The Rudolf Steiner Archive

[ 1 ] Professor v. Heck is of the opinion that the social conditions which I promise as the final success of my proposals would "solve the social question in a happy way", but that the implementation of my proposals would not have the hoped-for effects, indeed that this implementation, if at all possible, would "not promote but harm" the common good and especially the working class. - One can hardly pass a more devastating judgment on an endeavor that pursues such goals as mine, the threefolding of the social organism. For in comparison with these aims it is of course quite worthless to put forward the dream of a happy solution to the social question and then to make impracticable proposals for bringing about this solution. Pretty much all so-called "solutions to the social question" suffer from this flaw. The moment I was forced to admit that an assessment such as that of Prof. von Heck was right, I would easily consider my own ideas to be refuted. And I would certainly not consider it shameful to make this confession publicly. For the "social question" is, on the one hand, such a comprehensive and difficult one and, on the other, something so binding that the retraction of an unsuccessful attempt can have nothing shameful about it. Prof. von Heck can therefore believe that I can respond to his presentation quite objectively. However, he misunderstands me with regard to the point of view from which he views my endeavor. I am aware that I am not at all aiming to "solve" the social question "in a happy way". I do not believe that anyone who is familiar with the psychology of the individual and the masses can strive for such an "ultimate success". My assumptions are quite different. I believe that I recognize that humanity has currently reached a point in its historical development that demands the threefolding of the social organism out of the nature of today's human being. If this demand is met, it will be possible to master the elementary unrest that has gripped mankind. If it is not met, this unrest will lead to the self-destruction of our culture. It is not because I wish to fantasize about an ultimate goal that I speak of the threefold structure, but because I believe I recognize the causes that demand this threefold structure from the present state of humanity. That is why I have not invented "proposals" for a dreamed-up final goal; rather, for me these proposals are the result of observations that I believe I have made over decades of the social development of humanity. The way in which I have arrived at these observations is proof to me that my "proposals" have nothing utopian about them. But it also makes it understandable to me how so many people come to regard the threefold structure as unclear and impracticable. Such people think they are thinking practically. But they are entangled in theoretical assumptions that they consider to be practical. They have formed these theories according to what was considered practical for a while. If this "practical" then requires a transformation through its own development, they find the newly formed "impractical" because it contradicts their usual ideas. It is precisely among the supposed "practitioners" that one finds such theorists. It seems to me that the threefold structure of the social organism will only be judged correctly by those who not only think they know what has been practical "up to now", but who have a healthy instinct for what may prove practical in its "future" development.

[ 2 ] If Prof. von Heck already misjudges the premises of my "proposals", this misjudgement becomes more and more complete as he continues to pursue what I have presented, since he does not reproduce and oppose my views as such, but replaces them almost point by point with others and then "refutes" these others. I would like to say: he creates his own threefold structure, which has very little to do with mine. I must confess: I would fight this threefold structure no less if it confronted me than Professor von Heck fights it. In this judgment I am in complete agreement with him.

[ 3 ] But I ask: have I really given cause to understand the tripartite structure in such a way that three parliaments should replace the unified state parliament in the way Professor von Heck presents it? Have I ever said or had anything printed that is equivalent to the monster "three states on the same territory"? My idea of the threefold structure demands that the affairs of spiritual culture, on the one hand, and those of economic life, on the other, should not be organized by such a representation of the people as is equivalent to what has hitherto been regarded as a "parliament". The administration of spiritual culture should arise from the same foundations from which the life of the spirit itself unfolds. Those personalities should be in this administration who take an active part in spiritual life, who bring to bear in this administration the same impulses that are at work in spiritual production. And I believe I recognize that such an administration is only possible if the administrators do not sit within the state administration, or are appointed from the spiritual realm into the state realm; but that the spiritual life is placed on a basis independent of the "state". In the state, everything that arises through it must ultimately be the outflow of the sound judgment of every responsible person. For the state strives for democratic organization. In intellectual life, only expert judgment can decide. It seems impossible to me that with further democratization of the state this expert judgment can be found within its framework. I believe that only those who are inclined to take out of democracy what cannot thrive in it can honestly want democratization. I could imagine that a fruitful discussion could arise in this area if the question that comes into consideration were to boil down to the following: Can the administration of intellectual life (especially education) take on a form that merely corresponds to the demands of this life if the democratic state exercises rule in any aspect of this administration? My experience compels me to answer this question in the negative. I believe I know the reasons which lead to its affirmation. But they do not seem valid to me. If my opinion is justified, then the judgments that Professor von Heck puts forward from the point of view of the economic security of intellectual life and compulsory schooling would have to be placed on a completely different basis than his own. I believe I have pointed to this ground on page 88 ff. of my paper "Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage". If what I indicated there is properly put into practice, then institutions will emerge that secure the economic basis of intellectual life and also protect against the "temptation" of "not sending children to school, but using them to earn money." Despite everything that von Heck says, it seems unfathomable why, when considering these questions, it should play a role that "as a result of peace, we are approaching a time of impoverishment that no other nation has experienced". No one can doubt that this last sentence is as true as it can be. But why the school should not get what it can out of this poverty, if this is to happen in other ways than before, is surely not understandable.

[ 4 ] Professor von Heck's argument against the separation of economic life from the state proper is no less riddled with misunderstandings. He says: "The complete separation of legal questions and economic questions, which Steiner demands, is not possible at all." What makes it clear that I am "demanding" the "complete separation" spoken of here? What I see as necessary is this: all legal matters should be organized by the democratic parliament; and the economy should be managed by associations arising from the professions, from production, transport and consumption interests. Through this organization it will come about in economic life that its cycle will be governed solely by the decisions of the individuals experienced in individual branches of the economy and by the credit which economic men enjoy through their position in a branch of the economy. The "natural laws of economic life" will force us to replace democratic electoral intentions, which could at most play a role in the transitional period, with the democratic delegation of capable people in the sense of the two conditions of a healthy economy described above. Democracy and parliamentarism will be recognized in their damaging consequences for economic life when this life is no longer veiled in its peculiarity by the state legislation spread over it, but when it is placed in its self-government on an associative basis. Professor von Heck says: "The law determines the forms of the economy and can only be ordered by a power that oversees economic life." However, this sentence is only correct as long as economic life and legal life are merged. If economic life is left to its own devices, that is, if it exhausts itself in the administration of the production, circulation and consumption of goods (with import and export), then the legal relations of the economic agents remain unorganized by this economic cycle. And these are organized on the territory of the state, outside the economic cycle. Legal relations will then not be the expression of economic forms, but on the one hand their basis in the same way that natural conditions (geographical, climatic, etc.) are the basis of the economy. - Anyone who believes in the axiom that legal forms must be the expression of economic forms must find it difficult to accept the emancipation of law from the economy. But whoever realizes that this "axiom" contradicts the present consciousness of mankind will try to overcome his belief in it. Contemporary man cannot bear to live as a subject of law under the compulsion of economic forms. To close oneself off to this fact and to pay homage to the view that "the law determines the forms of the economy" means little more than declaring the work on an important link in the social question of the present to be a chimera. But one should only do so if the separation of legal life from economic life were to be supported by more weighty reasons than those put forward by Professor von Heck.

[ 5 ] One misunderstands the structure which the social organism is to receive through the threefold structure if, as Professor von Heck does, one expresses the following objection: "Steiner, too, if one looks more closely, leaves three economically very important questions to the legal parliament. He leaves to it the questions of taxation, the creation of workers' rights and the restriction of ownership of the means of production, which should last only for life." It is not correct that in a tripartite social organism taxation should be regulated solely by law. Read about this on page 53 of my "Key Points of the Social Question": "What the political state itself demands for its maintenance will be raised by the tax law. This will develop through a harmonization of the demands of legal consciousness with those of economic life." With regard to labor law, it is possible that it will not be left to legal life as an economic matter, but that it will be removed from the economic cycle, that is, stripped of the character of an economic matter. It is also quite inaccurate what Professor von Heck states as my view on the "restriction of ownership of the means of production". What is in question is not left to the "parliament of law", but is made a matter in the ordering of which the administrations of intellectual life and legal life are involved.

[ 6 ] The requirement concerning taxation can be fulfilled in practice by the fact that formally the constitutional state as a consumer organization stands opposite the economic cycle, just as within this cycle itself a consumer association stands opposite a production cooperative, for example. The regulation of general tax requirements and the use of taxes takes place within the legal system. On the other hand, the distribution of tax claims to the individual economic areas will be the responsibility of the associations resulting from the professions and from the interaction of production and consumption. Professor von Heck says appropriately: "The most difficult task that the future threatens us with is the distribution of the enormous, unheard-of tax burden that peace will impose on us ... These taxes cannot be raised without the most serious interventions in economic life. Therefore, even if Steiner's ideas were implemented, every economic group would have to secure representation in the legal parliament in order to defend itself against overburdening." However, this "most difficult task" can only be solved by separating legal life from economic life in such a way that the solution does not contradict the legal consciousness of individual groups of people. For if the interests of an economic group are represented in a parliament based on a democratic foundation, it will always be the case that the economically more powerful group will impose measures on the less powerful group. It will be able to do so through its own power or by entering into compromises. The formation of a parliamentary majority always makes it possible to assert and suppress interests in an unobjective manner. The situation is different if the administration of economic life is organically separated from that of legal life. In this case, no decisions can be taken on the legal ground that have effects in economic life that are detrimental to any group of people. Everything that happens in economic life will be based on negotiations between the designated associations. In these negotiations, the expertise of one association can be contrasted with that of the other; and the unobjective, merely democratic parliamentarization can be dispensed with. Someone might perhaps say that what we are striving for here could also be realized if the main negotiations in the "legal parliament" were transferred to the committees and experts from the individual economic areas were added to them. It seems to me that this would only be half a measure. What limited good it could do would have to show just how the desired effect could be achieved completely only by separating the economic administration from the legal organization. Professor von Heck does not emphasize strongly enough what it means in the practice of life when the competent representatives have to negotiate from branch to branch in such a way that through them the living conditions of one branch have to promote and limit those of the other, without the influence of unobjective majority decisions. Anyone who takes into account the practical effect of such an institution will not think of saying: "How should scientists and doctors have special expertise for ecclesiastical questions, and farmers, merchants and craftsmen for large-scale industry?" This seems to be the right question, but it does not argue against a self-reliant organization of economic life, but against the representation of economic and cultural interests in a parliament in which everyone has a say in matters about which they know nothing. The negotiations between the economic organizations through their representatives do not require any expertise outside the area that someone has to represent. For the outcome of the negotiations will be determined objectively by the factual significance of one area for the other. The basis for such objectivity is created by the fact that the administrative bodies will be organized around those personalities to whom a leading office is transferred in the manner described on page 86 of the "Key Points of the Social Question". The other members of this administrative body will emerge from the needs of economic management in such a way that the usual election will be replaced by a selection of suitable personalities, since ability will be revealed in the organization of work and the conviction will be established that one's own work will prosper best if the most knowledgeable leader is appointed. The members of higher administrative bodies and a central council will emerge in a similar way from the lower ones. Thus, despite the central council, the overall administration will be built on a federal basis.

[ 7 ] Such a structure of economic administration will only be tolerable to the democratic consciousness if everything that relates to the legal relations of the persons involved in economic life is separated from it and relegated to a democratic parliament. However, these legal relationships include everything that relates to the work that people do for each other.

[ 8 ] Whoever understands my proposals for the tripartite social organism in the way described here, and not in the completely misunderstood way in which they appear in Professor von Heck's rendering, will hardly demand a refutation of the objections listed in the last columns of my critic's article. For these objections stem only from the fact that Professor von Heck does not refer to my exposition, but creates his own threefold structure and then polemicizes against it.

[ 9 ] In the essay "My impression of Dr. Steiner and his theory of threefolding" by Alfred Mantz, it is said that my explanations could only represent something that could be realized "if people were different from what they are". One can only hold this opinion as long as one has not yet sufficiently realized in what sense and with what intention one can develop ideas about the institutions of the social organism. It is true that ideal social conditions are only possible with ideally inclined and developed human beings. But anyone who rejects thoughts about the organization of the social organism because of this one-sided truth is moving in a dubious circle of ideas. He will want to wait with desirable institutions until he has the people suitable for them; during this wait, however, he will only ever have people whom he finds unsuitable. If Mr. Mantz will examine my ideas more closely, he can see that I do not require any other people for the realization of these ideas than those who are available. And I find these people as mature, or as immature in general, as he himself. But I assume, as everyone who does not want to sink into fatalism must assume, that among the people of today there are those who can convince themselves of the necessity of reorganizing our social structure. In the tripartite social organism I see - as I explained in the discussion of Professor von Heck's essay - that which fulfills the demands to which mankind is pressing at the present stage of its development. It seems to me that if those people who can convince themselves of the necessity of the threefold structure succeed in doing what is necessary for its realization, conditions will be created which will give such efforts a basis that will make people different "from what they are". The assertion that I am sketching a picture "that must look very good in a vacuum, but in reality is utopia" is truly wrong, since I am not even touching the reality in which we live, but merely replacing the structure of this reality, insofar as it stems from intentions, inclinations, habits, judgments, etc., with a different one, which should also develop from similar human impulses.

[ 10 ] How little is true of what is written in the essay "Dr. Steiner and the Proletariat" can be seen completely in my book "The Key Points of the Social Question". Anyone who wants to refute the statements in this essay must not attempt to do so by claiming that "capital will never submit to their implementation". For he would first have to prove that he has a social structure in mind for the implementation of which "capital" is not needed. But then why should it be needed precisely for the realization of mine? As Mr. Seeger then goes on to say that through the institutions which I would like to see brought about, the worker could "never get rid of the feeling of having to work only for a single entrepreneur", it must be held against this that my efforts are directed precisely towards finding conditions through which the "physically working man" is given the feeling of being a free man in his work.

[ 1 ] It is necessary to found a bank-like institution which, in its financial measures, serves economic and spiritual undertakings that are oriented both in terms of their goals and their attitude towards the anthroposophically oriented world view. It should be distinguished from ordinary banking enterprises by the fact that it serves not only the financial aspects, but also the real operations which are supported by the financial aspects. It will therefore be important above all that the loans, etc., are not obtained in the same way as in ordinary banking, but from the objective points of view which are relevant to the operation to be undertaken. The banker should therefore have less the character of a lender and more that of a businessman who is familiar with the matter, who can assess the scope of an operation to be financed with a sound mind and make the arrangements for its execution with a sense of reality.

[ 2 ] It will mainly be a question of financing such undertakings as are suitable for placing economic life on a healthy associative basis and for shaping intellectual life in such a way that legitimate talents are brought into a position through which their talents can live out in a socially fruitful way. What is particularly important, for example, is that enterprises are created that are profitable at the moment in order to support other enterprises that can only bear economic fruit in later times and above all through the spiritual seed to be poured into them now, which can only sprout after some time.

[ 3 ] It is necessary for the officials of the banking enterprise to have an insight into how the view of life given by anthroposophy can be translated into economically fruitful activity. To this end, it is necessary that a strictly associative relationship be established between the bank administrators and those who, through their idealistic effectiveness, can promote the understanding of an enterprise to be brought into being.

[ 4 ] An example: a personality has an idea that promises economic fruitfulness. The representatives of the ideals of the world view can evoke understanding for the social consequences. Their activity is financially supported by the amounts to be raised, which should also economically and technically support the realization of the idea.

[ 5 ] The focus must be on supporting the headquarters of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual movement itself. The building in Dornach, for example, cannot initially support anything; nevertheless, it will bring about a powerful economic return in later times. It must be understood that everyone can support it while respecting their financial conscience, if they only count on its material fruitfulness over a longer period of time.

[ 6 ] The enterprise must be based on the realization that technical, financial, etc., activity can develop branches that are not only financial but also material. The enterprise must rest on the realization that technical, financial, etc. activity can develop branches which, while temporarily producing favorable results for the individual entrepreneur, are destructive in the context of the social order. Many of the latest ventures were oriented in this way. They were fructified, and it was precisely through their fructification that the social order was undermined. This type of undertaking must be countered by those that stem from healthy thinking and feeling. They can fit into the social order in a truly fruitful way. But they can only be borne out of the social way of thinking stimulated by anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

[ 7 ] It is true that even an enterprise such as the one characterized here can initially only overcome the socio-technical and financial crisis possibilities, and that it will be confronted with social difficulties as long as these still bear the form of the actual workers' question, which originates from the old mode of production condemned to crises. The workers involved in the new enterprises will, for example, behave in the same way with regard to wage differences as they do with regard to the old-style enterprises. But in such matters one must not underestimate how soon, if properly managed, an enterprise of the kind characterized here must also have socially favorable consequences. We will see that. And the example will be convincing. When an enterprise of this kind comes to fruition, the workers who are involved will already have their convictions in the process of bringing it back into flow. For it is only by bringing the manual laborers and the intellectual leaders of enterprises into one interest through a way of thinking that affects all classes of people that the forces of social destruction can be countered.

[ 8 ] The basic condition is that the spiritual endeavors are intimately connected with all material ones. We cannot achieve such an orientation with the forces now available in the anthroposophical movement because we have no practical enterprise in its bosom that has grown out of its own forces, apart from the Berlin anthroposophical publishing house. But this alone is not enough to have an exemplary effect. For its economic orientation is only the outward expression of the clout of spiritual science as such. Only those undertakings that do not have spiritual science as such as their content, but which have a content supported by the spiritual scientific way of thinking, can have a truly exemplary effect. A school as such can only be considered exemplary in this sense if it is financially supported by only those undertakings whose entire institution has already emerged from humanities circles. And the Dornach Building will only be able to prove its social significance when the personalities associated with it have brought such enterprises into being that are self-supporting, provide the people who maintain them with adequate sustenance and then leave enough left over to cover the deficit that is always required of an intellectual enterprise. In reality, this deficit is not a deficit at all. For it is precisely the fact that it arises that causes the fructification of material undertakings.

[ 9 ] You just have to take things really practically. This is not done by those who ask: so how should one make a financial or economic enterprise in the sense of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science? That is simply nonsense. What is important is that the powers organized in the anthroposophically oriented spiritual movement itself undertake the enterprises, that is, that bankers, manufacturers, etc. join forces with this movement, so that the Dornach building becomes the real center of a new spirit of enterprise. That is why it is not "social", "technical" etc. "programs" that are to be set up in Dornach, but the building is to be the center of a working method that is to become the working method of the future.

[ 10 ] Whoever decides to provide financial support for the Dornach undertakings will have to understand that we have already reached the point where supporting undertakings in the old sense means putting one's money into unfruitful things, and that caring for one's money today means supporting promising undertakings that alone are capable of withstanding the devastating forces. Short-sighted people who still believe today that such things have never borne financial fruit will certainly not join the Dornach endeavors. Those who join must be far-sighted, financially and economically sound people who realize that continuing to muddle along in the old ways means digging themselves a safe grave. It will be these people alone who will not follow the destructive existences of the last four to five years. Continuing to work in the same way as before means nothing more than using up financial and economic reserves. Because the reserves of raw material and agricultural production, which last the longest, will also be used up. Their financial and economic fructification does not lie in the fact that they are there, but in the fact that the labor by which they are supplied to the social organism is possible. This work, however, definitely belongs to the reserves. Everything for the future depends on a new spirit taking the lead in individual enterprise as well.

[ 1 ] The Goetheanum in Dornach near Basel, Switzerland, is intended to be a school of spiritual science and a place for cultivating an artistic life in the spirit of this science. Its construction began in the spring of 1914. Work on it continued during the war. The enclosing walls with the double dome have been completed. Its architectural and sculptural forms, the paintings of the interior, the stained glass windows produced using new methods already show the visitor what kind of envelope is intended for the scientific and artistic work that is to be carried out in this place.

[ 2 ] Not a building in a historically traditional art form has been erected in Dornach; what can already be seen today shows that a new style and form of artistic realization is being attempted. The whole of the building and every detail have flowed from the same spirit that wishes to create a center of its activity in this place.

[ 3 ] And this spirit wants to serve the rebuilding of scientific, spiritual and social life. It has grown out of the conviction that the human constitution of the soul, which reached its peak at the beginning of the twentieth century, is internally interwoven with the destructive forces that have revealed their true form in the world catastrophe.

[ 4 ] Just as the building in its design aims to represent a unity with everything that is to be accomplished within it, so it is hoped that the spiritual work emanating from Dornach will develop the spiritual impetus that can be formative for a true moral, social and technical practice of life.

[ 5 ] For modern man there was an abyss between his spiritual experience and the practice of life. Through illusions he deceived himself about this abyss. He believed that he could draw science and art from the reality of life and permeate this reality with his spirit. These illusions are the true causes of the devastating world catastrophe and the social hardships of the present. Modern man did not find the spirit in science and art; therefore his life practice became a spiritless routine.

[ 6 ] The social practice of life, the mechanically oriented technology, the externalized legal life lack the impulses that can only arise when the souls within people experience the spirit.

[ 7 ] The spiritual science to be cultivated at the Goetheanum in Dornach has driven out of itself a social view of life, the impulse of the threefold organization of the social organism, which wants to gain genuine life practice from real spiritual knowledge. Who wants to avoid everything utopian by creating out of the reality of the spirit.

[ 8 ] What souls need in order to experience their full humanity is to be cultivated in Dornach just as much as the technical aspects of outer life. The school of thought that wants to form its center here wants to create a workshop for life-enhancing technology, for the social shaping of human work as well as for the development of the life of the soul. It needs the cooperation of all those who are impartial enough to see that modern life lacks what it wants to create.

[ 9 ] In order to complete the Dornach building, almost as much sacrifice is still necessary on the part of such unbiased people as has already been revealed in the possibility of bringing it to its present state. But even with the completion of this building, nothing has yet been achieved for the goals that are to be served with it. Parallel to this completion must go practical institutions of life that are designed in the direction of the spiritual work it represents. Very practical institutions of life, such as technical and social undertakings, must prove the life-promoting nature of its powers. It must come to the point where it no longer seems ridiculous when the spirit that wants to create a world view is also active in the founding of technical enterprises, financial institutes and scientific research institutes.

[ 10 ] The spiritual direction meant here is already at work in the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. Even people who still tolerate it there, because it is active in the "spiritual" field, will still demand today that it "keep its hands off" institutions about which only the "practitioner" should be able to judge.

[ 11 ] In this area, one of the most powerful prejudices must be overcome. The personalities who have already been found today to contribute to this overcoming through practical work expose themselves to the accusation of unrealistic enthusiasm. They believe they know that humanity will only get out of some of its troubles when the enthusiasm of those who falsely accuse them of enthusiasm today has been seen through. But the number of such personalities who, despite such accusations, are currently putting their energies at the service of genuine life practice is still small. Institutions are in the making that want to lay the foundations for this practice of life. Whether it can succeed will depend on whether as many people as possible can be found who want to join forces with the few.

[ 12 ] Only on an international basis can something favorable be achieved in this direction. For the spirit meant here is, by its very nature, far removed from the narrow-minded erection of barriers to humanity. What is necessary for it, however, is the unified embracing of spiritual and practical-material life. It is on this basis that he would like to carry out his work on overcoming the "social question". He believes he can say in all modesty that he was already working in close circles on this basis before his opponent showed his true face in the outbreak of the world catastrophe. He understands that before this loudly speaking fact he could only be heard by a few. He believes that now, out of the needs of the times, he should be met with understanding. The growth of the new life will not be promoted by alliances of nations based on the old spirit; the League of Nations will grow out of the new spirit as something self-evident. The old constitutions of the soul will not support a new social life; from the renewal of the life of the soul the social structure will arise with inner necessity.

[ 13 ] Some people are already saying today: A revival of dead or dampened human forces from the spirit is necessary. But if we take a closer look, the question remains unanswered: What is the content of the new spirit? At the Goetheanum in Dornach, however, one would like to speak of this content, one would like to work for this content. For it is not the mere appeal to the spirit that can help at this time, but only the spirit that is recognized and incorporated into the work of life. But this spirit wants to be worked for itself. It wants to permeate all scientific research; it does not merely want to be tolerated as a side effect of a science that keeps its distance from itself. It does not want to be there so that those working in the factory can find it when they leave the factory; it wants to live in the work of the factory itself, in its economic and technical orientation. He does not want a practice of life that also "leaves time for spiritual interests"; he does not want to leave time in which he does not work. He does not want an art that embellishes "sober" life; he is aware that real life is naturally artistic.

[ 14 ] This is how Dornach and everything connected with it is conceived; it can become a full reality when it is recognized how this "thought" wants to work out of the roots of real life.

[ 1 ] Noteworthy is a confession that the socialist theorist Karl Kautsky feels compelled to make in his recently published book "How the World War Came About". Kautsky talks about the question of guilt. Of course, he cannot help but point to individuals and institutions as the causes of the terrible world catastrophe. He feels that he is violating a tenet of a socialist theory that he has defended for decades. He says: "Marx taught that the course of history is not determined by individual persons and institutions, but ultimately by economic conditions. Capitalism in its highest form, that of finance capital, produces imperialism everywhere, the striving for the violent expansion of state territory... It is not individual persons and institutions that are guilty, but capitalism as a whole; this must be fought."

[ 2 ] Anyone familiar with the development of the Marxist tinged socialist party current knows how the doctrine crystallized in the above sentences has been hammered into the heads of the broad masses of the proletariat. One can agitate excellently with such a doctrine. It can be used to forge party programs. Kautsky's attitude to the reality of life becomes apparent at the moment when he is not supposed to work with the doctrine on the construction of the social organism, but when he only wants to gain an objective judgment of the destructive powers of this organism. He finds himself compelled to say about the judgment that capitalism is the culprit of the world war: "This sounds very radical and yet it has a very conservative effect wherever it dominates practical work. For capitalism is nothing but an abstraction derived from the observation of numerous individual phenomena... One cannot fight an abstraction except theoretically; but not practically." And then he admits that in the practice of life, one is forced to direct one's attention "against certain institutions and persons as bearers of certain social functions".

[ 3 ] It is not worth pointing out such confessions when they occur among dozen-agitators. But Kautsky is no dozen-dollar agitator. He is a conscientious, scientifically-minded socialist. He is one of the very best among his peers.

[ 4 ] He feels compelled to take the step from a party dogmatism that is hostile to life to the reality of life, because he wants to find out "how the world war came about". All the popular party abstractions must fall apart. The actual proof is provided that one can justify parties with such abstractions, but that they are completely alien to the practice of life. Should such a fact not shed a bright light on the destructive effect that parties must have that want to model life according to their abstractions?

[ 5 ] The drives towards the threefolding of the social organism find their main opposition in party dogmatisms that are rooted in abstractions. For these drives are based on the insight into the unfruitfulness of such abstractions. They approach social questions from the point of view of the broadest possible observation of life. Of course, one cannot claim that abstractions are not necessary when observing and shaping life. But it depends on the spirit in which one abstracts. When abstracting, one should never lose sight of "certain institutions and persons as bearers of certain social functions". Abstracting can be an instrument for approaching life; but for those who view it in this way, it will never become an obstacle to working within the real practice of life.

[ 6 ] It does not refute what has been said here when Kautsky then continues (see page 14 of his book): "It is ... It is by no means Marxism to divert attention from the search for guilty persons by referring to the impersonal guilt of capitalism." For this sentence is nothing more than an outgrowth of party dogmatism that is alien to life. In one particular case, Kautsky feels compelled to reinterpret this dogma, because without it he could not have written his book. But if it were a question of such a party man passing judgment on the idea of the threefold organization of the social organism, then the "abstractions" of the kind of "capitalism" would immediately march up again as if by military command and "divert" the gaze from work in keeping with life. Whether one can theoretically claim that something is "Marxism" or not is irrelevant for real life; what is relevant is the spirit that Marxism pours into its bearers.

[ 7 ] Marxism can only be an example of what is meant here. For other party doctrines have an equally unrealistic character. The damage to our social life is based on the pathological phenomenon of the times that is being pointed to here. - One can now imagine how someone who is under the influence of this contemporary disease will easily come up with objections to what has been said. He may say: Yes, of course Kautsky cannot denounce abstract capitalism; but how can one point to specific individuals if one wants to work out a general social view of life? Of course one cannot. What one can do, however, is to build such an outlook on the knowledge of reality in such a way that, as a result, institutions arise in which people can live. And if one builds up such an outlook, then it will be applicable to conditions of reality without artificial reinterpretation in the sense of Kautsky's confession. The abstractions with which such an outlook must also work will not even make it necessary to emphasize that one cannot practically fight against them; for by their very nature they will everywhere point to the real that one has to fight against.

[ 8 ] Almost everything that rejects the idea of the tripartite organization of the social organism is under the influence of ideas that are alien to reality, which at present often consider themselves to be the only practical ones. Those who stand on the ground of real observation of life could be discussed with them. For it goes without saying that no one who professes the idea of the threefold structure should claim that all the proposals for this or that put forward by the supporters of this idea are incontestable. What must be asserted, however, is that these proponents stand on the ground of a view of life against which all those have sinned who have been shown by the painful events of recent years that their ideas are alien to life.

[ 9 ] It is a long way from the perniciousness that clings to the currents of the times of the kind described to that which in the present time is producing its perverse blossoms by saying things in public life that have no connection with reality. And yet, a generation which, as long as it can, educates itself in abstractions devoid of essence, gradually loses its sense of responsibility for the connection between what it believes it can say and what really is. This becomes very clear to those who are affected by it themselves. - These days, a number of German newspapers have carried a note: "The theosophist Steiner as a henchman of the Entente." Everything in this article is a slanderous untruth from beginning to end. The slander even goes so far as to speak of passages in letters that are intended to elicit information intended to serve the Entente. All this is nothing but the most nonsensical untruth.

[ 10 ] I am the object of much hostility. I've kept quiet about almost everything so far. I consider it fruitless to argue with personalities who consider it compatible with their sense of responsibility to write the nonsense: "About Steiner ... people around him have recently complained that he is becoming sterile, that he no longer has any new insights and always presents the same thing; he will probably soon throw himself into something new." What is the value of dealing with someone whose state of mind allows him to seek a path to the truth on such grounds! It was even claimed that I was once a Catholic priest, and then this untrue assertion was retracted by the same party that spread it, with the words: this can probably no longer be maintained. I don't like to polemicize against people who don't check whether something is true before they claim it.

[ 11 ] However, even learned people today are known to repeat assertions without checking them and say: The matter has not been refuted.

[ 12 ] For this time I would just like to say the following in response to the slanderous falsehood identified above: We know the murky sources from which such things originate. We also know the soil on which the intentions that speak from them grow. But we also know that proving that such things are objectively untrue is of no avail against these intentions. One would only wish that as many people as possible would shed the naivety that prevents them from seeing through such things. For only in this way could many things become better that are in great need of improvement in our time. I don't need to say that, despite this debate, I don't lump the misguided abstract thinkers together with those I last characterized here.

[ 1 ] John Maynard Keynes has just had a book published in London on the economic consequences of the Peace of Versailles (The economic consequences of the peace by John Maynard Keynes C. B. Fellow of King's ColIege, Cambridge. Macmillan and Co, London). He states in the preface that he worked temporarily in the British Treasury during the war and was its official representative at the peace conference until June 7, 1919. He resigned from this post when he lost all hope that a prosperous development of economic life in Europe could result from what came about as "peace" under the influence of the leading personalities at this conference. He speaks as an Englishman. But as one who soberly asked himself the question: Is it possible that from the will of Wilson, Clemenceau, Lloyd George, something could result which would carry within itself viability as the economic organization of Europe? The remarks in his book show that on June 7, 1919, he said to himself. June1919: Wilson is a man who, living in abstract terms alien to life, can have no decisive influence on the intentions of Clemenceau and Lloyd George; Clemenceau is a personality inspired solely by the passionate will to dictate a peace to Europe which, disregarding developments since 1870, will enable France to feel as a "nation" in the world as it wanted to feel before 1870; Lloyd George is clever and gifted with knowledge of human nature, but only concerned with momentary successes. And Keynes answered the above question with the thought: What can happen under the influence of these three personalities must bring about the economic destruction of Europe. And he resigned from his post. I cannot find in his book any prospect of something that gives hope for a reconstruction of these economic conditions, but I do find a sentence at the end that says that salvation can only be expected if those forces of knowledge and outlook on life are set in motion that transform the prevailing opinions. One is probably not misunderstanding Keynes if one says that the book arose from the concern and fear that England had collaborated on a work that would lead to the destruction of Europe to such an extent that England itself could suffer badly as a result.

[ 2 ] Keynes' remarks are full proof that nothing of what the future of civilized mankind needs can emerge from the political views which have prevailed up to the present day and which have been carried into the so-called "work of peace" by the leading personalities still in power.

[ 3 ] In this hour of the world, the members of the German people are experiencing in the most bitter way imaginable what has come about under the prevailing impulses of modern civilization. Something is being demanded of them, the realization of which cannot be thought of for a moment. Those who demand it would pile up mountains of hatred against which the ones built so far would be tiny hills if the German people had thought of such a thing after their success in power. So we have reached the point where the apparently quite impossible can be regarded as a condition of a work of peace.

[ 4 ] People who want to maintain a sober view say that the leading personalities are working on the destruction of Europe; these leading personalities devise something as part of their "work of peace" from which measures are derived that are intended to bring about the complete spiritual self-destruction of the German people in addition to the economic destruction. (It makes no difference to the assessment of the "spirit" at work in such measures if amendments are made later. And it is this "spirit" that matters.)

[ 5 ] Have we not reached the point where a sufficiently large number of people might finally realize that the way out of Europe's impasse must be found by means quite different from those resulting from a continuation of the public ideas that have been rejected? Will people continue to believe that "peace" can be made if the public views that ushered in the twentieth century are to remain decisive for the shaping of the civilized world? It will not be possible to "sign" anything that ushers in "peace" as long as a new spirit does not lead to a different judgment than that which has been made up to now in the ordering of public affairs. A discussion about whether such a new spirit is necessary should actually already be ruled out today among those capable of judgment in view of what is happening in the old one. The courage, the determination for this new spirit should be instilled in a sufficiently large number of souls. This would have to lead to a work of reconstruction which could be effectively directed against the destructive spirit. The objection that in its present situation the German people alone could not stand up to the powerful victors with such a spirit should be seen through in its insignificance. For what is good will be accepted by the whole world in the end, if the insight into the merits prevails over prejudices.

[ 6 ] In reality, it is not this objection that drives the opponents of a new spirituality to reject it. It is the lack of courage which they do not admit to themselves and which they want to disguise with sham judgments. It is the low opinion that many have formed of the effectiveness of the spiritual in recent times and which is now bearing the worst fruit. The materialistic utopia, which has become reality, and which, as utopia, must live itself out in destruction, makes the truly practical, which today can only be drawn from a new spirituality, appear to wide circles as "utopia".

[ 7 ] For many, the situation is such that the external successes of this latest era have brought them an experience that was all too congenial to them. This prevents them from seeing that at the bottom of the development of these successes was the evil spirit that brought about the horrors of the last five years. They would like to make a "peace" out of these horrors, which would make them appear as mere episodes and put the old conditions back in the place of chaos. But only action based on a judgment that sees through how the external successes of the latest era were built on a destroyed foundation of lack of ideas, and how any return to the old without spiritual renewal would also have to sow the old seeds for a return of the horrors, can be promising for the future. Without the effective help of this judgment among a sufficiently large number of people, we will not emerge from confusion and chaos.

[ 1 ] When the Central Powers made their peace offer to the Entente in December 1916, it contained nothing that expressed the war aims in a specific way. And even in the period that followed, the Central European statesmen did not allow themselves to express a clear will to the world. They only wanted to create the opportunity to "sit down at the assembly table". Then, they probably thought, they would find what they could or should want. Anyone who reads the publications of these statesmen today, which have swollen to such large numbers, can see why this was the case. These men could not develop anything out of the thoughts that moved in their heads while they occupied leadership positions that could have shed light on the chaos they saw breaking in. And so they waited for a future in which they would find what they needed to think.

[ 2 ] The sad circumstances of the present teach us how far we have come with this waiting. But they have taught very few people that this kind of behavior must finally be broken with. That it is necessary for a specific, clearly outlined objective to emerge, especially in hard-tested Central Europe, if the confusion is not to become even greater.

[ 3 ] Just look at the international consequences of this lack of an objective. It is becoming increasingly clear that leading figures in the Western powers are gripped by a real fear of what may yet become of the countries they have defeated. It causes them nightmares when they think about all the things that could still come to the surface in Germany. For this Germany seems to them like a great unknown. They fear that it could become something that shakes the foundations of their own countries, after they have had the opportunity through victory to enforce a "peace" that has given them the "safeguards" that one can imagine according to the old art of statecraft.

[ 4 ] Imagine what could happen in this international situation if, at least now, something were to come to the fore in Germany that did not amount to waiting and letting events take their course, but rather revealed a clear will. The historical development of the German people justifies the belief that understanding can be awakened in this people for impulses that aim at the reconstruction of the devastated Europe, if the thoughts that speak of such impulses are not shouted down by those who are incapable of recognizing the developmental necessities of humanity.

[ 5 ] Everything that presents itself to the world as a movement for the threefolding of the social organism is based on this belief. The first step was the appeal "To the German people and the cultural world!" published in the spring of 1919. This appeal was based on the belief in the power of the German people's forces. It could not have been written without it. But it could even be argued that the content of this appeal offended German sensibilities. It could be seen as an insult to the German people. Others, who were less short-sighted, found it "incomprehensible". But that meant nothing more than that they had read it superficially and then asked themselves whether it agreed with what they were used to thinking about spiritual, national and economic conditions. They found that he said something different. Then they answered: "Incomprehensible". No one wanted to consider that the old familiar thoughts had ultimately driven Europe into the most terrible struggle and that within this struggle there was nothing but "waiting" and "letting oneself be driven" by events.

[ 6 ] This terrible war has brought chaos to Europe. In the chaos are unions of nations that now want to live on. But they want to do so with the forces of ideas that led to the chaos. Before the war, an economic life developed in this Europe that was led by the state powers, which had formed themselves from national-spiritual and all kinds of legal foundations. These formations have proved and are proving anew every day that they cannot lead the economy of Europe. But the spiritual and legal conditions cannot develop if the economic life they lead collapses under their influence. The devastating events speak the clearest possible language: give economic life to the forces growing out of it! Create a legal life whose content is not determined by the economic powers! Free the administration of spiritual affairs from the shackles of the economy and the state so that, left to their own devices, they can fertilize the other branches of life! People shout "utopia" and call reality what, for anyone who wants to see, is driving them to their own destruction.

[ 7 ] Those who want to be leaders now are the faithful disciples of those who, with the beginning of the twentieth century, drifted into an impossible world situation. They saw the "upswing" and thought that it could continue; and their disciples see the destruction and want to work against it with the thoughts that brought the "upswing", that is, drove it into destruction.

[ 8 ] How often has the writer of this essay emphasized that there is no presumption that the ideas of threefolding presented to the world are meant to be something that does not require improvement. The more experienced people work on this improvement, the better it will become. What is meant, however, is that the idea of the threefold organization of the social organism is based on the real necessities of life in the public existence of the present. And that these necessities of life can only be seen by those who see through how the traditional ways of thinking have actually been refuted by the horrors of the present. What matters today is the will to gain such insight. All "waiting" can bring nothing but events that refute anew what has already been refuted enough. But every new refutation will be accompanied by a new wave of impoverishment.

[ 9 ] The construction of Europe must be based on healthy ideas. Healthy ideas, if they are to be effective in public life, require a sufficient number of people who understand them to such an extent that their will is transformed into a real life force. Without this there can be no progress. Negotiations lead to nothing if the necessary will is not at work in the negotiations. Where human will is at work, there are no utopias, for everything that has developed in human existence is ultimately the result of human will. Such results are the spiritual communities that have ever arisen, the states, and the economic relations of production. As long as people who do not have the strength to see through this are shouting down ideas based on this insight, we will not make any progress in overcoming Europe's confusion.

[ 1 ] While the war of arms was raging, one could see how leading personalities in Central Europe repeatedly turned their political acumen to finding out that there was disagreement here and there among their opponents. They wanted to build on such disagreements in order to ensure the favorable progress of their own "state business". This kind of diplomatic thinking gradually made it impossible to see how almost the whole world agreed to overcome Central Europe.

[ 2 ] Like so many other things, this kind of "diplomacy" is now being perpetuated by people who do not want to learn from events. One can see how England does not want to respond to France's desire for a precisely defined military alliance treaty; one notices how London is not inclined to meet the economic and financial demands emanating from Paris without further ado, and how England does not treat France's request regarding the Rhine border with unconditional benevolence. One turns one's attention to Wilson's political behavior after the conclusion of peace and to similar things more.

[ 3 ] They now want to let these disagreements show them a way forward for what they have to do in Central Europe. You are again so wise that you cannot see how united the others will be when you yourself are preparing to follow the path that you think is marked out by their disagreement.

[ 4 ] How long will it take to see through the fruitlessness of such a way of thinking? In the depths of European humanity, forces are at work that make it impossible to continue this way of thinking. In the countries of the West, the provisional outcome of the war has created conditions that allow leading personalities there to keep their thinking on the old lines for a while longer. It will be some time before these areas are confronted with the demands of human development which are already pressing in Central Europe. It will still be possible to keep economic life linked to state life there for a short time.

[ 5 ] In Central Europe, only one thing can lead to a salutary progress: the insight into the reorganization of the entire social organization. Through their union and their victory, the Western countries have won the possibility of preserving the old social organization for a time. This preservation is tied to their victory. The countries of Central Europe are in a situation that makes such preservation impossible. Here it must be recognized that the old social formations have no institutions that can lead out of chaos.

[ 6 ] Social structures become obsolete; from the depths of human souls must come the driving forces for new forms. Without trust in what is at work in these depths, no progress can be made. We should not count on those who present this trust as an outgrowth of a fantastic idealism and preach as the practical only what they have become accustomed to thinking as the usual. If today in London the French government's request for a military alliance is not received with an open mind because of British traditions, if England does not quite willingly open its coffers to French economic needs, these are things that only the "clever" disciples or followers of the old diplomatic way of thinking look at. Those who understand the "signs of the times" should realize that there is as little to be gained from these things for the progress of Central European relations as there was to be gained before the war by the fact that it was "incompatible" with England's customs to enter into a military alliance treaty with France. The eyes of those who, according to Czernin's views, were to sit in the palaces of ambassadors of the world with a "European education" were focused on this. But this "European education" has resulted in the horrors of recent years. This "European education" has researched "moods" in salons and noticed nothing of how the world is collapsing while it is making policy. For certain people, these old mood-listeners have been dismissed, but their method should not give way to a new way of thinking. If we do not stop paying attention to such "practitioners", we will continue to dream about what Central Europe should do at the moment when a "deep gulf" opens up in the West between the need for credit on the one hand and the willingness to borrow on the other. All that will be achieved is that the dream will one day lead to the awakening that will show how we ourselves have fallen into the "deep chasm".

[ 7 ] The idea of the "threefold structure of the social organism" is addressed to people who recognize with an impartial eye how the world catastrophe has emerged from views of the kind described above. Those who hold these views believe today that the world war would have been avoidable if the relationship between Germany and England had developed according to their ideas before 1914. They only forget that this relationship could not have developed in this way in a world that was dominated by their habits of thought. The world has now listened to this kind of "practitioners" long enough; they have also been allowed long enough to decry as "utopian" and "fantastic" anything that attempted to break with their habits of thought. The time should have come to see through the fantasy that lives in such practitioners and turn to the real, which reckons with the demands of the world-historical moment.

[ 1 ] Can the dissemination of an idea such as the threefold nature of the social organism bring about a fruitful public will in the face of economic hardship today? This question is asked by many. And all too often the answer is: first you have to fight for the bare bread; then, when you have achieved this, you can turn to ideas again.

[ 2 ] It is precisely against this view that this journal has had to speak again and again. The fact that we lack bread is really only due to the fact that the ideas through which we have tried to acquire it up to now have proved incapable of providing it for us. It is not the bread that has eluded us and to which we can appeal; it is the work that must be summoned in order to bring the bread to light. But the work cannot be done fruitfully without the idea that gives it direction and purpose. One does not want to admit a simple fact: The leading personalities up to now have given the work directions and goals based on ideas in which the workers have lost confidence. As a result, we have collapsed. If we do not want to admit this, the decline will continue. If we make this admission without reserve, then we must realize that the only way to save ourselves from decline is to grasp new ideas.

[ 3 ] Today, things are such that there is really no particular reason to take a keen interest in whether Erzberger has the worse things to say to Helfferich or Helfferich to Erzberger. The main thing is that both have grown out of circumstances and continue to think in terms of those circumstances that have brought about the collapse of our public life. It is important that the ideas that haunt the minds of the Erzberg and Helfferichs are replaced by others. Heliferich has raised the battle cry: Erzberger is a pest of German public life; he must be removed from it. There is no reason to doubt the content of this call. But its representation by people with Helfferich's ideas leads nowhere. We will only get further if we can cultivate ideas of a social order that will do away with all Helfferichian and Erzbergerian politics. Whether one or the other is more guilty is certainly of great legal interest; a new insight must leave no doubt that the ideas of both are to blame for the decline of public life.

[ 4 ] What prevents the germination of such a new insight? It could easily be obvious to anyone who wanted to learn from the facts. But how many have learned from the facts of war; how many are inclined to learn from those that first emerged after the war of arms? The "genuine" Marxist and also the weakened Marxist socialist doctrine are deeply imbued with the idea that the remedy for a prosperous future must be sought in the economic basis of the social order. At the moment in world history when the bearers of socialism are advancing into the places formerly occupied by people who oppose them, the management of a substantial part of economic life is being taken care of by Erzberger alongside socialists.

[ 5 ] We will not get beyond these things as long as we do not gain confidence in ideas that no longer want to have their practical implementation taken care of by the old routiniers, but that are capable of approaching this implementation themselves. Those who speak of the threefold nature of the social organism want to cultivate the will to practice life that results from new ideas. They are often asked: Yes, how do you think this or that should be carried out? They must answer: First of all, it is necessary that the idea of the threefold structure itself be grasped as a practical basis and acted upon. Then they point out what form this or that institution must take if threefolding is to become effective in public life. When they speak in this way, those who do not want to judge for themselves according to what they have said call on the old "practitioners" in some field or other for help. They have "not had time" to deal with the new ideas. They listen on the fly to what the bearers of these ideas actually want, quite naturally do not understand the slightest thing from a detail that has been torn out and pass judgment: - "utopia", "well-intentioned idealism", but insubstantial for practice.

[ 6 ] We must look these facts in the eye without prejudice if we want to recognize the basic conditions under which an idea such as that of the threefolding of the social organism can advance, and if we want to evaluate the obstacles that this idea encounters. No matter how practical the individual proposals of the proponents of the idea of threefolding may be, they will be fought on the side of those who do not respond to this idea themselves. It is therefore necessary at the present time that the understanding of this idea be spread as widely as possible. All special measures taken by the promoters of this idea must first of all serve to spread the idea.

[ 7 ] The real realization of fruitful new ideas alone can enable us to find the ways in which we can find bread again. Fleeing from these ideas will leave us completely breadless. The only thing that can help is the realization that the lack of bread was preceded by the lack of ideas, that the latter is the cause of the former. The path we have taken is: Lack of ideas, lack of bread. The path we must take is to find in ideas the will to shape work. In this way - bread will be produced.

[ 1 ] There is no doubt that among the so-called intellectuals of Europe there is a sufficiently large number of people who would see something fruitful in the path that is to be attempted from social chaos to a reorganization through the threefold structure of the social organism, if only they would first allow themselves to adopt the basic ideas of this attempt. It has often been said here that those who support these ideas cannot believe that what has been presented so far contains irrefutable truths down to the last detail. Certainly, some things will prove to be in need of improvement once more circles of competent and knowledgeable people work together seriously and with practical sense. But the social school of thought that expresses itself in the demand of the threefold structure is formed from the unbiased developmental necessities of humanity in our time, so that what is currently needed lives in it and through the neglect of which the problems in which we live have arisen.

[ 2 ] Whoever as an intellectual compares what was before the onset of the world catastrophe with what is demanded for recovery by the idea of threefolding, must realize how this idea is a reproduction of what the facts themselves express. But only a few are able to make this comparison and to consider this idea in any depth.

[ 3 ] The reason for this fact lies in the way our schools have educated these intellectuals. In the course of recent times, the pursuit of science has taken on a form that has virtually undermined independent, comprehensive thinking. Those who have been forced to pursue a profession that requires higher education have been forced to acquire specialized knowledge that does not give them any stimulus to consider their "subject" in the context of real life. As a recipient of knowledge in a specialized field, one can even become an important inventor, a trailblazer, without acquiring the ability through this field to see through a larger area of reality in sustainable thoughts. Those who learn to think through chemistry are led to understand the significance of the thoughts that live in this subject for the whole of human life. For the thoughts of all areas of reality are connected; and if one has those of one area, they awaken an understanding of life in its entirety. If one is merely a chemist without having learned to think in chemistry, one can be as incapable of judgment as a child in the face of the demands of life.

[ 4 ] The understanding of the basic ideas of the threefold structure depends on the ability to penetrate social facts by thinking. You can do this at the same time, whether you have learned to think in a summarizing way in chemistry, biology or politics. But you will not achieve this understanding if you have only practiced politics as a voter or even as a statesman in the same way that people have become accustomed to practicing chemistry or biology in schools in more recent times.

[ 5 ] Whoever sees through these circumstances will recognize the part played by the misguided intellectual life in the decline of European civilization. And he will only be able to expect recovery from a transformation of this spiritual life.

[ 6 ] But this is least thought of. For in the circle of intellectuals, the present lack should be felt above all. For example, there should be an urge to grasp the way of thinking through which the threefold structure arrives at its ideas, instead of simply superficially comparing these ideas with one's own opinion and, if they do not agree with it, rejecting them. If one has not trained oneself to think in a summarizing way, this is, however, the only position one can take towards a system of ideas that owes its origin to such summarizing thinking about genuine realities.

[ 7 ] There are probably people who say that those intellectuals who are of mature age today will no longer find themselves ready for the necessary self-knowledge. They are too accustomed to thoughtless specialization. We have to wait for the youth. But a large part of this youth bears the fruits of misguided spirituality in the state of its soul. This part of the youth will only be persuaded to repent when it will see from the complete disintegration of social life how necessary it would have been in the past to think in a summarizing way that draws on reality. And the part of the youth that does not need such proof is small.

[ 8 ] Should we therefore let the work rest? No, it must be regarded as an iron duty in the present emergency. Powerfully call out into the world those ideas from which we expect recovery. Perhaps at first there will only be a few who will meet them with understanding. But these few must exist. They will preach to deaf ears as long as complete disintegration has not yet arrived. But the closer it approaches, the more of the others will reveal their helplessness; the more the day will come when it will be seen that the few are needed. Until then, many politicians will still be pushed into leading positions with the old party slogans; many old "practitioners" will stumble along the well-trodden tracks through the disrupted economic life; many editorialists will rave about the disunity of foreign countries, which the home country should exploit, or also about the fact that the war would not have come about if relations with this or that country had been established in the way they were - after the war.

[ 9 ] Unperturbed by all this, those who are able to recognize the fruitfulness of the threefold idea must work to spread it. For only through this work will it be possible to ensure that enough spiritually enlightened people are available at the right moment. Spiritual enlightenment in all areas, which leads to comprehensive thinking, which leads to insight into the real power of this thinking: this is necessary. It alone can be built upon; but it can also be built upon.

[ 1 ] Few people today still strive for a clear insight into the changes that have taken place in all public affairs since 1914. People experience the hardship of the times. People hope for this and that. But we are far removed from any real reflection on what is happening before our eyes. There is an insurrectionary movement behind us in Germany. We fear new similar movements. - But can anyone say clearly what those behind such a movement actually want? They call it a movement of right-wing parties. Well, not so long ago, the word "right-wing party" had a reasonable meaning. This party had a precisely defined program. It was contrasted with the program of the left-wing parties.

[ 2 ] One should finally admit to oneself that these programs have become completely meaningless since 1914. Those who once stood on the right can no longer seriously speak of their program in the face of changing facts. If he has a sense of reality in him, he must realize that he can no longer want what was the content of his program only a short time ago. Nor can the leftist. For decades he has expressed his hopes for the future in his program. He must now see that this program could be talked about politically as long as one wanted to oppose another; but that it proves to be a phrase, since one is supposed to shape a social reality out of it. Do parties still fight against each other today in the spirit of their old programs? No. The programs have become phrases and only the people who once had something to do with these programs remain. There are no longer any "right-wing" or "left-wing" parties, only their shadows. Because parties are void without party programs.

[ 3 ] People who only a short time ago were united under the factual content of a certain direction of will still stand together out of old habit. They form groups. But their cohesion is basically only personal. The former reactionary has lost the content of his will, but he still holds together with those who were also reactionaries. He hopes that he will come to power together with them. He who was a Marxist a short time ago still clings to his Marxism because he has to talk about something in order to express himself. He does not draw any rational meaning from his Marxism. But he comes together, more or less radically, with others who were also Marxists; he forms groups with them that are held together merely by the personal kinship that stems from their earlier Marxism. The people in these groups also hope that they will come to power with people who have such personal kinship with them.

[ 4 ] The struggles of public life today have the same character. The judgments that assert themselves in these struggles also bear this character. Certain people get excited when they talk about the "militarist coup". They don't even realize how much nebulousness flows into their ideas. Basically, if the putschists came to power, they would know as little today about what to do as their opponents would know in the same case. One cannot really be afraid of any particular will of such a group; one can only have an indeterminate fear of the people who once had a particular will.

[ 5 ] When viewed correctly, the situation is substantially different from how it is usually viewed at present. The people who once exercised power are characterized by the fact that they acted out of a direction of will that was rendered impossible by the years of horror that Europe has gone through. The other people who want to replace them have not yet found ideas from the life situations in which they have been so far, which could provide possible social conditions in the realization.

[ 6 ] Groups of people, held together by old habits, by sympathies and antipathies, are fighting for power today. What both have in common is that they cannot do anything with power when they have it, because they lack an objective that has grown out of the facts.

[ 7 ] This situation is taking on ever greater dimensions. Public battles are increasingly losing their intellectual content. Democracy, conservatism, liberalism, socialism are words that used to have content but have lost it. Under these circumstances, life becomes directionless and barbarized.

[ 8 ] The idea of the threefold structure of the social organism takes this situation into account. It speaks of impulses that originate from the essence of humanity itself; impulses that want to shape themselves into social reality from the depths of human nature. It speaks again of a reality, one that reveals itself quite clearly in the facts of present life. For this idea it is obvious that the old party programs have lost their content and that only the memories of them remain in the people who had previously committed themselves to them. "Right-wing and left-wing" does not mean a reality today; the idea of the threefold structure seeks such a reality. We can strive to understand them, regardless of whether we still carry around an insubstantial "right-wing" or an insubstantial "left-wing" in our bodies from old habits, like a dead foreign body in a living organism. The bearers of the threefold idea have to fight with old habits, with the shadows of the past. In the midst of public instinctive actions that increasingly degenerate into striving for personal power, they want to set the direction of the will borne by the idea. They want to give life direction not in the sense of old shadowy phrases, but in the sense of the reality demanded by the times.