The Rudolf Steiner Archive

[ 1 ] An ever-increasing number of people are beginning to declare that no way out of the social chaos of our time will be found unless our minds and hearts take a new turn toward the spirit. It is a confession to which many are led by disappointment with the results of a political economy that tried to base its ideas merely on the production and distribution of material wealth.

[ 2 ] It is also quite clear how few are the fruits of this profession of the spirit in our times. If expected to produce ideas for political economy, this profession is a failure; more is wanted than mere reference to the spirit. This does no more than give expression to a need; when it comes to the satisfaction of the need, it is helpless. One should recognize in this fact one of the problems of the present day and ask oneself, “How is it that even those who today regard this turning toward the spirit as necessary for social life do not get beyond talking about the necessity of it? Why do they never quite manage actually to suffuse our political-economic thought with spirituality?”

[ 3 ] The answer to this question will be found by observing the form the evolution of thought has taken in modern times among the civilized portion of humanity. Those representatives of modern civilization who have found their way to a world-conception, consider it a mark of their superior “cultivation” to speak of “the unknowable” behind all things. It has gradually become a widespread belief that only a very unenlightened person still talks about the inherent “essence of things” or “the invisible causes of the visible.” Now this thinking can be maintained for a time regarding the study of nature. The phenomena of nature lie before our eyes, and even those who will not hear of inquiring into their causes can describe them, and so arrive at a certain substantiality of thought.

[ 4 ] In matters of political economy, however, such a mode of thinking is bound to break down. For here the phenomena proceed ultimately from human beings; demands arise from human wants and preferences. Within us there lives as substance that to which people shut their eyes when they accustom themselves to talk about “the unknowable” (as do many disciples of the newer schools of thought). So it has come about that the age just passed has continued to evolve its habits of thought into the present—habits of thought which break down completely in matters of political economy. One can observe the freezing of water or the development of the embryo, and talk in a very “distinguished” manner of “the unknowable” in the world, cautioning one's contemporaries not to be led into fantastic speculations about this unknowable realm. But one cannot master economic matters with a way of thinking based on such a disposition, for economic affairs require that one should enter into the fullness of human life. Here one finds spirit and soul at work, even though they are revealed only in the demand for the satisfaction of material needs.

[ 5 ] We shall not develop the science of political economy that modern times require until people cease to be content with merely “referring” to the spirit and the soul, and cease to stigmatize all endeavors to arrive at an actual knowledge of the spirit as “unscientific” and unworthy of any enlightened person. The human soul will remain beyond their understanding until they recognize its connection with what they desire to avoid in their study of nature.

[ 6 ] If one speaks today from one's own perception of the supersensible, and argues that the only way to overcome the prevailing materialism is through research into the supersensible, one is met with the reply that materialism has been overcome “scientifically.” There have, it is claimed, been ample discussions on the subject which prove, on “genuinely” scientific grounds, that materialism is insufficient to explain the processes of nature. To this assertion it must be replied that such discussions may be very interesting theoretically, but they cannot overcome materialism. Materialism will be overcome only when it is not merely proven theoretically that there are more facts in the world than are perceived by our senses, but when living spirit inspires our study of the world and its processes. Only this spirit, directing human vision, can survey the many mingling currents at work in the material life of human communities. One can go on forever proving that “life” is not merely a chemical process; materialism will in no way suffer. One will combat materialism effectively only when one has the courage not only to say, “Our views of the world must be suffused with spirit,” but really to make this spirit the focus of their consciousness.

[ 7 ] The idea of the threefold social order addresses itself to people who have this courage. Courage of this kind does not stop short at the externalities of life, but seeks to penetrate its inner being. It grasps the necessity of the cultivation of a free, independent spiritual-cultural life because it perceives that a spiritual-cultural life in bondage can, at most, “refer” to the spirit, but it cannot live in the spirit. It also grasps the necessity of a self-subsistent legal life, because it has learned that our sense of right and justice has its roots in regions of the human soul that must remain independent of both the spiritual-cultural and the economic spheres. One perceives this only by recognizing the human soul. World-views inculcated by the theory of the unknowable (this is the line of much modern thought) will always tend to the fallacy that one can devise a social framework determined solely by the material facts of economic life.

[ 8 ] This courage will not be daunted by the theory that men are not mature enough for such a radical change of thought and feeling. Their “immaturity” will last only as long as science expounds to them that recognition of the spirit is an unwarranted assumption. Immaturity is not causing the present chaos; the chaos is caused by the belief that recognition of the spirit is a mark of unenlightenment. All attempts at shaping social life that proceed from this spiritless enlightenment are doomed to failure because they exclude the spirit. The moment one banishes the spirit from one's conscious mind, it asserts its claims in the unconscious regions. The spiritual forces can further human aims only when we do not work against the spirit. Only those who take the spirit into their conscious mind work with the spirit. There must he an overcoming of the false enlightenment that has arisen from a mistaken view of nature, and has become a sort of lay-gospel among widespread masses of people. Only then will the ground be prepared for a genuine social science that can have a fruitful influence upon real life.

[ 1 ] “Well meant thoughts don't make bread.” Such is the wisdom heard today the moment one speaks of ideas like those underlying the threefold social order. In view of the gravity of the times, this piece of wisdom may rank with another frequently heard today: “The social question will look different only when people return to work.”

[ 2 ] Whoever does not hear these two truths constantly repeated has no ears for the language of public discourse in widespread circles. And even if they are not expressly spoken, one hears these words behind much that is said publicly.

[ 3 ] It is hard for the ideas that the age requires to compete against such founts of wisdom because these objections are so incomparably “insightful.” A person need only say, “Show that they are wrong!” for the keenest thinker to recognize his powerlessness. Of course they cannot be refuted; they are obviously perfectly true.

[ 4 ] Is this all that is important in life—to say something that is perfectly true? Is not the all-important task to find thoughts that can set the facts of the matter into motion? It is a feature of modern public life (and one which does it great harm) that people will not combine their thinking with
a sense of reality.

[ 5 ] It is only this lack of a sense of reality that stands in the way when one tries to bring fruitful ideas to bear upon modern social troubles. People have long been accustomed to such deficient thinking; however, now it is truly time for a radical change of habits, especially in this aspect of human life.

[ 6 ] First, one must perceive how people came to slip into this kind of thinking. One must look at the kind of thought valued by our age.

[ 7 ] One such cherished train of social thought goes back to the life and customs of primitive times. People burrow into “primeval ages” to find communistic customs and such things, and draw from this certain conclusions about what should be done today. This train of thought has become very fashionable in pamphlets on the social question, and has thus spread throughout large circles. It may be found today in a great many ideas about “the social question,” especially among the masses.

[ 8 ] People might actually have arrived at this particular train of thought with far less effort than has been devoted to it in many quarters. They might have compared human social life with the lives and habits of various wild animals. They would have found that the animals have instinctive functions which lead them to satisfy their needs, and that these instinctive functions are adapted to acquiring in the best way the things nature provides.

[ 9 ] The essential point is that in the human being this instinctive functioning must be replaced by conscious, intentional thought. We must build upon the foundation of nature, just like every other creature that must eat to survive. The “bread question” touches the natural foundation of our very existence. But this question exists for every creature that needs food; one cannot possibly talk of “social thinking” in this regard. Social thinking begins only when the human being works upon nature by means of his intellect. Through thinking he makes himself master of the forces of nature; through thinking he brings himself into association with other human beings in a labor process through which the “bread” won from nature becomes a part of general social life. For this life, the “bread question” is an intellectual one. It can mean only, “Which are the fruitful thoughts that can, when realized, guide human labor to the satisfaction of our needs?”

[ 10 ] One can readily agree with anyone who, after hearing such an argument, replies, “Really, that is a very primitive piece of wisdom! What is the use of expounding anything that is so self-evident?” Indeed, one would very gladly stop expounding it, if only those who believe it is so superfluous were not the very people who cast it to the winds and destroy all sound social thinking with these words of wisdom: “Bread is not made by thoughts.”

[ 11 ] It is the same with that other wise saying, through which people seek to evade the gravity of the social question: “First of all, people should get back to work.” We work when a thought stirs in our soul and sets us working. If one is to work as a member of society as a whole, and at the same time feel one's existence to be one worthy of a human being, social life must be shaped by thoughts that reveal our contribution in the light of human dignity. Certain circles, it is true (socialist ones, moreover), would like to replace this incentive to work with compulsory labor. That is their particular way of avoiding recognition of the need for fruitful social ideas.

[ 12 ] The world has been brought to its present pass by those who make it impossible for ideas to effect anything because they run away from them. Salvation is possible only if a strong body of people, who are still able to rouse themselves to sufficient consciousness of the true state of affairs, join together. These people must not grow faint-hearted at this critical time, for they will be buffeted with the scornful words: “Impractical idealist! Utopian dreamer!” These people will do their duty and build, while the scoffers tear down. For everything that the others, with their “magnificent accomplishments,” have built or still wish to build, will fall into ruin because with their dread of ideas and their “practical life” they have built upon a quagmire of false “realities.” Such people are merely weaving delusions around their own routines, and procuring themselves a cheap complacency by scoffing at life's real work. To the open-minded, it is as clear as day; to look at such things clearly is the urgent duty of all who are unafraid to change their way of thinking. The age longs for creative thoughts. This longing will not be silenced, however noisily the foes of thinking may try to drown it out by thoughtlessness and grandiose gestures.

[ 1 ] A complex of ideas such as that of the threefold social order is often accused of having no “practical recommendations” on this or that specific issue. [ 2 ] “Now there is the collapse of the currency! What does the proponent of the threefold order suggest as a remedy?” The only reply he can give is, “The whole recent course of world economy has been one that meant competition between the different nations, and thus it led to the depreciation of money in one particular case. Improvement can begin only when, instead of instituting specific measures with a view to remedying this or that, the whole course of economic life is transformed by means of the threefold system. Specific measures may of course improve particular aspects for a while; but so long as the character of economic methods remains essentially the same, isolated ‘improvements’ can do no good. In fact, an ‘improvement’ in one quarter is bound to make matters worse in another.”

[ 3 ] The only really practical means to rebuild what has been destroyed is the threefold social order itself. For example, if people would make comprehensive changes consistent with the threefold order within a part of the economy suffering under depreciation, the actual course of events would remedy the evil. Only someone who is for one reason or another afraid of practical work in the sense of the threefold social order could ask the question mentioned above. Such a person wants the proponents of the threefold idea to tell him how to cure particular symptoms without applying the three-fold cure to the disease itself.

[ 4 ] In this point lies the variance between the representatives of the threefold idea and all those who fancy it possible to retain the old form of social life with its unified state, and to succeed in building up a new structure within it. The whole idea of the threefold social organism rests on a perception that the old social orientation of the unified state is what has brought the world into its present catastrophic situation; and that one must therefore decide to rebuild from the ground up in keeping with the threefold idea.

[ 5 ] Until the courage for such a thoroughgoing measure is aroused in a sufficiently large number of people, our diseased social life will never be restored to health. Without this thoroughgoing change, the only thing that can possibly take place is a hoarding of economic and political power by the victorious nations and the oppression of the vanquished. The victors can, for a while, continue with the old system; the evils that result from it at home can be balanced through their domination of the vanquished. However, the vanquished are at this very moment in a plight that necessitates the instant, thoroughgoing action proposed here. It would, of course, be better if the victors, too, acquired insight. The conditions they are bringing about at home must, as time goes on, lead to a recognition of the intolerable situation in the vanquished country—and thus to new catastrophes. The vanquished, however, cannot afford to wait, for each delay makes their life situation more and more impossible.

[ 6 ] The threefold idea is certainly one that runs counter to the habits of thought and feeling of those who favor a unified national state. To admit to themselves candidly that the evils they now see around them are the result of this idea is, for many today, like being asked to stand with no ground beneath their feet. The ground these people want to stand on is the unified state. They want to take it as given, and build upon it institutions they hope will lead to an improved state of affairs. However, what is necessary is to create new ground; for this, the courage is lacking.

[ 7 ] The main thing that is necessary in order for the three-fold idea to take effect is to see that as many people as possible realize nothing but a radical change can do any good. Far too many people have already allowed the narrowest range of life to shape their judgment in public affairs. This is especially true of the very people who are active in the large industrial concerns. They credit themselves with an all-embracing faculty of judgment in large affairs; actually, they are capable only of what their own narrow range of life has taught them.

[ 8 ] What must be done is to promote a clear understanding (of which there is so little today) of the circumstances of public life. The more people there are who know how the forces of public life have operated until now, and how they have inevitably led to the present catastrophe, the fewer will be the obstacles to the threefold social order. Everything that can help to spread such clear perceptions prepares the soil on which the threefold idea can take practical effect.

[ 9 ] Accordingly, one must not expect much to come of discussions with members of one or another party; for in the end, as long as they choose to remain within their party, they will still tend to interpret every thought put forward by supporters of the threefold idea according to the party's convenience. Once one has recognized the value of this impulse, one should make it understood far and wide. One can do nothing with people who do not want the threefold social organism, but only with those who are filled with the idea. Only with these people is it possible to discuss the details of public affairs. One really ought to see that one simply cannot speak with Mr. Erzberger about public affairs as long as Mr. Erzberger is Mr. Erzberger!

[ 10 ] I write this because I see that, in this respect, not all those who have embarked upon the threefold idea are sailing on the right tack. The threefold social order is an idea one must serve unreservedly if one wants to serve it at all. It affords a basis for mutual discussions with each and every one; but the idea must lose nothing of its radicality in discussion. People will take this course of action once they perceive the real causes of the downfall. Such a perception will give the needed courage for thoroughgoing measures. For the prevailing helplessness is, after all, simply the consequence of a lack of insight.

by Joseph Weizenbaum

History often provides insight into the present. Consider the American South one hundred and fifty years ago, for example. There human rights and economic servitude were compressed into a single domain for black Americans. They became a means of production that could be bought and sold as a commodity. In many parts of the South it was forbidden to teach blacks to read. Control by law of education, part of culture, was found necessary to subordinate human rights to economics. The domain of rights and economics thus also engulfed culture.

Today we recognize rights which are independent from economic power, at least in principle. Modern workers must accept the authority of their superiors but only in matters directly related to their employment. Human beings no longer can be treated as mere means of production. We have separated economic power from civil rights at least to the extent of making slavery illegal.

If we can perceive how law, economics, and culture grew independent of one another relative to their nearly complete interdependence one hundred and fifty years ago in the South, then we can imagine the possibility of their even greater separation. This greater separation of the three domains - economics, law, and culture-forms the core of Steiner's social thought. Written in 1919, the essays contained in this volume address the reconstruction of a shattered Germany. They call for a proper separation of these three spheres of activity arguing that only this would allow each to express its essential nature and thereby enable human society to revitalize itself.

To understand this separation we must understand the component activities. For law the essential characteristic is human equality. Law both guarantees and limits rights, and it does this equally for each person. It governs the democratic political process in which each person's vote carries equal weight. Inasmuch as rights must be protected and the law enforced, it encompasses both the police and the military. The state is its administrative body. The modern national state, however, oversteps its essential boundaries, creating a kind of social indigestion in its attempts to legislate both in the domains of economics and of culture. Economic interests, in turn, influence legal judgments, often making a sham of human equality.

In the United States an important barrier to this overstepping is the constitutional doctrine of the separation of Church and State. The reasoning behind this doctrine has received considerable interpretation by legal experts and by the Supreme Court. Part of the discussion revolves around the ways in which people are considered equal. Thomas Emerson¹ argues that we are equal in one way through our need for self-fulfIllment or self-development, a fundamental aspect of which is belief formation. Consequently each individual has the right to form his or her beliefs without government interference. From this follows the separation of Church and State.

Religion is one pan of cultural life; another part is education. The separation of the three activities of society implies that education should be as independent of the state as is religion. In “The Separation of School and State” Stephen Arons presents a legal argument for this separation in the context of U.S. Constitutional law. He states that the case would have “for its central principle the preservation of individual conscience from government coercion. The specific application of this principle to education is that any state-constructed school system must maintain a neutral position toward parents' educational choices whenever values or beliefs are at stake. If schools generally are value-inculcating agencies, that fact raises serious constitutional questions about how a state can maintain a sufficiently neutral posture toward values while supporting a system of public education:”² In other words public schools as a matter of course tend to transmit those values deemed appropriate by the majority of the public. This implies choices among such conflicting values as competitiveness and cooperation, intellect and wisdom, and the status of manual work vis-a-vis intellectual work. Parents not accepting the majority view have the right to alternatives.

Current rulings protect the existence of private schools and their right to determine their own curricula with minimal state interference. These rulings exclude “any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.”³ Arons feels that their implications go further than is generally accepted. First, they can be interpreted as prohibiting state financing systems from favoring those who are in agreement with public school values. In effect every child has the right to the same educational support at the school of his or her parents' choice, whether public or private. Otherwise constitutional rights are reserved for the rich. Second, state regulation of private schools cannot effect value transmission unless there is legally compelling justification given by the state. Putting these implications into effect would increase the separation of school and state.

Steiner argues for separation of culture and state in order that the essential nature of each can find a healthy form. To understand the essential nature of the state we must recognize that people may differ among themselves with respect to musical and other talents, but that the same people are equal with respect to voting rights. The state will be healthy when it concerns itself strictly with those matters wherein people are equal. This human equality is fundamental to the state.

Freedom is the quality fundamental to the life of culture. It is interesting that freedom is often thought to be the characteristic of the political system. On reflection, however, it becomes clear that what is usually meant by freedom is equality under the law. Indeed, by majority consensus absolute freedom is limited. For example, a person is not free to murder or steal. A little reflection also reveals that people are not equal culturally. Few would deny the cultural superiority of Mozart, Hilbert, Schweitzer, or Emerson. Thus superiority does not effect the essential equality of all before the law. It does suggest that the highly gifted ought to be given more space and time than the merely moderately gifted to unfold their capacities for the benefit of society.

To understand Steiner's thinking consider briefly what is involved in a cultural creation, be it KeKule discovering the benzene ring, Saul Bellow writing a novel, or Joan of Arc planning a battle. Each of these activities originated in the creative depths of a unique individual. It issued forth from soul and spirit under the guidance of his or her own volition and intentionality. No external compulsion can bring forth inner creative activity. The individual does it freely or not at all.

Steiner's thinking about cultural life was directed more toward this inner activity than to its result or product. For him culture is that realm of society in which people acquire inner activity and mobility through interaction with others who have developed this mobility. In the essay “Cultivation of the Spirit and Economic Life” he says that cultural life

“aims at a form of cooperation among men to be based entirely on the free intercourse and free association of individualty with individuality. Here human individuality will not be forced into an institutional mold. How one person assists another, how one helps another advance will simply arise from what one, through his own abilities and accomplishments, is able to be for the other. It is no great wonder that presently many people are still able to imagine nothing but a state of anarchy as a result of such a free form of human relations in the social order's spiritual-cultural branch. Those who think so simply do not know what powers of man's innermost nature are hindered from expanding when man is forced to develop in the pattern into which the state and economic system mold him. Such powers, deep within human nature, cannot be developed by institutions, but only through what one being calls forth in perfect freedom from another being.”

As Steiner mentions above, real freedom in culture need not result in chaos. He provided an example of this in the Waldorf School, which he founded in Stuttgart in 1919. Based on that impulse the Waldorf Schools have grown in number to a worldwide confederation of over 350 independent private primary and secondary schools. The teachers in these schools retain complete control of the activities within their own classrooms, as well as of the operation of the school as a whole through a collegial administrative body. The heart of the pedagogy is a developmental picture of the child compatible with that of Piaget, whom Steiner predated. The developmental phases that are outlined in the essay “The Pedagogical Basis of the Waldorf School” provide a context for the Waldorf teacher's interaction with children of different ages. This interaction follows a structured curriculum, where subjects are chosen to assist the developmental process of each child. The curriculum and the concept of the developmental phases can be compared to an instrument that the teacher creatively plays in order to help the students actualize their potentials. In this way the schools provide an example of free creative activity within a structure. It is not chaos. Being personally acquairited with a number of Waldorf students, I can say that they come closer to realizing their own potentials than practically anyone I know.

This is in striking contrast to what one finds in the public primary and secondary schools in the United States. A recent study points to a catastrophic situation. The report titled A Nation at Risk⁴ literally states that if a foreign power had imposed our current educational system on us, we would have taken it as an act of war. Just how bad conditions are can be deduced from the results of an English proficiency exam, given this September to incoming freshmen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), with a standard of passing which was embarrassingly low. Of 1131 students who took the exam, about 800 failed. Considering that MIT is among the highest quality institutions in the country, receiving applications only from top students and accepting only the best of them, it is clear that standards of mastery of their native language among average students in our secondary school system must be very low indeed.

The report goes on to urge that something must be done to improve this situation, giving two compelling reasons. The first is that without a better educated public the United States will be unable to compete with foreign economies in the struggle for markets. This is an economic reason. The second is a political one. Lacking an educated public America will not be able to keep up its military strength. In Steiner's terms the report suggests that we nurture the germ which is the underlying cause of the problem. It should be clear that if these two are the primary reasons for improving the educational system, then they will influence how it is “improved.” In reality it is exactly such influences from the state and from economics that have caused the current catastrophe.

Unhealthy connections and influences among the several activities of society have caused catastrophies in economic life as well. Two cases which illustrate this are developments in the American rail and steel industries since the second world war. At the beginning of the war the U.S. railroad system was quite superb. It covered the entire country and was fast and comfortable. But then companies like New York Central started examining themselves and decided the business they were really in was making money and providing dividends for their shareholders. On this basis they took their surplus funds and bought companies which were unrelated to railroading but which were judged more profitable than rail. Today we call this diversification. The deterioration of the railroads' infrastructure was the consequence. Within a decade the system was in disarray. Similar events took place in the U. S. steel industry. American steel became uncompetitive. Those foreign steel manufacturers who had decided that making steel was their business, and who consequently invested in renewal and improvement of their plant, became even more efficient while the American steel-making plant deteriorated.

The decline of American rail and steel can be traced to neglecting the essential nature of economic life: meeting human needs. They turned, instead, to the rights of owners, myopically pursuing shareholder profit and probably management compensation. This is the “pig principle.” The net impact on society can be found by adding the shareholder's gain to the external effects, such as the cost of finding and using alternatives to rail transportation, which are costs to society. The net, a big negative, is the logical outcome of economic activity losing its primary focus of meeting needs.

To be healthy economics must start from and keep this primary focus. Those at work in economic life concern themselves primarily with the production and circulation of commodities. What is produced is usually not consumed by those who produce it. The product serves the needs of others. For this reason Steiner used the term “brotherliness” (and we should add sisterliness) to characterize economic activity. He stressed that this applies only to economies in which the division of labor is the norm.

But to characterize actual economic life with the term “brotherliness” is to contradict much of modern economic thinking. Human economic activity is more usually characterized by terms like selfishness, personal gain, and survival. Steiner insists, however, that these ideas are inconsistent with fundamental economic realities. Since the division of labor, few individuals have really provided for themselves. We all rely on the efforts of thousands, indeed millions of others to produce the car we drive, the food we eat, and the clothes we wear. The reality of modern economic life is that we take care of one another, i.e., true brotherliness. Thinking that overlooks this fundamental reality is likely to misguide economic decisions, as in the two examples cited.

The proper separation of the three activities of society-economics, law, and culture-would make it possible for economic life to keep its focus on human needs and maintain its true brotherly character. Steiner envisioned this coming about through the working of motivational forces different from those to which we are accustomed. Self interest, profit, and personal gain could be replaced by the satisfaction of knowing one is working for the community good. Steiner argued that this is not a utopian dream; rather it is a motivation suitable to true human dignity. He also described new ways of working with wages, capital, and credit that would aid the advent of this new motivation. The key to its possibility and practicality is again the proper separation of the three activities.

He explains in the essay “Ability to Work, Will to Work, and the Threefold Social Order” that this socially responsible motivation would not arise from the economic life at all, because purely economic work has become inherently uninteresting since the division of labor became the norm. This was not the case for the medieval craftsman who produced his product in its entirety and then, taking pride in it, received thanks from his customer. The modern worker is confined to a task that, taken by itself, i.e., out of the macroeconomic context into which it fits, is meaningless. The existing economic motivation, money, leads people to do whatever is necessary to get paid. But it does not activate their interest in a task that is inherently uninteresting, with the consequence that absenteeism, alienation, and poor performance have reached alarming levels. Steiner recognized that socially responsible motivation could arise only from an independent cultural and political life. In the above mentioned essay he says that within the cultural life the individual

“learns in a living way to understand this human society for which one is called upon to work; a realm where one learns to see what each single piece of work means for the combined fabric of the social order, to see it in such a light that one will learn to love it because of its value for the whole. It aims at creating in this free life of spirit the profounder principles that can replace the motive of personal gain. Only in a free spiritual life can a love for the human social order spring up that is comparable to the love an artist has for the creation of his works.&rdquo

From a separate democratically ordered life of law there would also arise motives to work for society.

“Real relationships will grow up between people united in a social organism where each adult has a voice in government and is co-equal with every other adult: it is relationships such as these that are able to enkindle the will to work ‘for community.’ One must reflect that a truly communal feeling can grow only from such relationships, and that from this feeling the will to work can grow. For in actual practice the consequence of such a state founded on democratic rights will be that each human being will take his place with vitality and full consciousness in the common field of work. Each will know what he is working for; and each will want to work within the working community, of which he knows himself a member through his will.&rdquo

If we attempt to fInd examples of this type of motivation operative in contemporary society, we often fInd negative instances. This is nowhere better exemplified than at the highest levels of computer research at MIT. This research is paid for almost entirely by the military. While it is possible to view it, if one wears just the right kind of glasses, as a pure science and as “value free,” it is, in fact, in the service of the military. Scientific results are swiftly converted to the improvement of implements of mass destruction and of death. Young men and women work in these fields trying to maintain the illusion that they are doing abstract science, a “value free” science. They ultimately have to come to believe that they are not in any way responsible for the end use of their labor. It is often said that the computer is a tool having no moral dimension. Clearly this position can be maintained only if one thinks of human society in abstract terms, i.e. if one denies the concrete historical and social circumstances in which one lives and works.”

The effect of this situation on the researcher needs emphasis. It takes enormous energy to shield one's eyes from seeing what one is actually doing. The expenditure of this energy on the part of individuals is expensive in emotional terms. Ultimately this is the real tragedy, for it reduces the person to a machine.

There is a sort of irony involved, a chilling irony. A fear is often expressed about computers, namely that we will create a machine that is very nearly like a human being. The irony is that we are making human beings, men and women, become more and more like machines. For it is human to find the motive for work, consciously and with conscience and compassion, in the concrete historical and social context in which one lives. When this is not possible human beings are robbed of essential humanity.

The quest for a motive to work befitting human dignity extends from research scientist to factory worker. One might think, for example, that the steel worker, if he were educated to picture the use of the product of his work, would find in the pictures the motivation to work for social good instead of merely for a living. This presumably could be measured in higher quality work and reduced absenteeism. On closer inspection, however, it is doubtful that a look at the actual American context could bring about such motivation. A large percentage of steel manufactured in America is used for nothing but trivia. For example, there are on the order of ten million new automobiles produced in this country every year. If we restricted ourselves to a replacement market without model changes and alterations that are purely cosmetic, then we might easily get by, building, say, half a million cars a year. It is difficult to believe that the steel worker could be proud of his contribution to society if underneath he knew that the car his neighbor bought was unnecessary and that it might have been better to put the resources it required into feeding the 600 million people on the planet who are malnourished.

In a volume to be published subsequently to this one Steiner's concept of “unnecessary production,” i.e., trivia, planned obsolescence, etc., is introduced. With that discussion and much of what is presented in this volume it should be evident that Steiner's ideas will be of interest to those who concern themselves with issues of ecology and stewardship of the earth. In the broader context ecology must also encompass a social dimension, making it a social ecology that considers questions such as right motivation to work. In this sense Steiner's work also relates to the efforts of E.F. Schumacher, who read Steiner, and who tried to introduce us to ideas of appropriate scale and healthy approaches to post industrial society. These connections should help dispel any thought that this volume is dated. Rather, Steiner was far ahead of his time.

Joseph Weizenbaum
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984

• 1. Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment (New York: Random House, 1966).
• 2. “The Separation of School and State: Pierce Reconsidered,” Harvard Educational Review, 46 (February 1976):1, pp. 96–97.
• 3. United States Supreme Court, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. at 535 (1925). 4. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform; A Report to the Nation (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).
• 4. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform; A Report to the Nation (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).

[ 1 ] In the beginning of March 1919, my Appeal to the German Nation and to the Civilized World ¹ was published. Its purpose was to state briefly what is necessary in order to bring healing forces into our declining life situation, one that revealed its symptoms of decay in the worldwide catastrophe of the war. Many Germans and Austrians, and a number of Swiss, signed their names to the Appeal. Thereby, they testified that the proposals it puts forward point to vital necessities for the present and the immediate future.

These proposals were further elaborated in my book, Toward Social Renewal.² To give them permanent representation and carry the movement into practical life, a League for The Threefold Order ³ was founded in Stuttgart and in Switzerland. Among other steps taken to bring about this practical realization was the founding of a weekly paper, The Threefold Order,⁴ which was published in Stuttgart. The following studies formed the lead articles I wrote for that paper during the summer and winter of 1919–1920. They can be treated as supplementary expositions of the principles established in Toward Social Renewal, or may serve equally well as an introduction to these principles.

[ 2 ] Everything I published both in Toward Social Renewal and in these studies is not merely the elaboration of theoretical premises. For over thirty years I have followed the most varied ramifications of European spiritual, political and economic life. In so doing, I believe I have gained insight into the tendencies this life has itself brought forth in trying to effect its own cure. I believe the thoughts expressed here are not merely the private thoughts of one individual: they voice the unconscious will of Europe as a whole. Owing to the special conditions of present-day life that I frequently mentioned both in Toward Social Renewal and in these studies, there have not been enough people who have manifested this will clearly, consciously, and with a desire to make it a reality. One could say the tragedy of the present is that countless people obstruct their insight into actual necessities with illusions as to what is worthy of this striving. Thoroughly outdated party lines shed a dense mental fog over these vital necessities. These views result in all manner of unrealistic and impracticable tendencies. What they actually undertake is hopelessly utopian, while they dismiss as utopian suggestions that come from actual life experience. This is what we have to contend with; in what follows, we will meet it with a fully conscious stance.

[ 3 ] Such impulses still govern foreign relations throughout the world today. Versailles and Spa are further steps in the same direction. Few recognize that such steps are leading more and more to the downfall of our civilization, which has already demonstrated through the catastrophe of the Great War its incapacity for further progress. To be sure there are individuals, among both the victors and the vanquished, who recognize this today. However, their number is not large enough; moreover, the majority of even these people view what is really necessary as utopian.

[ 4 ] If the League for the Threefold Order is regarded by many as an association of impractical people, it is, in my opinion, just because “the many” have lost touch with all reality and mistake their daily routines and party illusions for that reality. However, we shall never succeed in healing our civilization until the actual will of the age, so deeply hidden beneath the underbrush of impractical and illusory party schemes, is raised to full consciousness.

[ 5 ] For one who knows only too well that he is not suffering from foolish delusions it is hard to write what, among many today, will earn him the reputation: “He thinks himself wiser than all those actually engaged in practical life, who have therefore won the right to a voice in such matters.” Nevertheless, the author believes that the false reproach contained in such words should not prevent him from expressing what he holds to be necessary. This is especially so if one believes that one's inner vision has been guided to this necessity through more than three decades by a special relationship of one's life situation to present-day life.

[ 6 ] At any rate, it is my conviction (acquired through an observation of life that shuns all theory and keeps only the practical in view) that the will of the times is pressing toward this “threefold division of the social organism”; and that all the signs of decline and degeneracy now making themselves felt have arisen because public opinion in Europe has attempted to pursue old way of thinking that are no longer viable instead of turning to this new impulse.

[ 7 ] One group of people (from which the leaders came before the war, and from which many of them still come) continue to hold the same views that have led to the downfall; they do not want to see the connection between this downfall and their views. They attempt to fashion new life from the same forces that have led to death.

[ 8 ] The other group pursues a mode of thought born of negative criticism. They refuse to see that all this can do is cobble together an illusion of a social order out of the ruins of the past. Its existence can be only transitory, and is thus necessarily destructive. This group keeps to the old by contraries, but has no seeds of a new.

[ 9 ] Midway between these two groups lie the forces that are striving to bring forth this “threefold order of the social organism,” buried under the rubble of the past, out of the real and present will of this age. The bearers of this impulse feel they possess what the present hour needs.

Rudolf Steiner
Mid-July, 1920

• 1. See Appendix.
• 2. Towards Social Renewal, Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1977
• 3. Bund für Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus
• 4. Dreigliedernng des Sozialen Organismus

Flyer, February 1919

Term:

[ 1 ] 1. The essence of the socialization of the economy is that the organization of production and sales are regulated in accordance with the economic laws inherent in them, and that no "rights" or powers of authority are involved in the resulting economic organism. All "rights" are exercised by the political organism, which is equal to the economic organization and is based on the equality of all men before the law. All intellectual achievements, including technical ideas, are to be placed under the free, individual administration of a third, equal intellectual organism.

[ 2 ] 2. The representatives of the economic organism shall be the elected members of the associations established on the basis of the classification of occupations and the distribution of labor. Representatives of the political organization may be elected on the basis of universal, equal (secret) suffrage. Representatives of the spiritual organization shall be the personalities placed by circumstances at the head of the individual spiritual branches. Delegations elected from the representatives of each of the three bodies serve to connect them. (The three bodies stand side by side like three relatively independent states that organize their common affairs through envoys.)

Practical implementation:

[ 3 ] 3. The transfer of branches of the economy from the present to the future state shall be effected with due regard to the present economic condition, in such a manner that all factors (employers and employees in every form) shall participate in the fundamental (constituent) reorganization, and that the present possible economic organization shall be established on opportunistic conditions.

[ 4 ] 4. The new economic order thus sought must under no circumstances lead to an interruption of consumption by breaking off economic continuity.

[ 5 ] 5. Everything that intervenes in the economic organism as a law that is the same for all people (such as accident prevention, damage through usury and so on) is subject to the powers of the political organization. The general taxes shall be expenditure taxes (which is in no way to be confused with indirect taxes). Revenues as such do not become taxable; they become so at the moment when the public has an interest in them, i.e. when they are transferred into circulation.

Branches of the economy:

[ 6 ] The following can be considered as the most necessary economic sectors to which point 3 should be applied immediately:

1. Mining
2. Iron
3. Electricity
4. Hydropower and its land
5. Gas and water supply
6. Aeronautics
7. Trams; all types of roads
8. Canalization and canal shipping
9. Chemical industry
10. Grain growing and grain processing
11. Sugar industry, brandy and so on
12. Tobacco industry
13. Everything relating to the cultivation of land (whereas the ownership of land belongs to the political body)
14. Insurance
15. Money institutions

The peace treaty

[ 7 ] It is to be effected in such a way that representatives of the three corporations negotiate with foreign countries from the German side with independent mandates emanating entirely from their corporation. A unilateral socialization based on aspects other than those mentioned is also impracticable for Germany for reasons of foreign policy. On the other hand, a justification of foreign policy for the establishment of the three corporations is quite promising.

[ 1 ] The call for a reorganization of social coexistence and cooperation between people is going around the world. The economic, legal-political and spiritual conditions of life that prevailed at the beginning of the twentieth century led to the horror-filled world catastrophe of that time. An economic system that was unsocial, a legal-political life that was incapable of overcoming the class antagonisms perceived as unjust by the consciousness of the great majority of contemporary humanity, a spiritual culture that, despite its "progress", has proved incapable of being a leader out of an unsocial economic life and a state based on class antagonisms: they must make way for a new one.

[ 2 ] Whether one person today understands socialization to mean this, another that: all those who do not want to live through our time spiritually blind could agree that socialization must call upon all those who have hitherto seen these conditions imposed on them by the power of classes superior to them spiritually, legally or economically to shape their own social conditions. Class struggles can only disappear with the cessation of the intellectual, legal and economic class antagonisms themselves.

[ 3 ] The fact that this is the call of the times is shown by the movement of the proletariat, but also by the correctly understood development of history itself.

[ 4 ] The goal is felt.

[ 5 ] The impulse wants to show the way towards the tripartite social organism.

[ 6 ] This impulse calls for the complete independence of intellectual life, including the educational and school system. It sees the causes of the intellectual inability of our time in the absorption of intellectual culture by the state. He demands the complete self-administration of this culture from a purely objective and general human point of view. It will only be properly educated when no one has any say in the question of how to educate all people to become true people capable of living, except those who can only judge from the depths of human nature itself.

[ 7 ] This impulse demands the restriction of state life to all those living conditions for which all people are equal before one another. On this ground, in a strictly democratic way, with the transformation of the present private capitalist property and forced labor relations, above all such a general human right is to be achieved that confronts the worker as a completely free personality with the labor leader (who is only a spiritual worker).

[ 8 ] This impulse demands an economic life in which the worker confronts the labor manager in such a way that a free social relationship can be established between the two by contract, so that the wage relationship ceases completely. This requires the complete socialization of economic life. Only from the proper participation of all people in appropriate cooperatives, which arise from the professions on the one hand, and from the needs of consumers and producers on the other, can a regulation of the value of goods emerge that ensures a decent existence for all people. Such a regulation of the value of goods can only realize the principle: people must not produce in order to profit, but only in order to consume. It is only possible if, after the detachment of intellectual and state life in the economy, we are dealing with nothing other than the production, distribution and consumption of goods. Any interest in the unobjective, mere utilization of capital, any wage system based on competing economic interests and acting out of such interests, hinders a correct reciprocal pricing of goods and therefore a just distribution of goods.

[ 9 ] In all details of social life, the impulse wants to follow the tripartite social organism:

[ 10 ] 1. development of man in all his faculties through independent spiritual life;

[ 11 ] 2. the establishment of human rights through the exclusion of all non-general human interests from the legal sphere;

[ 12 ] 3. equitable distribution of goods in a correct relation of value of goods (commodities) by reorganizing the present capital and wage system;

[ 13 ] The German people can only hope to be integrated into the international world conditions if it removes the inhibitions that have arisen in its economic, legal and intellectual life as a result of their inorganic fusion in the previous state system through the organic threefolding of the social organism. In this way it can be brought about that through the free development of each of the three members and the higher unity arising from it, the highest economic productivity compatible with the healthy body and soul of man, the true satisfaction of a genuine folkish sense of justice and the all-round revelation of the forces inherent in the German spirit become possible.

[ 1 ] Recently, there has been a tendency for the parties to adopt and implement the establishment of works councils, which the Bund für Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus intends to implement and has already partially implemented, by combining them into a works council. This would, however, lead to the very thing that the Federation wishes to prevent at all costs, if the idea of threefolding is to prove salutary: a merely partial implementation of threefolding. What is intended by threefolding as a whole would, if a part of it were cut off by one party for special purposes, only create new mischief and destruction. The Federation sees itself compelled to warn against such a strangulation by the parties. With the declaration below, it is once again addressing the public and protesting against the misuse of the idea of threefolding for destructive party experiments.

Declaration

[ 2 ] The Bund für Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus took its starting point from Dr. Steiner's appeal "An das deutsche Volk und an die Kulturwelt" and represents the views set out in Dr. Steiner's book "Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage". He sees the only salvation from the present extraordinary situation characterized by the peace treaty as the immediate tackling of his demands, which he summarizes again as follows:

1. Total independence of intellectual life, including education and the school system.
2. Restriction of state life to all those living conditions for which all people are equal before one another.
3. Regulation of the transformed wage and property relations by the constitutional state, with their complete separation from economic life, so that the latter has nothing to do with anything other than the production, distribution and consumption of goods.

[ 6 ] The Bund für Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus sees the achievement of its goal in the state releasing from its sphere of power, on the one hand, spiritual life and, on the other, economic life. - In the field of economic life, the Federation has worked for the works councils so that they can take the first practical steps towards a sensible socialization. At the same time, the renewal of intellectual life should be tackled immediately by founding a cultural council.

[ 7 ] The Bund must therefore absolutely adhere to the principle that a one-sided detachment of economic life from the state must not be pursued, but that at the same time as this detachment, intellectual life must be placed in its own position.

[ 8 ] The Bund counts among its members people from all professions, walks of life and parties, and regards the ideas expressed by its name as a path to the real unification of all people who, with good will, want to lead our people out of its deepest distress to a future that is possible. Where all party programs have failed in these tragic times, it will be our demands that will point the way to new paths in domestic and foreign policy. The bearers of the idea of a tripartite social organism resolutely refuse to be placed on any party platform with this idea. They will never identify with any of the existing party programs. Their aim is to speak to people and never to party members as such.

[ 9 ] The League can bear no responsibility for any movement, from whatever side it may come, which with its means or aims places itself outside this threefold structure; in particular, it sees in unilateral action in the field of economics or politics without the aim of the threefold structure only the source of an unlimited increase of misfortune.

[ 10 ] In the last hour, we expect the appointed circles to confront our aspirations before it is too late.

Bund für Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus
Stuttgart, Champignystrasse 17

[ 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.