something new to happen, something that goes beyond the way the legalistic life has coloured ‘theosophia’ and transformed it into ‘theo-logia’. Perhaps it is time for spiritual, cultural life to reawaken in a new form.

The fact is that in human evolution many aspects of the spiritual, cultural life have retained the forms they had in olden times. Not only cap and gown but also thought forms have remained. These thought forms no longer fit in with a world in which trade, commerce and labour have emancipated themselves in a way that has left the spiritual, cultural life behind as a separate aspect alongside the rest of life. This is more the case the further west one travels.

It is least of all the case in the Russia of Moscow. In Central Europe all the struggles, including the social ones, concern the fact that people cannot find a proper way of relating the dialectical, legalistic, political element with the theocratic element. They cannot work out whether cap and gown should be retained when the judge takes his seat or whether they should be discarded. Lawyers are already rather embarrassed by having to wear gowns, while judges still find they enhance their dignity. People cannot decide. There is a fierce struggle going on about this in Central Europe. In Western Europe the theocratic element has become strongly preserved in thought forms.

Nevertheless, there is no getting away from the fact that the second stream has established itself in human evolution. On the one hand there are those who—symptomatically speaking—have retained the ancient ways including cap and gown. But now people want to see them take these off in order to find out what they are wearing underneath. Whether it be a king’s mantle or a soldier’s cloak it will have to be something that does justice to a legalistic situation, a political situation. When we meet such people in the street we want to remove their cap and gown in order to see them as complete individuals; underneath we want to find a kind of soldier’s cloak or some garment that would be appropriate for a solicitor’s office. Then we should see before us both the streams living side by side within the person.

I must confess—in jest, of course, although I mean it quite seriously—that when I meet someone in the street wearing a cap and gown I cannot help asking myself whether such a person would know whether the next letter he writes should bear the date of 768 BC or—if perhaps the gown conceals a legal scholar—ap 1265. It is difficult to decide on a date, since the distant past and the medium past appear side by side in two streams. The last to occur to me would be today’s date, for there is no question of taking the present time into consideration just yet. The two different pasts relate to one another as does Moscow to St Petersburg.

We are faced with the question of how the aspects that proceed side by side today can be brought into a meaningful organizational structure. We shall see how the twofoldness about which I have been speaking leads on to a threefolding in modern times, a threefolding in which the three elements also proceed side by side.

When I speak of threefolding, ladies and gentlemen, I do not mean that there is at present a beautiful unity in social life which we are to cut into three pieces so that three elements can evolve side by side. I mean that a threefoldness already exists, just as it does in the human being who has a system of head and nerves, a thythmic system, and a system of metabolism. The three must function properly together, however, and to each must be assigned what belongs to it. If the digestive system works too little, leaving too much for the head to do, the result is all kinds of migraine-like disorders.

If the spiritual, cultural element—which is the head in the social organism—does not function well, leaving too much to the economic element, then all kinds of social ills will ensue.

To observe social life in depth we have to see such things in the context of human evolution, for this is the best way of avoiding superficiality. We must succeed in putting cap and gown into a context that enables us to conceive of two different historical dates as being one inside the other. This then becomes the present time. Otherwise the past remains the past with its two streams flowing side by side and continuing to be the fundamental cause of the social ills present in the world today, even though people do not wish to see it like this. There will be some more to say in the third part of my lecture.

Ladies and gentlemen, as it has grown rather late I will be brief in what I still have to tell you today. This will bring us up to the present time and I shall save the greater part for the next lecture.

From the beginning of the fifteenth to sixteenth century, but most clearly from the nineteenth century onwards, the two streams I have been describing came to be accompanied more and more by a third one. This has become increasingly apparent the further civilization and culture have moved westwards. To what was originally theocratic and adapted to the land and the soil, to agriculture, there was added in the middle regions the legalistic element adapted to trade, commerce and labour. And now in the West a further element has come to join these, the element that later came to be termed industry, everything industrial including all the technical things this involves.

Consider what the introduction of the actual industrial element into human evolution has meant. It would be an easy calculation to adapt what I am about to say to present-day conditions, but I shall refer to an earlier point in time, roughly the 1880s. At that time it was said that the population of the world amounted to 1,500 million human beings. But this was not a correct calculation of the earth’s population. It would have been correct for the most ancient antiquity when virtually every individual laboured manually in some way, or with something closely connected to human life such as guiding the plough or leading the horse and so on. But by the nineteenth century another entirely new population had entered the world, namely, the machines that relieved human beings of a part of their labour. Even for the 1880s if you calculate the amount of labour from which human beings had been relieved by machines you arrive at a world population of 2,000 million, about a quarter more. Today—and this was much more so before the War—if we count the number of human beings on the earth purely physically, we arrive at a completely erroneous total. To accord with the amount of work done we have to add another 500 million human beings.

This has indeed added an entirely new element to the ancient theocratic and legalistic streams, an entirely new stream, in fact, for instead of bringing human beings closer to their environment it has thrown them back upon themselves. In the Middle Ages one part of the human being was, let’s say, the key he had just crafted, or even the entire lock. What a human being did passed over into his work. But when a person is operating a machine he does not much care what kind of a relationship he has with that machine—relatively speaking, of course. So he is turned more and more in upon himself. He experiences his humanity. The human being now enters evolution as an entirely new being, for he is detaching himself from what he does externally.

This is the democratic element that has been arising in the West over the last few centuries, but so far it is only a requirement, a postulate, and not something that has been fully realized. These conditions are overwhelming people, for they are only capable of thinking in a theocratic or a legalistic manner. Yet life is becoming more and more industrialized and commercialized and confronting human beings with overwhelming demands. They have not penetrated this with their thoughts. Even someone like Marx thought only legalistically, and the manner in which millions and millions of people have come to understand him is merely legalistic.

In this way, then, a third stream, about which we shall speak tomorrow, has come to join the other two. The proletarian human being is born, and what rumbles in the inner being of this proletarian comes to life in a particular conception of capitalism, of labour. Life itself is forcing human beings to come to grips with these problems and only now can we really say that human evolution has reached the present time.

There stands the man in his cap and gown, handsome and lordly, radiating towards us from the far past. And there stands the man with his soldier’s cloak and sword as an embodiment of the legalistic element—for the soldierly aspect is only another side of the legalistic—belonging to the more recent past but not yet to the present. We might even take the man in cap and gown for a good lawyer as well, since this is the image he has been presenting to humanity for centuries, and the uncomfortable fit is therefore not yet too noticeable for us. But if he were to plant himself into economic life—well, unless he is able to enter this fully despite his cap and gown, then I fear his only achievement will be to lose his money. People have in general not yet succeeded in entering upon what this third stream means in life, and neither has humanity as a whole. That is why the social question confronts us as a question for all humanity. The human being finds himself placed beside the machine. We must grasp the social question not as an economic problem, but as one concerning humanity as a whole, and we must understand that it is within the human sphere that we have to solve it.

As yet we lack the necessary thought impulses such as existed for the theocratic and the legalistic streams. We do not yet have such thought impulses for the economic stream. Today’s struggles are all about finding thought impulses for the economic stream such as existed for the theocratic and the legalistic stream. This is the main content of the social question today, and large-scale beneficial solutions are proving even more difficult to come by than are small-scale ones. States that have suddenly been confronted with having to take on an industrial economic life tried to encompass it within the old legalistic forms. Having failed to do this they have now found a kind of safety-valve that is enabling them to avoid allowing the economic life to develop in a real way alongside the life of the state. This safety-valve is colonization. Having failed to find vigorous social ideas within, they sought evasive action in founding colonies.

This worked for England but not for Germany. Germany undoubtedly failed to encompass its industrialization because it was unsuccessful in founding colonies. The great question facing humanity today is: How is the human being to cope with industrialization in the way he once coped with theocratic life and then with legalistic life?

People today think that a purely materialistic solution can be found for this great problem. Everyone wants to solve it on the basis of economic life. I intend to show the modest beginnings of a spiritual way in which it can be solved. This is what I shall speak about in the next two lectures.

The last time we gathered here I was able to speak to you of the deep foundations underlying the ideas of the Threefold Commonwealth. I was able to carry the lecture far enough for us to see in what sense one may say that we are living at the present time in a definite period of transition. You will not misunderstand that remark, for I have often told you that when I talk of a transition it is not meant in the trivial sense in which people often speak when they talk about living in a period of transition. Naturally as I have often said, every period is a period of transition from what went before to what is to follow. The essential thing is to direct our attention to what is changing. And from that point of view there are more important and less important moments in the great world evolution of mankind. And it is clear that beneath the surface, as it were, of outer events something is happening in our time with respect to enormously important impulses of human evolution. In my last lecture I drew your attention to the fact that one must see into the so-called unconscious, or subconscious, of the human being if one would recognize what is really vitally involved in the transition mankind is undergoing today. Not much in our consciousness today tells us about the evolution of mankind in general, although we are living precisely in that world-age in which a development of the consciousness-soul is normal for the individual. Mankind as a whole, as distinguished from the individual, is in this age passing through a development of inner soul and spiritual forces, and for that reason the development is more in the subconscious. For mankind as a whole we must look for the most important forces of transition in the subconscious; while for the individual, we will find the most important forces today in the tendency to develop complete consciousness. In the individual an instinctive, more naive soul-life is changing more and more to a conscious soul-life; in mankind as a whole, however, an important change is taking place unconsciously, without the individual often being aware of it unless he has deepened his vision by work in spiritual science.

This vital change, this most important happening, is not so easy to describe, for our language has been made fundamentally for the purpose of reproducing outer sense reality in the soul. This makes it difficult for us to describe precisely, or adequately, something that does not belong to sense reality, but to supersense existence. Often one has to make use of comparisons—not abstract ones but such as you are well acquainted with in spiritual science, where one phenomenon of life is placed by the aide of another so that one will throw light on another. If such comparisons are used it must at the same time be made very clear that only flexible thinking, thinking that does not stamp the concepts, the words, into a set shape, in really compatible with the sense of what is presented. If I want to characterize the most important thing that is happening to mankind as a whole at the present moment of world evolution (I have already pointed it out) I must compare it with the experience that an individual has (consciously, however) when he crosses the threshold, as it is called, into the supersense world. You all know from the description I have given of this individual experience in my book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment that the crossing of the threshold is an event of deepest significance for the human being. On this side of the threshold is the sense world for man's consciousness, and on the other, the supersense world. Truly, on that other side everything is different from things of the sense world here. And man experiences something there that is named by those who went through the same experience in the manner of former ages in the significant words, “passing through the gate of death”. Indeed, he who crosses the threshold has to learn to know death in its reality. He has to become acquainted with death in its meaning for humanity.

Now you know from the description which I have given in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds that in this crossing of the threshold the entire soul being of man goes through a transformation—but only, of course, for those times in which one remains consciously in the supersense world. The constitution of soul that one has here in the sense world, that is suited to life, to work and action, in the sense world: one cannot come into the supersense world with that. Here in the sense world our soul forces are as it were melted together, so that we never have the experience in our sense life of these soul forces being separated. Anyone who did not have a certain amount of willing in his soul at the same time that he was thinking, even though in a latent form, would not be really healthy physically. We are not in a position in our sense life to separate these three soul forces one from another, so that really we never develop a pure isolated thought, or a pure isolated feeling, or a pure isolated willing. In our conceptions, feelings, actions, and will, these three soul forces are still interwoven always, mixed up with one another. But as soon as we cross the threshold into the supersense world—that is, as soon as we get our soul to the stage where we are actually surrounded by supersense beings, by supersense deeds of these beings, just as formerly we were surrounded by a world of sense things and sense happenings—then, my friends, then there takes place in our soul an absolute separation of thinking, feeling, and willing. As you hove been able to gather from the description in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, a man must have so schooled himself that he is able then to summon sufficient power to hold together with his ego these three elements of the soul life, thinking, feeling, and willing:—otherwise he would split up into three persons.

Yes, my dear friends, one meets with a significant experience of inner activity when one has crossed the threshold; this finding oneself within in the most enhanced activity of the ego, in the highest manifestation of the ego, for the purpose of holding together the separated soul forces, thinking, feeling, and willing. And that accounts for the fear that a faint- hearted man today feels: fear of actual supersense knowledge, fear before the highest kind of inner soul activity. He would like all of his activity to be of such a kind as is aroused by the outer world and has effect in the outer world. Inner activity is not yet natural to him; more and more it must be developed by him for the future. And so, because at first this development is a task, because it is not actually already inherent, man is afraid, man is cautious about entering the supersense world. Unconsciously he is afraid of himself (if I may so express it) in face of the exertion necessary there to hold the separated soul forces together.

I am picturing this inner experience of the individual in order to have some way by which to characterize for you that which is happening in this age inside the soul life—and you know that one can speak of such a thing—of mankind as a whole. That which I have just described as an individual's experience when crossing the threshold into the supersense world is naturally a fully conscious experience for him, much more so then any conscious experience of his ordinary waking day consciousness. It is a heightened consciousness in which one crosses the threshold and in which one perceives in the supersense world the threefold nature of the human soul being. Something similar to that—but now not consciously—the whole of mankind is going through in the present age as a cosmic historical experience. It is not noticed, this unconscious process that is going on in all mankind, unless one in studying consciously in spiritual science. You know our age is the fifth since the great Atlantean catastrophe which made the configuration of our earth surface as it now exists. We are living in the fifth post-Atlantean period; and in this period mankind must go through in its evolution as a whole something similar to what the crossing of the threshold into the supersense world is for an individual. Mankind as a whole, I said, in its cosmic—or we can say if we like terrestrial—evolution, is crossing a threshold on one side of which, or in other words, for the time preceding which, an entirely different kind of world conception and knowledge was necessary for mankind as a whole than is necessary on the other side, or in other words, for the time afterward.

This process going on in the unconscious of all mankind today is what one must discover through spiritual science. It shows also how necessary spiritual science is to mankind today. For the crossing of this threshold must truly not remain in the unconscious. Men must become aware of it, otherwise they will sleep right through, or at least dream right through, an event that is very important for them. And this fifth post-Atlantean period is the very period in which we should be extending consciousness. But we cannot extend our consciousness of the most vital thing that is happening to mankind in any other way then by rising out of mere sense-science into spiritual science.

If you think about this, my dear friends, you will perhaps remember something that has been said again and again in the course of spiritual scientific, lectures which have been held now for such a long time in Stuttgart.

You remember I have had to emphasize this fact again and again: that Spiritual Science, as it is meant here, is not just something as it were to satisfy an individual's subjective thirst for knowledge. Spiritual Science is something that is connected with the taking up in thought, feeling, and will, of the fundamental impulse of mankind for our time. Therefore activity in spiritual science should not be a mere satisfying of an individual's longing for the newest thing, nor a mere satisfying of his desire, for knowledge. Spiritual Science should be the fulfilling of a certain duty that one has toward mankind as a whole, in order that it shall realize what is going on precisely at this moment in the depths of its evolution.

I showed you when I spoke to you last time that certain individuals who have a degree of external cleverness developed by the scientific training of the present day, are definitely aware of a phenomenon that is present in mankind in this epoch and that corresponds to something in the depths of mankind of which they are not aware. I showed you how such individuals as for example Fritz Mauthner, say that first and foremost in man is his sense perception; and that that is the only true reality of which one can speak. He reflects this reality in its highest form by his creation in art of the beautiful and the sublime. But it does not permit him to arrive at any satisfaction. He wants to penetrate things more deeply. If he tries to penetrate into the being of things through his inner self, then—Mauthner says—he does not arrive at a real contact with the true being of the world, but only comes to dreaming—dreaming which may be pleasing because he imagines it is connected with the central forces of the world, but which nevertheless, so far as knowing is concerned, is after all just dreams, just mysticism. Mysticism then is, for these persons, the second stage of man's inner soul-striving. Then they assert that mysticism is, from their point of view, dream knowledge, they are right, because they deny a supersense knowledge. The third stage, for Fritz Mauthner, is man's struggle to attain knowledge by busying himself with natural laws, historical laws, etc.; and he describes all that as docta ignorantia, on the ground that when we think we know something through science we are not merely dreaming, as in mysticism, but sleeping—sleeping as compared with what would be a real contact with the central forces of the world. Thus persons like Fritz Mauthner think that at the most man has a waking sense perception and can ennoble it through art; that he is doomed to dream when he attempts to connect himself with true reality in religion or mysticism through his inner nature; and that he is doomed to sleep when he believes he is connecting himself with things in any way through science and wisdom.

My dear friends, speaking in an absolute sense, that is all a mistake. But speaking relatively of the special soul-condition that mankind has evolved through the 19th century into the 20th century, speaking quite specifically of this mankind and not of mankind in general, it is a truth. With the means that natural scientific knowledge has made great, by which we have come to such a shipwreck of the social older, with those means the only possible soul life is what Fritz Mauthner has described; that is, the three stages—waking, in sense perception; dreaming, in mysticism; and sleeping, in science.

Such a man as Fritz Mauthner feels the crossing of the threshold by mankind as a whole. Whoever has read his Critique of Speech in which he criticizes not only concepts but speech itself -- or the two thick volumes of his Philosophical Dictionary, or even one or two of the articles in it (it is arranged alphabetically)—that person knows the soul condition he gets into as a result of this very work of Mauthner. I suggest especially—you will perhaps only be grateful for my suggestion from one point of view—that you read the article on “Christianity” in this Dictionary of Philosophy—or the article “Res Publican”, or “Goethe's Wisdom”, or “Immortality”. Everywhere you will have the feeling: first one reads a sentence; in the second sentence what one has just read is modified; in the third the modified statement is again modified; in the fourth one gets back to the first; in the fifth the entire thing is picked up again with all the assertions and modifications included. One undergoes a twisting of one's whole intellectual, rational, and soul system, and it is frightful what one experiences after such a reading. It is a frightful inner soul torture. And if one describes the inner soul torture that a man experiences after such reading—man, that is, who has sufficient courage to admit the final outcome of the present day condition of soul (there are many who have not that courage)—then in the exposing criticism that one would make, and such as I have just made, one will not be censuring Fritz Mauthner, for his very article is a confession that he suffers from the same condition of soul himself. For he says: With human knowledge one can come to nothing else than a kind of “spirit dance” in which one does not discover oneself. He mistakes the lack of knowledge that became necessary in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century for a supposed absolute incapacity for knowledge in all mankind.

What actually is the truth? Something quite different from what Mauthner believes.

In former ages, as you know, in the clairvoyance of Atlantean times, man did not dream in mysticism but had contact through mystic knowledge with reality. Also, he did not merely sleep in wisdom. We realize from what still remains of older wisdom, Plato, for instance—that they knew things to tell mankind. In Aristotle, that is already no longer true. Mankind of former ages did not have just a docta ignorantia; it had a wisdom in which it was connected with the central forces of he world, that are at the same time the central forces of the human being. But these faculties ebbed away. They had to, in order that man might then seek within himself for those strong powers that were previously given him by spiritual beings without any effort on his part. Today we are crossing the threshold, mankind as a whole; and we must develop out of our inner self the power with which to awaken mysticism, which otherwise by its very nature sleeps within us—by our own power to call mysticism from its dreaming to an experience of the spirit; and also by our inner activity, inner force, to raise what is otherwise dead abstract science to actual experience of supersense spiritual reality. Today, my dear friends, this is in our power. We must undertake the necessary training.

And men who are are willing to accept spiritual science will, like Fritz Mauthner, be obliged to experience the tragic soul condition that has been a necessary accompaniment to the evolving of man's inner forces. Men like Mauthner, who do feel such things and yet are not willing to accept spiritual science, will indeed have to despair of all possibility of contact with the central forces of existence which are at the same time the central forces of the human being. Therefore they will have to despair of the possibility of any knowledge of life. My dear friends, if you think earnestly of what I have just said, will you not have to say to yourselves: Man is confronted today in his evolution, through the fact of his unconscious crossing of the threshold, by a mighty test. It is that indeed. For if he will not develop activity of soul, intense activity of soul, then he is condemned to sink into inactivity, passiveness, and thereby into unbelief in existence—at the very least into some degree of uncertainty—when he considers his place in the whole current of world evolution. That is approximately the soul-condition of men of whom Mauthner is a type.

There are many such men in the present day; but Mauthner had sufficient inner courage to acknowledge it in many writings, while others are in the same condition of soul and do not acknowledge it. He finally had sufficient resignation to retire to Southern Bavaria after he had spent his whole life in journalism as a profession; and there he thought out the Critique of Speech, his book of bitter doubt of human knowledge; then afterwards he wrote his Philosophical Dictionary. He has withdrawn, but he still writes all kinds of articles that truly no more than his book tend to lead to a positive, forceful position within human evolution. They always show a kind of despair of the possibility of one's really comprehending existence, because as a matter of fact one cannot comprehend existence through knowledge. He has finally accepted the consequence, he has given in and withdrawn to a profession that to him is equivalent to journalism, and in which one can be a skeptic, a pessimist.

But there are pupils of Fritz Mauthner who have not been so resigned. Let us ask, what will become definitely, what will become of these pupils who subscribe wholeheartedly to Mauthner's conception of life? They will never be able to arrive at a living comprehension of reality at any comprehension that can penetrate reality fruitfully. They are unable to adapt themselves to life when they are placed in it. Fritz Mauthner got out of it. They only comprehend the sense life, and they believe that anything that goes on outside of that is only a dream or sleep. Look at one of these pupils of Mauthner—Gustav Landauer, for instance—noble, upright, but altogether useless or the social life of the present day. He is a real pupil of Fritz Mauthner. It is not enough today merely to judge life from the surface. We are confronted with tasks that can only be master- edit we are willing to go down into the foundations of life. We may not seek thought impulses today for a new social order—as do such men as I have described—out of whet the time has already brought. No we must seek even social impulses out of the age that is dawning, out of the impulses that are just arising, the impulses of spiritual knowledge. Otherwise we will not arrive at real social impulses. Then when they are found, they can be comprehended, like all spiritual scientific knowledge by a healthy human understanding. It is in such a sense that I wanted to speak of the Threefold Commonwealth.

Today it is essential that men learn to speak in all things with deepest earnestness, first for true self knowledge, secondly for true world knowledge.

Consider Spiritual Science, as it is meant here, from the most varied points of view. Certainly the need for self knowledge and the need for world knowledge are emphasized by it, just as in abstract mysticism and in much abstract occultism. But they are spoken of in a different way. And in that way I should like to write the very heart of our time: One can never attain real self knowledge without seeking this self knowledge through world knowledge. Brooding within oneself does not bring self knowledge. World knowledge must first discipline one so that one can then come to self knowledge. Also, one cannot attain world knowledge without making the way through one's self. World knowledge is not possible without self knowledge. The two things seem to contradict each other, perhaps, but this contradiction is living and fruitful. No world knowledge without self knowledge, no self knowledge without world knowledge. It is like the swinging of a pendulum back and forth. Man must seek continually in his life the swing of the pendulum from self experience to world experience, from world experience to self experience. That will give the strength of soul, that inner activity of soul, which becomes today, and in the future will become, ever more and more necessary to all mankind. Because it is so very easy today for men to brood within themselves, out of a certain egoism that is natural in this age of the development of the consciousness-soul; for that reason they have fallen in love with abstractions. They themselves cannot really judge correctly how strong their love is, in this age, for mere abstractions. For that reason it is all-important—in order to cross the threshold which I have described in the right way—that we arouse ourselves from a mere abstraction-necessity, a mere thought-necessity, to fact. From mere abstract knowledge to an experiencing of fact. To a thinking within ourselves that is not mere thoughts but that sinks us into the things, that thinks with the things and events of the world. Only then can we wake to the present.

I will give you an example of what I mean. But first I would say that, you should not interpret what I am going to say as if, when I have to characterize this or that world conception, I wanted also to take a stand against them. I only want to characterize, not criticize. What one calls “the natural scientific world conception”, or thinking orientated in the direction of natural science, has evolved in a way that I have characterized for you from most varied points of view. It has finally reached such an outlook as Mauthner's; and it has expressed itself in other variations. I wonder whether you remember a man whom I mentioned here once years ago in another connection: the man who wanted to describe the difficulty of self knowledge in one of his books called An Analysis of Experience. He wants to describe the external difficulty of self knowledge, and for that purpose gives two instances of his having been thoroughly illusioned with respect to knowledge of his own external self. Once, he says, he was walking up the street and suddenly someone was approaching him (the writer was a professor), and he thought to himself, “What a strange looking school master that is coming toward me! The person was very unattractive to him, he says. Then he noticed what actually had occurred: he cam in front of a show window and found he was facing himself in the glass. On another occasion he got into an onmibus. Opposite the door by which he entered was a mirror. He was extremely tired. He sw the image and said to himself:“What a funny looking tramp that is coming in the opposite door!” It took him a long time to realize that it was himself. There is the tale, and you will be able to judge that after all here is a man to be taken seriously: Ernst Mach, who from a natural researcher became a philosopher. He has various pupils. His world conception is not unlike Mauthner's except that he came less to uncertainty, less to skepticism; he simply believes in the play-quality of thought. The ego itself is merely a myth to him, as also to Mauthner, only Mach is content. One must study Ernst Mach, and then become acquainted with his life and his whole personality. I remember when I saw him for the first time, in the Vienna Academy of Science, where he was giving a special lecture on the Economy of Thinking, in the course of which he explained all thinking as merely an arrangement according to the principle of the smallest amount of force. I was greatly enraged at the time by this presentation of the thought process. Afterwards he elaborated the theory and wrote his books, and they had a great influence over many people. One who knows his life knows that he was undoubtedly a very excellent citizen, obedient to the city he served throughout his teaching career, and in his teachings a typical example of the thinking that has evolved in recent times.

I might name another similar thinker. Mach himself did not teach in Zurich, but a pupil of his, Adler—the same Adler who shot the Austrian minister Stürgkle. But there was even a much more abstract thinker in Zurich, and his world conception was very similar to the philosophy of Mach—Richard Avenarius. I shall not recommend that you read his books; You would throw them away after the second page. They are written in unintelligible language. And the most unintelligible thing for you would be, how it happens that so very many people have wormed their way into Avenarius's books and have formed a world conception out of his philosophy.

You see, these are extreme cases to show you the difference between a logic of mere abstract thoughts and a logic of fact. Avenarius was also in his life a good middle-class citizen, an excellent citizen of the state in the best sense of the word. But such people as Ernst Mach, his pupil Adler, in whom it was even more apparent, and Avenarius—let us take just Mach and Avenarius—they feel nothing of that logic of fact within which they stand through their on actions. For, look you, what became of the world-conception of this Ernst Mach, solid Bourgeois teacher? What became of it? It became the political philosophy of the Bolshevists; it is the world-conception that lies at the bottom of Bolshevism. Only it went through other human temperaments, through other human soul conditions. That is the actual consequence! The consequence according to fact-logic, of what Ernst Mach and Avenarius taught. It was not just by external chance that some gifted young Russians studied with Avenarius and then with Adler in Zurich; and that then this philosophy happened to be carried over into Russia. No, there is an inner spiritual connection there. It can only be grasped by one who does not think about things, but who thinks in things; he then knows that no system of abstract logical consequences leads from Avenarius and Mach to Lenin and Trotsky, but only a very living logic leads from one to the other. Those are the things upon which so much depends today. They are only comprehensible to one who has sufficient earnestness to study fro the inside how things become, how things metamorphose. We have come to a time when inner life is complicated: when anyone can believe, just as Mach and Avenarius did, that he is a law-abiding man who lives only “on the heights in spiritual serenity”, and does not for a moment suspect that his teachings are capable of becoming political dynamite when they are passed on to other minds.

The great call to men today is to develop in themselves a sense for the deeper connections of life. Without that sense we can go no further. If we want to arrive at fruitful social, ideas then we must not search, as Mach and Avenarius did, for the dead ruins of old self-annihilated world-conceptions. We must turn to the new structure, the world-conception that can only be found in Spiritual Science and that alone understands how to ask: That kind of social order must come, since from now on man, as he passes through the world, will be ever more and more threefolded in his inner nature—for that is how he is crossing the threshold. The external social order must also be threefold. Then outer and inner fact will correspond. This threefolding, if one will really examine it earnestly through Spiritual Science, is not something invented; it is something, that has been learnt from listening to the actual inner metamorphosis of mankind as it moves from the present into the future.

Among all the necessities confronting the man of the present day, is this one: that he develop the willingness to concern himself with the spiritual world; that he develop first of all the willingness so to observe himself—that he is able to see the spiritual man that is underneath. The materialism of natural science has not been worthless. It has been significant and useful even in the form of Haeckelism. That is all a test that must be undergone. It classes man with the animals, because with respect to practically everything that it considers important, man appears to be nothing more than a highly developed animal. However, as soon as we begin to consider man in his relation to the world with respect to self knowledge, then at once the thing is different. Then facts which before were of no importance become important, and vice versa. From a certain perspective a new light streams upon the whole being of man. We know it is a fact (and the exceptions only teach more bout the fact) that the animal walks about the earth with his backbone parallel to the earth's surface. Man makes himself erect in the very first period of his life; he places his body, or his backbone, at right angles with the earth's surface, and thereby forms a cross with the earth's surface and also a cross with the position of the animal's backbone. That fact expresses clearly man's relation to the outside world. It is different from the animal's relation. Of course you can read in Haeckel: Man has just as many bones and muscles as the higher animals. But there are other things to he compared which in an intuitive, or, better, an imaginative grasp of various relations between them, demonstrate the common form of the cosmos and the earth; and this manner of comprehension of the human form is more important than counting bones and muscles, more important than what comparative morphology has to say about man.

I could say a great deal in this connection that would show you,that where the old world conception which has ripened such thought-habits in man as have plunged him into his present misfortune—that where this thinking and these thought-habits end, now a new world conception must begin which, for instance, will comprehend the human form. Then it will give a spiritual view of the world that will fructify the independent spiritual member of the social organism. And at a still higher stage one will have a living knowledge of that existence which is always around us, the “open secret”, as Goethe called it. From there one will rise to an “awakening” such as I have described in my books, Human Riddles and Soul Riddles; one will rise beyond mere comprehension of the relation of the human form to the cosmos to the stage that is actual participation in the great rhythmic swing of the cosmos.

You know that man consists of these three members: nerve-sense system, rhythmic system, and metabolic system. He stands within his nerve-system in such a way as to be able to comprehend the relation of his form to the cosmos. With respect to his feelings—his rhythmics or breathings or breast-system—he stands with this rhythm within the rhythm of the whole world. We can only just touch upon this rhythm now from one angle—we could naturally do much more, but we have mentioned it often in the course of these years from the most varied points of view. I will only repeat what I have often said.

Look at our breathing. Normally, we take 18,breathe a minute. That makes about 25,920 breaths a day. So that in a day we breathe in and out alternately 25,920 times. That is the average number of breaths that a man takes. Now you know that the Old Testament puts the age of a patriarch at 70 years. Naturally one can grow older or die younger, but that is the average age of man. How many days of life is that? An average of 25,920 days. Now if you count that huge breath that we take when we enter in the morning with our ego and astral body into our etheric and physical bodies, so that in the morning we breathe in our spiritual psychic being, and in the evening we breathe it out again—if we count that as a a breath that is drawn every day, then our life-day which consists on the average of 71 years, draws 25,920 breathe. In other words, that great spirit that breathes when we are born and when we die, breathes in his life-day which includes our whole human life, the same number of inhalations and exhalations as we do in our day of 24 hours. So we are related with our human breath to that breathing of the the product of his breath in our waking and sleeping life. And the sun—which you can at least suspect to have some relation to our life—men observe how its rising moves back in the Zodiac a certain number of degrees every year, in such a way that if spring comes at a certain place in a certain constellation one year, the next year it shifts back a few degrees. So the rising of the sun circles around the whole ellipse in what is called a Platonic world-year, which consists of 25,920 years. A life-day for and death consists of 25,920 life-years. A life-day for us consists of 25,920 breaths; our life between birth and death consists of 25, 920 life-days; a great sun-year consists of 25,920 of our life-years. Thus we are brought to what is breathed in the whole sun-earth-process through a Platonic world-year. There you see into a world rhythm of which is a part within the cosmos.

Without at least the willingness to gain an active knowledge of man's relation to the cosmos you can attain no knowledge of man. You can comprehend nothing more through the natural science of today—however strangely this sounds—than man's life up to birth. After man is born something enters into his lie that natural science can no longer comprehend. Therefore natural science has to stay dallying in the method it especially loves, embryology. That is especially apparent today in the fact that the entire teaching of evolution is only an elaboration of embryology. All the rest is phantasy. As soon as man begins to live on earth the necessity immediately arises of contemplating him in imaginative and inspired knowledge. For that is the only means by which one can perceive what man experiences at death, and what death is. At the highest stage of knowledge, true Intuition, which you find described in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, one attains to that insight into being which is wonderfully indicated in the German language, for one says when a man dies—with a certain fitness—he verwest. (perishes) If today one could still feel something in words, one would truly feel that verwesen means ins Wesen übergehen, ins Wesen hineingehen, mit dem Wesen eine werden. (To go over into being, to go into being, to become one with being) When the language speaks of verwesen it truly is not talking of vergehen (to pass away) [Translator's Note: Although in English one says “pass away”, the German word vergehen which means that, is apparently never used in connection with death; verwesen is the word in common use.] And that mysterious process the deep knowledge of which will create a natural science of the future, the process that is only completed when the human body apparently perishes or is reduced to ashes, is not a destructing; it is a significant constructive part of the event.

Through this kind of consideration I should like to arouse a feeling for the inner connection that lies between what is the dying world-conception and scientific tendency of the old time, and the Spiritual Science that is still in the seed today, really just emerging, in the sense of what it will be in the future. But now the two things are roughly pushed together, and that is the deep tragedy of modern life which we must overcome by inner human power. What I call—one may perhaps be offended by it—the dying bourgeois conception of the world and of life, is at an end; it has brought about its on ruin. What is emerging today as proletarian longing—although still very far from what it will be—has other human foundations. While the bourgeois world-conception is dying in the ether body, what is evolving out of the proletarian world is springing to in the astral body. An extraordinarily significant symbol of the dying world-conception was the egoism of Max Stirner. You will find it described in my book Riddles of Philosophy. We live in an age when we must always try not to judge the thing that is just arising by its outside. However many mistakes it may be making here and there, we must be able to see that the social movement is evolving today among the proletariat out of man's spiritual outlook as the seed of the future. We must be able to see that mankind is passing over a threshold and has to enter into supersense knowledge. And the key that reveals this tendency to one who has supersense—spiritual—knowledge, is precisely the fact that the proletarian world is behaving itself very materialistically indeed, in this or that leader, this or that political boss, fighting against that which it will be someday. It fights against it. It has accepted the bourgeois way of thinking as a final bequest; but it is called in human evolution to cross the threshold consciously, to work its way out of materialistic delusion to real knowledge of the supersensible.

These things that we are considering must be studied by observing their spiritual foundations, so that they do not merely become abstract knowledge but, become an inner impulse for our will. Then we will be able to establish our position within this present social order at the right time and in the right way, with full consciousness.

Dear attendees! Before I begin with the lecture, I would like to apologize to the esteemed attendees: My voice has suffered a little lately due to a very common cold. It could be that it suffers disturbances during the lecture and would do all sorts of somersaults. I kindly ask for your understanding in this regard. I hope that my voice will improve during the lecture.

What I would particularly like to emphasize in the first part of these reflections on social issues is the true nature of what actually lives in the social demands of the present. For a discerning person, when he considers human affairs, especially the affairs of the human life itself, it very, very soon becomes clear how that which man actually wills and strives for in the most comprehensive sense masks and hides itself externally in all sorts of forms that do not directly represent that which actually lives as an impulse in the soul.

Therefore, one must particularly try to explore the true nature of what actually lives in human souls when faced with social phenomena.

Social issues – no one, esteemed attendees, will be able to deny that they have been discussed for decades, not only discussed within circles in which one discussed this or that more or less seriously, that they were discussed by the world parties, world classes, world destinies. Much, much has been achieved in the second half of the nineteenth century in terms of what can be taught to solve these pressing issues that have become truly burning in the present.

In particular, however, it is the terrible catastrophe that has befallen humanity in recent years, which, with regard to what is alive in the social question, could have a galvanizing, enlightening effect on many a human soul.

One could see, dear honoured attendees, how the social question played into this war catastrophe, one could say, right where the most immediate causes of this war catastrophe came into question. Much of what is connected with the starting point of this war catastrophe will, one may still doubt today, be the subject of a social pathology, or rather, the subject of a social psychiatry. But much of the mental state of personalities who had a part, a living part, in the initial currents of this catastrophe can be traced back to their fear, to their whole relationship in general, to what they saw coming as the modern proletarian, social movement.

They understood little of what was alive in this social movement; but they saw it coming. What had a determining influence on those judgments, which were partly responsible for this terrible catastrophe, was not so much what was alive in this social movement, which had only just emerged in 1914, as what had become established in some of the souls of leading personalities under the influence of the emerging social movement.

Then again, esteemed attendees, on the one hand we see many things developing during the last four and a half years. So that, I would say, certain leading circles continued to fear the approaching social movement. But on the other hand, we see how hopes are being raised that what could not come from other world currents might perhaps come from the international socialist world movement, a balancing of the disharmonies that have come to light in this catastrophe. And now, now that this catastrophe has developed into a crisis, which short-sighted minds may mistake for an end, but which is by no means an end, now a large part of educated Europe is faced with the historical, with the actual necessity of taking a stand on what is hidden in the social problem. And must one not, when one follows these things with an unprejudiced eye, must one not say: something tragic is befalling the minds of precisely those who must now feel compelled to comment on the social problem from the immediate present? For decades, through diligent thought and diligent observation of social phenomena, some believed they had grasped a judgment, a power of judgment. Now that the question has become urgent, now that the question in the life of facts, let us say, is growing more urgent with each passing day: unbiased observation cannot say otherwise! And so at least one thing seems to emerge, especially from the role that social movement has played in the last catastrophic events of humanity – one thing seems to emerge from all this: that for a long, long time, people of all classes, of all professions, will have to deal seriously with what is today called social demand. This may justify, esteemed attendees, that I, who has been allowed to speak about subjects in spiritual science for years here in Bern, take the opportunity to speak about this social problem in the narrower sense, based on the foundations of this spiritual scientific research. If I may start with a personal comment, I would just like to say this: it is certainly not, as some might believe, from a purely theoretical method of knowledge, but rather from a theoretical work of knowledge that I would like to speak here about the social problem, as this social problem came to me when I through years among proletarians teachers at a workers' training school was, and from there, to teach and work had just among the proletarian population itself in the trade union, in the cooperative and also within the political movement, instructing, teaching.

Yes, esteemed attendees, I had the opportunity to observe what I believe is of primary importance to observe if one wants to understand the social question. Above all, I had the opportunity to observe, to witness, what I would call the proletarian state of mind.

Those who get to know this proletarian state of mind may be struck by the following conviction: You see, dear attendees, much that is urgent, astute and industrious has been written precisely the field of socialists and non-socialists in the course of the last few decades - actually already in the second half of the nineteenth century, and then through the twentieth century, as far as we have progressed in this twentieth century. This extensive literature expresses what is being thought within the modern proletariat as a social question.

If we compare what is expressed in the literature with what an unbiased observation of life reveals to those who can observe this life, we first discover a strange, highly conspicuous and instructive contradiction within the modern proletarian social movement.

Nothing is heard more often in literature, in speeches, in articles by socialist writers and agitators than a certain underestimation of everything intellectual, everything spiritual! The socialist side in particular emphasizes that everything that man thinks, everything that man somehow works out spiritually in himself, that this is nothing more than, so to speak, I would say, the cloud that rises from the great, only realities of the economic struggles of mankind.

How the individual classes struggle with each other economically, what takes place in economic life, that is the only true reality. Like clouds, those formations that develop as human thoughts arise, arise as that which is called knowledge, that which is called art, and so on.

Am I saying something particularly new to anyone who has somehow dealt with these things when I express this assertion in relation to all socialist literature and all socialist work? Because, dear attendees, a vivid observation shows that within the entire historical development of humanity, there has never been a party movement, a class movement, that has started from thinking, from knowledge, as intensely as the particular proletarian-socialist movement! Yes, it can be said, without exaggeration, that the modern socialist movement is the one that seeks to rest, in a quite unique way, on what is scientifically based. However strange it may sound, the modern socialist movement is the one that, in contrast to all other similar movements in world history, starts from a scientific basis in the most eminent sense, from a foundation of ideas!

As there are so many contradictions in life, indeed, as life itself consists of the interaction of contradictions, so – one could say – it is also there. People consciously say: We think nothing of thoughts; in the unconscious lie the reasons from which this movement has emerged: from thought. One has only to observe with true love for the facts and with true love for the observation of human nature to see how the proletarian soul was touched by an understanding of such difficult, such exact precision - at least an attempt at exactness is made - such exact thought work as that of Karl Marx ; one must see with love for the facts, with love for the observation of human nature, how the proletarian mind has been tried in an astute way to understand where Karl Marx, the leader of the modern proletarian movement, the theoretical leader, was actually mistaken.

It can be said that if you were a little tired of the superficiality of so-called bourgeois intellectual circles within contemporary human society and entered the circles of the proletariat, you could already notice the transition – the transition from the superficial, lightly veiled scientificity of an education that is only superficially constructed, to the intense striving to get behind the secrets of the immediate life that surrounds you in the modern proletarian world. One sensed, I would say, the approach of a terrible disaster, by the fact that one saw how little inclination there was, especially among the intellectual, leading people, to find understanding for what really lives in the proletarian soul.

One could feel a pang of heartache when one saw the paths the leading class of humanity took to look into the proletarian soul: they went to the theater to see Hauptmann's “Weavers.” Aesthetic enjoyment of proletarian situations – that was what they sought as understanding.

They had little conception of this – or they sought little conception. The real secret is that the modern proletariat has been penetrated by the strictest scientific thinking, the heaviest scientific artillery, which many intellectuals today avoid because it is uncomfortable for them, and this thinking has been able to penetrate the modern proletarian soul; one seeks little thought about the fact that this is so. If one took things seriously, one could feel for decades that there was too little understanding for what was emerging as the looming disaster.

Now, esteemed attendees, what is the reason for the contradiction that I have indicated, that on the one hand the thought is almost denied by the modern proletarian and that, however, this proletariat is entirely based on thoughts, has a sense and interest and attention for the thought life - what is the reason for this contradiction? I believe that observation of life shows that this contradiction lies in the fact that this movement is not so much concerned with what people imagine, what these economic or social goals are, but that it is more a matter of what the soul of the living person who belongs to the modern proletariat actually is.

And I must say: No word has spoken more intensely to my soul than all the astute discussions of economic issues, which I believe I can dignify; but more indicative of what lives in the time, has always seemed to me to be a word that can be heard everywhere within the modern proletarian movement: it is the word that says: the modern proletariat has advanced in the development of humanity to class consciousness. What does it actually mean, as the word is used directly? It wants to say: the modern proletarian does not live instinctively as—say—in the old patriarchal life, in the old craft life, as an apprentice or journeyman; the modern proletarian worker does not live instinctively within the social structure; but he lives in such a way that he knows what he means within this social structure, how he is a special class—precisely the class of employees in relation to the other classes, the classes of the employers. That he does not merely live instinctively within this social structure, in the way he knows he is placed within it, but has something of class consciousness, is what the word “class-conscious proletariat” is initially intended to express.

But when you get right down to it, the term “class-conscious proletariat” is just a mask for something else entirely. We would recognize this other thing if it were not for the fact that modern humanity has lost not only the ability to recognize the full reality of the course of human events, but also the concepts that necessarily had to be discarded. Today, I would say, people are almost obsessed with a very comfortable instinct for knowledge. This instinct for knowledge aims to link cause and effect in the simplest possible way everywhere: there is the cause - there is the effect; the effect follows from the cause. And then it continues, possibly in a very subjective way, perhaps adding to justify this straightforward progression of knowledge along the thread of cause and effect: “Nature doesn't make leaps.” Of course, anyone with even a little insight knows that nature makes leaps everywhere. But such a word is simply used up. Nature does develop successive green color leaves after green color leaves; but then it makes the leap to the green sepal, and then the even greater leap to the petal, then to the stamens and so on. And so one would notice refutations of the convenient sentence “Nature does not make leaps” in all of life, in all of nature's processes.

Where would we end up if we were to observe human life in such a bare way as it develops in the physical world, so bare that we follow events in a straight line according to the immediately preceding cause and the immediately following effect? Do we not see in the individual human life how a particular crisis occurs when the teeth change around the seventh year? Do we not see how a significant crisis occurs when a person reaches sexual maturity? Do we not see how, in between, there is more of a calm succession of cause and effect? And how then, at the change of teeth, at sexual maturity - there are also other crises in later years, even if they are less noticeable - all these things show how, in such times, nature truly makes leaps. In this respect, an unbiased observer of natural processes will still have a great deal to do in the future. By throwing overboard, and rightly so, what belongs to ancient metaphysics, one has at the same time lost the possibility of viewing historical development in such a way as to see and perceive the real impulses contained in it, just as one can perceive such changing impulses as they assert themselves in the human tooth change, in human sexual maturity.

For the truly impartial observer, it is evident from the course of human historical development that there are special times when the human soul undergoes a transformation and new impulses enter into the human soul.

One such age was the one that roughly coincides with the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In this respect, the history as it is presented in schools is in many ways a “convenient fable”. It does not point to the magnificent transformations that have taken place in the soul conditions of human beings in successive ages. Once we move from the blinkered history that prevails today to an unblinkered history, we will see how very different the inner soul state of a person in the eleventh or twelfth century AD was from that of a person in the sixteenth, seventeenth or eighteenth century! History cannot be viewed in such a way that one can simply trace cause and effect in a straight line; but such crises – crises that are fundamentally connected with the organization of the whole of humanity – such crises must be acknowledged, as one must acknowledge such crises, such fundamental upheavals, in the partial development of the human natural organism.

And that which lives there, I would say, as an elementary impulse in the modern development of humanity, has not been portrayed anywhere except in the field of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, which I represent. On the other hand, however, modern development has been repeatedly and justifiably presented in such a way that modern life as a whole, and economic life in particular, has undergone a transformation on the one hand through modern technology, and on the other hand through the advent of the capitalist economic order, as it emerged in the wake of modern technology.

I do not need to characterize these two impulses in the development of modern humanity in more detail here, because this has often been presented: modern technology and modern capitalism – many sides have aptly described what these two impulses of modern development mean with regard to the emergence of this modern proletarian consciousness. But this modern proletarian consciousness must not only be traced back to these two economic impulses: to modern technology, to modern machine production, to modern capitalism – but it must be seen as that which, as a kind of partial phenomenon, had to emerge in a very elementary way in the development of man. It is the result of those revolutions in the organism of human development, that inner revolutionary impulse of which I said that it manifested itself in the development of modern humanity around the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth centuries. The other classes have taken relatively little part in what broke into modern humanity. The modern proletarian has been pushed by his very necessities of life, especially in his state of mind, to take up this impulse, which arose from the forces of human development in the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth centuries, this impulse into his soul.

What was this impulse? Well, this impulse cannot be characterized in any other way than to say: Much of, indeed, all of what has been thought and felt and invented by people in earlier times more instinctively, more from the subconscious, intuitive powers of the human soul, is consciously being lived through by humanity from this crisis in the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth century. The conscious inner clarity of the human soul is developing more and more. This is what the human personality has been relying on since that time.

The transition from an instinctive life to a conscious life was particularly true of the modern proletariat. Just observe how this modern proletariat is separated from what is natural and what is humanly produced. Contrast this with the old crafts, with the old relationship of man to nature, with the direct, natural, original production, where man is connected with what he works, what he does, how a personal relationship develops between man and his labor.

It is an interesting study to see how the modern age has torn apart what used to be connected: man and his work. And most of all, the modern proletarian experiences this, who is placed in front of the machine, next to the machine! There is now an extremely impersonal relationship between man and the thing with which he works! And in the most impersonal way, he is placed in the whole social organism, in that he is a member of an economic order that does not arise from the impulses of personalities, that does not arise from the personal impulses of human individuals, but that arises, one might say, objectively, from the workings of capitalism itself. Man is torn away from what used to constitute his joy in his occupation, what used to constitute his zeal, his enthusiasm for his occupation, what constituted the honor that he associated with his occupation, and so on; and a completely abstract, sober relationship between man and his occupation has arisen. Because this is not the case for the other estates and classes, because this in particular comes out, comes into its own among the proletarians, that is why it is the proletarian above all who is pointed out, in his soul the actual impulse of modern times, consciousness, to develop.

Behind the saying “class-conscious proletariat” lies the other fact that the proletarian, above all, through his world position, through his being placed in human development, aspires particularly to modern human consciousness, to consciousness of human dignity. The old estates are not so detached from what used to be their joy, used to be their thoughts of human dignity and honor from their actions. The modern proletarian, because no interest can connect him with his means of labor, is thrown back on himself as a mere human being. It is in him that this impulse of the transition from unconsciousness, from the instinctive social life to the conscious social life, develops.

One could say, esteemed attendees, how Christianity broke out in an unknown province of the Roman Empire, how it spread first to the educated countries, Greece and Rome, but took much less root there than it did among the barbarian peoples with their simple – as one often says from a haughty point of view, childlike – state of mind, and how Christianity in the simple minds of the Germanic and other tribes descending from the north, the most significant impulse of human development, the transition from instinctive life to life in full human consciousness, cannot develop most intensely in the other classes, but most intensely – even if the other classes may otherwise have greater prerequisites for intellectuality and so on: What the new impulse actually is in the development of humanity can develop most intensely in the modern proletarian precisely because of the proletarian's unfavorable position in general human development. The modern proletariat is moving against the educated world of today, just as the Germanic Christians once moved against the Roman and Greek world. One can say that human consciousness, consciousness of human dignity, is actually hidden behind the words: “class-conscious proletariat”.

Thus, dear attendees, for those who can observe life, it is not just any economic demand, it is not just some abstract notion, it is not just some one-sided economic impulse, but the living human being is at the center of this modern social proletarian movement, the modern proletarian himself with a special way of consciously striving for the realization of true human dignity. And it is from this deeper class consciousness that the true form of social demands develops, which are often masked behind mere economic disputes and economic demands.

If you know this modern proletariat, dear attendees, one thing stands out above all. It is striking that this proletariat is the aspiring population, the more educated classes, which, as I mentioned at the beginning, can truly be said to It is founding a social movement that is based entirely on science and on thought. In his class consciousness, in his striving for conscious human dignity, the modern proletarian also strives for real knowledge, for real inner thought deepening.

But where does this deepening of thought lead him? Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a point that the modern proletarian himself, being more devoted to external work, does not really notice – but it is noticed by someone who may justifiably call himself a spiritual proletarian – and it is a point that provides a particularly deep insight into the state of mind of the modern proletariat , and actually into the whole structure of modern socialism: the fact is that everything spiritual, everything that man acquires in terms of concepts, artistic experiences and otherwise, is perceived by the modern proletarian, and also by the theoretical leaders of the modern proletariat, as - as they themselves always say - as “ideology”; ideology - a spiritual life that is not convinced that among the real forces and entities that pulsate and interweave the world, there is also objective, real spirit - no: a spiritual life that is nothing more than the subjective reflection of external material and economic reality. Not that an effective spirit penetrates into our humanity, which leads us not only to have a kind of brain digestion, but to have thoughts and feelings within this brain digestion, it is not a real spirit that leads us to develop a life of thought, a different inner spiritual life - no: this spiritual life is mere ideology. Nothing of spiritual reality corresponds to it. All that lives in ideas is only the mirror of material processes, economic processes.

One could even say that the modern proletarian is, in a sense, inwardly happy in theory that he can be such an enlightened person, no longer believing in old metaphysical entities, but knowing that everything that is spiritual life for people is ideology, bubbles that rise from the material and economic world of facts. And yet, what the modern proletariat brings into the whole social structure depends in many ways on its perception and recognition of intellectual life as ideology in the way I have described.

But why is that so? Of course, the proletarian himself thinks that in doing so he has made a special contribution of his own to human development. But that is not the case. The modern proletarian has inherited only what the other classes were able to hand over to him in this particular field. At the same point in time that I mentioned to you – the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth century – when humanity went through a significant crisis, moving from a mere instinctive life to an inwardly soulful conscious life. At the same time, a phenomenon can be observed in the leading classes and leading personalities: spirituality loses its driving force in relation to what the human being can think and research further.

In this way, we touch on a very significant secret of the whole of recent human development. We must look back, esteemed attendees, to those times when everything that man researched, everything that man thought about the individual facts of nature and human life, how all of this was incorporated into an overall world view, which was also permeated by religious impulses into the most minute branches of human knowledge and research, how a common impulse spreads through what was a central religious feeling and what wanted to know and research about individual parts of the world.

In the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth centuries, with the advent of modern times, the spirituality of man loses its momentum. Just imagine what it means, for example, for the Church, which, out of its own initiative and on the basis of its last old impulses, very commendably founded universities and all sorts of other institutions, that this Church, out of the old world view, has no momentum that could fruitfully spread beyond what the Brunos and the Galileis have produced. Outer knowledge, knowledge of the world and its facts, comes to the fore. And the old spirituality does not possess the impetus to place the center of the human being, the center of the human soul and spirit, in a truly appropriate, human relationship to this new spiritual life. And so it is not religious, not general human impetus, not real spirituality that lives in this science, in this wide universe, that lives. Under the influence of this loss of spirituality, the newer spiritual life becomes ideology.

And the modern proletarian has inherited the fate of those times when there was no proletariat in the modern sense, to inherit the spiritual world only in the form of ideology, to inherit the spiritual world in such a way that in the relationship of man to the spiritual world no longer lives the recognition of the real spiritual forces and entities that permeate and animate the world.

This is the great, perhaps tragic error of the modern proletariat: it believes that it has a special proletarian achievement in interpreting spiritual life as an ideology, but that it has precisely the peculiar inheritance of the old class in it. The modern proletariat has adopted the particular way in which people relate to science from the bourgeoisie and the other classes!

But it turns out that because the other classes have certain old traditions, the modern proletarian is at the top of his personality, it turns out that the modern proletarian must take the impulses more seriously, and to a quite different degree. Here again lives a significant social problem, which will not be exhaustively illuminated by popular science and popular observation of such things for a long time to come.

Of course, the other classes, too, if they are Christian, have only one ideology in their spiritual lives today. But they are not so honest; they still believe they have something of the old religious impulses, of the old driving force that emanates from the center of the soul and penetrates into that which man researches and recognizes beyond the individual facts. The modern proletarian has simply taken an extremely radical view of ideology. The consequence of this is that the appreciation of this spiritual life is, after all, a very superficial one. And this way of relating to the spiritual life is the reason for the feeling that this spiritual life is actually only something that seems to be an addition to the serious life of man, but that it consists only of materialistic and economic processes.

Must not a view that takes the spiritual life seriously as an ideology, must not this view think quite differently about everything spiritually achieved in the course of human development than the other classes, who, still arising from other impulses, have recognized this spiritual life?

There is a terribly revolutionary element in the view of spiritual life as an ideology, the consequences of which, one might say, people today still dare not dream of! There could be a very uncomfortable awakening from this oversleeping of what is revealed in this point in relation to the social question. The loss of a living, real spirituality, the descent of spiritual life to a mere ideology, that is the first thing I would like to mention among the true forms of social demands.

The second, however, dear attendees, lies in the realm of public political life. Again, one could say: In the consciousness of the proletarian lives a kind of mask; in the depths of the soul lives something completely, completely different.

What has struck people, and also the modern proletariat, most of all in the more recent development of humanity is the inundation of all conditions by modern machine technology and by modern capitalism. Certainly, it is these things that have struck the modern proletarian most of all at first. As if by historical suggestion, his attention was fixed on this. And he understood that Karl Marx, in a special study of economic processes, also wanted to explain to the modern proletarian how he actually comes to his social position.

And yet, the second essential form of social demands that now arises cannot be understood from economic life alone. It is not the economic structure, not the economic conditions that drive this second true form of social demand into the soul of the proletarian, but this second social demand lies in the direct further development of that which, some time ago, already led to the abolition of of the old slavery, which later led to the abolition of serfdom, and which must necessarily lead to the end of something that the modern proletarian, economically misinterpreting it, perceives as the most degrading in his position.

What was the essential thing about the slave? He was not recognized in his full human dignity; he was considered a commodity by his master. And in a certain way, serfdom in feudalism is also still a commodity. In the most insistent way, one could say that the last remnant of this unworthiness of the human being lives in the consciousness of the modern proletarian, in that it is clear to him what his labor power is. No longer is he as a human being in serfdom, as in slavery, but rather that which is his labor power is a commodity in the modern social process.

Just as one otherwise buys this or that commodity within the capitalist economic system, in that the commodities come onto the market, circulate through the market according to supply and demand, so too does one buy the commodity “labor power” on the labor market. Nothing has been more forcefully absorbed by the modern proletarian from the Marxist doctrine than this perception that his labor power is equal in relation to the economic process, equal to the commodity.

The same impulses that led to the abolition of slavery, the same impulses that led to the end of serfdom, live in a different form in the modern proletariat and actually strive towards a possibility of divesting human labor of the character of a commodity within the human social structure.

I know a great many people in the present day – when I explain to them what I have just said about human labor power and its relationship to the commodity, they say they cannot understand how it should be possible, through any measures, to divest the labor power of the craftsman of the character of the commodity, of the character of a commodity.

Plato and Aristotle, the most enlightened Greeks, the great philosophers, could not imagine a human society without slaves in it. In the Middle Ages, certain people could not imagine a human society without serfs in it. Today, many people still cannot imagine a humane social structure without labor power being included as a commodity. How this can be achieved will be discussed by me tomorrow, dear attendees, as part of the attempts at a solution that I will try to characterize. Today I just want to point out that the second demand in its true form within modern proletarian social life is that human existence requires that human labor no longer be a commodity, that it can no longer be bought by capitalists in such a way that they give money for a certain amount of labor, which the worker must then make available to him, just as the farmer makes available the goods that he, the farmer, obtains from his field, just as the merchant makes available as capital what he has in his shop. The modern proletarian feels – he may not express it clearly, he may present it in some national scientific guise, but that is how the modern proletarian feels – that it cannot continue to be the case that human labor power has its commodity price in the economic structure of human society. That is the second link.

The third link is that the modern course of human development has led to an overestimation of the external, economic life, just as it has led to an underestimation of the spiritual life by decreeing that spiritual reality is a mere ideology. Precisely because of this, I might say, because of a certain lack of balance, economic life has leaped upward on the other side. As if by a mighty suggestion of world history, people's attention was directed to economic life itself. And so it happened: people were drawn away from everything else and devoted their attention entirely to economic life.

From ancient times, a certain spiritual life has emerged. But this spiritual life, as I have shown, has lost its momentum and has degenerated into ideology. What else has emerged from ancient times? Certain state, as they are called, political connections of the public legal system; how man can find a relationship to man within a certain territory as a citizen or as something else within the social structure. Furthermore, a certain economic order has emerged. This economic order, however, has been given its special character by modern technology, by the modern circulation of commodities in the sense of the capitalist economic order.

This is what has broken into modern life in such an overwhelming way, overwhelming all else. That – as I said – the gaze of modern man was fixed only on this economic life, as if hypnotized, dulled the spiritual life in him, on the one hand, to ideology. On the other hand, state life, public legal life, loses all content for him if it is not filled with what is the only reality for him: material economic life.

Under the influence of this third real form of modern social demands, we see the call for nationalization, for socialization, first of all of the means of production, then of the enterprises and so on, and so on. Simply, the state has also more or less lost its content in the old sense in the eyes of modern man, who is hypnotized by economic life.

Thus we see that in recent times it has become desirable for certain classes to nationalize certain branches of public work, as they say. Then, in theory, the modern proletariat next proceeds radically to demand the socialization of the whole of economic life, and thus of life itself.

And so we see that these three figures emerge as the true ones within the social demands of modern times, out of the necessities of life. On the one hand, we see what the life of feeling goes through when the spiritual is reduced to mere ideology. We see how there is a tendency to hypnotically focus on mere economic life and to want to radically merge the state, the political realm and economic life because only then does the state have content for those who believe that all social reality is exhausted in economic reality when the state is a large economic system.

But we see, I want to say, how three sparks of light complement what we see as the proletarian movement: we see three real figures, three social demands: one that shines forth from the spiritual life; the second, it shines forth from the life of public law, from which only the real relationship of the equal human being to the equal human being can arise, from which the position that labor must have in the social structure must also follow. And thirdly, we see the economic body itself.

Thus, from the real three forms of social demands, we see the threefold form of the social question arise at the same time. This threefold nature of the social question can only be a spiritual, a political, and an economic one. And only by considering these three, which have acquired a very specific configuration within modern proletarian consciousness, can we arrive at possible solutions for what is going through the world today as a social impulse, so that for a long time to come people of all professions, people of all walks of life, people of all social classes will have to deal with it.

A consideration of the true nature of social demands, as we have practiced it today, can only lead us to seek solutions to the social question from the full, unbiased reality of intellectual, state, and economic life.

This more important part of the social question of the present day will now occupy us tomorrow, when I will try, just as I have tried today, to characterize the true form of the social demands, when I will try to present possible social solutions to you.

We can really say that at the present time a deep tragedy lies over humanity. Many of the lectures which I have recently delivered to you, will have shown you this, for they dealt, to a great extent, with the development of the social problem, of the social riddle of our time. Particularly in regard to this social riddle we may say that a certain deep tragedy now lies over humanity. For we can see that the social problem, which many people—particularly the so-called intellectuals—consider more or less as a theoretical question, is now taking on a truly significant and a very practical form, throughout vast territories of the civilised world.

The tragic aspect of this matter is that wherever the social problem now rises to the surface in practical life, we find that men of every profession and of every social class, are very badly prepared to face the social situation of the present. People of every standing, who are now confronting this situation, which does not only oblige them, as in the past, to speak about the social problem, but also to form a judgment concerning this or that question connected with the social development, (it is easy to see that this is entailed by the conditions of the present do not find any starting point which might enable them to form a judgment. They do not find the possibility to develop the right way of thinking which might enable them to form the judgments which the present time so urgently requires. Do we not see that the leading men of the bourgeoisie adopt for daily use—and even for the weekly and yearly use of their thinking!—certain forms of thought coming (though this is not always clearly evident) from the modern natural-scientific way of thinking. People who think at all to-day, think in natural-scientific terms, even though they do not have any ideas concerning natural-scientific subjects; they think in the way in which it is right to think in natural science; they think in the direction developed through modern natural science.

But this kind of thinking does not make us progress one stop in social matters! As a rule, people do not want to admit this. They prefer to ascribe, the present chaos to all kinds of different causes. They are not yet willing to face the fact that they should really admit to themselves: We are confronting a social chaos, as far as the great majority of the civilised world is concerned; we must learn to judge things, yet through our present habit of thinking we cannot obtain any essential fact enabling us to form true judgments.

If we really wish to bear in mind the whole weighty tragedy of the above-mentioned fact, we must consider the following: The events which are now rising to the surface have slowly prepared themselves ever since the 16th and 17th century; since that time, the leaders of humanity have not really done anything to develop true judgments in regard to that which is really needed. The economic orders which existed up to the 16th and 17th century have been dispersed; now they exist no longer. We might say that up to the middle of the 19th century, they were replaced by a kind of economic chaos, or rather, an economic anarchy. Ever since the middle of the 19th century, humanity has been striving to form social corporations able to break the existing economic anarchy. But it strove after this with insufficient means.

Let us now consider this situation; lot us observe it at least more closely.

If we look back to the time which preceded the 17th and 17th century, we find that people were then gathered together into more or less stable associations, in accordance with their profession or trade. To-day we do not know much about the inner structure of these associations, but they were organised and structured in such a way as to offer a certain satisfaction to the people of that time. In these professional associations, which existed in the form of corporations, guilds, etc., the individual human beings were able to take a full human interest in the organisation of their particular sphere of work. One might say, that every man had a full share in the interests of his corporation; all his own aspirations were connected with it. If he was an apprentice and belonged to such a corporation, he could hope to become a journeyman and finally a master. He could cherish the hope of climbing up the social ladder. Under certain conditions, these organisations were more or less useful in the development of humanity.

Then the new age dawned. Through our spiritual-scientific studies, the true inner character of this modern age is known to us. In a conscious way, man seeks to place himself at the very summit of his own personality. He seeks to unfold the consciousness-soul. This is the inner impulse of the forces which are now struggling to come to the fore and which are now developing, though various conditions mask this. The old organisations, which had arisen from entirely different aspirations, were no longer suited for the development of the personal, individual element, after which humanity was now striving. We therefore see that from the 16th and 17th century onward, a certain individualism begins to develop also in the sphere of economic life and that the old associations, the old communities, are demolished.

During the time of transition, we discern certain transitional phenomena in this process of demolishment: during the 16th and 17th century, we discern a transitional form of development which we might call a monopolisation of various branches of production. Particularly under the influence of the economic individualism, we can discern the development of a kind of anti-monopoly movement, and this really lasts until the middle of the 19th century. Then it passes over to the modern capitalistic production.

In a certain way modern production reckons with individualism. The old communities were dispersed, and the economic initiative was now taken over by individual human beings, by the capitalists. They became the contractors and employers, and from their daring and initiative it depended whether the economic life prospered or not.

By the side of this, we have the development of modern technical life, which entirely transformed the whole economic life. It was this transformation which really gave rise to the modern proletarian class. As a result, we have on the one hand the development of capitalism, and on the other hand the development of the proletariat. Through a hand to mouth existence, and finally through the lack of interest and understanding on the part of the leaders of economic life, a complete misunderstanding arose between the leading capitalists and their followers, and the working proletarian population.

You see, the great majority of men who are now bungling with the social problem in this or in that way, really overlook the great differences which now exist throughout the world in regard to the social life of humanity. We should bear in mind that in recent times, the western states and North America have completely turned towards a direction which might be called a bourgeois democracy.

This bourgeois democracy reckons with certain ideals of liberty and of equality, and applies those ideals to economic life. But to a certain extent, this bourgeois democracy has remained behind, for it applies the principles, or rather the programmes of the bourgeoisie, in the form in which they arose before the time of modern engineering. In the western countries we therefore see the development of this bourgeois democracy, and we see it calling into existence its own corporations and a certain social structure; yet it gradually becomes permeated by an element which results from the modern engineering age, it becomes permeated by the proletarian element. These western countries, however, do not reckon seriously with the proletarian population.

In Central Europe, the development of the modern age has shown the trend of things in a fearfully clear way. What has been the fundamental character of the central European states? Their essential character consisted in a state-structure based upon very old, traditional forms. In Central Europe, and even in Russia the ideas which influenced the mentality which was connected with the state, had been handed down from very ancient times. These ideas had been preserved—no matter whether they were monarchical or non-monarchical, for this is not so important—but they had been preserved in such a way that the old corporations developed into the so-called modern states. These modern states of central Europe, stretching as far as Russia, are in reality remnants of medieval thoughts and feelings. Their structure is in keeping with medieval elements. But life does not adapt itself to obsolete ideas. In the countries where such obsolete structures arose, something else appeared as well, out of a necessity which was far stronger than that which had been transplanted from the Middle Ages: the economic structure, the economic body arose. And this economic body has laws of own, it demands its own laws.

The thoroughly pathological process now arose that modern economic life and its requirements turned to the old government structures; people thought that economic life could be permeated with these old state-structures. Economic life, which was, or rather is, a completely new element, was to be incorporated with the body of the state, although this had grown out of entirely different conditions.

Than came the modern catastrophe, the terrible catastrophe of the past years. This catastrophe clearly showed (what I am telling you now, helps us to understand its course) that it is impossible to unite modern economic life with an obsolete state structure, with the ideas connected with such a state. That this catastrophe has become a crisis during the last months, is evident through the fact that the central European structures have been swept away. They do not exist any more, and also the economic body has disappeared. Any man of insight can perceive that in the future course of events it would be impossible to couple together the new economic demands with the old state corporations, because these old corporations were swept away, instead of becoming modernised in accordance with the requirements of modern life.

Here, we face a very strange outlook. This movement which must spread over the whole of humanity, has, for the time being, been arrested in the western countries. But it can only be arrested so long as the old bourgeois-democratic impulses, which do not take into account modern economic life, are still strong enough to suppress the proletarian life. But when this proletarian life can no longer be suppressed in the western countries, the short-sighted people there, will realise that they have been gambling with life! Yet they do not wish to listen to this, before it is too late!

In the central European and in the eastern countries of Europe the spark has already fallen into the powder barrel. It is an anachronism to speak—out of pure laziness—of ideas which no longer exist, of concepts which have disappeared completely. Yet in certain circles, people still speak of Russia, of Germany, and even of Austria which has ceased to exist externally, they still speak of these countries, and do not realise that they should turn instead to new ideas. Some people still talk in this way, whereas in these countries it is clearly evident that impulses which have been handed down from the past must be abandoned. Even in thought, they should be given up. People, however, find it difficult to understand that they should not merely judge the things that lie under their very nose, for those judgments will never be conclusive; they should learn instead to develop now thoughts, new ideas. Yet modern people find it so difficult to understand this!

This unwillingness on the part of modern men to understand how necessary it is to-day to acquire new ideas, new concepts, is chiefly based upon the fact that these modern men have a firm belief in the ideas which have been developed during the past centuries, they are firmly convinced of a manner of thinking which is wonderfully suited to natural-scientific spheres of work, but which is absolutely unsuited to social problems, it cannot be applied to the solution of social problems! Yet people do not want to grasp this. They are not willing to see that they have developed a definite kind of thinking, and that the life which has now come to the fore in the external world calls for a kind of thinking which entirely differs from the existing kind. Yet people find it so difficult to understand this, although the facts themselves speak a tremendously clear language.

Let me indicate one fact, which is eminently instructive, if we consider it in the right way. Men who took a more unprejudiced interest in modern life, experienced, one might say, a kind of theoretical surprise in the early nineties of the past century, when the German social democrats, who were the most advanced people in this direction, passed over from their old ideal to that of the so-called “Erfurt Programme” (elaborated in the early nineties at Erfurt, during the Congress of the Social Democratic Party). The old ideal, if I may use this expression for certain propagandistic aims, still contained an unscientific way of thinking, it contained thoughts which had nothing to do with natural science. But the Erfurt Programme led the modern proletarian movement into a superstitious attitude in regard to natural-scientific thought. From that time onwards, the proletarians endeavour to master the whole social question by applying to it scientifically trained thoughts.

We might say: Before the elaboration of the Erfurt Programme, the social-democratic ideals of the proletariat converged in two points, two ideals. These two points were in the first place, the suppression of the system of paid labour, and in the second place: the elimination of every social and political inequality.

These two points were still based upon a far more universal way of thinking; which proceeded from judgments which were based more upon instinct and feeling. During the last centuries, these judgments rose up into human consciousness, and people began to look upon the human being as the centre of every social endeavor. Paid work, the system of paid labour, was to be suppressed. That is to say, man should be given the possibility to lead an existence in keeping with human dignity (this was a rather muddled idea, but we can develop it clearly with the aid of spiritual science), human labour was no longer to be placed on an equal footing with objects sold as goods, it was no longer to be treated as merchandise. The system of paid labour was to be suppressed and replaced by something which would no longer compel the human being to sell his personal labour. This concept still took into account something universally human. And it was the same with the idea of suppressing social and political inequality.

With the so-called Erfurt Programme, this thought which lay at the foundation of the socialistic ideal of earlier times was given up at the beginning of the nineties of the 19th century. Two other points were now taken as real goals, as aims. These two points were: In the first place, the transformation of capitalistic private property into collective property, that is to say, the collective control of the means of production. Machines, landed property, etc. were to pass over from private proprietorship into collective proprietorship. This was the first point. The second point was the transformation of the production of goods into socialistic production, controlled through and for the communistic body.

These two items on the programme are altogether adapted in their manner of thinking to the purely natural-scientific thoughts of modern times. In this programme it is no longer a question of man acquiring or conquering something; it is no longer a question of suppressing the system of paid labour; it is no longer a question of eliminating social and political inequalities, but it is a question of something which completely eliminates the human being as such, of a process which ignores the human being, a process which takes its course under the influence of cause and effect, in the same way in which processes of Nature take their course under the influence of cause and effect. It is simply a question of transforming the private property of means of production into a collective property, and what the human being experiences through this transformation is quite an indifferent matter. And the economic order is no longer to be a production of goods, but a socialistic production; the community itself is to produce, and the goods produced are to exist for the collective community. Goods produced by private individual initiative, and brought on to the market in order to be purchased by others, is a process which differs from the socialistic production of goods. The socialistic production applies, as it were, the principle of individual production, where the producer himself consumes the goods which he produces, to the whole community. The production of goods reckons with individual human beings. One individual produces something, brings it on to the market, and another individual takes it away from the market by purchasing it. But the socialistic production returns to the primitive form of production, where every human being produces the goods which he consumes (at least people imagine that this was once the case!); now this is to be done by the whole community. The market ceases to exist, for the community produces the goods which it consumes. The goods produced are no longer merchandise, but they are distributed among those who belong to the community. Those who produce the goods are also the consumers.

In this case, purely natural-scientific concepts are applied to the social organism. You see, modern men do not like to bear in mind differences such as these in the socialistic programme before the Erfurt Congress and after the Erfurt Congress, they do not like to bear in mind such differences, because to-day people do not like to think, in spite of the fact that they are so proud of their thinking.

Now we must consider another misery. We can study it particularly well if we consider one of the classical writers, who have dealt with the social problem, when this problem was still: a more theoretical question—for instance a writer such us Karl Kautsky.

In one of his books, Kautsky tries to prove that the capitalistic economic order should be transformed into a socialistic order, and he says that in this transition the production of goods must cease. It must be replaced by self-consumption, so that the consumer is at the same time the producer, that is to say, a community is producer. At the same time, he advances the problem: What people are to form this community? And he replies: This can only be the modern state, the government. That is to say, he gives an answer which he should not have given. He did not realise, and people of his type do not even realise this to-day, that the state, which they call a modern state, is in no way a modern structure. The states of central and of eastern Europe which were swept away, were not modern structures, for they existed upon the foundation of old traditions, and not upon those contained in modern economic life; it was therefore impossible to establish a connection between modern economic life and these obsolete state-structures, as people of Kautsky's type imagined.

These states were therefore swept away, and what has remained of them is something spectral and ghostly, which continues to haunt the minds of men; this too will be swept away… nothing will remain except problems in every sphere of practical life,—only problems will remain.

A completely new way of thinking will be needed in order to reply to these questions, which are not theoretical questions, but facts. This new way of thinking exists, as I have explained to you in our lectures, in our spiritual-scientific conception. This new way of thinking consists in the realisation of the fact that it is necessary to study the fundamental laws of a human organisation in the same way in which spiritual science studies the fundamental laws of the individual human organisation.

When we study the fundamental laws of the individual human organism, we come to the threefold structure of the nerves and senses: the rhythmic system and the metabolic system. And we can only understand the human being within the course of time if we understand the interplay of these three systems in the human organism.

In the sphere of external life, this corresponds to the understanding of the three members of the social organism. The social organism must be subdivided into a spiritual system, an economic system, and a juridical system, which should however exclude jurisprudence as such, which should only contain the external juridical system, the political juridical system.

Even as modern natural science does not wish to kn0w anything concerning the threefold structure of man and treats alike everything which exists in the human being, so modern social thinkers do not wish to know anything concerning the body's threefold structure. Just because they do not wish to know anything concerning the threefold structure of the social body, they are so helpless and perplexed, and they will continue to be without advice, so long as they refuse to know what must really be done in the face of the great practical requirements of daily life. A regeneration of thinking is needed. It is necessary to perceive that modern natural-scientific concepts, which are very useful in certain fields, cannot bring us forward one step, in the sphere of social life.

We my thus observe some very strange phenomena. Indeed, it is not astounding that people begin to think in a more or less social way, and before the fearful catastrophe of recent years broke out, which partly revealed the original aspect of the social enigma, it was not surprising that certain people began to think in a social way. Particularly if we study the thoughts and conceptions of some of the leading teachers of national economy, we can perceive how helpless they really are in the face of the phenomena which now present themselves.

As an example, let me read you a definition which Jaffe, a national economist of some repute in certain circles, gave for the ideal condition of a social organism. In thoughts which entirely come from ideas developed in this field by modern humanity, Jaffe describes what he thinks he ought to describe and then he recapitulates and gives an idea of the social condition which would correspond to modern requirements and to the requirements of the modern industrial development, as well as to other forms of development. Consider this definition, which is, I might say, exceedingly clear and does not constitute one of the insignificant products of modern national economic thinking. Let me read to you quite slowly what Jaffe indicates as the ideal future condition of the social organism. It is that condition of the economic order in which all parts of the nation grow together into an organic whole, and in which every part has its assigned place. Each part belongs to the whole as a serving member of the community, which in the end serves each single part. This condition not only guarantees outwardly an existence which is in keeping with human dignity, but it also ennobles man's work and confers dignity: upon it, because it does not pursue individual aims, but is service on behalf of the general welfare.

I believe that a great number of people who think altogether in accordance with modern habits of thought, will find that this is an extremely clever definition and quite to the point. They will even say that it contains everything that can be desired. Within an ideal economic order, every individual human should have his assigned place, the place which suits him and where he can fulfil his tasks. His work should not only guarantee him an existence in keeping with human dignity but through the fact that he places' it at the service of the community, the community: should to at his service. Such a definition impresses many people, who believe that they can think soundly; it will give them the impression:“My God, how clever I am, for at last I have discovered how matters really stand!

Poverty comes from pauvreté—this too is a definition, and Jaffe's definition does not differ much from it! For it can be applied to the present social organisation, at least to the one which existed before the war, and also to the conditions which existed in various countries, for example, in Germany, during the war. Yet we can say at the same time that this definition does note apply to any State, Such a definition is the very pattern of abstraction.

We therefore find to-day that people think out many systems, yet the definitions which they advance do not in any way approach reality,

Take, for instance, Jaffe's definition. He describes an ideal economic condition of the future. This is an economic organisation in which every member of the nation forms part of an organic whole. In reality, this occurs whenever a state arises,even in the worst kind of state. In spite of everything, all parts of the nation have somehow grown together into an organic whole; they form an organic whole in spite of everything. But when a man has leprosy, every part of his body is leprous, and all these leprous parts form an organic whole. Consequently, the same definition may be applied both to a sound and to a diseased body.

Nobody notices this, so long as the definition remains mere theory. But when a situation such as the present one arises, that is to say, when the disease has broken out and a healing treatment becomes necessary, then the concepts which people generally have, prove absolutely useless.

Jaffe continues: “Where everyone has his assigned place, as a serving member of the community”. Well, this is really the case in Germany, for example… With the exception of a few men who do not wish to have anything to do with the state, the great majority of people are serving members within a whole. At least, they give their votes. “Serving member of a community which finally serves each one”: This, too, is correct, for it can be applied even to the worst form of government. “It does not only guarantee him outwardly his existence” there may be some meaning in this, but it is a phrase, an empty appendage, for it is simply one of the usual phrases. In the words, “which ennobles his work and confers dignity upon it”, it is essential to bear in mind what is meant by “ennobling” and “dignity”… “Because it does not pursue individual aims, but is service on behalf of the general welfare”—this can be applied even to the worst state!

You see, therefore, that a smart definition advanced by an economist of repute is not much better than the definition, poverty comes from pauvreté! The great majority of men now suffers under such abstract unrealities. For people hardly have an idea of the reality which lives and weaves behind the phenomena. Think how far they are from considering and applying a truth such as that of the threefold structure, which we have advanced as something fundamental and essential! People still believe that
they can discover a formula, let us say for the “socialisation” of life, for this has become a catchword.

Though the comparison may be somewhat lame, this is not much better than the discovery of a science through which one can digest! In real life, the human organism must digest. In order to do this, it must have a threefold structure, and it can maintain its life-functions through a right cooperation of the three members. If we give a threefold structure to a community, it will not be necessary to discover formulae for the socialisation of life, for this will take place of its own accord.

Think how immensely complicated are the processes which take place within the human organism! Imagine how difficult it would be to think out all that occurs within you during the two hours after your lunch! You have eaten your lunch and you digest the food, but this is a tremendously complicated process, which consists of innumerable details. Imagine that your digestion were to depend on the fact that you have to think it out—in that case you would not be able to live one single day!

Committees assemble at this or at that place and they discuss ways and means of socialising life. Yet the public life of humanity is through and through g complicated process; and its details can be grasped just as little as, for instance, the details of the digestive process, or the thinking process, or the breathing process. But the right thing will take place, if we allow the impulses of a threefold structure to work together!

Take the following example: To-day it is hardly possible to read the books of socialistic or social writers, without wondering at their surprising store of knowledge. Socialistic writers, even more than those of the middle classes, have collected a mass of statistical and historical material, reaching as far as the present time, in order to find out what course of development would be needed at present. The course of human development is to teach them, let us say, how to socialise life.

Yet a strange thing arises within this process which takes place in the human community. These writers grasp a phenomenon by one of its ends, but immediately it slips away from them at the other end! If they begin to socialise life in the way which they consider best, by taking hold of things at one end, everything slip away again at the other end.

An example can illustrate this: Let us, consider the following fact: In 1910, an American factory of rails produced in two and a half days as many rails as one week's output of ten years previously. That is to say, this factory put on the market in two and a half days the number of rails which they produced in 1900 in one week. In spite of this, the workmen worked for a whole week.

In order to obtain a conception of the relationship existing between employer and workmen, we must say: The workmen who continue to work for the whole week after the year 1900, really produce in that time the double amount of work. Of course, each workman produces the double amount of work for the market, and many conditions show him this. This increased labour on the part of the workman is naturally expressed in the proletarian problem. The workman is of course fully aware of the fact that the employer earns twice as much, and factors arise which induce him to demand twice as much pay from the employer. If we now theorize and say, it is not necessary to pay the workman twice as much, but he ought. to receive so and so much more, we only take hold of things by one end. But at the other end, they slip away, for the rail of course become so and so much cheaper. The cheaper price of the rails then reflects itself in other phenomena of social life, and corrects the proletarian problem which arises, on the one hand. We can really say that conditions are so complicated within the social organism, that if any question is tackled from one aspect, other aspects immediately arise which paralyze the solution which we advance.

Let us now take another example:—Take the national economy of Germany. I have already explained to you in past lectures that engines, mechanical labour, relieve humanity, as it were, from human labour. Particularly in the economic life of Germany, which has developed enormously, we can say that in the last decades engines—apart from locomotives—have done the work of 70 to 80 millions of men, which is more than the population of Germany. Only a part of Germany's population consists of workmen; consequently, in the years before the war, and through the new economic order, a workman in Germany did the work of four of five men together, he worked four or five times as much as a workman before the introduction of mechanical labour.

Think what a change this meant to life in general! But the phenomena which thus arise, appear at so many different points in life, that a socialisation carried put from any one standpoint, would bring about the worst possible results from other standpoints.

Social life is just as complicated as the life of an organic being. It is not our task to discover formulae for that which should take place, but we should instead give the social organism a structure which enables it to work spontaneously, so that it orders its processes, in the same way in which the human organisms brings in order its functions. This is the only point which should be borne in mind.

You therefore see that matters should be grasped from quite a different standpoint; we should namely bear in mind that it is necessary to penetrate into the real being and essence of the social organism. This is far more important than any discussion connected with the building up of a community.

For the countries of central and eastern Europe, it will be an excellent school to realise very soon that it is no longer possible to talk in the usual way of the socialization of the means of production. People still talk of these things in accordance with old habits of thought, and they forget that the States no longer exist, that they have disappeared, and must be replaced by something quite new. These people will elect, to begin with, statesmen whose heads are still filled with obsolete concepts, and these statesmen will do things in accordance with these old ideas. The result, however, will not be real and living; it will resemble a human being just as little as the Homunculus in Wagner's test-tube. In the end, they will realise that it is impossible for them to continue along the old paths. Practical life itself will convince them that the confused ideas which arose during the past decades cannot possibly cope with the practical situation which must be faced in the present time.

This will draw your attention to the fact that it is necessary above all to investigate real life, so that reality, real life lead us to the question: What shape can the demands of social life take on at the present time?

There is one thing which I have emphasized again and again: Let the proletarians say whatever they like… As a rule, it is quite indifferent what people say to-day, for they only voice that which exists in their upper consciousness, whereas that which they really need, the essential thing which they require, lives in their sub-consciousness.

We hardly ever learn to know people through what they say. We gain a far better knowledge of their true being, by considering that which confusedly comes out of their sub•;consciousness. The way in which they talk, tells us far more than the actual content of their words, far more than what they say. For the content of their words is generally handed down from a moribund or already lifeless epoch. The new element is something which is rooted in man's sub-psychical regions.

We find that the proletarian population propagates everywhere categorical ideas. These are mere words learnt by rote through Marxism, or derived from some other source. The true impulse (and how many impulses there are!) is that human labour should not be allowed to be considered as a merchandise.

If we were to ask a modern proletarian, what he is really striving for, he would reply: I want State-controlled means of production, I want socialisation, etc., etc. But he would speak the truth, if he would stress the following point, among the many which we learn to know in their true aspect: “What I really want, is that my labour should no longer be treated as a merchandise, but as something quite different.”

Modern thought is therefore a compound off' the very oldest elements And of something which the human souls contain in their sub-conscious depths, as the newest, most modern requirement. But the human beings are not conscious of this demands arise which have lost every meaning for a great number of educated people, old forms of community life are to take the place of private employers.

In the case of States which have ceased to exist, it is really grotesque to think that the government should take the place of private employers. People think that something which no longer exists can replace the employers and they blunder over this problem. Modern thinking and feeling have really ended in a blind alley!

To-morrow we shall speak more in detail concerning the question of how a government or any other community can or cannot take the place of private employers.

My dear friends!

I would like to combine the two lectures today and tomorrow into one unit, so that today we look up at certain ideas and facts of the spiritual world, which we then want to summarize tomorrow in a certain world view that is particularly important for the present time.

Perhaps it will already be understandable to some today that we are currently living in a time that, for all those who, in one form or another, are participating in and living through this time, means a time that demands the development of the soul in a way approaches the soul in such a way that this way cannot easily be compared with anything we know from before, whether it be through our own human experience or through anything else we have been able to take in. One could say many things. One could express through many symptoms and images what this very special thing about soul development consists of.

Let's start with an image. You know – either you have heard it or read about it in lectures or in cycles of lectures – that over the years in which we have spoken to each other in the sense of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, I have often referred to the name Herman Grimm, to Herman Grimm as a spirit who, in the most eminent sense, has grown directly out of the development of German culture and has placed himself in this development of German culture and spirit. I can say, my dear friends, that when I spoke of Herman Grimm in the years up to 1914, it always seemed to me as if he were standing beside me spiritually, as if one could have had the thought: What does such a personality say, which - albeit in a completely different form than spiritual science makes possible - has participated intensively in German spiritual life? The feeling that such minds as Herman Grimm's — he died in 1901, at the age of 70 — such a feeling that such minds are standing beside you and quietly asking the question: What do I myself have to say about what is being brought forth from the spiritual life of humanity, be it in one form or another, and thus also in the sense of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science? This feeling, we have not had it since 1914. That is significant. Today, my dear friends, there is no possibility, from the outside, to ask oneself: How would a personality like Herman Grimm behave in the context of our times and in relation to anything that is taking place in the development of the spirit in the sense of this time? Of course, Herman Grimm would be almost 90 years old if he were still alive, but if he were still alive today, one must imagine that, from the thoughts that such a personality could have, from the way he way of experiencing the present life of humanity, it would hardly be possible for such a personality, to gain a judgment, a position to that, which has gone on in these three years since 1914 over the development of humanity.

Now we can certainly ask ourselves the question differently from our point of view, we can ask ourselves the question like this: How does such a soul, after passing through the gate of death and having lived through almost twenty years in the spiritual world, look down on us and on what is happening here on earth? We come to the conclusion that it does not look down so uncomprehendingly as it actually should have done, considering how alien everything is to what such a personality has felt on earth.

It is not without reason, my dear friends, that I draw your attention to such a thought. We have thus hinted at a thought that, to a certain extent, cannot be completely real to us, cannot be completely real, a thought that asks: How understandingly or unintelligently would a personality like Herman Grimm face the present, the external present? We know very well that this thought has no reality, namely because the soul, when it passes through the gate of death, continues to develop in a completely different way – and that is the reality – in a completely different way than it would have developed if it had remained in the body for years. But to pose the question of how such a personality would face the external present today, to virtually present us with this unreal thought, the unreality of which we can be well aware of, is good material for meditation. Above all, such thoughts have great significance for our spiritual life, and it can be said that they will gain ever greater importance for our spiritual life. More and more, people will have to become accustomed to thinking that takes into account factors such as putting oneself in the place of such a thought: this is how it would have been if such a personality had remained on earth.

It will become more and more necessary for our thinking to become more agile through such thoughts than it unfortunately is in this day and age. For what is around us, my dear friends, what humanity is experiencing with such terror, what makes our feelings so different, is largely connected with the development of thoughts – or one could also say with the lack of development of thoughts in recent times. If I am to correctly supplement the thoughts expressed earlier, I would like to say that since 1914, when I think of Herman Grimm and his school of thought and world view, I feel something as I used to feel when I looked back centuries to a personality who was centuries before us, to a personality who had long since become historical. But, my dear friends, it will only gradually dawn on humanity that these years are now in reality a much longer time than they are in terms of the external, physical course. We have actually - it can be said that it is not an exaggeration - we have actually lived through centuries in these three years. But, my dear friends, we must not be afraid to add something else to the concept that we have acquired over the decades within our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, to the “we have lived through centuries”; we must not be afraid to add: in many, many respects, these times have not only been lived through, but in a certain higher sense they have also been slept through. What do we mean when we say that they have been slept through in a higher sense? These years contain so many possibilities for life and experience that for many souls these possibilities for life and experience pass by in much the same way as the events that take place around a person when he is asleep. They are there when he sleeps, but he does not perceive them.

I would like to speak to you today about some of the conditions of awakening in our time, of being awakened in our time, my dear friends, in these preliminary discussions. It will be necessary for humanity to see many things in a different light than it has been seen before. And so let us point out a basic fact, an important, important basic fact, which can bring our thinking in the direction, in the current, that we need to understand what is already preparing for many in this time. Let us look, my dear friends, at what is being said, thought, and expressed in words from various places around the world. From the outset, one must of course believe that when this or that is expressed in thoughts or in words, these words, these thoughts mean what – yes, I would like to say, what is found in the dictionary as the meaning of these thoughts, these words; one must believe this to be the case from the outset. But in many respects in our time this is not the case. And one should know that in our time it is not the case in many respects.

In our time, many things happen, and many highly significant things happen, that I would characterize as follows: Let us assume that two people come into a difference with each other, and we listen to the one person who is in difference with the other. He tells us: I came into difference with this person, I quarreled with him. We ask him why he has come into difference, why he is in conflict with the person in question. He answers us, “Yes, because this person has a bad character, because he has done this or that.” Of course, sometimes if you look into the facts, you may find something justified. If you are completely honest in looking into the facts today, you will very often not find something justified. The man says that the other man did this or that, or was such and such, and that is why he came into conflict with him. But why does he say that? Not because the other man is like that, but perhaps he says it for the same reason, because he needs to be reassured about the real reason why he came into conflict with him. What could this real reason be? This true reason can simply be that the soul life, the life of experience of this person who is telling us this, has developed in such a way that at a certain point in time it must discharge itself with a certain amount of hatred. Let us hold on to this, my dear friends, that this can simply be a primal fact of the soul of some human individualities. They grow up, they develop, and the soul develops in such a way that at a certain point in time it simply needs a certain amount of hatred. Just as a certain constitution, an abnormal constitution of the organism needs a fever, so a soul needs a discharge of a certain amount of hatred before itself, for the sake of what it has developed within itself. Because this certain amount of hatred is present in the soul, this soul mysteriously seeks someone on whom to discharge this hatred. But you can't say to yourself, without being frightened in a certain sense: I attack the person concerned because I have to discharge a certain amount of hatred. You have a sedative, a kind of anesthetic for the soul. This calming, this numbing of the soul occurs when one describes the other. The description may be true, the description may be false; but what it expresses is in any case not the real reason, but lies in the soul itself in the accumulated amount of hatred that must be discharged.

With this example, I wanted to show that anyone who is truly able to observe the world and makes an effort to do so can see today, wherever they look, how common it is to confuse cause and effect in our judgment of people. It is easy, my dear friends, to agree that in ordinary science, cause and effect are confused at every turn; but this confusion only occurs because in general human life there is a tendency to confuse cause and effect in the way described. Mankind, and I mean all of mankind, must learn to observe life and to live wisely. Without this observation of life, without this wisdom of life, my dear friends, which human beings must strive for, the complicated life that will come upon this earth cannot be lived through by mankind. For only through such striving will one come to feel with the necessary weight that which one needs to live. And in saying this, my dear friends, I may perhaps point out a certain fact that has occurred over the years of our anthroposophical endeavors within our previous considerations.

You can think back many years, a whole series of years, and you will remember that even in public lectures the question was quite often asked: How do repeated earthly lives relate to the increasing population of the earth? After all, the population of the earth is constantly increasing. If the same individuals keep reincarnating, how does this fact fit in with the increasing population of the earth? You will recall that I have given various reasons for understanding the apparent increase in the earth's population despite repeated lives on earth. But you may also remember that whenever this question came up, I always added a sentence to the other reasons I had given. I always added the sentence: “We shall wait, and perhaps the time will soon come when people will realize in a terrible way that the population of the earth will also be reduced in an extremely significant way by horrific events.” Of course, many will be able to remember these sentences. Many things could be remembered, but today I would like to remind you in particular that you will find in the cycle held in Vienna before the war, which dealt with life between death and new birth, how I tried to describe the general possibilities of the disease of social life across the globe. At the time, I even used the expression – it can be read in the cycle – that something like a social carcinoma is going through the world. The expression can be found printed in the cycle.

Such things, my dear friends, have been said to point out that much is going on around us that is as elusive to the ordinary consciousness as the tables and chairs of our bedroom are to us when we are asleep. And many, many passages in the lectures that have been given, they were given with the intention of touching souls, of touching hearts, to point out the utter seriousness of the forces that go through time in one direction or another. Because it does not help us, my dear friends, if we only try to gain, I would say in accessible concepts, some general ideas about the spiritual worlds. What we need, especially if these ideas that we gain are to be fruitfully integrated into our time, what we need is to acquire such concepts, such ideas from the experience of the spiritual world, that can intervene in reality in every area of life. But our present time is altogether poor, tremendously poor, in such concepts that can intervene in reality. And it is a concomitant of materialism, my dear friends, that the concepts that develop in the materialistic age have no power to intervene in reality in a directing, ordering, comprehending way. Man must learn to place himself in the world in a realistic way. This is only possible if spiritual science opens up an understanding for something without which understanding one knows nothing at all: for the relationship of man to the world.

If we are to take up the important things we have to say in this regard and bring them before our soul in the right way and with the utmost seriousness, we must start with three concepts that every religious mind today will inevitably see as the three most important concepts. We must start with the concept of the Father-God, with the concept of the Christ, and with the concept of the Spirit or Holy Spirit. Let us first consider today what spiritual science can say about the relationship of the human being to that which can be expressed by the three concepts of the Father God, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Today, we are indeed confronted with a world in which materialistic development has led to there being people who do not accept all these three ideas, the three concepts, I will not say, but do not experience them in their full seriousness, in their full depth. They will not be able to doubt, my dear friends, that many people today go through life without dealing with all their soul forces with these three concepts of Father-God, Christ, Holy Spirit.

What then does spiritual science have to say, based on what it can experience, about the just-mentioned lack in human souls, about this inability to deal with these three concepts? If you enter into the full meaning of our spiritual science, you will always be able to understand the following, because in what follows I would like to express a basic phenomenon for the soul's life in words that, I believe, express this basic phenomenon succinctly and precisely. I think that spiritual science can say from its point of view: the denial or misunderstanding of the Father-God is an illness; the denial or misunderstanding of the Christ is a misfortune of fate. Note the words carefully; I am using them in such a way that the matter is expressed very precisely. The denial or misjudgment of the Father-God is an illness; the denial or misjudgment of the Christ is an accident of fate for the soul; and the denial or misjudgment of the spirit is a blindness of the soul. I believe that anyone who combines the right approach with these three characteristics has much of what is needed to understand materialism in our time. I also believe that anyone who understands these three characteristics in the right sense has the key to understanding much, much more in our time.

Let us consider the first characteristic: the denial or misunderstanding of the Father-God is an illness. As an anthroposophically oriented spiritual scientist, I have to say this because, if the totality of the human being is organized in a healthy way according to the physical, mental and spiritual aspects of this being and the person does not physically, mentally or spiritually oppose themselves to allow their whole being to work healthily, then there is no possibility of not recognizing that which can be called the Father God. Every human being with a healthy organization, my dear friends, who does not allow prejudices to stand in his way – prejudices that have such an effect that everything organic no longer works properly – every human being, if he looks at the world in a healthy way and really applies his healthy spiritual power to this healthy view, comes to think of nature and the life of history as imbued with a Father-God. And the strange thing that offends today's materialists – the denial or misjudgment of the Father God – is not possible at all, except that something is not right in the human organization. So one can say: atheism is, under all circumstances, a real symptom of illness for spiritual science; something must be wrong in the human organization when atheism is present.

If people want to develop a relationship to human evolution, if they want to make sense of earthly development, then they have to be able to look at a certain point in time in this earthly development, when the mystery of Golgotha had to take place. But you can't say – just as you can say: that an atheist is actually more or less physically ill, one cannot say that anyone who does not find the Christ is ill. For finding the Christ is really something that is connected with a power to which the name 'grace' is fully applicable. The Christ must be found in such a way that He approaches the human being as an entity, so that the person can find His way to Him. Not to recognize God as such, to be an atheist, means — also in the physical sense — to be ill. But one can be healthy without finding the Christ. Therefore, not finding the Christ is not an illness like not finding God, but not finding the Christ is an misfortune of the soul. It is something that affects us, the failure to find Christ, that plunges the soul into misfortune. You can see this from the deeper meaning of the many discussions that have been held in our field for years: the soul needs the connection with Christ in order to find its way in the overall development of humanity. It was only until the Mystery of Golgotha that it was possible for the human soul to develop its entire life without coming into contact with the Christ. Since the Mystery of Golgotha, the Christ must permeate the human soul with His power, the Christ must connect with the human soul so that this human soul can find its way through the entire development of humanity. You can really find this within the development of spiritual life itself.

Just think of what a beautiful flowering of human spiritual life Greek culture was. People today have no real idea of what life was like for the ancient Greeks. And really, sometimes the only way to express one's admiration for Greek culture is to be negative. Spiritual science will first allow us to become positive again with regard to our admiration of Greek culture. Today, people take it for granted that they can read Sophocles or even Aeschylus, or perhaps even recite or act them. And so one is often asked: Is it possible to do anything with Aeschylus in terms of acting or reciting? It is possible if one has the right sense of Greek culture. If you have Aeschylus or even Sophocles as they exist today in modern languages as Aeschylus or Sophocles, then that is a shadow of the matter. Only the full, dense, reality-imbued concepts will be able to lie in the words again, when there will be [true] translations of Aeschylus or Sophocles or when the Greek words are to be understood. We must not forget that those whom we call intellectuals today, in the cultural life to which they go back in reality, only go back to Roman times. Our high school students may learn Greek, but they only learn Latin-Roman ideas. We have Roman law, Roman ideas in other areas of life as well. But Greece is actually a fairy-tale land. But it is deeply, deeply rooted in this Greekness, my dear friends, that we have been handed down the significant word of the Greek hero: Better a beggar in the upper world than a king in the realm of shadows. Why? The soul concept of Aristotle answers that. No one has dealt so thoroughly with Aristotle's soul concept as the recently deceased excellent psychologist Franz Brentano. It can be said that spiritual research can agree with what Brentano discovered by philosophical means with regard to the soul and immortality concept of Aristotle, the Greek sage, for the reason that it is the Greek concept, but elevated to philosophy.

Aristotle was not initiated. The initiated Greeks knew something else about the immortality of the soul. But Aristotle was not initiated. He could only rise to that conception of the soul to which an uninitiated wise thinker of the Greeks could rise in the centuries before the entrance of the mystery of Golgotha. What is this conception of the soul and immortality? The ancient Greeks knew, they knew from an experience that people today no longer have, that everything they accomplish in the body as human beings is imbued with soul. The ancient Greeks did not speculate about whether their soul somehow lives, but they knew that when I move my hand, my soul moves with it. The ancient Greeks knew that the soul lives in everything they did, physically and mentally. But he had the idea that soul and body belong together internally. For him, it was a whole: soul and body. That is why Aristotle says: If they cut off one of your arms, then you are no longer a complete human being. If they cut off two of your arms, then you are even less so; if they take away your whole body, as death does, then you are no longer a complete human being. Aristotle speaks of human immortality, but he says, when man has gone through the gate of death, he is no longer a complete human being – he says this as a Greek – because he lacks the possibility of coming into contact with the environment in any way, which is only possible through the body. A person who has passed through the gateway of death is, for Aristotle, a maimed person. Although Aristotle still clings to the idea of immortality, within this immortality the soul lives in such a way that one is an incomplete human being. And that it can actually do nothing but continue this existence, I would say spiritually vegetatively, to reproduce, without coming into any contact with the environment. That is the concept of Aristotle, which could arise before the Mystery of Golgotha, when man was left to his own devices. And now think about what the concept of immortality would look like today if this had been propagated. Something new had to occur in human development to give the human soul the strength to come to the concept of immortality again: that is the Mystery of Golgotha. Since the Mystery of Golgotha, the power of Christ has permeated the evolution of the earth. But it must happen to people in a merciful way that the power of their soul coincides with the power of Christ. Otherwise, misfortune would befall them, and they would know nothing of the soul that has passed through the gate of death except that it is only an incomplete, mutilated human being.

These are only preliminary remarks, my dear friends, who want to explain the word, want to explain the characteristic: misjudgment or denial of the Christ is a misfortune of fate for the soul. You can be healthy, but you must be unhappy in soul if you do not find the Christ. People must be brought to make clear distinctions regarding the most important concepts if life is to go on and what the future will demand of people is to be achieved. But it is precisely such ideas that some people, especially those who are otherwise close to us, shy away from.

You see, for someone who is a humanities scholar, there is a theologian – such as Adolf Harnack, for example – in terms of the inner structure of thought, the Father God, but there is no actual Christ. Harnack does, of course, introduce the concept of Christ, but it is not organically connected with what he thinks. And what Harnack says about Christ are basically only the attributes of God the Father. The most important attributes Harnack presents about Christ and His nature are only attributes of God the Father. It will be a fundamental requirement of our time that humanity finds the way to the real Christ, that the confusion between Christ and God the Father ceases. Otherwise, some might believe that they have the Christ, when in fact they only have God the Father. We only need to remember that some Christian mystics of the Middle Ages claimed that they had found the Christ by delving into their souls. There is no reason for them to say that they have found the Christ – they have only found the Father God. One can find the Father God in this way, but not the Christ. Take the term that I initially developed as a characteristic. When our soul appears healthy for the organism, when it properly comprehends itself in the whole person, then it says “Ex Deo nascimur” – “I am born of God”. This saying “Ex Deo nascimur” should be nothing more than an expression of the complete health of human nature. So just living your life in the right way, living a completely healthy life, allows this life to culminate in the recognition of the Father God: “Ex Deo nascimur”.

The good fortune of being able to connect one's own soul with the power of Christ brings the gracious possibility to know oneself beyond death, not as a mutilated human being, but on the contrary, not only as a whole human being, but as a human being illuminated in the illuminated spiritual world. Therefore, “In Christo morimur” – “In Christ we die”.

But in order not to recognize the spirit, blindness of the soul is necessary; this is now more than ever characteristic of materialism. For if the soul really sees all that is around her, if she does not pass by in sleep but sees what is around her in an awakened state, she is therefore not blind but sees awakened, then she sees the spirit at work in all things. Therefore, it must be said that to fail to recognize or to deny the Spirit is blindness of the soul. I particularly want you to grasp this distinction: Not being able to see the mysterious working of the Spirit in world events when the soul is blind comes from not being able to see the Spirit. Being unhealthy in oneself, so that the soul does not fully experience itself, causes atheism, the non-recognition of the Father-God. The recognition of the Father-God therefore comes from the healthy inner being, the recognition of the spirit comes from the alert observation of the world facts and world events around us. The materialist is only a sleeper to the world facts and world events around us.

If what has just been said is plausible – and it is well-founded in spiritual science – then perhaps the question will arise: Yes, but why has there been no real possibility for so long in humanity to develop complete clarity precisely about these three ideas? Why is that so? Yes, you see, that has to do with what I would like to call the historical “misdeity” — “misdeity”. Three is the number: mis-deity, just “misdeity”. I had to coin a new word, and you will soon hear that it is quite good to coin a new word for this idea. In the future, we will have to coin many new words. People will coin many new words in general, because the old words are no longer sufficient for what we need to understand now. And for what we have to say to each other now, we take the word “abuse”, where three is taken from the number three.

You see, my dear friends, in the presentation that I have given in my “Theosophy”, I have pointed out from the most diverse sides in a clearly noticeable way that in order to understand the entire essence of man, it is necessary to consider the human and also the worldly trinity of body, soul and spirit - body, soul and spirit. If we go back to those times when there was only an atavistic, dream-like consciousness, but within this atavistic, dream-like consciousness there was an ancient view of reality, we find everywhere, especially in the wisdom of the mysteries, the threefold division of the world and man into body, soul and spirit. For neither the world nor man can be understood otherwise if one does not grasp the meaning of the threefoldness of body, soul and spirit.

Now something strange has occurred. The Council of Constantinople took place in 869; with it, the spirit was actually abolished. Until then, there was widespread awareness that one must distinguish between body, soul and spirit. Among the things established by the Council of Constantinople, the most important is that one should not assume a difference between soul and spirit, but in the soul one should only think of a thinking and a spiritual part. And from that time on, throughout the entire world-developmental currents of the Middle Ages, it became necessary that one no longer distinguished the human being into body, soul and spirit, but only into body and soul, whereby soul and spirit were conflated with each other. It was heretical to speak of the so-called “trichotomy” since the Council of Constantinople in 869, after which it was only permissible to distinguish the human body and the human soul as a thinking and spiritual being, but not the threefold nature, the trichotomy into body, soul and spirit. This is tremendously significant. Those who are familiar with medieval philosophy know how some medieval philosophers struggle with the fact that they still had the feeling from ancient times that the human being consists of three parts. But the misappropriation had occurred since the Council of Constantinople, and anyone who wanted to claim or philosophically teach the trichotomy of body-soul-spirit would have been declared a heretic.

We are experiencing the highly remarkable fact today that the gentlemen who pursue unconditional science, exactly according to the Council of Constantinople, divide man into body and soul, and have no idea at all about the division into soul and spirit, except at most as something that is only a verbal skirmish. Look at Wundt and other enlightened minds of the present day; they all have the division into body and soul. That is why these gentlemen are also “presuppositionless”, because they have only the Council of Constantinople as a presupposition. They just don't know that they have this presupposition, which is why they call this philosophy “presuppositionless science”.

In certain directions, order and, above all, strength and world understanding are not created if one does not penetrate the secret of “dreiung” again, if one does not overcome the “missdreiung” that has been going on for centuries through the world view, through the view of humanity in general. The deep significance of the division of the human being into body, soul and spirit must be recognized again. But then, in precisely this most important and essential area, one will find the possibility of speaking concretely, imbued with reality, and expressing the truth, whereas in this area, the present time speaks not in terms of reality but in abstract terms; it believes that it is not speaking abstractly but is presenting the greatest real ideals of humanity.

It was at the end of the nineteenth century, as you know, that three ideals of humanity resounded through Europe and as far as Asia: fraternity, freedom, equality. And you know that within the European discussion - which today is no longer a discussion, but is being written in blood - that within this discussion the three words keep coming up that are supposed to say: But let us ask the question that must be asked in relation to these three words, let us ask it from a spiritual scientific point of view: if we simply talk in general terms that man or humanity must strive for fraternity, freedom and equality, we are dealing with an abstraction, three abstractions that are still under the complete influence of “misdeity”. Why? Man is in reality a trinity: body, soul and spirit, and as body, soul and spirit man lives with other people, who are also body, soul and spirit, here on earth together. This gives rise to a relationship between those forces within people that experience each other here in the physical world, and that comes from the fact that a person is incarnated in a body, a relationship that arises from the fact that we interact with each other in our bodies.

If we are to formulate an ideal for the future, a social ideal based on the truth that man is incarnated in a body, then it must be the ideal of brotherhood. From what man is for man, because man is bodily, from that must grow brotherhood, my dear friends; that is a social ideal for the future. But there is no point in speaking of the ideal of freedom from the same point of view. That would be to speak in the abstract. Speaking of the ideal of freedom only makes sense if one knows that only the spiritual relationship between people can be free. Just as people can only develop a social relationship according to the ideal of brotherhood if they are incarnated in the body, so too can this striving for the ideal of freedom only be realized if one understands how one soul can live from another. People become free as souls, people can become free as souls just as they can be fraternal if they are incarnated in bodies. Equality is an ideal that only makes sense if it refers to man as spirit. For the way we are placed in the world means that we are specialized in having one body and one soul. In terms of our spirituality, we are equal. Therefore, when we have discarded the body and with it the specialization of the characteristics, the saying that aptly characterizes the event comes to mind: In death, all men are equal, because they all become spirits.

The three ideals are meaningless when they are mixed up in “misuse”; they only become meaningful when these three ideals will sound through humanity in such a way that one can recognize them.

Man is body, soul and spirit; he must become brotherly according to the body, free according to the soul, equal according to the spirit. You see, these three abstract, unreal words will only make sense when spiritual science can find this meaning for them.

But why were these words spoken at the end of the 18th century? You see, you say words – I gave you the example on a small scale earlier – you say words, you believe you have come to a difference [with someone]; in truth it was hatred that has been unleashed. I have shown you that. And now we have the application of this small example to the great world-historical event. And so these words were also spoken in historical time, not to express what one thought one could find in these words, but to compensate, as it were, for something else. In a sense unconsciously, the three words came historically from the human mouth as if in a play, out of ecstasy. Out of full reflection, the words should have been: Fraternity from the body, freedom from the soul, equality from the spirit. One speaks the words half consciously, not fully consciously, for only spiritual science will speak them fully consciously. One speaks the words half consciously, like a person in ecstasy, a visionary speaks the words. But of course no one will understand this who swears by the supposed weight of these three words today. What will he say? He will say: Are you saying that these words were spoken in ecstasy? They are something that is most imbued with self-confident human reason. That is the belief that is poured out over the whole fact. Because why? Because in the depths of the soul of the times, when these words were spoken, Ahriman was lurking; and Ahriman is the one from whom these words really emerged. That is why they rashly croak.

And Ahriman needed to unburden his soul. Just as a soul usually unloads hatred, so Ahriman sought to unload himself. And just as a soul that is discharging would say that so-and-so did this or that to me, Ahriman had above all to bring out of his soul a certain impulse towards the material. And this was expressed not by letting people say — imagine what would have been the fate of people if they had had to say: We must not oppose materialism, we must now forget that there is a soul and a spirit, we must ascribe everything to the material; not to the body fraternity, not to the soul liberty, not to the spirit equality, but we must ascribe everything to material man; we must finally wipe the slate clean with this trichotomy.

That did not work. Therefore, the three things had to be conjured up as an ideal. And because Ahriman was at work in these, they came out under ecstasy. When a person does something like this, he numbs himself, he is in ecstasy. When Ahriman raves in him, then he can believe that he is saying the wisest thing, that he has complete control over himself and is saying something quite natural, while in fact he is saying nothing else that is perfectly apt for outer development, but which in truth is the life of an Ahrimanic power in the human soul.

We will take up these matters again tomorrow, for they are truly important if we want to understand the present time. And tomorrow I will have many more important things to say, especially with regard to the present time.

But now, following these discussions, allow me to say something that I would rather not say, but must say. We have fulfilled our task today. But it is necessary because I am obliged to observe certain measures for the near future within the Anthroposophical Society, and I need to give some motivation for them.

You see, my dear friends, spiritual science is something that must — I have motivated you from a wide variety of perspectives, quite objectively — that must become part of human development. It is not something that has an end in itself, like the program points of other societies, which one can be passionate about, but something that must become established because humanity itself, if it understands itself correctly, demands spiritual science. Only a few people still know this objectivity over time to observe what really presents itself as a yearning in human souls. But from certain laws, which are already understandable through spiritual science itself, my dear friends, what I have indicated in the most diverse ways is being realized more and more. And those who have heard me speak often know that I have often pointed out that the forces that would like to extinguish the light of spiritual science are indeed already at work. These dear friends who have heard me speak often know this for certain. For those who observe things, they have not come as a surprise, but they must still be treated in the right way.

Is it not the case that spiritual science is something that has to become established? In a sense, the Anthroposophical Society should be an instrument for spiritual science. It is an instrument that is difficult to handle, that must be readily admitted. But my dear friends, we must also truly face the fact that the Anthroposophical Society must be taken extremely seriously. Otherwise it would be better to have very small groups of friends in different cities trying to organize public lectures, and spiritual science would be able to fulfill its current mission for humanity in this way. But if there is an Anthroposophical Society, then it must be something real. Now, from certain backgrounds, it is extremely difficult for this Anthroposophical Society to fulfill its ideals, but on the other hand, it must not be ignored that one must look at what is necessary in this Anthroposophical Society in order to advance it as a society - I am not talking about spiritual science now, but about the society.

You see, above all it is necessary to acquire a clear and healthy judgment within the Society, also for what exists in society, and about the way society works outwardly, and to shape one's feelings and one's judgment of the world in the sense of this judgment. I am not saying that I demand this of society, but society cannot be what it wants to be if it does not strive for it. I have nothing to demand of society, I emphasize that, but it cannot be what it should be and wants to be if it does not strive for this healthy judgment of the world and life, if this striving does not really take root in society.

Look, let me start from a specific point: there are things that, as they happen, are only possible within our Anthroposophical Society, that would not actually be possible outside. Take the most blatant case of Heindel-Vollrath. What I mean is this: a Mr. Grasshoff applied for admission to the Anthroposophical Society a few years ago. That is, he was one of those people who are dragged into it by other members, sometimes in a rather unjustified way. But he had an urgent desire to become a member of our society. He became one, attended all the lectures, perhaps even spent some time in Hamburg, took part in public and branch lectures, but he also borrowed all kinds of individual lectures from all kinds of members and diligently copied everything down. So that when he said one day that he wanted to go back to America, he not only had all the public lectures in his head, but also pretty much everything that had been presented in our cycles and branch lectures.

Now you may say: Why was the person accepted at all? Yes, my dear friends, you cannot anticipate the future in such a case. You cannot – I must ask for forgiveness for using a harsh word – you cannot reject someone and say: I am rejecting you because later on you will be a bastard! You cannot give prophecies as a reason for rejection. This is a dilemma that occurs in such a society, and it makes it necessary for every member of the society to develop correct judgment.

So Mr. Grasshoff went back to America one day, took all his things with him and said that he wanted to spread our spiritual science in America. The dependency was so great that he himself said, before he took leave and made the solemn promise, that the way he would represent spiritual science would be a thoroughly honest one. The matter went so far that he said at the time: How should one actually translate “Rosicrucian worldview” into English? Back then, it was very difficult to translate “Weltanschauung” into English, and we still discussed the “Rosicrucian World Conception”. Except for this word, it is from me, which is a word that had not been used before: “Rosicrucian World Conception”. So he packed this word into his suitcase and left.

What did he do? He sat down in America and wrote down in his own way what he had found in the lectures and in the printed books, changing it in his own way. But there is nothing in his books that he did not get here. But in the preface he wrote the following: He had learned many things in my lectures that he wanted to share in America, but it was not enough, and after he had listened to the lectures here - here with me, with us - he received a call from a wise master down there in Transylvania, in the Transylvanian Alps, who introduced him to the deeper secrets of the matter. Therefore, he would not only give what he had from me, but also what he had received from that wise master there in the Transylvanian Alps. But if you check what this wise master told him, it is what he copied here from the cycles, lectures and branch lectures. It is all worked into it. The book was published in America.

Well, that could still be tolerated, right? But it didn't stop there. This book was translated into German and published years ago in German translation as “Rosenkreuzerische Unterrichtsbriefe” under the aegis of Mr. Hugo Vollrath years ago, and on the bookplates and in the preface, you can read that some building blocks of this Rosicrucian worldview did indeed come to light here in Germany, but they were impure; they first had to be purified by the bright Californian sun. That is where Grasshoff, who later called himself Heindel, later lived. So not only was it possible in America, but the things were retranslated into German. That is possible. This is a scandal, my dear friends, and deserves to be made known. I have even mentioned it in public lectures. It has not become known. But if the Anthroposophical Society wants to fulfill its task, it is important that our cause be presented to the world in the right way; that it is not just said by me, but that one also gains the right attitude towards these things. Of course, it is wonderful and desirable to hear lectures and read cycles about spiritual things, but for that we do not need an Anthroposophical Society. The Anthroposophical Society must work and develop a field of activity.

Of course, where such things can develop, things move forward. What have we experienced recently? Recently we have seen that a man who for a long time truly appeared to be the most honest of the so-called followers of anthroposophy, was a member of the Anthroposophical Society who called himself true, he was so true that he even wrote a book that was published by the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House, and then he wrote a small booklet “Who was Christ?” In this booklet, he used some material that is also from the Cycles. Now, that might still be acceptable, but Dr. Steiner did not think it was quite right to introduce it. I did not take a stand on the matter, but Dr. Steiner did not think it was right – and she is the one who runs the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House – that if you take things from the cycles and then say: some hints have been given, but I must first explain them clearly. For these and other reasons, the booklet “Who Was Christ?” had to be rejected. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - after a thing, therefore because of a thing. This is often a disputed dictum, but I believe it is often a very correct dictum. What became of this man who had lived among us as a loyal anthroposophist and who had sought to find his own place for his work? This man became the most vehement and swollen opponent because his little book was not accepted by the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag. That is the only reason. All the foolish talk he has developed about alleged contradictions in “Psychische Studien” is just added. And one does not do justice to the matter if one believes that one has to go into this talk, but one has to know, in order to see the whole enormity, that a person who has last sought to publish his writing in the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag posophical publishing house, and thus had every intention, had his writing been accepted, to remain an anthroposophist as he had been before, that he would become a person producing defamatory writings if his writing were rejected. One has to - forgive me - found the Anthroposophical Society in order to experience such things, because otherwise this cannot actually happen with such intensity.

Now don't misunderstand me! Opposing writings must also appear, I will have no objection to that. Please do not take my words as if spiritual science should be afraid of opposing writings. They may appear, but they should be objective. But there is nothing objective here. This will become immediately apparent when we see what ground the whole matter is taking. Everywhere it is actually only seemingly a matter of all kinds of refutations, I might say, of contradictions that are pointed out; in truth, it is a matter of spreading gossip and scandal, most of which is even invented, but sometimes presented with great sophistication. So this is not said because of factual opposition, but because the aim is not to engage in a factual fight – that is far too uncomfortable – but because the aim is – by virtually driving the anthroposophical movement into scandal, into defamation, into slander, into inventing facts that have absolutely no connection with reality - to make this Anthroposophical Society impossible.

But so much can happen in the realm of this Anthroposophical Society! A man from a town in central Germany once wrote to Dr. Steiner: He is now at a particular point in his soul life, he does not know what to do next. He would like some advice, should he become involved in a business or should he seek his new soul path in some other way. Since he had been informed that it could not be our task to give advice on marrying into a family, he turned up one day. He made himself noticed by reciting Schiller's “Cassandra” with furious emphasis, although he had no idea of any art of recitation, and unleashing it on the unsuspecting members of the Anthroposophical Society. In this way he made himself felt in the Society; to individual members he made himself felt by, as I was credibly told, energetically exercising the will to marry the young girls of the Society.

Now, of course, such things happen in the course of the flow of anthroposophical life, but sometimes they take on even more forms. One day the good man was seized by the urge to be a genius, a painter genius. He was seized not by the urge to become a genius, but to be a genius, not by the urge to become a painter. If anyone expected him to become a painter, he took it as an insult.

He couldn't paint, couldn't do anything, but he wanted to be a painter. He moved to Munich, and we tried in every way – didn't we, to a certain extent anyone can become a painter – to get him teachers. He has been supported, but we just couldn't make him a genius. And this whole matter developed into what is now called the “Bamler case”, which is supposed to characterize the entire disgrace of the anthroposophical movement with invented stuff about exercises causing bruises on the skin and similar things. These articles are accepted with open arms, and not only that, by busy editors, by editors who are sometimes of such a nature that they make any old remark, and someone writes to them – I am only telling facts, a correct judgment can only be based on facts and I am accustomed to telling only facts —, someone wrote to the editor: Well, haven't you read the essay in your own magazine, which should have told you that this [illegible] is completely unjustified [illegible]? The editor replied to the person concerned: “Yes, do you think that I have time to read all the essays that are printed by me?”

Well, it is not about that when someone enters into a factual discussion, but rather that one wants to avoid it. For spiritual science has no need to fear factual discussions. One wants to collect all that is simply invented today from such things. For the things that are invented are indeed enough to make one want to climb up the walls – and are partly invented in the most obscene way.

I do not want to tell you obscenities today, which are already being printed, but I do want to give you a small sample of what is possible in this day and age; I will give you a sample that is sweet but no less ridiculous. I could come up with very thick chunks that would taste quite different, through which, in order to drive them into a scandal, anthroposophy is to be made impossible. I would like to give just a small sample. There is a nice / gap in the transcript] essay that contains things that are all made up. What matters is that they are made up. And what is not important is that attention is drawn to the fact that the personality who wrote this did so in a mentally ill state; that is not important, but that the things are objectively untrue. It says: Dr. Steiner often explained the Lazarus miracle to his students, the transformation of the human being through the Lazarus miracle. Dr. Steiner sent chocolate to a certain person who had to be taken to a sanatorium “to thicken the blood.” This chocolate had been chosen to bring about a transformation in the person in the sense of the Lazarus miracle.

There you have an example – as I said, I have chosen one that is still the most appetizing, but that does not make it any less likely for you to invent. But there are editors who write: “Even a healthy person could be put in an asylum because of such craziness.” - So you can imagine: someone thinks that Dr. Steiner wrote about the Lazarus miracle; Dr. Steiner wants to perform the Lazarus miracle by sending chocolate biscuits - now imagine during the war - to a sick woman in the sanatorium to send chocolate biscuits to thicken the blood so that the Lazarus miracle will take place. This will be printed today, and an editor can be found who says: “Through such follies, even a healthy person could end up in an insane asylum.”

Yes, it is ridiculous, but the very campaign that is starting today is characterized by the fact that on the one hand it is ridiculously ridiculous and on the other hand it is downright spiteful. For it has become possible for articles to appear in the “Psychische Studien” with comments by the editor that ridicule the anthroposophical movement and drive it into scandal. It has become possible for such an article to appear that one would have to experience first hand to believe that such things could appear. For against the prevailing attitude, everything that has been written in the scandal press so far does not come up. For to proceed in such a way would have been avoided until now – I will say, if not towards a man, then at least towards a woman, but that has also become possible.

And it has become possible that just people who cannot be rejected when they enter society – because the one who wrote this was, of course, a member of the Anthroposophical Society – because one cannot anticipate the future, one cannot reject them; it is possible for these things to happen. It is possible, my dear friends, that now, in the most incredible way, what really did not happen to my pleasure and at the request of the members, that the most incredible gossip and slander about the personal relationship between me and Dr. Steiner and the members – that all of this is being dragged into gossip and slander and – not to speak with my own words, but with the words of a friend who was at the Nuremberg lectures and heard the matter – into meanness. Not only did the Imperial Privy Councillor and Professor Max Seiling explain quite tastefully, despite the fact that he had come repeatedly over the years and did not even request brief private discussions, and now declares: the cycles would have a better style if they were corrected by me, instead of having private discussions with the members. Nevertheless, the imperial court councilor Professor Max Seiling knows very well how the cycles were wrested from me, because it was not my wish that they be published, but it was done out of two necessities: it was desired by the members, although I said there was no time to review them; on the other hand, the mischief that was done with the rewritten lectures. The rewriting went so far that one day we came across a lecture that had been rewritten. This transcript actually stated that I had said in a cycle that prostitution had been set up by the great initiates. This is just a sample of the things that were present in the private transcripts that were passed from hand to hand.

It was necessary that at least once the matter was taken in hand, that at least the follies that were passed from hand to hand in society in the form of private notes should cease. Nevertheless, the imperial court councilor Seiling had the nerve to say: if the private conversations had not taken place, then these lectures - while he was calculating and indicating prices - could have been corrected. All this is possible, other things are possible that I do not want to mention for the time being. All these things are possible, but it is precisely the private conversations that lead to things being invented, purely invented, and that are now beginning to be used because people do not want to fight objectively, that are now to be used to proceed in the most unobjective way against what the anthroposophical movement is.

What has been said over the years, and how have I emphasized: Those who know me know how opposed to everything sectarian what I have in mind is. And where is there more of a tendency towards it than in our society! I need only mention one external manifestation. We once wanted to travel to a course in Helsingfors. We arrived at the Stettin train station and found, walking on the other platform, a whole company of female members - I don't want to say anything against the female members, it could also be male members - so we saw a whole bunch of ladies with purple bishop's caps in incredible costumes heading for the Helsingfors train. When the ladies got off in Helsingfors: One should have seen the fright that the poor Helsingfors Anthroposophists got. They no longer had any sense of the aesthetics of these bishop's caps and so on, but only the sense of accommodating the ladies in such a way that at least the rest of the Helsingfors population would not notice that they belonged to the Helsingfors Anthroposophists.

But this is only an outward sign of the urge for sectarianism. Again and again, people on the outside have to hear: This is a society built on authority. They do everything that Dr. Steiner wants. I don't think there is a society where it is like ours, where if something is to happen according to my opinion, it certainly won't happen. I do not consider myself the master of the Society, so I cannot demand that what I want should happen; but I can demand one thing: that I should not be asked. But on a small scale it has been shown time and again: some lady or man, it can also be a gentleman, feels the need to justify to her husband or a friend why she is traveling on a cycle. What does she say? “Doctor Steiner said so.” — What do I care whether she goes to the cycle or not? — ‘Do you have anything against it?’ she asks me. — I can't have anything against it, that would be an infringement of human freedom, which I respect and value. But then one says: ‘Doctor Steiner said I should travel to the cycle.’

Well, these are the kinds of insinuations that make it necessary, after years of talking about these things, to take measures once, not to take them, but because they are necessary, even if they are as difficult for me as they are for some people, but to emphasize the seriousness that is necessary in these measures.

Firstly, I now have to stop having private conversations with members for the time being. I can no longer have private conversations with members. I can only say that I am as sorry as anyone can be, but you will have to turn to those who made this necessary. It was not I who made it necessary.

The second thing is – but I ask that the one not be told without the other, the one is not right without the other – the second thing is: I explain to everyone who has ever had a private conversation with me that they can tell everything that has been said in these private conversations or has otherwise occurred, that they can tell everything completely, as far as they themselves want. I urge no one not to tell anything, insofar as he himself wants, that has ever occurred in such conversations. Nothing need shun the light of day if it is truthfully communicated.

So first, the private conversations must stop; second, I authorize everyone, insofar as he himself wants, to tell everything that has ever been spoken or occurred in any private conversation. It remains to be seen whether, under the seriousness of these measures, one or the other may yet be achieved. For my part, I am completely convinced that those of our dear members who are seriously and with dignity seeking that which must now be sought through spiritual science within humanity not only understand these two measures, but also approve of them and find them necessary. For those who seriously want to advance esoterically – just give me a little time, and even without the private conversations I will find ways and means to ensure that no one is held back in their esoteric development; a fully valid substitute will be found, it just has to be created first.

I have only given you a small part of the characteristics of the campaign as it is now being launched, but something must be done, because it is not acceptable to be caught between personal spite and ridicule. After all, it could be said in Munich: One of the most serious attacks is yet to come, that of Goesch.

Yes, my dear friends, that can be said, even though Goesch's attack is typical of the stupid and ridiculous on the one hand, because he engages in magical effects of handshakes and the like, and on the other hand, just in mere spite.

Perhaps if we just have a little awareness / gap in the transcript] some things can be improved. I know that those who take the Anthroposophical Society and spiritual science seriously will understand me.

Dear attendees! Those who do not sleep through the present conditions of life, in which they are enmeshed, but who live through them with an awakened consciousness, will be able to feel that what has been looming in the life development of modern man for decades has only now, in the present, basically achieved its true historical form and its elementary historical power. That is what is making itself so powerfully felt in our lives today: the social question. In particular, one should feel how something that may have been taking place for decades, perhaps more below the surface of life in its actual form, has now come to the surface with ever greater and more far-reaching significance. The starting point of the last few years, the war catastrophe that engulfed the world, showed how the social impulses of modern humanity played a role in general life. Many a personality who shares the responsibility for the disaster that has entered our lives in this way would have behaved differently if they had not been under the influence, whether of fear or something similar, of the so-called social movement for a long time and out of a certain fear or anxiety or other mental states, behaved in a completely different way than she would have behaved if she had been able to gain clear insight into what was in the air in the ill-fated year 1914 in complete composure.

And again, during this terrible catastrophe, how did people on the one hand nurture hopes that the destroyed harmonies could somehow be reconciled from the social movement of humanity? On the other hand, how did those personalities who were somehow in a leading position during this time of horror stand under the influence of the social demands of humanity, so that they were essentially influenced by this side in their actions? Many things would have taken a different course if that had not been the case.

And now, esteemed attendees, now that the catastrophe has entered into a crisis, we can see that all the more what can be called a social movement is entering into the life of present humanity in a decisive way, so that the attitude of most people can be seen to be permeated with something of deep tragedy. Can we not say that the fact in which our lives are embedded, over a large part of the civilized world – and this will spread further and further, as anyone with insight can see – can we not say that the fact in which our life is geared to, to the judgment of people, to the judgment of people that is supposed to prove itself in the right way through action, through intervention in life, that this fact shows in the face of this judgment how little the judgment of most people can actually cope with these facts.

Yes, esteemed attendees, it is really as if certain currents, certain forces in the life of newer humanity wanted to show themselves in their impossibility, in their absurdity through this catastrophe, and as if that which which has been played out in an absurd way, to the detriment of humanity, has left something behind that undermines many of the things that we might have believed could not fail before this catastrophe occurred.

On the one hand, we see the drastic facts that are unfolding in such a way that they must deeply affect every individual life. We see how, from the innermost impulses of humanity, a re-shaping of life is demanded. We see the old party ideas and party programs asserting themselves within what is emerging, asserting themselves in such a way that they want to take hold of what is there. But how do these party ideas, these party programs, this thinking, which is also sometimes formed in a scholastic way in social events, appear to us today? One would like to say: like mummies of judgment that suddenly want to come to life, but which only walk around as mummies in the face of living events.

The way people think today about what is happening is like something dead in the face of the living demands of existence. The seriousness of the situation, which is characterized by this, makes it clear to every thinking person that it is necessary to form an opinion about the current situation, to the extent that their actions allow.

The lectures I intend to give here will proceed from this point of view, dear attendees. Today I would like to show more what the true form of the so-called social demand actually is, how this true form has arisen from the life of newer humanity, and tomorrow I would like to go into the important matter of possible attempts at solutions that do not arise from this or that fantastic fantasy, this or that one-sided impulse of the will, this or that party coloring, but which arise when one takes into account the true reality of life, the true reality in all its depth and in all its breadth.

It is not only in the life of the individual human being, but also in the social and state coexistence of people, that many things are at work that do not play out in consciousness, but rather, so to speak, prevail in the unconscious; indeed, it can be said that even in the social, state and societal life of the human being, many more unconscious factors play a role than in the life of the individual human being. And anyone who has no idea about these unconscious factors, or who has no sense of how to engage with them, will hardly be able to get behind the true nature of what is asserting itself today as a social movement.

One can certainly look with a certain respect at everything that has been thought, written and spoken for decades, and also done within certain limits, to deal with the so-called social questions and the social movement. However, as much respect as the effort and thought that has gone into it reveals, one will only be able to truly understand the social question, which is so essential for everyone today, if one looks at this question not from the perspective of how it has been shaped by the consciousness of people, but if one looks at it from the perspective of full life, including from those depths of life where the unknown factors play a role.

And if I may begin, dear attendees, with a personal remark, let it be this: I came into close contact with the social movement early on, but particularly in its full vibrancy when I was a teacher at a workers' education school for years, from where I gave lectures and had to organize discussions in trade unions and cooperatives. It was precisely through these life circumstances that I was able to experience what was going on in the minds of the proletarians and to see from direct experience what impulses are actually at play in the modern proletarian movement. I would like to say that anyone who is inclined to look at the modern proletarian movement with such a realistic view of life is, above all, confronted with what could be called a contradiction in the feelings, the will, and the thinking of the modern proletarian , but one that is as full of contradictions as all life that does not unfold in logical sequences but rather proceeds from one contradiction to the next.

And so, when we look at the modern proletarian movement in particular, we see that, on the one hand, it is not at all inclined to attach great value to human thinking and feeling, to social coexistence , for the social impulses, that it is actually inclined to consider everything that man thinks and feels more as an emanation of what goes on in economic life and in pure material, economic life. We will come back to this.

I would like to say that the sustainability, the impulsiveness of thought itself, is denied to a certain extent in the mental life of the modern proletarian. And yet – that is the strange thing – never before, one might say, was a world-historical movement built to such a high degree on thought, indeed on the scientific pursuit of knowledge, as this modern proletarian movement. Anyone who has ever really seen – which, unfortunately, the bourgeois circles have neglected to do for decades due to certain circumstances – anyone who has seen how certain difficult-to-grasp ideas, let us say ideas that arise from scientific Marxism, live themselves into, fully into the modern proletarian soul, only he gets an idea of what lives unconsciously in millions and millions of people today. For, as we shall recognize from these lectures, the fact that a deep gulf has opened up between classes of people, on the one hand the previously leading circles with their ideas, with their habits of thinking, as it has become fashionable today, with their sentimentality; on the other hand the proletariat with its habits of thinking, with its particular way of feeling - there is little possibility of mutual understanding! This is something that has a profound impact on all of modern life. Because, when you get right down to it, how superficial it seems that much of what the leading circles have done to gain understanding with regard to the social life of broad sections of humanity! They went to the theater and watched Hauptmann's “Weavers” in order to gain some insight into the lives of a large part of modern humanity. In this behavior lies – as you will recognize more and more, dear ladies and gentlemen – a profound misunderstanding.

If one tries to penetrate into the depths from what is happening on the surface of life, then one will want to pay less attention to everything that so-called intellectualist leading circles think about the social movement today. One might even want to show less consideration for what the modern proletarian himself thinks about what he wants and what he strives for; but one will feel all the more compelled to bring one's own living understanding more precisely into line: not so much the objective course of events of the social movement as the modern proletarian himself, the inner life of this modern proletarian.

I believe that countless observations of an intensive kind, intensive experiences of the life of the proletariat, have opened up the right thing to me in a certain sense, in that I thought I noticed that an essential thing in this social question is what is hidden in the word that one can hear again and again within the modern proletariat: the modern proletarian feels class-conscious. He has awakened from what used to be an instinctively dull life to class consciousness, to an awareness of his situation within his human class.

But just when one considers this as a characteristic of the modern proletarian soul, then one comes to realize that this feeling of being imbued with class consciousness points to something much, much deeper, to something that only opens up the way to the actual, true form of the social question of the present.

What can be recognized as the true form of the social question of the present has been tried to be recognized by many, by repeatedly pointing out how the modern proletariat was actually created under the influence of modern technology, which is revolutionizing people's living conditions, and the related capitalism in the economic order, to what took place in these matters in world history.

Now, esteemed attendees, I do not need to point this out in particular, it has been presented over and over again. It has been shown how the old crafts, how the old economic conditions have been absorbed by everything that depends on technology and capitalism, how the proletarian class within the newer life of humanity has actually only been created as a result. But to the student of human evolution something quite different is revealed in addition to these things. And here I come to the point where it might be apparent to the man of today that it is precisely in regard to the incisive social questions that the spiritual-scientific method can truly penetrate to reality.

The modern technology and capitalism looming before us are, after all, only a later manifestation of something quite different. In lectures that I have been privileged to give here in Basel over the years, I have already hinted at what is at issue here. The life of humanity as a whole, although fundamentally different in many respects, is similar to the life of the individual cell in one respect. Anyone who properly considers the individual life of a human being will be repeatedly forced to combat the preconceived notion that nature never makes leaps. In fact, in crucial points, all natural development makes leaps. In the individual life of man, dear honored attendees, we find that development does not proceed in a straight line, so that we can always link the effect directly to the cause. For example, we face a decisive crisis in the life of an individual human being around the seventh year when the teeth change. We find another decisive crisis when sexual maturity sets in. We find such crises even later on, when we observe life more closely. However, the later ones elude superficial external knowledge.

What takes place in the life of the individual human being does not follow on directly from a previous cause in a linear way, but it is as if forces with elemental power came up from the depths of the organism.

The life of the individual human being is no different in this respect than historical life as a whole. Within this historical life, not everything simply progresses in a successive manner. Rather, the historical development of humanity also includes critical upheavals in which elemental forces work their way from the depths to the surface. Such a crisis occurred for modern humanity at the turn of the fifteenth to the sixteenth century.

Only by treating the historical life of humanity in a scholastic way today, by looking at it rather superficially, do most people fail to see the fundamental difference in the spiritual life - and in everything connected with it - of man after the turning point in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and what took place in man in the Middle Ages or in even older times.

Once a true historical perspective replaces what, especially with regard to this point, is often convention in today's world, it will be recognized how radically life has changed at this turning point. And if one is to describe what has emerged from the depths of the subconscious, one can say: things that previously worked like instinctive impulses in the social coexistence of people, unconscious impulses, are coming to the surface more and more, so that people want to understand them consciously.

And this self-confrontation of the human personality through a deepening and illumination of consciousness coincides with what otherwise takes place superficially in modern technical life and modern capitalist economic life. And the essential thing is that, as a result of living conditions that used to be different, man is placed at the machine, to which he can only have an impersonal relationship, that man is woven into the fabric of capitalist economic life, within which he can also only have an impersonal relationship.

Look at how the old craftsman in the thirteenth century still stood by what he had produced, how he loved it, how it gave him joy, how his honor was involved in the context of his profession. Consider all the personal connections of the human being with what he has made in the economic life in earlier times before this turn of an era, see how this changes in modern life, how the human being can no longer develop a personal relationship, neither to the machine at which he works, nor to the economic conditions of circulation in which he lives. And he is called upon to submit to these impersonal conditions – at least a large proportion of people are called upon to do so – at a time when personal consciousness is awakening in particular, when the human personality is being confronted with itself.

That is the significant thing. While economic conditions arise that drive people into the impersonal, on the other hand, historical events push them to face the pinnacle of their own personality. Outwardly, they are made impersonal, but inwardly, all the more personal. Outwardly, he cannot develop any interest in what he is dealing with. This forces up the innermost strength of his soul. He comes to self-reflection. He comes to the question: What am I actually as a human being? What do I mean as a human being in the world?

Simply and fundamentally put, one could say: the one who was led as a laborer to the machine, since the machine could not interest him, truly had the opportunity and time and reason to reflect on what he actually is in the context of the world as a human being.

And so we are confronted with something peculiar. The modern proletarian calls it class consciousness. But behind this class consciousness stands the emerging consciousness of human dignity in general, the question: What am I as a human being in the context of the whole of humanity?

Not the machine, not capitalism has brought this about; they were only the cause of this most modern impulse of human life coming to light precisely in those who have been driven by the necessities of life into modern technology and modern materialistic economic life.

We must not overlook the fact that the class-conscious proletariat is actually the truly human-conscious part of the modern world. Something peculiar is taking place there, which can be easily recognized. Perhaps it can be understood by comparing it to another historical fact.

Let us consider: at a certain time, in a province of the Roman Empire that was of little consequence at the time, the impulse of Christianity arose. That impulse, which was then to take hold of the world in such an intense way. The Christian impulse spreads. But how strangely it spreads within the Greek and Roman worlds. It comes, as it were, despite the fact that in the Greek and Roman worlds there is a mature education, a culmination of ancient education. It comes only into its own when the barbarians, as they were called, came from the north and adopted Christianity. Christianity was only able to develop its true strength in the simple, elementary minds, not in the mature education of the Greek and Roman world.

You can only recognize such things if you know how, on the one hand, the mature or overripe education of some part of humanity stands in relation to the unspent, virgin powers of another part of humanity. The very personalities who count themselves among the leading circles of humanity have a very warped judgment on this point. Oh, this or that, what is emerging, it is too high for the people, they say. These judgments have been heard ad nauseam in a decadent time at the end of the nineteenth century. What had been imagined, how something should be, childishly, simply, so that the people would understand it, because the people's intelligence was not very high. Usually, such judgments prove little more than that it was uncomfortable for the person making the judgment to accept such a thing for himself.

Those who truly know life know that what the bourgeois intellectual sometimes finds extremely difficult to grasp is actually easy for the fresh intellect and the unspent power of the soul of the so-called subordinate part of the population.

And so the ancient Greeks and Romans could have said: That which did not want to enter him properly, Christianity, precisely because it penetrated the unspent soul power of the barbarian tribes coming down from the north. And that was new, original, elementary soul power. It understood much more than the highly educated Greeks and Romans in terms of what the time demanded.

We see something very similar today, only most people have not yet recognized it. Fresh intellectual and spiritual power is rising up from the depths of humanity and taking with it what can be offered from the entire historical power of modern human life.

In a sense, we are living in a new migration of peoples. Only this migration of peoples does not take place in such a way that masses of people move from some region of the world, but instead of the horizontal direction, this migration of peoples takes on a vertical direction: something rises from the depths of the people, with tremendous power of understanding, with tremendous power of longing, to receive something of the goods, of the best soul goods of people as well.

In view of this, it is very natural to raise the question: What did the leading circles do for this modern proletariat, which represents this mass migration, since the indicated turning point in history? What did the leading part of humanity bring to the proletariat in modern times in the way of human goods, what was it called by this leading part of humanity, what was it woven into the capitalist economic order? This proletariat, which was pointed to by life at the machine, was pointed to its own personality, was pointed to the longing to enrich the soul, this modern, emerging proletariat longed for something that could meet it halfway. But what came to meet it?

What met them was historically unlike Christianity, which met the northern barbarian voices on the soil of Roman-Greek culture. And here something very peculiar presents itself. The soul and spiritual life of humanity had taken on a special form of development towards the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and in general towards the modern times, in which the old driving force of the human spirit no longer lay. Whoever takes a deeper look at the historical life of humanity, oh, he finds, however he may feel about the content of this or that older religious or other spiritual impulse, that these impulses can strike deep, deep into human hearts and souls, that they can sustain human life from this side, that they have a certain momentum to lead man to happiness, to a certain appreciation of his life on earth. For the spiritual impulses open up for him the prospect of a connection between what he experiences here on earth and the supersensible, which shows his human dignity in a higher light than everyday life can.

In more recent times, since the turning point described, what is modern science has taken the place of the earlier spiritual impulses. This modern science has bound its ever-increasing, its immense significance for the whole development of humanity to the names Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Kepler. But one thing is curiously missing in this newer development of humanity: the older spiritual impulses cannot extend beyond what is emerging. And so we experience that a science, a knowledge takes hold of people in which nothing is alive that tells people what they are and how they are placed in the world.

And so the modern proletariat craves more and more for enlightenment through science. But it does not get, at the same time, an impulse that tells it what it is in the overall context of humanity, what constitutes its human dignity, while it seeks a task.

This is a point where, to a certain extent, modern life becomes tragic. We see how religions, at the turn of this period, have arrived at a point where they reject what is emerging as science, reject what is emerging as human knowledge, declare it heretical, prove themselves incapable of sending their impulses into what is emerging as something new.

And so we must regard the following as one of the most essential factors in the development of the life of the modern proletariat: for the reason given, this modern proletariat craves knowledge, craves insight, wants to experience through insight what is worthy of man, what a human existence is.

In this sense, only that which is imbued with the momentum that simultaneously makes knowledge and insight a powerful life content can live as insight, in addition to what bourgeois circles or the other estates bring him.

And so we see something emerging in the newer development of humanity that reveals to us the true form of the modern social question in one point, in one area. We see the proletariat's yearning for an understanding of its own nature, the search for this own nature through modern science. But we also see the impossibility of receiving an actual spiritual impulse in this modern science. And so what this modern proletariat seeks as its knowledge, as its spiritual life, becomes what is now called in the leading circles of this modern proletariat: ideology.

And in this view that the spiritual life is an ideology, we have the true formulation of the social question in one area. Much else is only a consequence of this. Even what often appears in the purely economic sphere (we shall see this in the course of these lectures) is only a consequence of the fact that in the decisive period, when the proletariat longed to receive a spiritual life, the other classes gave it something in which there was no spirituality left. The modern spiritual life had become ideology, ideology. The religious momentum, the religious impact, the spiritual impact in general had disappeared from this intellectual life. This is how the modern proletarian received this intellectual life. He, who was placed at the machine, he, who was ensnared in the capitalist economic order, asked: What is a dignified human existence? How can I learn something about a dignified human existence from science?

The intellectual life alone had become mere thoughts, mere concepts, mere laws of nature. He saw as reality that which his hand had to grasp. The proletarian saw that which entered into modern economic life as an impersonal element. Nowhere did he see anything but its reality; and that which the leading bourgeois circles told him about the spiritual was reduced to mere thoughts, to mere ideas, it was not permeated by living spiritual power.

And so the opinion emerged in the minds of the proletarians that the only real thing is the external economic life, that from this economic life in its circulation, in the external scientific existence of man, arises like a smoke, like a social superstructure, only that which takes place as spiritual life - takes place in science, takes place in art - that this spiritual life is only ideology.

It would not be true if this spiritual life were something that was imbued with the spirit itself, something that, through its own content, would lead people to tie their existence to a higher world, not just a mirror of external material reality, for the proletarians of the external economic reality, the spiritual life was so. But to see the spiritual life in this way means that the soul becomes desolate, that the souls remain empty with regard to their innermost impulses, that the soul asks, asks into the empty space, receives no answer, stands before the riddle of existence emotionally, intuitively, receives no answer!

This is the state of mind of the modern proletariat more and more become: that it had to take over as an inheritance from the other classes not a living spiritual life, but an ideology, that was its fate.

What was caused by this in the souls of the modern proletarians has ultimately led to everything that is emerging today as a social movement. This is how we must understand the true nature of the social question in the one area. It is the actual intellectual area. The modern proletarian was condemned to lead a spiritual life that had to become a mere ideology for him.

The second area, dear attendees, comes to the fore when one actually considers the legal and the political. Political and legal social coexistence was presented to the older estates with their traditions by the fact that their interests, their entire happiness in life, was connected with what emerged as the state, as external political life, as external legal life. What the individual had, what the individual did in the so-called ruling classes, that had its basis in the structure that was the state, that was the political structure.

Of the life of the proletarian, which was emerging, only one thing flowed into this structure, into this political, into this legal structure: that which is closely connected with his existence, and in relation to which he could not come into a similar relationship with the state and politics as the leading circles: it flowed into the social structure of the proletarian as labor power.

And by considering this, we come to a true picture of the modern social demand in a second area. If the worker, who has nothing but his physical strength, gives it to the machine or to something else, he is part of the social organism quite differently than someone who is interested in political or state life through property or other legal relationships. Now, however, the proletarian became more and more aware that he was part of modern technical, modern capitalist life, that his labor had taken on a very specific character through modern conditions and that this character had pushed itself into human consciousness in a particularly clear form. The modern proletarian became aware of the fact that his labor power had taken on the character of a commodity, because in modern times that which was previously instinctive has pushed its way into human consciousness.

Otherwise, economic life is characterized by what may be called the circulation of commodities, which consists of the production of commodities, the circulation of commodities in the narrower sense, and the consumption of commodities. All other classes, so to speak, brought their wares to market, bought and sold. The proletarian had nothing to sell but his own labor power. And life turned out so that this labor power of the modern proletarian more and more took on the same form as the commodity has on the economic market. Just as one buys goods according to the principle of supply and demand, so the modern proletarian has to bring his labor power to market, which the owner of the means of production buys from him – buys at the cheapest possible price, if no legal countermeasures prevent him from doing so.

This is the second area where we encounter the true forms of modern social demands. This is, so to speak, one of the fundamental points of the modern proletarian movement. One must only know, one must only understand, what impression - even if it is outdated today in certain circles, even among workers - it has made on the modern proletarian soul over decades, that Karl Marx - as I said, even if Marxism is often outdated - that Karl Marx showed in a penetrating way, as scientifically as can be justified, how modern economic development has brought it to the point where the modern proletarian has to take his labor to the economic market, just as the other takes his goods, that the proletarian must, so to speak, trade in something that is as intimately connected with his humanity as his labor, that was the inspiring thing, that was what dug itself deep, deep into the soul. That is what they carried within them, instinctively, the people, the proletarians, what they could hear in scientific form from those who wanted to lead the modern proletariat scientifically.

This is the point that must be placed in the right perspective in the historical development of humanity in order to recognize its full significance. This is not something that has only come into humanity through modern technology. This is something that the modern proletarian experiences, albeit not in full consciousness, but sometimes, in that it remains in the subconscious, in such a way that he knows, knows in a certain way: once upon a time there were slaves, the whole person was sold on the labor market, on the goods market. The whole person was a commodity. Serfdom was the next step; the human being was already less of a commodity. Now, in more recent times, labor has taken its place: with it, a part of the human being is still brought to the slave market. Such is the feeling of the modern proletarian.

And just as humanity once overcame slavery – as it was done relatively recently – and serfdom, so must the modern life overcome the fact that labor power is treated as a commodity in modern economic life.

This is what the proletarian has increasingly come to feel is in his interest in relation to the political and legal state. This is one of the fundamental issues of the modern proletarian movement: to wrest human labor from the market, to strip this labor of the character of a commodity.

Of course, dear attendees, there are still many people today who cannot see how one should separate from the goods, from the product into which this labor flows, this labor itself. One need only consider the following. We will overcome this prejudice. The great Greek sages Plato and Aristotle considered slavery to be a necessary institution; nevertheless, it has been overcome in the course of human events. Today there are many people who still cannot imagine that what has just been mentioned in relation to human labor must also be overcome in the same way.

And so, in this second area, attention must be paid to the true nature of the social demands, which consists in giving human labor a position in the social organism such that people no longer have to sell this labor like a commodity, and that only objective material goods remain as commodities in economic life, no longer human activity.

This is something that seems to many to be an almost insoluble problem. We will see tomorrow where we want to proceed to attempts at a solution that it is precisely in the attempt to solve this question that something tremendously far-reaching for the whole of contemporary social life lies. The modern proletariat craves a political and legal organization in the modern state, through which its labor power loses its commodity character, and this labor power - institution in the social organism changes accordingly in relation to the commodity.

And a third area comes to us. This is the area that represents economic life in the narrower sense, the purely economic life, which proceeds in the production, circulation, and consumption of commodities. That which is thus integrated into the human social organism has certainly taken on a very special form after the aforementioned point in time in the fifteenth or sixteenth century and during the emergence of modern technology and modern capitalism. This economic life gradually emerged, one might say, flooding out everything else with its complexity, in that the economy expanded in modern times to encompass the whole world, extending to the circumstances of the whole world; whereas in the past the economic spheres were relatively were relatively narrow; but also because economic life itself became impersonal, separated from human honor, from human joy, from human devotion, and thus this economic life became the one that presented a particular, forced difficulty in the overall life of man.

And so it came about that, as a result of the former connection between man and what he worked, what he produced, developed into the incalculable relationship to the technical, to the capitalist world, that, I would say, economic life was pushed away from man. But precisely because it was pushed away from people, because they were no longer personally connected to it and their gaze was hypnotically absorbed by this economic life, it gained more and more power over people themselves.

And so it turned out that in the materialism of modern times, people's attention, their view, their living conditions were increasingly directed towards this economic situation.

This resulted in a very special imbalance for the proletarian, compared to those who live in the other areas of the social organism. He received the spiritual life as an ideology through the course of history. He could not affirm the legal life because, through this legal life, which gave property and rights to others, his labor power was basically stamped as a commodity. Thus, the spiritual life was, in a sense, a vain ideology; something with which his interests and human dignity could not be connected: political and state life. Thus the modern proletarian was completely pushed into economic life, and so it came about that he expected everything from this economic life, until the spiritual life was paralyzed into a shadowy existence, increasingly flooded on the other side by its crude reality, overwhelming all thought, feeling and will.

And so the belief arose that in the modern proletariat there is now a third area in which a true social demand is emerging: the belief that the rest is worthless to me; that I can rely only on what takes place in economic life itself. What redeems me, what gives me human dignity, must arise from economic life and its own laws. And a strange faith, one might say, a strange economic religion, has emerged. No religious impulses could come from the spiritual life that has become ideology. No religious impulse that could somehow fill man with his own dignity could come to the proletarian from state or political life. He hoped for it from the one to whom he remained connected, to whom he became more and more connected through technology and capitalism. He hoped for it with religious confidence from economic life.

From this feeling it is understandable that, in turn, the Marxist doctrine, or what later developed from it in one form or another, entered with such power into the modern proletarian soul that economic life, that the struggle of the individual economic classes, is the only real, the only thing of real importance; and that everything else, the spiritual, the political, everything that has to do with morals and customs, even art and religion, is a kind of superstructure, an ideological superstructure of the only true thing, economic life. But the economic process is an objective process. The economic process is one that takes place outside of the human personality.

And so one could say: From these foundations, the modern proletarian soul lost all trust in the personal powers of man, retaining only trust in that which, without man, one might say, with natural historical necessity, permeates the world: economic life.

They tried to recognize the course of this economic life, how it developed from earlier economic forms into modern capitalism, how this modern capitalism culminated, culminating in capital multiplying itself through itself, so to speak. They observed all this. They observed the accumulation of capital in a few hands. This finally became particularly transparent to the modern proletarian's eye, which had become clairvoyant in this purely material, economic field: the economic process, which takes place without people, has brought about modern misery, it has brought about what the modern proletarian perceives as his life situation. It must continue. But Karl Marx tried to show how it must continue by turning into its opposite, by what the newer economic order of capitalism has taken from the proletariat must be taken back from capitalism by turning into its opposite through the proletariat.

From this reversal within the economic process, that is, from a purely economic process of development, the modern proletarian expected what was to become of him. Just as he has debased intellectual life to ideology and fails to recognize it through the inheritance he has received from the other classes, so on the other hand he fails to recognize economic life, which can certainly never develop anything spiritual out of itself, but in which he believes that it must develop something spiritual, in which he alone has confidence. Underestimation of the spiritual, debasement of the spiritual to the point of ideology; lack of faith in the legal power of the political state that has taken away the dignity of its humanity by turning its labor power into a commodity; overestimation of the viability of economic life by believing that everything a person experiences can only economic life, and giving the development of economic life a quasi-religious consecration. These three things in three different areas, in the spiritual, in the state-legal, and in the economic, are the threefold true formulation of the social question, and are what lives in the modern proletarian. If we recognize this, then we know how the modern proletarian movement came into being. But then we also know what power it has. And we see that it has emerged with a certain inevitability in the development of the present and that it must continue to exist in the development of the future. That is why all modern life springs from two roots, and that there is so little possibility of mutual understanding between the classes.

On the other hand, the formerly leading classes have brought up intellectual, state, and economic life. They have toned it down to what was then passed on to the proletariat as inheritance.

The proletariat, driven by the impulses of modern humanity, craved intellectual life. It was given ideology. It craved a dignified existence. This dignified existence was extinguished by the imposition of the commodity character of its labor power. Economic life had finally emerged as the all-encompassing factor for the other classes as well. But these other classes brought into the modern organization of economic life what they had in their traditions. The modern proletarian was placed alone in this economic life. Therefore he expected everything from the development of this economic life.

The reasons for the attempts to solve the social problem in the present must also be sought here; how this social problem, whether it be temporary or whether it be solved in some definitive way, can be solved, can only be fathomed if one first attempts to fully recognize how the true form of the proletarian social movement has emerged in these three different areas: the spiritual, the state, and the economic.

We must seek the threefold solution of this modern proletarian movement in what can arise as such attempts at solutions precisely from the three currents that have led to the modern proletarian current. From this basis, we will now try to approach tomorrow, esteemed attendees, that which is so urgent and necessary for humanity today: to form an opinion on certain attempts at solutions, realistic attempts at solutions to the modern social question.